IRS To Jail Woman Who Owes $0 In Taxes [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

View Full Version : IRS To Jail Woman Who Owes $0 In Taxes

DamianTV

11-04-2013, 02:17 AM

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/irs-to-jail-woman-who-owes-0-in-taxes.html

Doreen Hendrickson is spending what might be the last weekend she has with her family for a few years. On Monday, her jury is expected to return with a verdict on her contempt charge. If she’s found guilty, she will go to jail.

The IRS put her husband Pete in jail for 3 years; it is anxious to do the same to Doreen.

Doreen’s charge? Not signing a Form 1040. That’s it.Talk about a non-crime.

A 1040 is a legal document that you sign under penalty of perjury:

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.

It is signed under penalties of perjury because a Form 1040 is your sworn legal testimony regarding your income taxes. If you lie on a form 1040, you will go to jail. How ironic.

Doreen cannot sign the 1040 because she doesn’t believe it to be true, correct, and complete. The 1040s are for 02, 03, and 08. Total taxes due using the government’s figures = $0. That is not a typo: $0. There is no tax due.

WHY she doesn’t believe it to be true is another matter entirely and doesn’t even bear on the case. Although during the trial, the IRS tried to connect the two facts and paint her as a tax protester.

Doreen is not charged with being a tax protester, however. She is not charged with falsifying a document. She is not charged with evading taxes, or willful failure to file.

She’s charged with contempt for not signing a form. A form which, if she is forced to sign it, will cause her to commit perjury.

...

Give us permission to screw you over or we will force you to give us permission to screw you over. Either way, you still get screwed.

Danke

11-04-2013, 03:01 AM

Doreen's Closing Argument

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for your service in this trial. A three day discussion of tax law is enough to force a confession out of anyone.

But as we all know, there is nothing more un-American than a forced confession.

As Americans we learn from childhood that we have rights. We are born with those rights. They are not granted to us by the government, and they may not be taken from us by the government.

Chief among those rights is that we have the right to speak our minds, or remain silent, without fear of official punishment.

I think by now all of you understand that there is a larger question at issue here than my tax obligations, whatever they may be. This is an issue of conscience -- a matter of principle.

A federal judge has ordered me to do something that puts me on the horns of a terrible dilemma. I can either obey the court’s order, or I can commit what I believe would be the crime of perjury by swearing to something that I do not believe is true.

From my perspective, I can either go to prison for disobeying the court’s order, or abandon my principles and commit another crime, unlikely though it may be that I’d be punished for it.

Such a dilemma is absolutely inconsistent with the principles of honest government and a free society. And it is you, the members of this jury, who have the responsibility to hold our government to the principles of fairness, truth, and justice on which the country was founded.

I want to begin with a brief discussion of problems with the order itself. You heard testimony that there are a number of problems with this court order.

Underlying the order was a civil action against my husband and me by the IRS. The Service wanted to reclaim refunds they had made to us two and three years before.

The lawsuit was based on the idea that the IRS, which had thoroughly examined the returns before issuing the refunds in the first place, has elaborate programs for detecting actual false or fraudulent returns, and has continuously been honoring returns just like this ours for ten years now, was surprised to suddenly discover, years later, that these returns were actually “false.” That was the allegation on which the entire case hinged.

What evidence did they have that the returns were false?

We don’t really know. The government trotted out lots of papers, and offered detailed testimony about a few things someone or other said, but somehow nothing that attempted to establish that my husband or I actually received what qualifies as reportable, taxable earnings.

The government would have you believe that there is no need to look at the facts underlying the order, because, they say, Judge Edmunds made her determination based on the facts, after a fair and impartial consideration of the merits of the case.

In reality, Judge Edmunds simply adopted the government’s allegations as true without the least examination of the facts. There was no hearing. There was no trial. The court simply adopted the government’s statements as absolute truth without the slightest effort to verify them.

On this basis alone, the court’s order to me is on shaky ground, but when considered in light of the government’s complete failure to prove the elements of the crime, I trust you will agree that there is no legitimate basis on which to send me to prison.

The court has given you the law concerning this case. The law I am accused of violating is only what was on the indictment. Throughout this trial, though, I’ve been stopped in my tracks anytime I came near questioning the lawfulness of the order given to me. The judge has instructed you that it is not a defense to contempt that the order was unlawful or unconstitutional. She also told you that in order to find my guilty of criminal contempt, you have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that I WILLFULLY violated a clear duty. My perception and belief that the order was unlawful and violated my Constitutional rights is a FACT that I am asking you to consider when deciding whether I WILLFULLY disobeyed the order. It is a fact that influenced whether I was able to comply fully with this order.

I believe that the Supreme Court was right when it held in several rulings that no one may be forced or told what to say by the Government. The notion is absurd on its face. No American court has the power to order us to lie, to commit crimes, or to violate a sincerely held belief -- not even on something so hallowed as a tax return!

I’d like to direct your attention for a moment to the nature of the document I’ve been ordered to submit over my signature and oath. A tax return is really like a kind of affidavit or declaration. Any affidavit is simply a statement offered under oath of what someone believes to be true. A declaration is a statement declared to be true under penalty of perjury.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the testimony offered by the DOJ attorneys, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Metcalfe, concerning affidavits.

If you will recall, both men seemed strangely baffled and confused when asked about whether affidavits had to be voluntary in order to be valid.

The question was neither complicated nor vague. One would think that trained attorneys should be familiar with the nature of affidavits. Affidavits and sworn testimony are the backbone of the truth-seeking process in our system of law.

But these two gentlemen just couldn’t seem to grasp the question. Hemming and hawing, neither of these seasoned attorneys was willing to confirm that affidavits that are not voluntary, but coerced, reveal no more truth than a confession beaten out of a prisoner with a rubber hose.

Their testimony left me with the distinct impression that there was something they wanted to hide from you. I believe what they were reluctant to admit is the fact that valid affidavits must be voluntary.

I’d like to turn now to the specific elements of the crime specified in 401(3).

The prosecution promised to show you evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime of contempt of court. And, in fact, as the judge will tell you, the government MUST prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, each and every one of those elements.

Let’s take a look at them as the court has given them to us, and see how the prosecution did in carrying its burden of proof.

Even in the case of a lawful order, the first element is that the court’s order must be understandable and sufficiently specific so that compliance is possible.

Judge Edmunds ordered me to file a tax return with figures on it supplied by the government. That was understandable enough as far as it goes.

