Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Happy "Voluntary Donations to the Government" Day from Senator Harry Reid!
You Tube ^ | Senator Harry Reid

Posted on 04/17/2012 7:20:50 AM PDT by ReformationFan

TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hairyreed; harryreid; irs; jail; reid; tax; taxes; voluntary
Happy Income Tax("Voluntary Donations to the Government")Day from Harry Reid! The Democrat Senator from Nevada gives the word "voluntary" a brand new meaning.
1 posted on 04/17/2012 7:20:57 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Yep, liberals love to, actually HAVE TO, pretend that all compliance with government edicts is “voluntary” (”we all agreed” is usually their argument).

Of course if you CHOOSE to not comply, you’ll have your property and liberty taken away from you,
and if you resist having your property and liberty taken from you,
they’ll kill you.

But, of course, that’s your “voluntary” choice.

2 posted on 04/17/2012 7:24:39 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Exactly. The taxpayer has a “voluntary choice” like a victim of either rape or robbery has a “voluntary choice.”

3 posted on 04/17/2012 7:30:42 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
Harry Reid ... leader of the elite deliberative body ... the best and brightest .... God help us.
4 posted on 04/17/2012 7:37:21 AM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan
Massachusetts has, for decades, included on the state income tax form a line for allowing the taxpayer to voluntarily send the state as much additional money as they would like. Harvard Libtards were instrumental in having had this added to the individual income tax form 'so that good citizens could pay more to help the state.'

Participation has been .0137% of taxpayers. Not even the Libtards themselves pay this farcical tax, but they feel so good about themselves for adding it to the tax form!

5 posted on 04/17/2012 7:38:10 AM PDT by pabianice (ame with)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me, and no thanks to get my blood pressure up near boiling.

6 posted on 04/17/2012 7:38:14 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Have you wondered why we have been hearing so much about the “Flat tax” and the “Fair tax” lately???

It is because people are starting to learn the truth about the IRS...

September 30, 2007

Media Blackout:
161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions

IRS Suffers Staggering Defeat
Tax Questions Raised Regarding
Gold and Silver Coins Used to Pay Wages
Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.

The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.

On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial’s dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.
The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. “dollar” — specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system.

Click here to read the April, 2005 DOJ press release announcing the prosecution.
Click here to read the 9/20 story by the Review Journal about the trial.
According to defense attorney Joel Hansen, who represented co-defendant Alex Loglia, the primary “willfulness” defense was that the defendants believed they had no legal obligation to withhold, pay income taxes or report anything to the government because, in part, the nominal (i.e., face value) of the gold and silver coins is so small as to fall beneath the reporting thresholds set by the Internal Revenue Code.

The Defendants also argued that regardless of the valuation of the coins for internal revenue purposes, there is no law that requires average American workers to file or pay direct, un-apportioned taxes on the fruits of their labor.

The Government argued that the payments in solid gold and silver U.S. coins must be considered at their bullion (i.e., intrinsic full-market) value when considering the worth of the wages for purposes of the internal revenue code.

Attorney Hansen cited two Supreme Court cases bolstering Defendant’s monetary argument at the heart of the defendants “willfulness” defense.

The essence of the argument is that under the Constitution Congress is obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires, and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender, but the coins’ market value, arising as valuable personal “property,” is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.

In other words, if a worker is paid with such coins, his taxable “income” (if any) can only be the face value indicated upon the coin money paid — i.e., $1.00 for a circulating silver dollar or $50 for a circulating gold U.S. coin. Not surprisingly, the IRS has never issued any public guidance regarding this significant issue.
The first case, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910) establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the “impress” of the sovereign:
“These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange.”
The second case, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:
“A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them.”
Defense attorney Hansen confirmed that members of the jury were able to actually hold and inspect the gold and silver U.S. coins paid to the workers.

After almost four months of testimony and three and a half days of deliberation, the jury did not convict any of the defendants of any of the 161 crimes alleged. Although some defendants were acquitted of multiple counts, and several were acquitted completely, others may have to stand for a retrial if the Government brings charges a second time.

