THE EVIL GENIUS OF WITHHOLDING

Step aside, Steve Forbes. You too, Jack Kemp. Nice try, Bill Archer. It's time to make way for Washington's real tax reformer, whose contempt for the tax code is second to none. Of the World War II origins of the federal withholding tax, he writes:

If that sounds like the voice of another right-wing crazy, think again. For those are the words of the avuncular David Brinkley, whose storied career as a newsman includes his service as moderator of the top-rated Sunday talk show that carries his name.

Brinkley, who made his last appearance Nov. 10 as moderator of This Week With David Brinkley, made news when, while praising his colleagues at ABC for their creativity, he dismissed President Clinton as a "bore." In a day when reporters routinely describe Republicans as extremists and worse, Brinkley's tepid criticism hardly is worth discussing. Far more interesting, as the quote above suggests, is his memoir, David Brinkley, published last year, which contains the most trenchant but readable account yet of government-turned-ATM machine.

Once upon a time, he explains, this country managed to get by on government revenues derived from high tariffs, which enriched U.S. businesses by protecting them from foreign competition and gouging consumers with higher prices. But as the country and its needs (or wants) grew--to carry out world wars, for example, and to accomodate wounded veterans with hospitals and pensions--the country turned earlier this century to an income tax. The tax became law in part because few people thought it would affect them--Kansas Republican James Monroe Miller candidly admitted Western states would vote for the tax because "they will not have to pay it"--and because of a puritanical hatred of the rich. "Envy and resentment carried the day," says Brinkley.

Worse was to come. In an effort to make tax collections more efficient and faster, Ruml proposed the system now known as federal withholding, in which employers would deduct taxes from each paycheck and send them off to Washington. Once taxes were hidden in this fashion, once people learned to live on their net pay, rather than their gross, it was relatively easy to broaden the base of the income tax to include everyone, even the poor. Thus did "fantasies of soaking the rich," as Brinkley puts it, turn into the government's "brutal, bare-knuckled assault" on Americans cited above.

The genius of withholding, from the government's perspective, is that it effectively shuts taxpayers out of any debate on the size of government. The question is not what taxpayers want to spend on government; withholding has settled that. The question only is how the money collected at the government automated teller machine will be spent. (The relative invisibility of the gas tax obscures government extraction in a similar fashion; how else could Clinton get away with claiming that he only raised taxes on the rich when he raised the gas tax?).

If you doubt the significance of withholding with respect to the size of government, imagine what would happen if taxpayers actually received their full paychecks and then had to sit down every month and write checks to the feds for 30 to 40 percent of them or more. The guess here is that there would be another Boston Tea Party, one that would make the original look like breakfast at Tiffany's.

Brinkley isn't asking for abolition of withholding; he would settle for a flat tax. But in the space of 16-odd pages, he clearly has laid out the problem of government as ATM. So if it's not yet time to say "goodnight, David" after all these years, how about just "thank you."

Do you have a SC ruling directed at a regular person, working for a living instead of an entity which its very existance depends on a federal or state charter?

On excises in general, case is specific to federal annual tax on personal carriages,(a federal vehicle tax nowdays):

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

First Individual Income tax case:

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."

"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."

Modified by Pollock as regards taxes laid on income from personal or real property:

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

"We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."

"If that[rents from land] be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress."

"We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. "

Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.

16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.

Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

"The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."

"There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "

Yet another as regards an excise on gifts made by an individual to another and the nature of an indirect tax as opposed to direct (i.e. property related) taxes:

BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124,136 (1929)

"Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken as direct, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of our government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

It is a tax laid only upon the exercise of a single one of those powers incident to ownership, the power to give the property owned to another. . . . The persistence of this distinction and the justification for it rest upon the historic fact that taxes of this type were not understood to be direct taxes when the Constitution was adopted and, as well, upon the reluctance of this Court to enlarge by construction, limitations upon the sovereign power of taxation by Article 1, sec. 8, so vital to the maintenance of the National Government.
280 U.S. at 136; see The Federalist No. 12 (Hamilton) (distinguishing between "direct taxes" and "taxes on consumption")."

