Skip to comments.Supremes docket income tax challenge
Posted on 09/26/2012 4:42:57 AM PDT by wesagain
"Colorado man's challenge to IRS says wages don't count"
The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation tax protesters and labels their arguments frivolous. And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.
But now the U.S. Supreme Court the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate has docketed exactly that type of case.
The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.
Among Maehrs contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income essentially salaries and wages.
Basing his argument on 10 years worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money and thats not income.
Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected ........
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The curse of employer withholding from our paychecks was started to support the “war tax” of WWII. However when the war tax was eliminated by Congress the withholding was continued by the IRS.
It isn’t a tax, it’s a penalty....
The definition of ‘is’ might actually work in our favor for once.
I could just as easily argue interest on money in my bank is a mutually agreed upon exchange of me letting them say they’re holding my money for money. That is not fundamentally different from a n exchange of laborious for wages.
Regardless of case law, the entire concept of seizing what belongs to a man more than anything except his soul (the fruit of his physical or mental labor) is an evil concept. It is legalized slavery to the state.
That's why we have more than half the U.S. Citizens paying NO INCOME TAX AT ALL, while the productive ones are FORCED to pay for handouts. If you wanna tax "income", then start taxing ALL Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, EBT's, etc., and let's ALL pay our "Fair and Equal Share".
That said, I'm not sure I buy this particular argument.
Short of outright repeal, which I would dearly love to see, I think the better Constitutional arguments against the current tax system are those that address the following:
Notwithstanding our 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, as well as our 9th Amendment right to privacy (see Roe v. Wade), the government requires us to provide a tax return signed under penalty of perjury, in which we are obligated to provide detailed testimony regarding every aspect of our most private financial activities and relationships, legal or otherwise.
Notwithstanding our 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure, any American citizen is subject at any time -- even in the complete absence of probable cause to an intrusive federal audit in which the government has the unlimited power to demand and search our private papers and financial records.
So even though the 16th amendment is, by definition, "the supreme law of the land," I don't see where it authorizes the federal government to violate our other Constitutional rights, which were NOT repealed by the 16th amendment.
I can see the logic of his argument about wages and salaries not being income. Unfortunately for all of us the Supreme Court is totally politicized. In an ideal world these cases would be looked at on a logical basis. In this one though? Ain’t gonna happen.
Well, it is an exchange of something for something. It’s not them giving you something (money) for nothing.
It’s not like winning the lottery which would be almost (except for the cost of the ticket) all pure profit.
“Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim when he defends himself as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder...”
“Socialism Is Legal Plunder”
Good post, good thread.
No, that’s a baby
Here are two questions that the IRS is not able to answer.
1) Which statute establishes my liability for a federal income tax?
2) Which statue establishes the requirement that I file a federal income tax return?
For each question above, please cite the title, subtitle, section and operative language.
The IRS never answers these questions. The answers do not exist.
What I have never understood about the income tax is how applying it unequaly is constitutional.
It seems the equal protection clause would prevent the government from taxing different people a different rate.
Yes, that’s how I see it. Of course the probable outcome is that the Supreme Court will set down a definitive definition of the term “income”. And we will go on from there.
Of course if that happens then a lot of wiggle room will be taken away from the IRS and Employers and Employees just might come up with a different form of compensation. Now that would be interesting, don’t you think?
When America was founded you could not tax a man’s labor nor his property. My how things have changed!
I wish someday the “Progressive Tax”, ie, the more you make, the higher the Tax Rate, was found Un-Constitutional from the fact that it is not “Applied Equally” to all.
This was the point where it is no longer the Government by the people but Government versus the people.
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.