The Review Journal reported the jury foreman claimed DOJ prosecutors admitted they were “shocked” by the outcome.
In March 2007, the primary defendant, Bob Kahre, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and IRS agents who had conducted what he alleges to be an unlawful search and seizure raid. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn a previous District Court ruling holding that the federal prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for the unlawful raid. Read more.
Click here to execute a Google News search to attempt to locate recent news stories about the Kahre tax trial.

The media suppression of this story is similar to the widespread mainstream media suppression of the July 11, 2007 acquittal of Louisiana attorney Tommy Cryer who was also charged with multiple federal income tax crimes and relied upon numerous Supreme Court precedents and U.S. tax laws to establish his “willfulness” defense. Click here for a previous WTP update containing a link to Cryer’s 100-page Motion to Dismiss which details his legal arguments.

Click here to execute a Google News archive search to attempt to locate news stories about Tommy Cryer’s tax trial.

PLEASE NOTE: Following recent statements by the DOJ, most of the content of the WTP websites (including our on-line store) has been fully restored for public access. The “6700” case is currently being appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

History is made by those who show up and make it happen. Please help us continue our epic fight by making a donation. If we have no funds, the battle cannot be fought.
To make a secure, tax-deductible donation to the WTP Foundation, please click here: Donation. You can make a one-time or recurring donation and can also establish the dates the secure transactions are processed each month.

Update Related Links
Access all the 6700 Lawsuit Filings and Court Orders.

7 posted on 04/17/2012 7:38:30 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan; Chunga85; LibertarianInExile; All; Lurker; FromLori; azhenfud; Wolfie; ...

If you look at the top of your tax forms it says “Individual”.

So lets see what the legal definition of “Individual” is...

This term individual is used in sections 26 U.S.C. §1 and 26 U.S.C. §6012(a). It is never defined anywhere in the I.R.C. The reason it is not defined is that it would give away the IRS’ ruse. Therefore, we have to look in the legal dictionary for the definition:

Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include [be limited to] artificial persons.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 773]

Note that this definition above does not necessarily imply a natural (biological) person. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code cannot be said to necessarily apply to natural persons. Here is the proper definition of “individual” in the context of the IRS form 1040 and within the meaning of the code, as we understand it:


An artificial federally-chartered entity, meaning a federal (but not state) chartered corporation or partnership or trust. Such an entity is a citizen of the “United States” because it must have a physical presence in the District of Columbia to be subject to the exclusive legislative or territorial jurisdiction of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. This “individual” is NOT a natural person with income from outside the district (federal) United States who is living and working for a private employer in the 50 united States of America because of the restrictions on direct taxes imposed by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution..>[1]

We will now examine the definition of “individual” found in 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3):

26 CFR 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.

(c ) Definitions

(3) Individual.

(i) Alien individual.

The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c).

(ii) Nonresident alien individual.

The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.

The above definition ought to raise some BIG red flags! First of all, if you live in the [federal] United States** as a natural person, you aren’t an “individual” because the definition of “individual” doesn’t include citizens or residents of the United States**! This is the ONLY definition of the term “individual” found ANYWHERE in either the Internal Revenue Code or the 26 CFR Regulations. Therefore, the tax code can’t apply to you even if you claim to be a U.S.** citizen or a U.S.** resident! This is also consistent with our findings earlier. It also explains why a U.S. citizen is defined as someone who lives in the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, or American Samoa, as follows:

26 CFR 31.3121(e) State, United States, and citizen.

(b)…The term ‘citizen of the United States’ includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

The definition for “individual” that the government wants you to incorrectly assume, however, is that found below:

5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2):

(2) the term ‘’individual’’ means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

But this definition of “individual” is superseded by the only definition of “individual” found in the Regulations for taxes in 26 CFR 1.1441-1 above. You therefore can’t be a “individual” who can be the “person” against whom the income tax is imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 unless you either reside OUTSIDE the “United States**” under 26 CFR § 1.1441-1(c )(3) or you reside INSIDE the United States** and are not a U.S.** citizen. That’s why they created a definition of “U.S. citizen” that means you are living outside the United States (in the Virgin Islands) so they can “pretend” that you are taxable! That way, even when you tell them you live in the “United States” by giving them an address in the 50 states on your tax return, they can still claim that you live in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands because of your status as a “U.S. citizen”! This whole scheme can be confirmed by ordering a copy of your Individual Master File (IMF) from the IRS and looking at the transaction codes on the IMF. If you look at your IMF and you have been filing 1040 forms for a while, chances are your record reflects that you reside in the Virgin Islands, even if you really live in one of the 50 states outside the federal zone! That’s why the IRS made the Publication 6209, which is used for decoding the IMF file, “For Official Use Only”, which is short for “Don’t let Citizens get their hands on this at all costs!”. They know they are committing fraud and they don’t want you, the Citizen, to know the horrible truth and expose that fraud, because then they lose their ability to claim “plausible deniability”.