Unfortunately, the specifics of the order forbid my filing a return based on a gross misstatement of the contents of my husband’s book. The judge attempted to summarize a 253-page book in a single sentence, which was taken from an unrevised edition of the book. Furthermore, that sentence was a great oversimplification, and ultimately a misrepresentation of what the book really says.

The specifics of the order, therefore, were impossible to comply with. It isn’t possible for me to refrain from filing a return based on an argument I’ve never made and that I don’t believe is true.

The government has failed to prove this element of the crime.

The second and third elements the prosecution must prove are that I did actually defy the court’s order and that I did it willfully.

Concerning my actual reaction to the order, I was anything but defiant. I was incredulous! To the extent that compliance was possible, I made repeated efforts to obey the court’s order.

And please remember, there was no tax liability at issue on the returns that I was ordered to sign. Even using the IRS figures, the amount of taxes that I owed for 2002 and 2003 is…zero. So obviously, this was not about money, for me. There was no financial motivation whatsoever for maintaining my position. I’ve stood on principle throughout this ordeal. My only motivation is to speak the truth, as I understand it to be, and to remain true to my principles, and to a higher law.

At our first-ever hearing in June, 2010, Judge Edmunds realized the problem she had created by ordering me to speak against my conscience and my own understanding of the facts.

She modified her order to allow me--and these were her exact words--to “affix,” “append to,” or “file with” the returns a statement of my true beliefs and of my disagreement with someone else’s version of the facts.

In my view, this revised order was actually possible to comply with. I intended to comply with it, and I did comply 100%. I attached an affidavit indicating that I had been ordered to file what I believed was a false return.

I responded to the revised order with my sincere, genuine, objectively-based, long-held, conscience-driven belief that I had an absolute right to speak the truth as I understood it. I also had every reason to believe that when the judge offered me an option for how to comply, and I took advantage of that option, that she would see that I DID comply.

I responded truthfully and complied as completely as conscience would allow. It was not the court that rejected my response, it was the IRS.

The IRS insisted that I could not explain my coerced testimony in any way. They insisted not only that I must use someone else’s facts on the form, but that I would have to pretend that I was freely adopting those facts as my own.

Judge Edmunds was apparently satisfied. The government moved to have my punished for civil contempt, but in more than two and a half years, Judge Edmunds has never acted on that motion.

The idea told to you during the last few days that I “defied” the court’s order is absurd. The prosecution introduced no evidence proving any kind of “defiance.” The true facts show that I was doing cartwheels to comply without lying.

I had no intention to violate any law or the court’s order.

The government did not prove that I failed to comply. They did not prove that I failed to obey the order, let alone that any such perceived failure was willful.

Based on my repeated efforts to obey the order, there is very strong and completely reasonable doubt that I had any intention whatsoever to violate the order, and I obviously was never in violation of any known legal duty in regard to Judge Edmunds’ orders.

I saw the orders as inherently unclear, not in WHAT the court was asking me to do so much as in HOW I was supposed to do it. I saw that it is impossible to produce valid, involuntary tax returns, no matter how hard you try. Remember, the judge instructed you today that inability to comply is a complete defense to a charge of contempt.

The testimony you heard from me and the defense witnesses, as well as the documents that I filed in my efforts to comply, all speak to the fact that I was trying to find any way possible to obey the court and still preserve my rights and obey the law.

I hope you will remember that we’re not here concerning a tax matter. I am not charged with any tax crime. The government focused its prosecution on the subject of taxes purely to distract you from its inability to prove the actual charge.

On the subject of that real charge, I also hope that you will remember that, in this country, it has never been considered acceptable to force someone to swear to someone else’s words, or to adopt beliefs that are not sincerely held.

We don’t allow state actors to reap the benefits of forced confessions.

We value and protect civil disobedience to unjust laws.

We honor civil liberties.

We don’t tolerate the attempts by government officials to force citizens to adopt its orthodoxies or to peddle its agendas.

We don’t permit the government to dictate what numbers people need to swear to on their tax returns.

Americans don’t punish people who act in protection of their Constitutional rights or in accordance with their strongly-held ethical principles -- it’s not who we are. I trust that you will uphold these principles in my case, and acquit.

Thank you.

No justice, no peace.

qh4dotcom

11-04-2013, 03:27 AM

Does Edward Snowden have to file a 1040 next year?

mrsat_98

11-04-2013, 05:16 AM

Does Edward Snowden have to file a 1040 next year?

I think his actions constipate expatriation.

tangent4ronpaul

11-04-2013, 05:53 AM

Umm, the 800 Lb gorilla in the middle of the room?

Unfortunately, the specifics of the order forbid my filing a return based on a gross misstatement of the contents of my husband’s book. The judge attempted to summarize a 253-page book in a single sentence, which was taken from an unrevised edition of the book. Furthermore, that sentence was a great oversimplification, and ultimately a misrepresentation of what the book really says.

What book?
And this book is about what?
Why is it at all relevant?

It sounds like this case might be about suppressing free/political speech. Anyone know?

-t

sluggo

11-04-2013, 06:09 AM

The book:

Doreen’s husband, Pete, wrote a book a few years ago called Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America (http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Peter-Eric-Hendrickson/dp/0974393606/).* The IRS tried to ban the book for years, suing Pete four times. It was unsuccessful. They did get to put Pete in jail for 3 years convicting him of filing fraudulent documents. Now they are going after Doreen. The IRS is desperate to shut these people up. Why

newbitech

11-04-2013, 06:14 AM

prelude to Obamacare enforcement right here.

phill4paul

11-04-2013, 06:34 AM

I hope I'm wrong but knowing my fellow Amerikunts I can guess how the verdict will go...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/248/519451941_01871720fe.jpg?v=0

ghengis86

11-04-2013, 06:48 AM

No justice, no peace.

Wow. Excellent closing argument. Fuck the IRS!

ClydeCoulter

11-04-2013, 06:56 AM

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR :mad:

Tod

11-04-2013, 07:37 AM

ClydeCoulter

11-04-2013, 07:40 AM

So let me get this right: her basis for not signing it is that she believes that there is some law somewhere that renders her 1040 incorrect, but she cannot identify the law in order to correct her return?

Sounds good to me, but you can bet the jury, despising someone who does not kiss boot, will find her guilty.

You'd actually have to read to find out what is happening. It's pretty complex but yet not, and not so much lawful as it is a trap, it's a trap.

