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 Maehr’s 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 that’s 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 ...
“SUMMARY
“Income” is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition.
The definition of income used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition used in ALL the income tax statutes.
“Gross income” would then be the total income of a corporation, from all sources.
“Taxable income” would therefore be corporate gross income, minus allowable deductions. Also known as profit. If a corporation had no profit, then it had no taxable income. If you are an officer of a corporation, then you had individual income that is taxable.”
Did you know a corporation is a “person”? By simply re-defining a “citizen” into a “person” you can tax him or her, too!
What is the legal definition of a “person”?
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516
person -
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
Dave,
You are being willfully blind.
“I” am not a “corporation.”
The liability and filing requirements apply to corporations. I did not ask which statutes exist. I asked which statutes apply to “me” personally.
Keep spreading the word
The courts have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY over a live, living person, only a ficticous entity also known as a ‘corporation.
I believe, and I'm paying more in taxes annually now than I made most years I have worked.
One year, when the oil patch was slow, I dealt blackjack for a charitable organization. Pay was minimum wage and tips, and (thankfully) the tips were only allowed in the form of chips, and mercilessly tracked.
These were $2.00 limit tables, (then the state-allowed maximum wager), and the IRS came in and wanted to sieze our entire paycheck on the basis of "allocated tips", calculated (from thin air) as if we had been dealing to high rollers in Vegas or Atlantic City.
Thankfully, their penchant for larceny was held in check by the charitable organizations which ran gaming operations fighting back with their accounting of who had made what when, right down to the half-dollar chip. Otherwise, we'd have all been on the street.
It seems so, yes. But SCOTUS applies the magic “legitimate state interest” formula. What is the state’s interest? Raising money, I kid you not. Because they have an interest in rais/ng money they are allowed to tax unequally. Whatever.
Not that I don’t think states should br able to discriminate on various bases, such as age and sex, wherein a sort of seoerate but equal applies. But different levels of income don’t make you different kinds of people to my mind, and therefore equal protection should apply.
But if those live, living citizens voluntarily choose to define themselves as a “person” then Fedzilla is more than happy to enslave them.
If you can con a nation into slavery then what does that say about the people who allowed it to happen?
"And the argument is supported by the fact that when tax filings were made in the first quarter of the century the "standard deduction" was $4000 per year."
Actually, just the opposite. If wages were excluded by definition there would be no need for a $4000 deduction to exclude them.
Speaking of the 5th amendment, that’s always troubled me vis a vis the Al Capone case. I wonder why failing to report illegal income is a crime when you can’t be compelled to incriminate yourself according to the Constitution. That applies to reporting income at all, it occurs to me. Have tax returns ever been challenged on such grounds? Did the courts proffer a better answer than it would burden the government.
The rules are not the same for everyone. There are different rules for people with different amounts of income. This isn’t complicated.
Equality of opportunity and outcome have nothing to do with it.
Dave,
A Federal Income Tax filing requirement cannot possibly apply to me.
‘The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a “witness” as that term is used herein.’
... Garner v. United States, USSC, 1976
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states that I cannot be required to be a witness against myself.
The US Government cannot require me to be witness against myself.
That would be a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Two words: John Roberts.
This suit is just going to be used to set a precedent that will quash all future tax protests.
The funny part is, that this defense actually works when felons falsify paperwork for illegal firearm purchases!
No, that would be different rules for different people.
Using my reasoning the same rules apply to everyone. Some people pay different marginal tax rates, but that is because of what they have done, not who they are.
Progressive taxation still sucks, but it is equally applied.
Nope. The rules are the same for everyone. The outcome of the application of the rules may differ by individual, but that does not mean the rules themselves differ.
LOL.
So, this idiot didn’t file for 4 years.
Then, the IRS assesses tax, penalties and interest for those years.
He files a Tax Court case to get a redetermination of the notices of deficiency for those years.
He stands on such previously totally discredited gems of gibberish as “the IRS lacks standing,” “the IRC isn’t ‘positive law’,” the IRS is part of the IMF,” “wages aren’t income,” “Form 1040 doesn’t have an OMB number,” and “the 16th Amendment doesn’t authorize federal income taxes.”
ALL of those are frivolous “arguments” and any of them will get you a $5K frivolous filing penalty from the IRS if you assert it on a return or other filing sent to the IRS.
Tax Court dismisses his case for redetermination and holds that he owes the taxes and penalties assessed.
He appeals to the 10th Circuit.
10th Circuit upholds the Tax Court dismissal.
He petitions the USSC for certiorari.
Cert will be routinely denied. There is no issue of law — it’s well settled, and there is certainly no conflict between Circuit decisions, they have all uniformly rejected this sort of frivolous junk. Over and over again.
Any idiot who loses an appeal at the Circuit level can petition the USSC for cert, any many do, Maehr is merely one of them.
His “arguments” are total losers, and his 10 years of “research” is a joke. I can come up with 50 frivolous income tax “arguments” that will all lose in 10 minutes, not 10 years.
His 10 years of “research” were nothing but a failed effort to come up with something, anything to justify his predetermined conclusion that he didn’t want to pay income taxes.
WND does not contribute to its already large credibility deficit by spending even one electron on loser tax-protester morons like this guy with a worthless petition for cert that will be denied, just as hundreds like it are denied every year.
Maehr was lucky that he wasn’t sanctioned (up to $25K) by either the Tax Court or the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. If he brings another stupid, time-wasting frivolous suit or appeal, he probably will be.
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.