I bet this all sounds pretty crazy to you, right, but I swear to God it’s the truth! These are the kinds of sneaky tricks that IRS lawyers make their living dreaming up in order to make the illegal fraud and extortion called the income tax look more “civilized” and believable and well hidden from public view. If they wanted it in public view, they would have put the definitions of “U.S. citizen” and “individual” in the Internal Revenue Code right? But they instead buried it deep inside regulations that few Citizens ever view and only the agency itself usually looks at because they wanted to hide it!

The above definitions of “Alien individual” and “Nonresident alien individual” in 26 CFR §1.1441(c )(3) can also seem a little confusing initially. You will find out that we suggest to people later in this book (in section 5.6.9 to be exact) that they should renounce their “U.S.** citizenship” and become “U.S.*** nationals”. However, looking at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3)(i) above leads one to believe that they cannot be a nonresident alien if they are a “U.S. national”. However, “nonresident aliens” are defined below:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701
§ 7701. Definitions

(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien

(1) In general

For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B)—

(B) Nonresident alien

An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).

A person can therefore be a “U.S. national” and not a “U.S. citizen” and live outside the federal zone in a state and be a nonresident alien individual. Our guidance is sound and based on the law.

Even if you believe you are an “individual”, which you are not as a “natural person”, you still don’t have any income that equates to a taxable source or situs identified in 26 CFR 1.861-8(f), and so you couldn’t be liable for a tax due even if you wanted to.

8 posted on 04/17/2012 7:52:32 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

When I think of the Atlas Shrugs character Wesley Mouch, Hairy Reed is the filthy cocksucker I attach to his face.

9 posted on 04/17/2012 7:58:57 AM PDT by oncebitten (Obama: "A Big Ole’ Hunk of Nothing on Two Thick Slices of Nada.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

It took me a while to figure out why libs mentally shut down when you point out the coercive force involved with their policies, but then I took it “back to basics”.

Sheeperal libs (not the wannbecommies) have a base motivation factor of wanting to affirm the lie of “I’m a good person”. “Good people” do not stick guns in other people’s faces to force them to comply with edicts of liberal policies, and thus the disconnect.

I have experienced the equivalent of hands-over-the-ears “I’m not listening” responses when I logically lay out the coercive nature of liberal policies. They don’t want to hear it. It’s perceived as a direct attack on their character.

10 posted on 04/17/2012 8:07:36 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Free health care will be voluntary, too. And the IRS is our friend.

11 posted on 04/17/2012 8:53:26 AM PDT by tumblindice (Our new, happy lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

here are a few more to watch:

Dario Busch: Harrell


Female commissioner

9 parts to this one.
It is really tedious but does show how impossible they make it so you CAN’T find the truth.

Whitey Harrell case:
The state of Illinois vs Whitey Harrell

In deliberation, the jury asked the judge for a copy of the law Harrell was being tried for breaking, but the judge would not supply it. When they found that certain evidence admitted into the record during the trial by the defense was missing, they requested it of the judge and were again denied. They acquitted Harrell on all counts. Even though the parties were in state court and the official charge was “failure to file” state income tax returns, the case was really about the legal requirement to file a federal income tax return because, like most states, Illinois’ law mandates the filing of a state income tax return if the Illinois resident is required to file a federal income tax return. Harrell’s case is cited as PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL, Case Number 97CF89 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

Forget the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and our excellent adventure in Liberia. Forget about Kobe, Arnold, Arriana, Scott and Laci. The biggest news of the entire week is that on August 8, 2003, the IRS was unable to convince a jury in Memphis, Tennessee that the Federal Tax Code requires the citizens to pay individual income taxes. I kid you not. I watched as many Sunday news programs as I could possibly stand, and I didn’t hear a single mention of the IRS’ debacle in Memphis. If you ever had doubts about the mainstream media being controlled by the federal government, doubt no more.