Just reading the closing arguments (as posted by @Danke in post #2) will give the synopsis pretty well.

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 07:48 AM

Cracking the Code is a scam, and the Hendricksons' arguments are legally baseless.

ClydeCoulter

11-04-2013, 07:56 AM

Cracking the Code is a scam, and the Hendricksons' arguments are legally baseless.

Are you talking about "this trial", "this case"? Because I don't think this trial is about a book.

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 08:36 AM

lol

The IRS demands Doreen sign the form on the line, swearing it to be true, correct, and complete even though she does not
believe that. The IRS is demanding she change her testimony to suit them. It is dictating her testimony. This is straight out of Soviet Russia.

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 08:44 AM

Consenting to adjudication at this point is like begging the Mafia to forgive you for snitching on their boss.

The IRS requested that the judge give the following instruction:

It is not a defense to the crime of contempt that the court order was unlawful or unconstitutional.

Unbelievably, the judge actually gave this instruction. It follows that anyone in authority can order you to do something illegal and you have to do it.

roho76

11-04-2013, 08:44 AM

Cracking the Code is a scam, and the Hendricksons' arguments are legally baseless.

Thank You, for that extremely informative argument. You have really brought me around to your side. I totally see where you're coming from now. Thanks again.

Henry Rogue

11-04-2013, 08:51 AM

It certainly brings to light the nature of filing income tax returns. Coerced affidavit is a good descriptor. Don't file and sign, you go to jail. File and sign and "we think" you lied, you go to jail.

Tod

11-04-2013, 09:05 AM

You'd actually have to read to find out what is happening. It's pretty complex but yet not, and not so much lawful as it is a trap, it's a trap.

Just reading the closing arguments (as posted by @Danke in post #2) will give the synopsis pretty well.

I read it but I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement that was along these lines:

"If I signed it, I would be committing perjury because ____________ (something other than the vague statement that she believes it would be false)."

Why does she believe it would be false? Can you fill in the sentence above?

Henry Rogue

11-04-2013, 09:16 AM

jtap

11-04-2013, 09:21 AM

I'm already disgusted at the things that happen in this country but if this Jury finds her guilty then it will hit a new low for me.

jtap

11-04-2013, 09:22 AM

I got the impression from her closing statement that the government filled out an amended return for her and want her to sign it and it is their numbers she disagrees with. Is this not the case?

Tod

11-04-2013, 09:25 AM

If she doesn't say WHY she believes she would be committing perjury, she comes off sounding as though she doesn't actually HAVE a reason and that she is just trying to be argumentative, which would make the defense insincere and consequently makes her less of a sympathetic figure in the eyes of the jury.

The original activist post says "WHY she doesn’t believe it to be true is another matter entirely and doesn’t even bear on the case." but I think it does for the reason I described above.

Tod

11-04-2013, 09:28 AM

The idea of joint returns is tricky business. I doubt both held the pen simultaneously when filling out the form. A lot of trust goes into signing something someone else filled out. I guess you could make the argument that she should have filed separately.

I guess I missed that the form in question was a joint return. (and in fact a text search still doesn't reveal the word "joint")

roho76

11-04-2013, 09:31 AM

I read it but I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement that was along these lines:

"If I signed it, I would be committing perjury because ____________ (something other than the vague statement that she believes it would be false)."

Why does she believe it would be false? Can you fill in the sentence above?

As an Atheist I can't explain why "God" doesn't exist. I just believe that he doesn't. If you stick a gun to my head and try to force me to explain myself, you're going to get the same answer.

How on earth are you supposed to defend yourself against a tax code as absurd as Title 26? The whole thing reads like a temper tantrum. This is what she believes to be true and the government is trying to coerce her into signing something she believes to be false under threat of imprisonment. Everything else is irrelevant. She doesn't need to fill in the blanks.

I don't plan on complying with the health care mandate either. Do I have to prove "Why" to them as well? I don't do things because an agent of the state puts a gun to my head and tries to get me to do something I'm morally against. The fact that the state obviously has this power should be a red flag to everyone. I would rather die than to pay them anything. At least I will know, in the end they will get nothing from me, EVER! I don't do well with extortion.

The fact of the matter is, that since there is $0 dollars involved in this case, it is a matter of semantics. They want a case law that will help them prosecute people in the future. They don't want to have to refer back to the actual law and have it over analyzed by a bunch of jurors. They want a judgement based on lies and perjury that will make it appear as though the IRS has legal standing.

Also, why is it that the IRS never seems to produce the law that says you have to pay income tax? Why do they usually drop these cases with a gag order only to bring charges against the same person in a different manner? Why is it that these cases are never about whether we are obligated to pay but are about the process of the bastardized law? The crossing of "T's" and the dotting of "i's" is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? What is this case even about and why are they wasting resources over ZERO DOLLARS and trying to force her to sign? There is something else here and I think it's quite obvious.

angelatc

11-04-2013, 09:38 AM

I got the impression from her closing statement that the government filled out an amended return for her and want her to sign it and it is their numbers she disagrees with. Is this not the case?

That's really not their usual procedure though. If you do not file a tax return, they will put one together for you. They send you a letter that essentially says if you do not agree that this is the correct amount, you need file your taxes ASAP.

In an amended return, they usually just send you a note that they corrected it, no signature required.

Tod

11-04-2013, 09:43 AM

As an Atheist I can't explain why "God" doesn't exist. I just believe that he doesn't. If you stick a gun to my head and try to force me to explain myself, you're going to get the same answer.

How on earth are you supposed to defend yourself against a tax code as absurd as Title 26? The whole thing reads like a temper tantrum. This is what she believes to be true and the government is trying to coerce her into signing something she believes to be false under threat of imprisonment. Everything else is irrelevant. She doesn't need to fill in the blanks.

I don't plan on complying with the health care mandate either. Do I have to prove "Why" to them as well? I don't do things because an agent of the state puts a gun to my head and tries to get me to do something I'm morally against. The fact that the state obviously has this power should be a red flag to everyone. I would rather die than to pay them anything. At least I will know, in the end they will get nothing from me, EVER! I don't do well with extortion.

The fact of the matter is, that since there is $0 dollars involved in this case, it is a matter of semantics. They want a case law that will help them prosecute people in the future. They don't want to have to refer back to the actual law and have it over analyzed by a bunch of jurors. They want a judgement based on lies and perjury that will make it appear as though the IRS has legal standing.

Also, why is it that the IRS never seems to produce the law that says you have to pay income tax? Why do they usually drop these cases with a gag order only to bring charges against the same person in a different manner? Why is it that these cases are never about whether we are obligated to pay but are about the process of the bastardized law? The crossing of "T's" and the dotting of "i's" is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? What is this case even about and why are they wasting resources over ZERO DOLLARS and trying to force her to sign? There is something else here and I think it's quite obvious.

I think that is what they call a straw man argument?

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.

In order to believe the return is either untrue, incorrect, or incomplete, she has to have a reason and if she fails to explain what it is, she comes off as just being argumentative. If the jury thinks she is just being argumentative, they are more likely to rule against her. Arguing that the reason for her belief is irrelevant hurts her case, imo, because it sounds like she DOESN'T actually believe her claim that she doesn't believe, that the premise of her defense is a false claim.

HOLLYWOOD

11-04-2013, 09:50 AM

Does Edward Snowden have to file a 1040 next year?

I think his actions constipate expatriation.Both these statements bring up a good point. Didn't that Progressive Marxists from Wisconsin and California, Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Barbara Boxer respectively push legislation, If you owe money to the IRS, you Passport is confiscated? Without trail, jury, anything? The "They Hate US For Our Freedoms" government, now makes you a prisoner with the US borders.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/04/04/owe-the-irs-bill-would-suspend-passport-travel-rights-for-delinquent-taxpayers/#.T31Q5KQdHO8.blogger

USA: 'IRS to Suspend Passport Rights if Taxes are Owed by YOU!'
http://efg-bnusfoodreserves.blogspot.com/2012/04/usa-irs-to-suspend-passport-rights-if.html

Senate Bill 1813: Bill would suspend passport for unpaid taxes more than $50,000… Introduced by US Senator, Barbara Boxer

http://investmentwatchblog.com/senate-bill-1813-bill-would-suspend-passport-for-unpaid-taxes-more-than-50000-allow-for-exceptions/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_uKCfKwyE

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 10:10 AM

Thank You, for that extremely informative argument. You have really brought me around to your side. I totally see where you're coming from now. Thanks again.

I'd be glad to spell it out for you, but I doubt that you really want to hear the truth. In a nutshell, Hendrickson claims that the only income that is legally taxable is that which is derived from the exercise of a federal privilege (such as being employed by the ferderal government) and that therefore one's earnings from private employment are exempt. This is an idiotic theory with no legal basis whatsoever. It has consistently been rejected by every court that has had to waste its time listening to it, yet Hendrickson has continued to peddle this snake oil to his credulous followers.

This is supposedly the reason she doesn't want to sign the tax return -- she believes her husband's moronic theory. Apparently the government's civil recovery from her and her husband didn't sink in. You can read about it here: http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson Please note that she is being tried for filing a false return for 2008 in addition to the contempt charges.

why is it that the IRS never seems to produce the law that says you have to pay income tax?

They have, countless times. It's just that some people are too stupid or brainwashed to see it.

Section 1 of the Code imposes the tax on taxable income.
Section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions.
Section 61 defines gross income, and it includes pay-for-work; it is not and never has been limited to income derived from a federal privilege.
Section 6012 says that if one has gross income above a certain amount one must file a return.
Section 6151 says that if one has to file a return, one shall pay the tax.

Henry Rogue

11-04-2013, 10:11 AM

I guess I missed that the form in question was a joint return. (and in fact a text search still doesn't reveal the word "joint")
You got me there. I made a hasty assumption. As a side note, I took the the income tax IQ test in Danke's signature. I got 9 out of 19 right. Income tax isn't a strong subject for me. My view is that, it is morally wrong to force others to pay, yet I pay. Kudos to those who resist.

tangent4ronpaul

11-04-2013, 10:16 AM

Are you talking about "this trial", "this case"? Because I don't think this trial is about a book.

The book:

Doreen’s husband, Pete, wrote a book a few years ago called Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America.* The IRS tried to ban the book for years, suing Pete four times. It was unsuccessful. They did get to put Pete in jail for 3 years convicting him of filing fraudulent documents. Now they are going after Doreen. The IRS is desperate to shut these people up. Why

The fact of the matter is, that since there is $0 dollars involved in this case, it is a matter of semantics. They want a case law that will help them prosecute people in the future. They don't want to have to refer back to the actual law and have it over analyzed by a bunch of jurors. They want a judgement based on lies and perjury that will make it appear as though the IRS has legal standing.

Also, why is it that the IRS never seems to produce the law that says you have to pay income tax? Why do they usually drop these cases with a gag order only to bring charges against the same person in a different manner? Why is it that these cases are never about whether we are obligated to pay but are about the process of the bastardized law? The crossing of "T's" and the dotting of "i's" is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? What is this case even about and why are they wasting resources over ZERO DOLLARS and trying to force her to sign? There is something else here and I think it's quite obvious.

That's exactly what I suspected was going on.

Yes, this is all about using scummy tactics and coercion to suppress a book.

-t

Peace&Freedom

11-04-2013, 10:17 AM

It's important to put the burden on the IRS to establish an assessment is true, sworn or complete, so that its authority to pursue enforcement actions (including finding shopped judges to force people into signing false confessions) is short-circuited from the start. Those actions require an accepted assessment to proceed, or for IRS jurisdiction to be established. This case would have never gotten to the court stage if the assessment had been fully, not partially challenged.

Tax honesty advocates who document this emphasis in correspondence with the IRS (beyond the submission of tax statements) do not see their disputes reach federal courts. The cases are resolved administratively, when the IRS fails to provide evidence they ever completed a verified assessment for the tax year in question (as is almost always the case). The Hendrickson method rightly but incompletely challenges the assessment, which leaves the IRS with apparent jurisdiction, thereby giving them discretion to make unilateral "determinations" that dismiss the challenge as frivolous.

roho76

11-04-2013, 10:17 AM

I think that is what they call a straw man argument?

In order to believe the return is either untrue, incorrect, or incomplete, she has to have a reason and if she fails to explain what it is, she comes off as just being argumentative. If the jury thinks she is just being argumentative, they are more likely to rule against her. Arguing that the reason for her belief is irrelevant hurts her case, imo, because it sounds like she DOESN'T have a reason to not sign.

You're arguing the Sympathetic feelings of the jury and while that's important it is irrelevant to the facts of the case. The burden of proof is always on the state. Why should she have to prove anything? They are the ones trying to railroad her in a court of law and should prove that their numbers are right beyond a reasonable doubt. Not to mention the IRS isn't held in the highest regard these days. I would have to imagine there is at least 1 "Tea Partier" on that jury. In order to defend herself from these allegations she would have to understand where they got their numbers from. How is she supposed to do that? She has no idea where they got their numbers from.

I can go to court right now and make a claim against you charging that you owe me "X" amount of dollars. While you have to counter that claim or you are guilty, the burden of proof of whether that money is actually owed to me is up to me and only me. I better bring a case or I will lose.

And last and most important, how are you supposed to defend yourself against two separate parties who work for the same employer (your accuser) and both of their financial livelihoods and careers depend on the outcome of these types of cases. Sounds like a conflict of interest if you ask me.

tommyrp12

11-04-2013, 10:36 AM

Tod

11-04-2013, 10:48 AM

You're arguing the Sympathetic feelings of the jury and while that's important it is irrelevant to the facts of the case. The burden of proof is always on the state. Why should she have to prove anything?

I'm not saying she needs to PROVE anything. I'm just saying that it would help her case if she explained why she can't in good conscience sign it because otherwise it sounds as though she doesn't actually believe that she can't in good conscience sign it, and nobody likes dishonesty. What is the big deal with providing enough information for the jury to believe that the defense is honest?

They are the ones trying to railroad her in a court of law and should prove that their numbers are right beyond a reasonable doubt.

I didn't read anywhere that the government changed her reported income. It seems to me that the line "The 1040s are for 02, 03, and 08. Total taxes due using the government’s figures = $0." does not clearly say that the government changed her input.

Not to mention the IRS isn't held in the highest regard these days. I would have to imagine there is at least 1 "Tea Partier" on that jury. In order to defend herself from these allegations she would have to understand where they got their numbers from. How is she supposed to do that? She has no idea where they got their numbers from.

If the government actually changed her reported income or deductions, that is one thing, but where are you seeing that they did that?

I can go to court right now and make a claim against you charging that you owe me "X" amount of dollars. While you have to counter that claim or you are guilty, the burden of proof of whether that money is actually owed to me is up to me and only me. I better bring a case or I will lose.

And last and most important, how are you supposed to defend yourself against two separate parties who work for the same employer (your accuser) and both of their financial livelihoods and careers depend on the outcome of these types of cases. Sounds like a conflict of interest if you ask me.

I agree with you there, but as with the "joint return" statement, I don't see where the government actually changed her input.

jbauer

11-04-2013, 11:01 AM

Both these statements bring up a good point. Didn't that Progressive Marxists from Wisconsin and California, Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Barbara Boxer respectively push legislation, If you owe money to the IRS, you Passport is confiscated? Without trail, jury, anything? The "They Hate US For Our Freedoms" government, now makes you a prisoner with the US borders.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/04/04/owe-the-irs-bill-would-suspend-passport-travel-rights-for-delinquent-taxpayers/#.T31Q5KQdHO8.blogger

USA: 'IRS to Suspend Passport Rights if Taxes are Owed by YOU!'
http://efg-bnusfoodreserves.blogspot.com/2012/04/usa-irs-to-suspend-passport-rights-if.html

Senate Bill 1813: Bill would suspend passport for unpaid taxes more than $50,000… Introduced by US Senator, Barbara Boxer

http://investmentwatchblog.com/senate-bill-1813-bill-would-suspend-passport-for-unpaid-taxes-more-than-50000-allow-for-exceptions/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_uKCfKwyE

It would be more convenient to track them down and send them to their regional fema camp if they couldn't leave the country

Peace&Freedom

11-04-2013, 11:11 AM

They have, countless times. It's just that some people are too stupid or brainwashed to see it.

Section 1 of the Code imposes the tax on taxable income.
Section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions.
Section 61 defines gross income, and it includes pay-for-work; it is not and never has been limited to income derived from a federal privilege.
Section 6012 says that if one has gross income above a certain amount one must file a return.
Section 6151 says that if one has to file a return, one shall pay the tax.

No, a bit a word shuffle and words of art happens in these cases. There is no positive law (binding on everyone) requiring most Americans to pay or file. The special or private law that is the tax code is phrased to make it sound like all Americans are so required, when they are not. The court rulings tend to assert "of course there is a tax law" without addressing the qualifier of whether it is positive law binding on everybody. This is misdirection, that more and more free people are coming out of brainwashing from.

IF one has gross or taxable income, IF one has to file a return, and other conditions make you subject. What if you don't meet the conditions? Then you aren't subject. Hendrickson pointed out the tax receipts about him were NOT correct, and that what he received was not gross income, thus not subject to tax. This is why his book survived four IRS attempts to ban it in the courts, besides the free speech issue---because it is the truth.

Six earlier Supreme Court decisions (circa the 1910's) decided that wages are not income subject to the tax. What happened is that bad precedent was set in lower court decisions in recent decades, who did define wages as income, in blatant defiance of established precedent. The current Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal of these cases, letting the lower bad decisions stand. That has given the IRS the legal figleaf to dance around the questions as to the applicability of the tax code.

HOLLYWOOD

11-04-2013, 11:13 AM

It would be more convenient to track them down and send them to their regional fema camp if they couldn't leave the countryThat's exactly what it is... tracking every bit of you. How's that feel when you have this criminal department target conservatives/tea party/GOP supporters. There is no rule of law... Congressman Charlie Rangel signed his tax returns and lied about his assets and property rentals year after year, after year... especially his vacation whore house in the Dominican Republic. Yep, ZERO rule of law... for the government, wealth, and privileged only.

tangent4ronpaul

11-04-2013, 11:31 AM

That's exactly what it is... tracking every bit of you. How's that feel when you have this criminal department target conservatives/tea party/GOP supporters. There is no rule of law... Congressman Charlie Rangel signed his tax returns and lied about his assets and property rentals year after year, after year... especially his vacation whore house in the Dominican Republic. Yep, ZERO rule of law... for the government, wealth, and privileged only.

Well, sometimes...

Former US Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr has projected release date
http://thegrio.com/2013/11/03/former-us-rep-jackson-has-projected-release-date/

Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. could be released from federal prison on Dec. 31, 2015 — if he behaves himself.

The projected release date is listed on the Federal Bureau of Prisons website.

Bureau of Prisons spokesman Ed Ross says that date is based on the assumption the former Illinois congressman receives the maximum reduction of 54 days a year for good behavior.

The 48-year-old Jackson entered a North Carolina prison Tuesday to begin serving a 2 1/2-year term for illegally spending $750,000 in campaign money on everything from cigars to a gold watch.

Ross says federal statute calls for that reduction for a full year and a portion of that number for any partial year an inmate serves.

-t

phill4paul

11-04-2013, 11:35 AM

I. Will. Not. Comply. Now, if only another 31,700,602 people would join me we would shut this whole charade down.

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 11:38 AM

No, a bit a word shuffle and words of art happens in these cases. There is no positive law (binding on everyone) requiring most Americans to pay or file. The special or private law that is the tax code is phrased to make it sound like all Americans are so required, when they are not.

You misunderstand what positive law is. The term does not mean that "it's binding on everyone". All it means is that Congress has codified certain statutes into the United States Code, and that the relevant statutes that have been so codified are referred to as positive law, so that one doesn't have to look up the actual statutes published in the Statuites at Large. The Internal Revenue Code has not been so codified, so it is only prima facie evidence of the underlying statutes as published in the Statutes at Large. So in the unlikely event there is a conflict between the language of the IRC and the Statutes at Large, the latter will control. For more information, please see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

The IRC isn't "private law", and it indeed applies to everyone.

Hendrickson pointed out the tax receipts about him were NOT correct, and that what he received was not gross income, thus not subject to tax. This is why his book survived four IRS attempts to ban in the courts, besides the free speech issue---because it is the truth.

No, it is a lie. Hendrickson's claim that wages earned in private employment isn't taxable is as bogus as they come.

Six earlier Supreme Court decisions (circa the 1910's) decided that wages are not income subject to the tax.

There are no such cases. No court in the history of the country has ever held that wages aren't income for federal income tax purposes.

If you really think these cases exist, cite them and I will show you how Hendrickson has misrepresented them.

Christian Liberty

11-04-2013, 11:39 AM

I. Will. Not. Comply. Now, if only another 31,700,602 people would join me we would shut this whole charade down.

Yeah, good luck with that.

At this point I still think taxation resistance on the part of Christians would be a hindrance to the gospel. There are too many people who support the system.

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 11:49 AM

Not that I have much faith in this type of "action" I still think things like this can be cracks in the dam

http://www.repeal16.org/

What is Repeal 16?
The Coalition to Repeal the 16th Amendment, Repeal 16, is a national coalition of activists and organizations taking action to repeal the 16th Amendment, and end our corrupting tax system and the oppressive IRS.

Why Repeal 16?
Fundamental tax reform is needed because the current system of taxation corrupts our economy, our politics, and our society.

Repeal 16 will unite the entire grassroots movement to push real reform.

ClydeCoulter

11-04-2013, 01:07 PM

This is the only thing I have found that is not just an articles interpretations of things:

http://losthorizons.com/Documents/PostTrialBriefResponse.pdf

I'm unable to copy text from that above link or I would post a snippet or two.

It casts a better light on things.

@Danke, what is the link for the document that you posted in #2?

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 01:15 PM

There is a common misconception that the 16th Amendment authorized the income tax and that the way to get rid of it is to repeal the 16th.

In fact, an income tax was authorized when the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress to levy taxes of all kinds, and there are only three qualifications: Congress can't tax exports; all direct taxes have to be apportioned (i.e., the amount collected from each state must be in proportion to each state's population); and excises, duties, and imposts must be geographically uniform.

I.8.1 served as the basis for the nation's first income tax enacted in 1861, some 52 years before the adoption of the 16th Amendment. The sole reason for the 16th was to overturn an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held that a tax on investment income such as dividends, interest, and rent was a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The 16th simply did away with the apportionment requirement, regardless of the type of income involved. So if one wants to eliminate Congress' power to impose an income tax, one needs to repeal what the Framers put in the original Constitution.

heavenlyboy34

11-04-2013, 01:20 PM

'Murica. Fuck yeah.

Y'all are gonna have to speak up. I can't a-hear y'all over all this fucking freedom. :/ :(

heavenlyboy34

11-04-2013, 01:22 PM

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 01:26 PM

This is true. However, the income tax is not apportioned. It does not fall under Article I.

It doesn't have to be apportioned.

nobody's_hero

11-04-2013, 01:29 PM

I just hope she gets a trial by jury. It's difficult, if not impossible, to get a trial by jury in matters relating to the IRS. 99% of the time they will intimidate some poor fool into complying and paying a fine, or outright ignore any right to a trial.

ClydeCoulter

11-04-2013, 01:35 PM

Here's another article from Veterans Today:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/03/bizarre-jury-instruction-you-cannot-consider-the-constitutionality-of-the-law/

where a link to this article is found that has links to other documents for the case:

Where Are All The Journalists? Where Is Your Outrage?
http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageTwo

Here are links to documents (found in the above article: Where Are All The Journalists? Where Is Your Outrage?)

Motion To Dismiss: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/PostDoreenMotionAndAffidavit.pdf
Opposing Motion to Dismiss: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/ResponseToMotionToDismissDoreen.pdf
Reply to repose on Motion to Dismiss: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/PostDoreenMotionReply.pdf
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/OrderDenyingDoreenMotion.pdf
Motion to Reconsider Motion to Dismiss: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/PostMotionForRecon.pdf
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/ReconDenial.PDF

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 01:41 PM

Pretty interesting, I didn't know that a few got together in 99 to try to repeal the 16th.

I'm sure they would just keep up in a perpetual "congressional approved" (actually, I think they have lol) war if something like this DID pass.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hjres45/text

H.J.Res. 45 (106th): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.

106th Congress, 1999–2000. Text as of Apr 14, 1999 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

HJ 45 IH

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 45

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 14, 1999

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. COX, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. PITTS, Mr. COOKSEY, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. CAMP, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. HERGER, Mr. LINDER, Mr. STUMP, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BONILLA, and Mr. SKEEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Federal income tax.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article --

‘SECTION 1. Three years after the ratification of this article of amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, and the Congress shall have no power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, except in time of war declared by the Congress.’

‘SECTION 2. Not later than 180 days after the ratification of the article of amendment proposed by this joint resolution, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate recommendations for any legislation that may be necessary to implement that article.’.

Czolgosz

11-04-2013, 01:43 PM

If you're gonna tax protest, or protest in general, make them remember you.

edit: "Lessons not learned in blood are soon forgotten."

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 01:44 PM

Danke

11-04-2013, 01:49 PM

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageTwo

ClydeCoulter

11-04-2013, 02:06 PM

heavenlyboy34

11-04-2013, 02:50 PM

It doesn't have to be apportioned.

Article I says otherwise, but they don't pay attention to the rest of the CONstitution, so I don't see them bothering with that. (see section 9 of Article I specifically)

dannno

11-04-2013, 03:18 PM

It doesn't have to be apportioned.

all direct taxes have to be apportioned

Got it.

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 03:26 PM

Article I says otherwise, but they don't pay attention to the rest of the CONstitution, so I don't see them bothering with that. (see section 9 of Article I specifically)

Only direct taxes have to be apportioned, and the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations (i.e., a head tax) and taxes on the ownership of property. The income tax (or at least a tax on wages) is neither; it is an excise.

Although the Supreme Court held in in the 1895 Pollock case that a tax on investment income was a direct tax, this result was overturned by the 16th Amendment, which in very plain language says that an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned, regardless of the source of the income.

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 03:34 PM

Got it.

The 1787 Constitution did indeed say that all direct taxes had to be apportioned. Whether an income tax is a direct tax, however, is questionable. The Supreme Court said it wasn't in a unanimous 1881 decision, but in 1895 it carved out an exception for a tax on investment income in a 5-4 decision that was severely criticized. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment, so that even if one accepts that certain kinds of income taxes are direxct taxes, they still don't have to be apportioned.

dannno

11-04-2013, 03:41 PM

PaulConventionWV

11-04-2013, 03:54 PM

I think his actions constipate expatriation.

constipate?

Peace&Freedom

11-04-2013, 04:00 PM

You misunderstand what positive law is. The term does not mean that "it's binding on everyone". All it means is that Congress has codified certain statutes into the United States Code, and that the relevant statutes that have been so codified are referred to as positive law, so that one doesn't have to look up the actual statutes published in the Statuites at Large. The Internal Revenue Code has not been so codified, so it is only prima facie evidence of the underlying statutes as published in the Statutes at Large. So in the unlikely event there is a conflict between the language of the IRC and the Statutes at Large, the latter will control. For more information, please see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law

"The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law. It applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the US government.

The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the US Government is not subject to any tax under subtitle "A" of the Internal revenue Code." --Cynthia Mills, Disclosure Officer, IRS, Philadephia

jtap

11-04-2013, 04:08 PM

That's really not their usual procedure though. If you do not file a tax return, they will put one together for you. They send you a letter that essentially says if you do not agree that this is the correct amount, you need file your taxes ASAP.

In an amended return, they usually just send you a note that they corrected it, no signature required.

It sounded to me like she was saying they took information from her husband's book and modified the tax records and then wanted her to sign the modified ones.

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 04:09 PM

Do you admit Adam Smith disagrees?

He appears to, but the issue is what a "direct tax" is under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never relied on Smith to interpret the Direct Tax Clause. In its very first tax case, Hylton v. U.S. (1791), three of the justices (two of whom had been members of the constitutional convention) thought that the only direct taxes were capitations and taxes on land. Later, in 1881, the Court upheld the Civil War income tax against the claim that it was an unapportioned direct tax and rejected the plaintiff's reliance on Smith.

Tod

11-04-2013, 04:43 PM

Didn't the jury deliberate today? Is there an outcome yet?

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 04:48 PM

"The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law. It applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the US government.

The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the US Government is not subject to any tax under subtitle "A" of the Internal revenue Code." --Cynthia Mills, Disclosure Officer, IRS, Philadephia

I've seen references to this on several crackpot tax protester websites, but I've never seen anything to verify that it was actually written by an IRS official. In any event, the statements attributed to Ms. Mills are completely wrong.

Ask yourself a very simple question: if what she is alleged to have said were true, there would be countless court cases in which someone avoided the income tax because he wasn't involved with the federal government. So where are all of these success stories? Why aren't the tax protesters trumpeting them from the rooftops? The answer is such cases don't exist, and the reason they don't exist is because the income tax isn't restricted to federal employment or federally-connected businesses.

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 04:59 PM

I've seen references to this on several crackpot tax protester websites, but I've never seen anything to verify that it was actually written by an IRS official. In any event, the statements attributed to Ms. Mills are completely wrong.

Ask yourself a very simple question: if what she is alleged to have said were true, there would be countless court cases in which someone avoided the income tax because he wasn't involved with the federal government. So where are all of these success stories? Why aren't the tax protesters trumpeting them from the rooftops? The answer is such cases don't exist, and the reason they don't exist is because the income tax isn't restricted to federal employment or federally-connected businesses.

LOL

yea, cause there is NO way the courts, the judge or the prosecution that all want to keep their jobs would ever play unfair. Its not like they all work for the same team or are paid by the same entity. I mean, its not like their paychecks rely on the defense losing.

Zippyjuan

11-04-2013, 05:10 PM

So her and her husband filed income tax forms which claimed zero income and requested a refund of all money withheld from zero income. If income was zero, then withholdings should have been zero and tax refund zero. IRS says they did receive income from their employers and filed suit to have the refunds returned plus interest and penalties.
The contempt charge is because they continued to claim zero income on future tax returns which was ordered in a previous judgement.

http://www.examiner.com/article/irs-arrests-activist-for-criminal-contempt-charge

May 2007, as part of a lawsuit against the Hendricksons filed by the Treasury Department's Tax Division, U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds in Detroit entered an injunction that prevents the Hendricksons from filing alleged fraudulent tax forms in the future.

In addition, Judge Edmunds told the Hendricksons that they must submit amended 2002 and 2003 returns to the IRS.

According to the indictment, Doreen Hendrickson violated Edmunds' injunction by failing to file amended 2002 and 2003 tax returns and by filing another alleged false tax return for the year 2008 that was based on the information contained in her husband’s book.

In 2006, the U.S. government had also filed a civil action against Hendrickson and his wife, requesting a judgment against them for the erroneous refunds issued to them and an injunction requiring them to file correct tax returns.

Seems they earlier tried to send a bomb to the IRS in 1989.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29taxes-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

On tax day, Hendrickson and the Scarboroughs drove a parcel containing the bomb to the post office in Royal Oak, Mich., where Scott Scarborough placed it in a mail bin outside. Hendrickson had wrapped a Bigelow tea bag around the bomb’s tubing — in homage to the Boston Tea Party, America’s founding act of tax protest — and addressed the package to “The Tax Thieves.” The return address read, “Freedom Loving Americans.”

