Why Has Dr. Paul Never Publicly Demanded The IRS To "Show Us The Law?"

[anaconda]

Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this. Would it backfire politically with msm spin?

Couldn't Dr. Paul have intelligently asked the IRS to "show us the law?" requiring us to file a 1040?

Or cite the Federal Court justice who said the 16th amendment was never ratified?

I think Roscoe Bartlett was on to this (per Freedom to Fascism..) but sounds like somebody got to him..Did Bartlett ever say why he didn't follow through with the meeting with the IRS?

[angelatc]

Perhaps because his agenda is not your agenda?

[anaconda]

Perhaps because his agenda is not your agenda?

Hmmm..last time I checked Dr. Paul was very against the Federal Income Tax and also stated in the first Republican debate that, as President, he would seek to phase out the IRS "immediately."

Is this sufficient grounds for being curious? Just trying to connect some dots here. The only explanation I can come up with is that it would backfire politically. It seems that people who think that there is no law requiring them to file a 1040 are discredited like those who think the moon landing was faked or those who believe in reptilian shape shifters. But I'm only guessing, here.

[Danke]

Why? He could just look up the congressional records.



Revenue Act of 1862

Revenue Act of 1864

Revenue Act of 1865

Revenue Act of 1867

Revenue Act of 1870

Revenue Act of 1872

Revenue Act of 1873 (Revised Statutes)

Revenue Act of 1878

Revenue Act of 1894

Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909

Federal Reserve Act

Revenue Act of 1913

Revenue Act of 1916

Revenue Act of 1917

Revenue Act of 1919

Revenue Act of 1921

Classification Act of 1923

Revenue Act of 1924

Revenue Act of 1926

Revenue Act of 1928

Index To The Federal Statutes 1874 - 1931

Revenue Act of 1932

Revenue Act of 1934

Revenue Act of 1935

Social Security Act of 1935

Revenue Act of 1936

Revenue Act of 1938

The IRC of 1939

Appendix to the IRC of 1939
The 'Preliminary Materials' chapter in the 1986 IRC contains a dual cross-reference table, first indexing 1939 code sections to the 1986 code, then indexing 1986 sections to the 1939 sections from which they are drawn. Once having identified the 1939 section in which you are interested, find the section listing in the 1939 appendix, where the actual statute section that it represents is listed.

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943

Elements of the Victory Tax Act and their repeal

The IRC of 1954

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Code of Federal Regulations for Title 26 (Internal Revenue)

Congress passed the Act > Statutes written > then Regulations > then Codes.

[MsDoodahs]

I think I've heard Ron say he does not believe the whole "16th amendment was not ratified properly" stuff.

[low preference guy]

he doesn't want to go to jail?

[MsDoodahs]

Hmmm..last time I checked Dr. Paul was very against the Federal Income Tax and also stated in the first Republican debate that, as President, he would seek to phase out the IRS "immediately."

That is true - but I think he BASES his point of view on something quite different that the basis you're seeking.


Is this sufficient grounds for being curious? Just trying to connect some dots here.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=0

Check there.


The only explanation I can come up with is that it would backfire politically. It seems that people who think that there is no law requiring them to file a 1040 are discredited like those who think the moon landing was faked or those who believe in reptilian shape shifters. But I'm only guessing, here.

Or maybe ... Ron's objection to the income tax is based on very different grounds from the basis you're using for your objection?

[specsaregood]

He has answered this question before. IIRC that isn't the approach he has chosen, while he supports tax protesters such as the situation you describe, he doesn't think that approach will prove successful and he prefers to continue to fight it legislatively and via education.

[evilfunnystuff]

while not asking the question 2 minutes and 44 seconds in he talks about the issue a little YouTube - RP2012 - Ron Paul in America: Freedom to Fascism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilShRZ99zEg#t=2m44s)

[Acala]

Because he doesn't have time to waste running down this dead end road?

This is exactly why I don't advise people to watch Freedom to Fascism.

There IS statutory authority for the income tax. If there is not specific authority for the filing of the 1040, so what? You are still required to pay whether or not you file a return. Understand the difference between paying the tax and filing a return?

And if there was no statutory authority for the income tax, how long do you think it would take Congress to enact it? A New York minute. Unless the people were united against it, which they are not. And if they were, the tax would be dead anyway regardless of what the law said.

As for the ratification of the 16th amendment, that water is so far under the bridge that it has gone out to sea, evaporated, and rained down on distant lands a thousand time. Forget it.

It is a total waste of energy to chase these legalistic "solutions" to creeping tyranny. The courts are NEVER going to restore freedom in any significant way. Only a united and outraged public can do that.

[Nationwide]

Yes, there's statutory authority for AN income tax, but its not the income tax the IRS would have us all believe. It's due to the very limited nature of INCOME. Income is not "all that comes in" for federal tax purposes because of prohibitions in fundamental, Constitutional law. The statutory income tax does not apply to most Americans. It's all spelled out here (http://losthorizons.com).

Agree that the 16th amendment is insignificant here.

And yes, it's virtually impossible to win this in court. It appears the judges are in on the scam & deception. And you may be right in "Only a united and outraged public can" expose the fraud and end it. I'm ready. Name the date and let's organize it.

[catdd]

He's one of the few people with the courage to lump them in with the CIA and Federal Reserve, but picking a personal fight with the IRS is too dangerous.
People have been thrown in prison for less.

[Travlyr]

Because he doesn't have time to waste running down this dead end road?

This is exactly why I don't advise people to watch Freedom to Fascism.

There IS statutory authority for the income tax. If there is not specific authority for the filing of the 1040, so what? You are still required to pay whether or not you file a return. Understand the difference between paying the tax and filing a return?

And if there was no statutory authority for the income tax, how long do you think it would take Congress to enact it? A New York minute. Unless the people were united against it, which they are not. And if they were, the tax would be dead anyway regardless of what the law said.

As for the ratification of the 16th amendment, that water is so far under the bridge that it has gone out to sea, evaporated, and rained down on distant lands a thousand time. Forget it.

It is a total waste of energy to chase these legalistic "solutions" to creeping tyranny. The courts are NEVER going to restore freedom in any significant way. Only a united and outraged public can do that.

Thank you! People try and stir up controversy and waste time. Sheesh.


https://kokesh.netboots.net/sites/kokesh.netboots.net/files/imagecache/fullsize/images/Andrew_Sharp/BBlarge.gif (http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/birthday-bomb-february-1st-2010)

[anaconda]

Thank you! People try and stir up controversy and waste time. Sheesh.
I was certainly not trying to stir up controversy. Freedom to Fascism was a great eye opener for me and an inspiring influence to want to roll back government. I wonder how many other people would wake up if Ron Paul tossed a couple of quick talking points in with his usual ones regarding the IRS. Something to the effect of "We're going broke. We tax too much. Spend too much maintaining our empire abroad. We are sacrificing our civil liberties. And, by the way, tell your senator that you want to see the law that requires you to pay taxes on your wages..." He could have even mentioned this in one of the debates.

If he had done this, you might be seeing "Show Us the Law" signs at all of the tea parties and the IRS might now be running for cover to the same extent that Ben Bernanke is.

Ron Paul obviously does more than anyone could ever hope for the cause of freedom. I am just wondering why he steers clear of this topic in his talking points. This is likely a planned strategy decision on his part. My suspicion is that the topic is so hot that the PTB would pull out all of the stops to suppress any discussion of it, much like the 9-11 issue. i.e. anyone who touches is is a "wingnut."

[Matt Collins]

Making the Case for Ending the Income Tax: Part One

by Sharon Harris

Ending the personal income tax would be a great blessing for America.

However, to most Americans -- even those who hate the income tax -- the idea currently seems unrealistic and breathtakingly radical.

Can we persuade others to accept this idea -- and eventually propel it into the mainstream political discussion? Libertarians are already doing this with many issues, including drug relegalization, ending the Federal Reserve, privatization, and many more.

I believe we can and should add ending the personal income tax to that list. Here are some ways to present the idea as sensible, desirable, and realistic.

ONE: Use the popularity of Ron Paul. If you're discussing this issue with a Ron Paul admirer (and there are millions of them), then the battle is already at least half won. Just tell the person that Paul has long supported ending the personal income tax, and several times he has introduced legislation, the Liberty Amendment, to do this, most recently on April 30, 2009.