For those not already aware, FedEx Pilot Vernice Kuglin began studying the IRS Code some years ago, and was simply unable to find anywhere in the code that she was required to pay federal income taxes.

And here’s the most remarkable part: Back in 1995, Kuglin wrote letters in good faith to the IRS, asking them to show her where the Tax Code requires individual citizens to pay federal income taxes. Incredibly, the IRS never answered a single one of her letters!

As she studied the facts, laws and related documents more, Kuglin became convinced that, regardless of the IRS’ failure to respond one way or the other, she was exempt from paying federal income taxes. So, Kuglin filled out W-4 forms showing 99 exemptions, and turned them in to her employer. Doing that meant Kuglin got to take home almost all of her paycheck each payday, instead of what was left after the feds ravaged it.

The IRS went after Kuglin for six counts of tax evasion on $920,000.00 income, and for filing “false” W-4 forms, charges that could have put the 58 year-old Kuglin in federal prison for up to 30 years and cost her 1.5 million in fines.

Apparently, things didn’t go quite the slam-dunk way federal prosecutor Joe Murphy thought they would. My money says the IRS wishes they had never gone after Kuglin at all. In fact, after the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all counts, Murphy is reported to have demanded that the judge order Kuglin to file her forms, pay her taxes and “obey the law”. The judge reportedly replied, “Sir, I don’t work for the IRS.”

Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.

Jurors tend not to be very sympathetic with tax scofflaws, since each one of them is also a taxpayer and they understandably feel resentment towards anyone not paying “their fair share”. So in order for this federal jury to completely vindicate Kuglin, the government’s failure to prove their case against her had to have been clear and unequivocal!

I haven’t read the trial transcript yet, but I must assume the federal prosecutor at least tried to twist some vague and ambiguous section of the Tax Code to make it look like it applied to Kuglin. I don’t know that, but I’ll bet he tried. What else could he use to prosecute her with?

Thanks to the IRS’ arrogance and stupidity, and Kuglin’s refusal to plead to lesser charges, Kuglin accomplished what Bob Schultz and the other “tax protesters” had been denied all along: To force the IRS into a public debate and to answer the question of whether or not the Tax Code requires an individual to pay personal income taxes. Kuglin and her two attorneys, Larry Becraft and Robert Bernhoft, have unequivocally forced the IRS to show its hand, and 12 judges hearing that debate ruled the answer to be “NO”.

I think it’s time for everyone reading this to send a very polite letter to the IRS, telling them they read about the case in Memphis, and is it true that there is no section in the U.S. Tax Code that requires an individual citizen to pay federal income taxes?

Don’t be threatening in any way, or announce that you plan to stop paying federal income taxes. This request is for your personal edification, and you just simply want to know the truth.

Like Kuglin, you probably won’t get an answer back, but just to prove you sent the letter and that they received it, be certain to send the letter via certified U.S. Mail, with a return receipt requested. When you get that receipt back, staple it to a copy of the letter you sent the IRS, and put it somewhere real secure, like a personal safe or bank deposit box.

I don’t have to explain why, now do I?

Now, how many calls to FOX’ Bill O’Reilly will it take to convince him we know he’s doing a spin in the No-Spin Zone by sitting on this story? Start e-mailing O’Reilly at, and be sure to give him your city and state. He’s gonna love me.

Carl F. Worden[/SIZE]

12 posted on 04/17/2012 9:11:41 AM PDT by know-the-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

13 posted on 04/17/2012 9:12:17 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB

‘Sheeperal libs (not the wannbecommies) have a base motivation factor of wanting to affirm the lie of “I’m a good person”. “Good people” do not stick guns in other people’s faces to force them to comply with edicts of liberal policies, and thus the disconnect.’

Excellent explanation of the contemporary liberal mindset.

14 posted on 04/17/2012 6:36:06 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

I wonder if Wesley Snipes will volunteer for more prison time.

15 posted on 05/17/2013 8:00:13 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson