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I don't see where it authorizes the federal government to violate our other Constitutional rights, which were NOT repealed by the 16th amendment.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.
“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.
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.
Interestingly, the case even appears on the Supreme Court Docket:
Just because a piece of paper was accepted onto the docket does not mean that anything will happen, though.
I will not get particularly excited until the Supremes actually agree to hear the case, as opposed to simply having the IRS respond that the case has no merit, and the Supremes dismissing it without a hearing.
The United States penalizes wealth and rewards poverty. It’s no mystery how we got here.
"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.
Two words: John Roberts.
This suit is just going to be used to set a precedent that will quash all future tax protests.
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.
Repeal the 16th amendment and fund the Govt. by tariffs and levies.
The article admits that the case hasn’t been taken up by the justice in conference yet. It won’t make it past there. If the 10th Circuit termed it frivilous then I don’t see the Supreme’s disagreeing.
Jeffrey Thomas Maehr is 100% corrct, but I wouldn’t bet a penny on his chance of success.