(Here (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102956963855&s=57420&e=001F0MNk9Nf-y0AEOUztILtStF1P3TALRALzO7-UcIvXzEraBHrT9Yt-VR5yCQysqKZ5HgN7vK6RQQeufVv3oLfnr6kgGoQsGJsfZAc--FLIdoQn4VyUQLgVAHWT4kKfzPEy6gSc7ZMXFiKJitoB9RmHgeJ g587vBDB_X6dBWOxdLY=) are Paul's comments on introducing the Liberty Amendment. And here (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102956963855&s=57420&e=001F0MNk9Nf-y0VNruG2h-5IMp2MNHHTuwB8z4lOln-UOVx2DwxQVX82eqcb8ViN5Sak-YbpLV614u1wjIGcxAEyBIZI1MlJ8etX18A96fS2ts3tBvfQOie 77yqwXYpaKM1DpaF01McJieFnZrrVk1c6EMj1CCBPpU7ZA6gdz p5OuU=) is the wording of the Liberty Amendment.)

In fact, even if your listener isn't a Ron Paul fan, the mere fact that legislation has been introduced in Congress to end the personal income tax will make the idea seem more real, more possible.

TWO: If appropriate, explain your position with dramatic language along these lines: "I want to end the income tax -- and replace it with... nothing." This makes it clear that you're calling for bold change, not just a reshuffling of the status quo. This is powerful and provocative phrasing. The "nothing" at the end surprises your listener -- and makes him eager to hear what you'll say next.

THREE: The natural question you'll be asked is: "But how will we fund the government without the income tax? How can we fund essential services?"

Happily, there's a great and persuasive answer. On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times interview:

"About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent -- over half of all revenue -- comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

"We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don't need to 'replace' the income tax at all."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul493.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul493.html)

That is remarkable and eye-opening: to think that we could adapt a budget from roughly ten years ago (or, more precisely, cut spending back to the still extremely high levels of just ten years ago) -- and no longer be plagued by the personal income tax.

FOUR: Having made this striking point, you can de-radicalize the issue by adding: "So perhaps this idea isn't so radical after all."

FIVE: Strengthen your case further by adding something along these lines: "By the way, in the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president, I don't remember many people complaining that government wasn't big enough, or complaining we had too little government."

Ask your listener if he would be willing to reduce the federal government to the size it was in the last years of the Clinton administration -- if it meant we could abolish outright the personal income tax.

Many people will respond by saying that we need more reduction than that! Congratulations -- you've just turned a radical-sounding idea into something that doesn't sound radical enough!

Next issue I'll share further ways to persuade your audience that this bold libertarian proposal is realistic and desirable.

* * * * * *
Sharon Harris is president of the Advocates for Self-Government. See more One Minute Liberty tips (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102956963855&s=57420&e=001F0MNk9Nf-y1_wCaVlf-sDOAVjTDZbyH7QoZAXWakCQnwD2t6j2XmTVMA6ZDtnOkMN1cVr b6tJofQ71wMjRU2xM2SSwFpeQcDiO3EfoeBulCSkR8VN301zHa KKR0VWAC0ZVD9OkRNDFQ=).

[Travlyr]

I was certainly not trying to stir up controversy. Freedom to Fascism was a great eye opener for me and an inspiring influence to want to roll back government. I wonder how many other people would wake up if Ron Paul tossed a couple of quick talking points in with his usual ones regarding the IRS. Something to the effect of "We're going broke. We tax too much. Spend too much maintaining our empire abroad. We are sacrificing our civil liberties. And, by the way, tell your senator that you want to see the law that requires you to pay taxes on your wages..." He could have even mentioned this in one of the debates.

If he had done this, you might be seeing "Show Us the Law" signs at all of the tea parties and the IRS might now be running for cover to the same extent that Ben Bernanke is.

Ron Paul obviously does more than anyone could ever hope for the cause of freedom. I am just wondering why he steers clear of this topic in his talking points. This is likely a planned strategy decision on his part. My suspicion is that the topic is so hot that the PTB would pull out all of the stops to suppress any discussion of it, much like the 9-11 issue. i.e. anyone who touches it is a "wingnut."

Why Has Dr. Paul Never Publicly Demanded The IRS To "Show Us The Law?"
You answered your own question. He would be framed as a "wingnut."

That's right. It is our job to expose the IRS.

[erowe1]

Couldn't Dr. Paul have intelligently asked the IRS to "show us the law?" requiring us to file a 1040?

Maybe he he decided to ask someone from the IRS privately first to see what they'd say, and maybe the IRS person he spoke to simply said, "It's 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)," and maybe Dr. Paul realized that a public version of that same exchange wouldn't turn out to be so exciting after all. Or maybe RP didn't even need to ask an IRS agent about that to begin with, since it's such easy-to-find information.

[anaconda]

Maybe he he decided to ask someone from the IRS privately first to see what they'd say, and maybe the IRS person he spoke to simply said, "It's 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)," and maybe Dr. Paul realized that a public version of that same exchange wouldn't turn out to be so exciting after all. Or maybe RP didn't even need to ask an IRS agent about that to begin with, since it's such easy-to-find information.


26 CFR 602.101 - The Form Required appears to be only OMB No. 1545-0067 ("Foreign Earned Income") aka form 2555 (not 1040).

http://www.tax-freedom.com/index.htm

[DamianTV]

Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this. Would it backfire politically with msm spin?

Couldn't Dr. Paul have intelligently asked the IRS to "show us the law?" requiring us to file a 1040?

Or cite the Federal Court justice who said the 16th amendment was never ratified?

I think Roscoe Bartlett was on to this (per Freedom to Fascism..) but sounds like somebody got to him..Did Bartlett ever say why he didn't follow through with the meeting with the IRS?

Because then they WOULD write one in. Backfire waiting to happen.

[akforme]

What about the issue with the 5th?

That's what kinda pisses me off.

[Bman]

Step one: Get people to understand taxation is theft.

Step two: Get people to realize government is force through the barrel of a gun and must be used sparingly, if at all.

Step three: Get them to vote for someone who will shrink government to a size where taxes are not needed.

Step four: Enjoy life.

[Gideon]

Go ask Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown and Sherry Jackson how well that argument holds up in tax court.

The game is rigged!

[Acala]

Yes, there's statutory authority for AN income tax, but its not the income tax the IRS would have us all believe. It's due to the very limited nature of INCOME. Income is not "all that comes in" for federal tax purposes because of prohibitions in fundamental, Constitutional law. The statutory income tax does not apply to most Americans. It's all spelled out here (http://losthorizons.com).


Income for tax purposes is defined in the code.

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, . . "

That means YOUR wages.

[Acala]

What about the issue with the 5th?

That's what kinda pisses me off.

The fifth is upheld. You do not have to admit any crime in your tax return. If you are involved in criminal activity, you can just write a check, not file a return, and plead the 5th. This has been done.

[Danke]

Income for tax purposes is defined in the code.

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, . . "

That means YOUR wages.

No, Nationwide is right. You really need to spend time studying the code to understand the terms being used.

[Acala]

No, Nationwide is right. You really need to spend time studying the code to understand the terms being used.


How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply.

[Danke]

How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply.

Well, then look up to whom it applies. If you take the section you quoted at face value, then everyone, even a person in China would be liable for the Income Tax.

"Wages" are defined. And most Americans do not earn "wages."

[fsk]

"Is the income tax legal?" is the wrong question.

If a group of thugs with guns say that the income tax is legal, then the income tax is legal.

The correct question is "Is the income tax moral?" The moral argument is a lot more important than the legal argument. "The income tax is immoral!" is obvious. The income tax means that individuals don't own their own labor, making everyone a slave of government parasites.

If you're looking for legal loopholes around the income tax, you're barking up the wrong tree. The correct answer is "All taxation is theft! Government is one big extortion racket!"

Pursing a tax dispute in a State court is pointless. The State is both prosecutor and judge. What do expect a Federal judge to say? "You're right. The income tax as currently implemented is unconstitutional! Thanks for pointing that out. I admit that the IRS has been operating illegitimately for 100 years."

legal != moral

[Acala]

Well, then look up to whom it applies. If you take the section you quoted at face value, then everyone, even a person in China would be liable for the Income Tax.

"Wages" are defined. And most Americans do not earn "wages."

Suppose you direct me to the cite?

I just quoted the provision that defines income for tax purposes as, among other things, compensation for services. It is extremely broad. Cite me a provision that says otherwise. Cite me a provision that exempts wages.

[anaconda]

Go ask Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown and Sherry Jackson how well that argument holds up in tax court.

The game is rigged!

People on this thread seem to be implying that there are clear laws upholding the income tax. I don't think this is true.

[anaconda]

"Is the income tax legal?" is the wrong question.

If a group of thugs with guns say that the income tax is legal, then the income tax is legal.

The correct question is "Is the income tax moral?" The moral argument is a lot more important than the legal argument. "The income tax is immoral!" is obvious. The income tax means that individuals don't own their own labor, making everyone a slave of government parasites.

If you're looking for legal loopholes around the income tax, you're barking up the wrong tree. The correct answer is "All taxation is theft! Government is one big extortion racket!"

Pursing a tax dispute in a State court is pointless. The State is both prosecutor and judge. What do expect a Federal judge to say? "You're right. The income tax as currently implemented is unconstitutional! Thanks for pointing that out. I admit that the IRS has been operating illegitimately for 100 years."

legal != moral

"Legal" would be a nice place for a U.S. Congressman to start with. Especially one who get interviewed frequently.

[anaconda]

How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply.

Show me the code requiring me to file a 1040 on my wages.

[anaconda]

Go ask Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown and Sherry Jackson how well that argument holds up in tax court.

The game is rigged!

I'm not questioning the corruption of the courts here.

[Nationwide]

How is it that the definition I just gave you does not say what it says? I'm an attorney. I freaking live in the codes. Show me how that definition of income does not apply. If the IR code used flurv in a sentence and I told you the definition: "Gross flurv means all flurv from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:"
With all due respect sir, I have not given you a definition of flurv. I've tucked the term defined INTO THE DEFINITION. It's a sleight of hand the IRS hopes people don't notice. Even the tax defenders will admit, the Internal Revenue Code does not define INCOME. For federal tax purposes, most Americans have precious little INCOME. It's a huge scam folks. They hoodwinked us with the Federal Reserve banking cartel scam (you know, to stabilize the economy:eek:), do you think they couldn't take a lawful limited Constitutional tax and deceive us all into paying it? Begin your education here: http://losthorizons.com

[Matt Collins]

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm

[WaltM]

I'm not questioning the corruption of the courts here.

very smart.

[LibForestPaul]

Slavery was legal.
Helping escaped slaves was illegal.

Iraq has courts of laws, so does Saudi Arabia, and China as well.

Authority, might, power, persuasion, law, morality, liberty, legal. Hard to define, but those with the most guns do a pretty good job at it.

[WaltM]

Slavery was legal.
Helping escaped slaves was illegal.

Iraq has courts of laws, so does Saudi Arabia, and China as well.

Authority, might, power, persuasion, law, morality, liberty, legal. Hard to define, but those with the most guns do a pretty good job at it.

knowing this won't make you happy, but it'll keep you out of prison, that's good enough for me.

[Acala]

Show me the code requiring me to file a 1040 on my wages.

I never said you were required by statute to file a return. I don't know because I haven't looked. And I don't care because the requirement to file a return is not the same as the requirement to pay the tax. The statute requires you to pay the tax. You might get away without filing a return if you pay the tax, but don't rely on that because I have not done the research.

Actually I think this is where some people get confused - they say "show me the statute that requires a return" and when they don't see one, they claim "no law requiring payment of the tax!!!!" But it ain't the same thing.

[Acala]

No, Nationwide is right. You really need to spend time studying the code to understand the terms being used.

Okay. I give up. You win. I don't know how to read the US Code, nor do any of the judges in the country, and when Congress passed the law they really didn't intend for it to be a tax. It was kind of a prank they were playing. They knew that the 16th amendment was invalid so they wrote a tax code that doesn't really impose a tax and they are just hoping smart guys like you will not figure it out. But I see that they failed because you DID figure it out and now the whole scheme is going to be exposed, nobody is going to have to pay their income tax and the judges will all agree and Congress won't try to amend the statute because the 16th amendment has been exposed as a fraud and we will all live happily ever after as the federal government dries up and blows away.

[Danke]

Okay. I give up. You win. I don't know how to read the US Code, nor do any of the judges in the country, and when Congress passed the law they really didn't intend for it to be a tax. It was kind of a prank they were playing. They knew that the 16th amendment was invalid so they wrote a tax code that doesn't really impose a tax and they are just hoping smart guys like you will not figure it out. But I see that they failed because you DID figure it out and now the whole scheme is going to be exposed, nobody is going to have to pay their income tax and the judges will all agree and Congress won't try to amend the statute because the 16th amendment has been exposed as a fraud and we will all live happily ever after as the federal government dries up and blows away.


(here's the important part so pay attention Walt becaue I know you are here to learn and not just disrupt :rolleyes:) .



Pot meet Kettle.

[Acala]

Pot meet Kettle.

I am not interested in disrupting. I AM interested in keeping people from being hurt by half-baked legal theories that are unsupported by the law as written and accepted by the courts. But there is a limit as to how much frustration I am willing to endure.

I wish you well because I believe you are a supporter of liberty. I hope you don't end up in jail. And I really hope nobody else ends up in jail because they believed you or that ass Russo. But if you do end up in jail, don't say you were not warned. Your legal theories don't hold water.

[WaltM]

Pot meet Kettle.

you are desperate to quote people from different threads, out of context to support your nonsense.

Acala gave up, I have not.

You have not, to this moment, shown what your knowledge of the IRS code saved or earned you as far as money, meaning

a) you've got nothing
b) you got something you know is illegal, so you're afraid to brag about it
c) you know you're lying, and are afraid to admit it

[WaltM]

I am not interested in disrupting. I AM interested in keeping people from being hurt by half-baked legal theories that are unsupported by the law as written and accepted by the courts. But there is a limit as to how much frustration I am willing to endure.

I wish you well because I believe you are a supporter of liberty. I hope you don't end up in jail. And I really hope nobody else ends up in jail because they believed you or that ass Russo. But if you do end up in jail, don't say you were not warned. Your legal theories don't hold water.

that's basically what I've been saying the whole time.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am not interested in disrupting. I AM interested in keeping people from being hurt by half-baked legal theories that are unsupported by the law as written and accepted by the courts. But there is a limit as to how much frustration I am willing to endure.

I wish you well because I believe you are a supporter of liberty. I hope you don't end up in jail. And I really hope nobody else ends up in jail because they believed you or that ass Russo. But if you do end up in jail, don't say you were not warned. Your legal theories don't hold water.

First no one with any knowledge on this subject advocates people to openly defy taxation. There is no question the courts and guns are against you if you do. Ron Paul has commented about people litigating justice in the courts and has made comments similar to: These people are 100% right and lose 100% of the time. Anyone who has studied the matter knows how corrupt the judicial racket is. The judicial monopoly was supposed to have a monopoly on deciding truth on a case by case basis not preventing people from introducing evidence to discover the truth by presuming all statues are lawful.

Enforcing a creditor position for the money you create is likely the most viable strategy. Look at that David vs. Monsanto video and what does David do in the end after losing a suit, counter suit, and appeals over intellectual property? Forces a small claims settlement demanding Monsanto remove their GMO plants from his land. However there are always going to be a few individuals who are not going bow down and worship the state and submit their humanity to pay a human being tax and who can fault them?

Now all that stated how come this concept is so hard to grasp? In order for an individual to fall under a jurisdiction of government there must be privileges or immunities. Why is it so hard when understanding all of this is so easy?

Only people who drive obtain driver licenses.
Only people who sell real estate obtain real estate licenses.
Only people who sell certain goods collect sales tax.
Only people who work with electricity obtain electrical licenses.
Only people who produce tobacco pay tax stamps.
Only people who import pay duties.

What privileges and immunities does the federal government extend to establish jurisdiction over an individual for purposes of income taxation?

Is it guarantees of a Republic via common defense by providing a safe market? What if I am a native adult who owns a firearm and de facto member of the militia? Does the government provide something for me I am already not providing?

Is it money by establishing standard weights and measures for a dollar to facilitate trade? If I do not facilitate trade in dollars is government providing anything?

Is it federal arbitration?

Is it using the Post Office?

Is it social charity and general welfare?

What is it? As much as I would like to think the Ron Paul revolution has members of the private lawyer unions educating all of us mentally incompetent people who are not allowed to represent anyone else in a court I don't think that is the case. More like the opposite is the case.

Since the Ron Paul campaign and the Revolution making a mainstream appearance how is it that no one in opposition can explain federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation. Name any other government privilege, license, or tax where jurisdiction can not be explained?

Only people who __________ have wages.
Only people who __________ have income.

[Acala]

Pot meet Kettle.

Now see what you've done? You have WaltM sticking up for me! Oh the humanity!!!!!!

[WaltM]

Now see what you've done? You have WaltM sticking up for me! Oh the humanity!!!!!!

I'm sorry it took you so long to see that.

I feel sorry for people who don't see how mistaken and dishonest Danke is.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I'm sorry it took you so long to see that.

I feel sorry for people who don't see how mistaken and dishonest Danke is.

Mistaken and dishonest how?

You can't explain federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation and you are going to claim Danke is dishonest and mistaken?

If government says you need a license to be an electrician it is up to government to prove you need one based on whatever activity you are doing. Same goes for collecting sales tax or any other privileged activity.

So not only can you not articulate federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation you are going to throw someone under the bus having no knowledge of their personal actions? Does he have some obligation to post documents to satisfy anyone? Hardly...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There IS statutory authority for the income tax.

Someone asserting this ought to be able to articulate federal jurisdiction.

[Acala]

Someone asserting this ought to be able to articulate federal jurisdiction.

I am sure we agree on about 99% of everything that matters concerning government and politics so I count you as a friend and ally. There is no point in me generating hostility by harping on an issue we will not agree on. Especially when it is an issue about which I HOPE you can prove me wrong!

Peace Patriot. :D

[WaltM]

Mistaken and dishonest how?


By not being able to tell us what his knowledge has earned him.





You can't explain federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation and you are going to claim Danke is dishonest and mistaken?


I think I can, at least I can tell you I know enough to comply and don't claim to know more than an average lawyer or accountant.



If government says you need a license to be an electrician it is up to government to prove you need one based on whatever activity you are doing. Same goes for collecting sales tax or any other privileged activity.


It is, and their gun is all the explanation I need.



So not only can you not articulate federal jurisdiction with regards to income taxation you are going to throw someone under the bus having no knowledge of their personal actions?


I challenge him to brag about what he knows and what he's done, if he's so sure he's legal and right.

I don't need to know the exact details, I can tell you I do what I am told and I've never been in trouble.



Does he have some obligation to post documents to satisfy anyone? Hardly...

No, and I don't owe him any respect until he does. At least, share what he's earned with his alleged knowledge of the code we don't know.

He can't even tell you what a contract is or isn't.

When asked about 1099-OID, he couldn't tell you.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am sure we agree on about 99% of everything that matters concerning government and politics so I count you as a friend and ally. There is no point in me generating hostility by harping on an issue we will not agree on. Especially when it is an issue about which I HOPE you can prove me wrong!

Peace Patriot. :D

We probably do agree on much but why can't there be an intellectual discussion on this? The federal government does not have unlimited jurisdiction. Is there something in my previous post that does not make sense?

Only people who _______ have to __________.

If you own a horse do you need a driver license? Since you feel there is authority in statue I want to understand jurisdiction and what that authority is based on and who it applies to.

Danke makes a post like this....


Why? He could just look up the congressional records.

Revenue Act of 1862

Revenue Act of 1864

Revenue Act of 1865

Revenue Act of 1867

Revenue Act of 1870

Revenue Act of 1872

Revenue Act of 1873 (Revised Statutes)

Revenue Act of 1878

Revenue Act of 1894

Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909

Federal Reserve Act

Revenue Act of 1913

Revenue Act of 1916

Revenue Act of 1917

Revenue Act of 1919

Revenue Act of 1921

Classification Act of 1923

Revenue Act of 1924

Revenue Act of 1926

Revenue Act of 1928

Index To The Federal Statutes 1874 - 1931

Revenue Act of 1932

Revenue Act of 1934

Revenue Act of 1935

Social Security Act of 1935

Revenue Act of 1936

Revenue Act of 1938

The IRC of 1939

Appendix to the IRC of 1939
The 'Preliminary Materials' chapter in the 1986 IRC contains a dual cross-reference table, first indexing 1939 code sections to the 1986 code, then indexing 1986 sections to the 1939 sections from which they are drawn. Once having identified the 1939 section in which you are interested, find the section listing in the 1939 appendix, where the actual statute section that it represents is listed.

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943

Elements of the Victory Tax Act and their repeal

The IRC of 1954

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Code of Federal Regulations for Title 26 (Internal Revenue)

Congress passed the Act > Statutes written > then Regulations > then Codes.

great post btw... (except for the Revenue Act of 1861 which had a direct apportioned tax of 20 mil on land, internal duties, and the first income tax in section 49)

I don't post here to make friends or make enemies. I am interested in truth. I have taken a ton of crap over the past couple years arguing the minority position of original intent government has redefined the word Naturalization to mean Immigration just like redefining the word Commerce. But when I make an argument I cite the evidence to back up my assertions. I do not see the opposition of income taxation arguments extending the same courtesy to cite the federal jurisdiction of income tax.