Bottomline, whether you are an individual or a corportation (which is an association of individuals) you are subject to enactments of Congress (i.e. federal law) regarding excises both before and after the 16th amendment.

The law regarding the authority of Congress to lay excises and duties on the individual goes back to the very beginning of under the Constituton and they don't even have to involve the conduct of a business.

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

There were folk who had their properties sold out from under them over simple excises, such as the still tax levied on farmers which led to a rebellion over such, squashed by President Washington leading federal troops in to put the insurrection down. The action was upheld by the courts of the time.

At that time alcohol was money for these folks, cash was unheard of thus property was at risk without the benefit of apportionment to put the state between the Feds and the individuals at risk.

George Washington's Proclamation Whiskey Rebellion August 7, 1794:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/gwproc03.htm
George Washington's address on October 20 1794
to General Lee at Bedford, PA

Washington LED Federal troops into Western Pennsylvania enforcing the Federal tax on UNUSED AND OUT OF PRODUCTION private stills owned by individual citizens and farmers as appliances of the land(i.e. private non-commercial Real Property) in Pennsylvania.

United States Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 3rd Session Ch 15, 1791,
page 202, 204 Sec 21-24;

Sec. 21. And be it further enacted, That upon stills which after the last day of June Next, shall be employed in distilling spirits from materials of the growth or production of the United States, in any other place than a city, taown or village, there shall be paid for the use of the United States, the yearly duty of sixty cents for every gallon, English wine-measure, of the capacity or content of each and every such still, including the head thereof.
Sec. 22. And be it further encted, That the evidence of the employment of the said stills shall be, their being erected in stone, brick or some other manner whereby they shall be in a condition to be worked.
Sec. 23. And be it futher enacted, That the said duties o stills shall be collected under the management of the supervisor in each district, who shall appoint and assing proper officers for the surveys of the said stills and the admeasurement thereof, and the collectio of the duties thereupon; and the said duties shall be paid half yearly wihtin the firest fifteen days of January and July, upon demand of the proprietor or proprietors of each still, at his, her or their dwelling, by the proper officer charged with the survey thereof: And in case of refusal or neglect, to pay , the amount of the duties so refused or neglected to be paid may either be recovered with costs of suit in an actoin of debt in the name of the supervisor of the district, within which such refusal shall happen, for the use of the United States, or may be levied by distress and sale of goods of the person or persons refusing or neglecting to pay, rendering the overplus(if any there be after payment of the said amount and the charges of distress and sale) the the said person or persons.

To believe that "corporations" are subject to tax law under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and not the individual is a formula for disaster.

the rest plugs a conceptual flaw I though I'd found in the NITE and TaxGate strategy as detailed by Rose

Ohhh! Just to help you out :O)

The following is the judicial analysis of the 861 "sources" argument your defense must overcome. The first it is a state tax case, the reasoning reflects that which is to be expected in the federal courts and the IRS view in the second echos similar reasoning and federal case law based on the governments position shown in the second excerpt.

It will be fun to see how your your "plugs a conceptual flaw" flies in the courtroom. File your suit and go for it. It will be that much sooner to see the end of the Income and Payroll Taxes. At least till Congress plugs any hole you might uncover.

PDF file > 2001 SBE 001, pages 8-11:

"Income “Sources.” Appellant’s primary contention relies on his misapplication of IRC section 861 and its implementing regulations (most specifically, Treasury Regulation section (Regulation) 1.861-8(f)(1)). Appellant contends that “gross income” (apparently for both federal and state tax purposes) is limited to income from an obscure list of “operative sections” listed in Regulation 1.861-8(f)(1). This contention is groundless and frivolous. To better understand this contention we will briefly review a few IRC sections and regulations. California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) section 17071 defines “gross income” by reference to IRC section 61 “except as otherwise provided.” Section 61 defines “gross income” as follows:

“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle [Subtitle A—Income Taxes], gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.”

(Emphasis added.)
For federal purposes, IRC section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual who is a citizen or resident alien of the United States. One of its implementing regulations provides, in part, as follows:

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. . . . As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.”

(Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b); emphasis added.) Thus, for a citizen or a resident alien it will normally not matter whether a source of income is from within the United States or without—since both are subject to the federal income tax unless specifically provided elsewhere in the code (such as the “foreign earned income” discussed above).
Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations have special provisions for federal income tax purposes. For example, IRC section 871 imposes “a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources within the United States by a nonresident alien individual . . . [on income other than capital gains].” (Emphasis added.) One of the implementing regulations for IRC section 871 provides, in part, as follows:

“For purposes of the income tax, alien individuals are divided generally into two classes, namely, resident aliens and nonresident aliens. Resident alien individuals are, in general, taxable the same as citizens of the United States; that is, a resident alien is taxable on income derived from all sources, including sources without the United States.”

(Treas. Reg. § 1.871-1(a); emphasis added.) Once again, it is clear that citizens and resident aliens are taxable on income from all sources, both within and without the United States.
For some purposes (such as taxing the income of nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations), it is necessary to know whether a source of income is from within or without the United States. (See Int.Rev. Code, § 871, supra.) IRC sections 861 through 865, together with their implementing regulations, provide the bases for making this determination— for federal income tax purposes. IRC section 861 provides the criteria for determining which portions of various income items are from “sources” within the United States, and IRC section 862 does the same for “sources” of income without the United States. (IRC sections 863–865 provide additional rules—including for the apportionment and allocation of income to sources within or without the United States.)
The regulations under IRC section 861 assist in determining whether income is from a source within or without the United States—including situations where income comes partly from within and partly from without the United States—and where it is necessary to allocate and apportion deductions. It is here that appellant makes his primary error. Appellant completely misapplies Regulation 1.861-8, subsections (a)(1) and (f)(1). He concludes that these relatively obscure portions of the regulations suddenly change the whole definition of taxable income for citizens and resident aliens to include only income from the list of “operative sections” in subsection (f)(1) of this regulation. This defies logic and the clear purpose of IRC section 861. Subsection (a)(1) of the regulation states that it applies to the determination of taxable income “from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections.” The list of “operative sections” in subdivision (f)(1) does not include IRC sections 61 and 63. Therefore, rather than limiting either “gross income” under section 61 or “taxable income” under section 63, this regulation has only the very limited application defined therein. Indeed, Regulation 1.861-8(g) provides a number of examples of how section 861 should be applied. (See Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(g), examples 17-22 and 25-33.) These examples show how to determine whether an item of income (sometimes in very complex factual situations) is from a source within or without the United States. Sometimes the examples use terms such as “domestic” or “U.S.” source, or “foreign” source, instead of “within” or “without.” But they all clearly apply only to the determination of whether an item of income is from “within” or “without” the United States.

PDF file >> The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, pages 9 & 10:
http://www.treas.gov/irs/ci/tax_fraud/frivolous.pdf

B. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.

Some maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections.
The Law:
As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1- 1(b) provides, “[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine or define gross income. Further, these frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established legal precedent.
Relevant Case Law:
Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982)
– the court stated that “[t]he determination of where income is derived or ‘sourced’ is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under I.R.and I.R.C. § 11, respectively, on their worldwide income.”
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”
Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) – the court rejected the taxpayers’ argument that his income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(f), stating that the “source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.” The court further required the taxpayers to pay a $2,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because “they . . . wasted limited judicial and administrative resources.”
Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.
Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) – the court labeled as “frivolous” the position that only foreign income is taxable.
Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that “compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States . . . are items of gross income.”

