Tax Protester Told to Stop Giving Advice

Associated Press ^ | Mon, Jan. 13, 2003 | MARC LEVY

[heyhey]

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A tax protester who allegedly promotes a bogus legal loophole to convince people they owe no taxes was ordered by a federal judge to stop the practice and turn over his clients' records.

The order came Friday in the government's effort to force Thurston Bell of Hanover to stop giving clients allegedly false tax advice and charging large fees for filing tax returns.

[Poohbah]

Who says they're "stupid tax evader tricks"?

The judges and juries in court, that's who.

The man was told not to give advice, he wasn't prosecuted! If he was guilty of something where is his conviction?

Most of the tax gurus pushing this stuff do NOT practice it.

And if he continues to give advice in return for money, he can be prosecuted for defrauding his customers.

But the usual pattern is as follows:

Tax guru sells materials to taxpayer.

Taxpayer applies the material and doesn't pay taxes.

IRS does its stuff. Eventually, there is a notice of seizure.

If the amount of taxes owed is sufficiently egregious, taxpayer gets prosecuted. If he has a good lawyer (which is rare), he uses the Cheek defense and gets acquitted on the criminal charges. Usually, he doesn't and gets sent to jail.

BTW, the tax guru never shows up or returns the frantic calls of the taxpayer.

[Poohbah]

I didn't twist your arm into advancing the "The Law That Never Was" thesis--you did it. You tied yourself to it by your defense of the concept.

Sorry, that is not guilt by association.

[philman_36]

The judges and juries in court, that's who.
Then where is the conviction? Fraud is punishable.
I didn't twist your arm into advancing the "The Law That Never Was" thesis--you did it.
I merely stated The Constitution wasn't followed when the 16th was implemented!
You went with the rest on your own.
In that case...the 2nd Amendment wasn't ratified, either, by the criteria demanded by the "Law That Never Was" crowd. Hell, the entire Constitution was never ratified.
I never mentioned "The Law That Never Was". I think you've got me confused with yourself.

[ancient_geezer]

I merely stated The Constitution wasn't followed when the 16th was implemented!

What does the 16th have to do with the income tax as it is implemented in the current tax in regards income?

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

• "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

 

Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

• "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."

• Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

• "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

 

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."

Especially what does the 16th amendmend to do regards taxes with respect to wages, salaries, commissions, fees or other forms of compensation for services or larbor?

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

• "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17]   of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

• "The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is supreme."

• "Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument[the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."

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.

[Poohbah]

I never mentioned "The Law That Never Was".

You mentioned the prime argument from that work--that argument being that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. I merely recognized the source of you claim, and applied the arguments used in that work as a general case, which you REALLY disliked.

[Middle Man]

We've already been over this niggling dispute about which groups are really contained in the vast number of Americans who are joining the ranks of non-filers.

The government's desperation at containing the information that is getting out is reminiscent of Hans Brinker trying to plug all the leaks in the dike. In fact, that image of Uncle Sam has me ROTFLMAO.

[Poohbah]

We've already been over this niggling dispute about which groups are really contained in the vast number of Americans who are joining the ranks of non-filers.

Mostly, it's the Democrat voting rolls--the all-important "metabolically challenged" voting bloc.

[inquest]

Actually, the judges have a financial interest in declaring the income tax unconstitutional. They pay taxes on their salary; declaring the income tax unconstitutional would result in an increase of their takehome pay. They are immune from the downside because their compensation cannot be reduced under any circumstances, and they have lifetime appointments.

IIRC, there is precedent for Congress closing entire courts and retiring the judges. Something from the Jefferson administration or thenabouts. I don't know if the precedent's been overturned or not.

[Poohbah]

IIRC, there is precedent for Congress closing entire courts and retiring the judges. Something from the Jefferson administration or thenabouts. I don't know if the precedent's been overturned or not.

How long would it take for a judge to overrule that, especially when it conflicts with the plain language of the Constitution? Two nanoseconds? :o)

[inquest]

According to Findlaw, the practice was never fully struck down, although it has been frowned upon and fallen largely out of use. But then, we've never since then seen such a drastic reduction in revenue as would result from the invalidation of federal income tax.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that it would be completely unconstitutional to strip a good-behaving judge of his office and salary under any circumstances, but that's not necessarily a predictor of what would actually happen.

[inquest]

Forgive me if you've already posted this information, but do you know why it is that "income" for corporations is defined as what comes in minus what goes out, whereas "income" for humans is defined just as what comes in? How do they get away with attaching two definitions to the same term?

[ancient_geezer]

In fact, that image of Uncle Sam has me ROTFLMAO.