Everyone on this forum likely understands the guns of government are going to work in governments best interests. That in and of itself does not make something true and how it ought to be.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think I can, at least I can tell you I know enough to comply and don't claim to know more than an average lawyer or accountant.

Since you admit you have nothing to contribute to the discussion on this subject matter I am going to ignore your posts on the topic.

YouTube - Social Conformity: The Bystander Effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMfNGG-pTzc&feature=player_embedded)

[WaltM]

Since you admit you have nothing to contribute to the discussion on this subject matter I am going to ignore your posts on the topic.



I answered your question as to why I'm honest and he is not.

He can't even back up what he says.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

He can't even back up what he says.

I disagree.

[WaltM]

I disagree.

then let's see him back it up, you're free to disagree, but dont expect me to take him seriously and not call him dishonest, hypocritical.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

then let's see him back it up, you're free to disagree, but dont expect me to take him seriously and not call him dishonest, hypocritical.

Don't ask me to vouch for you if you are going to be a hypocrite and selectively apply credibility.

[Nanerbeet]

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't sign up for social security. You cannot file a tax return without a social security number and the employer cannot deduct witholdings. The down side is that no business can hire you as an employee-- you'll have to work as a contractor and forgo benefits. Also, a business can't 1099 you without a SSN.


Think of it this way; you waived your rights when you opted-in to club Fed by signing up for Social Security. Think of it as a contract between you and the government-- by signing up for the benefits, you are also liable for the costs. Why do you think the IRS sues you in civil court?


You don't go to jail for not paying taxes-- you go to jail by hiding or lying about your liability (i.e. failing to file a return and/or trying to defraud the United States government through special schemes designed specifically (not incidentally) to avoid liablity).



http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/YesYouCan.html

[mrsat_98]

Income for tax purposes is defined in the code.

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, . . "

That means YOUR wages.

Funny thing the Surpreme Court of the State of Lousiana articulated the following.

" We do not believe these people that adopted the constitution understand that a tax on their wages salaries tips and commissions is NOT an income tax."


Someone asserting this ought to be able to articulate federal jurisdiction.

Who is the person at 4 USC 110 (a), Which state? or is it "within the State" or "in this State" or "in the State"? 4 USC 110 (d).

Which state did J Edgar Hoover define as the very definition of the communist party ? It was a "state within a state" on page vii of Master of Deceit.

https://taxlaw.state.fl.us/view.aspx?id=4545084&file=sut_taa0&format=3&banner=Sales%20and%20Use%20Tax%20-%201995-1999%20Technical%20Assistance%20Advisements

above link is a trail that I have not seen addressed on just who the person is at 26 USC 7701, 4 USC 110 (a).

[WaltM]

Don't ask me to vouch for you if you are going to be a hypocrite and selectively apply credibility.

How am I a hypocrite?

Have I not honestly admitted I have no special knowledge, have I ever practiced different than what I preach?

I don't apply selective credibility, I don't claim to have much, I ask he, who claims he knows more, to show it.

I expect you to vouch for me on whatever you know about me, for good OR bad.

[WaltM]

Funny thing the Surpreme Court of the State of Lousiana articulated the following.

" We do not believe these people that adopted the constitution understand that a tax on their wages salaries tips and commissions is NOT an income tax."



and so, what is it?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If you are an income tax paying United States resident who wants to challenge and try to set a precedent against the income tax I would suggest the following strategy:

First, one must understand, like most subjects, SCOTUS is not entirely consistent. The Civil War income taxes were for the most part upheld until the landmark Pollock ruling in 1895 and then upheld again after the 16th Amendment. It must be pointed out the Pollock case is about income derived from land and the court upheld such income is a direct tax. Alexander Hamilton's carriage tax brief is cited and it is fairly easy to follow the courts line of thought with regards to income derived from land.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7292056596996651119&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Next get Bill Benson's book, The Law That Never Was, which has all of the research of the ratifying conventions of the several states which clearly illustrate the 16th Amendment was not lawfully ratified.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Next rent property so that some of your alleged income is derived from land, pay the tax bill, and pursue remedy in federal court for the IRS committing fraud using the null & void 16th Amendment to levy and collect a direct tax that is not apportioned.

[WaltM]

If you are an income tax paying United States resident who wants to challenge and try to set a precedent against the income tax I would suggest the following strategy:


There we go.

What has Danke tried?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There we go.

If you not looking to challenge income taxation you are likely only seeking a commercial remedy which is an entirely different matter.

[timosman]

bump