NITE and TaxGate strategy as detailed by Rose

As I remember, Rose has been a poster boy for Thurston Bell.

Hmmmm! Looks like we might get a legal test of how well the 861/Subchapter 'N' argument stands up to appeal, real soon. Providing Mr. Bell and N.I.T.E. stand up to be counted instead wilt at the view of trouble blowing in the winds.

Judge Orders Group to Stop Promoting Income Tax Evasion

The judge, Christopher C. Conner, ordered the proponent, Thurston Paul Bell of Hanover, Pa., to post the court's order at his Web site (www.nite.org). Mr. Bell was also ordered to remove all language promoting the claim, known as the 861 position after a section of the tax code, that only those working for foreign-owned companies owe taxes on their wages.
Mr. Bell must turn over to the Justice Department copies of his client's tax returns, notify them that their returns were false and notify them that in addition to owing taxes they may face penalties for filing frivolous returns. Any refunds they obtained were erroneous, Judge Conner said, and the Internal Revenue Service may take them back.
***
The 861 position is nonsense, ruled Judge Conner of United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At least a dozen other courts have taken the same position, but that has not stopped people from paying at least $1,000 to Mr. Bell and others who claim that they have found a way to legally stop paying taxes.
Judge Conner noted that Mr. Bell conceded that Section 861 specified that wages earned in the United States were taxable.
Mr. Bell said, however, that the regulations implementing the law exempted wages paid by domestic companies from being taxed. Judge Conner said this false claim "rests purely on semantics and takes the regulations under Section 861 out of context."

Good chance for all these folks to make it a real stand. Seems to me the people involved should be contacting the IRS on their own, chomping at the bit to let the government know what 861 really means.

You wouldn't by chance be on one of Bell's mailing lists would you?

We'll see what happens, I guess.

I'm also sure that no one in the judicial system would dare stick his neck out on something as entrenched as the income tax system.

Why should they go against established law?

FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."

Not Larkin Rose, Thurston Bell, or anyone else.

The authority to levy and collect indirect taxes (e.g. duties, imposts, and excises) from individual citizens from the time of ratification of the Constitution is well founded.

Even the TP'rs behind WTP in the article admit the income tax is an excise or indirect tax. So just what basis is SCOTUS or any other court supposed to find otherwise?

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

Especially regarding taxes:

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Or are one of those who figure that the judiciary is supposed to legislate from the bench or the meaning of the Constitution changes with time.

I wish you would really read the treatise I posted written by Larkin Rose. Meyers mixed a small portion of the "sources" argument with a plethora of other failed arguments, including the old "state citizen" argument, after the 14th amendment made people citizens of the national government. and he made the argument wrong.

I'm sure the state court made a lot of hay out of it, and were delighted to get on record some sort of contrary ruling that people unfamiliar with the argument could heave a sigh of relief over. This is not he one, though. Sorry.

To further the confusion the court lists again the types of income, not the sources. It just pronounced the the 861 argument wrong. No analysis of why it was wrong.

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. . . . As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.”

But, you see the cite of this paragraph is disingenuious. There are citizens of the United States, according to the tax code, that are not liable for the income tax by exception, having nothing to do with the sources argument. For a small instance, if a person makes less than a certain amount of "types" of income, he is not liable for taxes. His exemption is within the tax code. The paragraph above does not distinguish.

As for the rest of your post, these are tax court pronouncements, legislative tribunals having no power to establish precedent, and an arm of the IRS in all cases. Even the IRS does not recognize applications of rulings lower than the Supreme Court.

And the courts rulings, they just say the argumetn is false. Their rulings do not include opinions examining any aspect of the argument in Rose's treatise. And still, in the face of all these rulings you post snippets of, both Taxgate and NITE are abating the personal tax liability of people and business as we speak, using the source argument, properly applied.