I'm sure you will continue to laugh as they create a European style VAT for you and start rolling the printing presses, to replace of the individual income tax on you.

The hype & process has already begun to make the changover under your nose:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/foundationmessage03-00.html

"Under the WTO definition of the term, a sales tax is an indirect tax, as is an European-style VAT. The economic equivalence of an European-style VAT and a subtraction-method VAT is well-established. A subtraction-method VAT is essentially identical to a business income tax except that all purchases of plant and equipment may be expensed, rather than depreciated as under current U.S. law."

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-11-00/4-11kotl.htm

"Robert Hall, one of the originators of the proposal(Flat Tax), who describes his Flat Tax as, effectively, a Value Added Tax. A value added tax taxes output less investment (because firms get to deduct their investment.)"

"The Flat Tax differs from a VAT in only two respects. First, it asks workers, rather than firm managers, to mail in the check for the tax payment on that portion of output paid to them as wages. Second, it provides a subsidy to workers with low wages."

Remove the wage tax & increase the business employment excise. Then watch prices rise to compensate for tax + compliance cost + printing press rolling out the FRNs.

Yep, Real hillarious!!

Curing Our Sick Economy
by Jarret Wollstein,

• Today taxes directly consume at least 35-40% of our income. But that is just the beginning. According to James Payne, Director of Lytton Research and Analysis, "For every dollar that the federal government raises, an additional 65 cents is spent by the private sector on tax-related expenses, including time, telephones, cars and computers needed to comply with IRS rules."

All run by the IRS. With no one containing the growth of government:

 

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:

• "If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"

 

---

Yep real hillarious!

[ancient_geezer]

But then, we've never since then seen such a drastic reduction in revenue as would result from the invalidation of federal income tax.

Such an invalidation will never happen through simple evasion. The taxes will simply be restructured to be collected by corporations through a Euro-style vat which is the normal progression of income tax resistance movements. In fact such resistance movements are encouraged to justify the move.

The process and public campaign to make the changeover palatable is already running:

Refer to Reply #252 above.

[philman_36]

What does the 16th have to do with the income tax as it is implemented in the current tax in regards income?
Apparently, none. Isn't that what your "cut-n-paste" says?
Why don't you just tell me straight out since you know so much instead of clipping in your little snippets.
You know something like...The 16th doesn't have anything to do with the income tax as it is implemented in the current tax in regards income.

Maybe there is something you can "cut-n-paste" that directly addresses that.

[ancient_geezer]

I have notice from past experience with folks such as yourself that simple statments do not meet a requirement of evidence. It always begs the question, and I end up having to produce the reseach and citation anyway.

Now I just avoid the arguments, and let people read it from the source.

It works you now recognize that the 16th amendment is not the Constitutional authority for the income tax, Article I Section 8 is.

[ancient_geezer]

Maybe there is something you can "cut-n-paste" that directly addresses that.

I did, too bad you still fail to comprehend the importance of it.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

• "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"

[philman_36]

I merely recognized the source of you claim, and applied the arguments used in that work as a general case, which you REALLY disliked.
NO! What I REALLY disliked was your calling me a Judas and a liar! God you're dense!
And even being aware of the work you still believe that the amendment was properly ratified? Is their
In regards to yesterday's statement by you can you show me where the imperfections came in to disallow the ratification of the Constitution according to "that crowd's" way of thinking? If it wasn't copied properly you should be able to prove that it wasn't.
Constitutional Topic: How a Bill Becomes a Law
Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be checked. If anything in the two versions of the bill differ, in any way (even in something as minor as punctuation), the bill must be reconciled.
I think you're wrong. The FF were diligent men and wouldn't make the mistakes you attribute to them.

[philman_36]

Where is the conviction?
You never did answer that. If the man is "guilty"...

[philman_36]

Now say so in your own words, if you can, without any cut-n-paste.

[ancient_geezer]

Forgive me if you've already posted this information, but do you know why it is that "income" for corporations is defined as what comes in minus what goes out,

Business deductions for purposes of income tax calculation is definded by Congress.

whereas "income" for humans is defined just as what comes in?

Personal deductions and exemptions for purposes of individual income tax calculation is defined by Congress.

How do they get away with attaching two definitions to the same term?

Same definition, Taxable Income = Gross Income - Allowed deductions and exemptions.

PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433

• "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."

Furthermore, income is merely the means used to determine how much the tax will be. It is not the basis of the tax, commercial activity is:

e.g. humans sale of own service or product to another;

e.g. business sale of own service or product to another.

 

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

• "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

An indirect tax under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

• 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56]   he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."