How many time do I have to say this. The cases you bring up are when the argument is improperly applied and mixed with other failed arguments, like the Meyers state case. The cases where it has been properly applied are not available for you to cut and paste. Do you understand? They don't make it to the web or to court. Where there is victory there is no record, other than people celebrating abatements.

We have been through this seveal times. If you are going to go to all this trouble, please read the treatise with a mind to understanding what it is saying and trace it arguments. Sure, it'll take you time to do it, but you might come up with something.

Read my lips, I am not invested in the Rose treatise. I look for flaws myself. I thought I could post the thing out here and you bulging brains would examine it and offer reasoned discussion, but all I get is emotional reaction. Same thing with the "lost tribes" issue, in which I am likewise not invested. What is it with you people?

I wish you would really read the treatise I posted written by Larkin Rose.

I have, as anyone who looks at it will notice my replies to you on the topic.

The cases where it has been properly applied are not available for you to cut and paste. Do you understand? They don't make it to the web or to court.

At least until the DOJ decides its worth prosecuting.

When you can tell me you have read the argument and understand it, and can show me you do

Sorry, you are just whistling passed the graveyard.

I have read the argument and find it as full of holes as the Clinton argument over the definition of sex. Sorry I don't by the argument, and the big guns, in the courtroom back the position up as well as simple common sense.

You have yet to present a rational reason as to why a Congress that has the full authority to levy and collect an excise or duty from the individual citizen of the United States does not in statute that plainly declares that intent:

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).

"Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature."

COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)

"[T]he principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen."

U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)

"It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."

United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.

The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.

[Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."

[Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.

[Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.

[Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.

Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.

The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.
Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."

26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]
Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

And in Regard to 26 USC 861

TITLE 26 - Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources(activities) within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as
income from sources(activities) within the United States:

(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;

26 USC 5761.

CIVIL PENALTIES
(b) FAILURE TO PAY TAX
Whoever fails to pay any tax imposed by this chapter at the time prescribed by law or regulations, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided in this title, be liable to a penalty of 5 percent of the tax due but unpaid.

26 USC 7203.

WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE RETURN, SUPPLY INFORMATION, OR PAY TAX
Any person required under this title[26] to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for "misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year"

In Summary, if you are a United States citizen, and receive compensation for labor or services in the United States you are subject to income taxes.

compensation = item of income
in exchange for = activity
service = object of commerce.

A tax levied as an excise or duty on an activity of commerce.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'

BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned

Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)

An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.

I'll be glad to talk to you about it

Seeing you have no backing in law and the courts blow your sorry excuses down repeatedly, that would be a worthless exercise.

leaving emotion and investment in new taxing schemes aside.

LOL, you go ahead and place yourself on the legal jeopardy. I'm sure of Thurston Bell will be grateful for Larkin Rose's & your knowledge and aid to him.

Rose is not afilliated with either NITE or Taxgate.

Seeing that Larkin Rose was a contributor to Thurston's Bell's website and T.B. made extensive use of Larkin Rose' arguments your assertion doe little to sever the link between them. I notice that the NITE websight is displaying the court's injuction to cease his opertion I therefore lack the specific link to Rose's material as it used to exist there, since the court's injuction is only temporary for now, I'm sure we will see it all back up once Bell & N.I.T.E. win their case.

Bell was burned for charging for his advice and his counsel. That's it.

If they could have got him on his arguments, they would have they did,

They did, that is why the injuction was ordered and the case moves ahead.

One of the elements of aiding and abetting is to cause the filing of "false" returns, (e.g. based on false legal premise).

From the Department of Justice Criminal Tax Manual

26 USC 7206(2) makes it a felony to:

Willfully aid[] or assist[] in . . . the preparation or presentation under . . . the internal revenue laws . . . of a return . . . which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return . . . .

This statute is known as the Internal Revenue Code's aiding and abetting provision, and applies not only to tax return preparers but to anyone who causes a false return to be filed. United States v. Sassak, 881 F.2d 276, 277-78 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Hooks, 848 F.2d 785, 789 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Williams, 644 F.2d 696, 701 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 841 (1981).

[skipping some]
For example, in United States v. Causey, 835 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction of the defendant for causing 18 individuals to file false tax returns claiming refunds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2. The defendant argued that the government failed to establish that the persons actually submitting the false claims knew they were false. The Ninth Circuit distinguished the two subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and found that under subsection 2(b) a person "may be guilty of causing a false claim to be presented to the United States even though he or she uses an innocent intermediary to actually pass on the claim to the United States." 835 F.2d at 1292.
The court then held that in a section 2 prosecution for violation of section 287, the government does not need to allege or prove that the person actually submitting the claims knew them to be false. Id.

Tax protestors who cause third parties to prepare and file false returns may be charged under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). See United States v. Holecek, 739 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1218 (1985) (return preparation); United States v. Kellogg, 955 F.2d 1244, 1249 (9th Cir. 1992) (defendant assisted in preparation of returns filed by others); United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 240 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985) (preparation and mailing of false Forms W-4); United States v. Erickson, 676 F.2d 408 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 853 (1982).
Providing advice and material to taxpayers, who in turn file false returns, is sufficient to sustain a section 7206(2) conviction. See United States v. Kelley, 769 F.2d 215 (4th Cir. 1985). In Kelley, the defendant argued that he could not be lawfully convicted of violating section 7206(2) because "he . . . did not actually participate in the preparation of any of the forms [Forms W-4] but only gave advice that his listeners were free to accept or reject." Kelley, 769 F.2d at 217. Rejecting this argument, the court said:

The contention ignores reality, for he did participate in the preparation of the forms. He told the listeners what to do and how to prepare the forms. He did so with the intention that his advice be accepted, and the fact that the members paid him for the advice and promised assistance warranted an inference of an expectation that the advice would be followed. Moreover, he actually supplied forms and materials to be filed with W-4 forms. He did not take his pen in his hand to complete the forms, but his participation in their preparation was as real as if he had.

Again, a judge just says the argument is wrong without an analytical opinion.

No requirement to do so at the district court level as such opinions have already been rendered by the apellate courts, However Bell has every right to appeal what he considers an insufficient ruling. At which time I am sure the judges will more than accomodate him along with a few extra fines for frivolous argument.

Aren't you even the least suspicious when someone says "That's wrong" but declines to discuss it?

No, when the arguments have been around ad nauseum since the beginning of taxation in this country and repeatedly shown to be nothing but hot air and vapors no more discussion is required. The meaning of "frivolous" is the issue has been decided, due diligence on your part would provide more than ample warning to bring it up again in a court of law.

The Tax Protestor FAQ

Judges are no different. They know the axe that hangs over their heads.

Which axe is that? They get paid regardless of whether or not the income tax exists by Constitutional mandate under Article III. If they rule to void the income tax they themselves would no longer be subject to it. Some axe.

If that were true, your protestation that taxes do not apply to you is nonsence. For those judges will be certain to make the tax law apply to you;
Alternatively the law does apply to you and is constitutional and the judges will make certain the tax law applies to you.

Notice, in both evaluations exactly the same result will be obtained from the Courts.

Furthermore:

1) Federal judges are appointed for life, and good behaviour. The pay cannot be taken away from them.
2) Federal judges have ruled their pay is subject to income tax, though at any time they could rule otherwise if they so desired and believed otherwise.
3) It would be in the personal and financial interest for the courts to rule that the income tax is unconstitutional and illegal. In so doing the law would be void, the IRS which is authorised under that law would ceased to exist or have power over the people or the courts.
4) Judges are ruling against there own personal interest in support the income tax against you in the courtroom. For if it did not apply to you, it cannot apply to them.

Something is lacking in your analysis and it is called reason and credibility. It does not pass the test of Occum's razor, nor the laugh test.

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.