While the package was still in the bin, it began to smoke. When an alert postal worker plucked the smoldering envelope from the bin and stomped on it, the bomb detonated. The postal worker went to the hospital with burns on his hands and face. Postal inspectors initiated a major investigation and traced the package back to Hendrickson, who ultimately went to prison for his part in the scheme.

heavenlyboy34

11-04-2013, 05:18 PM

Only direct taxes have to be apportioned, and the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations (i.e., a head tax) and taxes on the ownership of property. The income tax (or at least a tax on wages) is neither; it is an excise.

Although the Supreme Court held in in the 1895 Pollock case that a tax on investment income was a direct tax, this result was overturned by the 16th Amendment, which in very plain language says that an income tax doesn't have to be apportioned, regardless of the source of the income.

I've heard this argument, and I disagree.
http://www.tax-freedom.com/NotAnExcise.htm

The personal income tax is not an excise tax.

Lately, there is a lot of information, including that from a few attorneys, arguing that the personal income tax is an excise tax. This is not correct, nor is this a legitimate argument, and this short paper is provided to explain why the personal income tax is not properly recognized as an excise, but as a tariff.

First, both tariffs (imposts) and excises are indirect taxes under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta20001.htm) of the Constitution of the United States, which states:

“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;”

Blacks law dictionary tells us that a tariff is a tax, or schedule of rates for a tax, imposed on foreign goods being imported into the country, or imposed on foreign activity occurring within the United States (America, – including the fifty states).

The Constitution (http://www.tax-freedom.com/constitution.htm), in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 3-5, gives the federal government absolute jurisdiction over all foreign matters, affairs, and agreements with foreign nations, and over foreign persons in the U.S. This is done so that the fifty states may present one consistent face to the world to deal with in trading with the United States, rather than having to keep track of fifty different agreements, depending upon which state they were doing business in. This jurisdiction over foreign affairs gives the federal government the power to tax both imports into, and the foreign activity of foreign nations and persons in, the United States.

An excise tax, on the other hand, as stated by the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05007.htm)., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911), are:

"Excises are taxes laid upon:

the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country,
upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and
upon corporate privileges;”

In further identifying and describing the nature of an excise tax, the court held:

“.. the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable ... it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.”
Flint, supra, at 151 -152

So we see that excise taxes are taxes on taxable activities involving commodities, the possession of a license (like ATF licenses), and corporate privileges. Excise taxes are not taxes on general occupations (or on the work of citizens conducted by constitutional right), rather than on work conducted under a federal license or corporate banner, or involving commodities.

Some of the confusion on this issue of “Is it an excise or a tariff ?” comes from the Supreme Court itself. This is because the Court appears in the Stanton (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05005.htm) decision in 1913, where the court is testing the legitimacy of taxing the income of a mining corporation derived from its mining activities, to uphold the CORPORATE part of the income tax provisions of the tested legislation as an indirect excise. Also, in the Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm), 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916), the court stated,

"Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class 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 unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it." Brushaber, supra, at 16-17.

However, one should carefully note that despite its above referenced reasoning, the Pollock (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05001.htm) court did not uphold the income tax legislation tested in that case as an excise, but rather struck down the legislation completely as an unconstitutional attempt to tax directly without apportionment. Also, this statement by the Court seems to ignore the fact that “income tax” had already been previously enacted once in 1861 as an “Income Duty” (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta01007.htm) laid on foreign imports, and also as an “Income Duty” on the pay of officers in the employ of the United State (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta01015.htm)s, i.e.: the federal government, Union army, or navy.

So apparently, “income tax” is not simply “in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such”, but is actually, only entitled to be enforced in exactly the manner in which it is actually written in the specific piece of legislation being tested by the Court. That legislation generally identifies itself what type of tax the income tax laid by that specific piece of legislation is deemed to be.

So, what we really see, is that any income tax laid by any specific piece of legislation, is not necessarily an excise tax, because each specific piece of legislation must itself be carefully examined to correctly identify the true nature of the tax laid by that legislation, without assuming anything about the nature of that tax or type of tax in previous pieces of legislation, or previous legislative attempts that were rejected, like in Pollock.

So what does the Supreme Court tell us about the income tax legislation tested in 1913? The first sentence of the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm), 240 U.S. 1 (1916), states,

“As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.” Brushaber, supra, at 9

Here the court clearly tells us that when dealing with the provision of the income tax, we are dealing with the provisions of a tariff (specifically, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act (http://www.tax-freedom.com/originaltariff.pdf)). Tariff acts do not lay excise taxes applicable in the fifty states, they generally lay and impose a tax in the form of a tariff on foreign goods or foreign activity entering the U.S, or as an impost in the form of a duty on income, as was done in 1861 (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta01007.htm). Tariffs on foreign goods and imposts on foreign activity, however, do not tax domestic activity in the fifty States.

So let us examine, how the tax is implemented in the law, and contrast that with what we know about each of the two types of indirect taxes at issue here.

First of all the income tax is laid on the “taxable income (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta09001.htm)” of “individuals” under Section 1 (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta02001.htm). Excise taxes are not laid on “taxable income”, or “individuals”, according to the Supreme Court in the Flint (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05007.htm) decision identified above, but on: 1 - commodities, 2 – licenses, and 3 - (corporate) privileges. Is “taxable income” a commodity, a license or a corporate privilege? No it is not. But could there be “taxable income” in regards to a duty to pay a TARIFF on foreign activity? As was already done once before (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta01007.htm) by the federal government?

Excise taxes are not laid on “individuals” or “taxable income”, but is laid on the taxable activities identified in law (ATF licenses, gasoline fuels, etc.). Excise taxes are not graduated, and do not have tax “brackets” for different groups of persons, because under the Constitution (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta20001.htm) the excise tax must be uniform. Excise taxes are not dependent upon nationality, residence, or citizenship (or lack thereof) for their collection, as the collecting the tax at the source (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm) is dependent upon being effected by the withholding (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06001.htm) of tax only from non-resident foreign persons (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06003.htm). Excise taxes are imposed on everyone involved in the taxable activity, not just foreign persons. A tariff on the other hand only applies to foreign goods and foreign NON-RESIDENT activity.

Next, the excise taxes under U.S law are contained and codified as the provisions of Subtitles D and E (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/)of Title 26 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/). The income tax is in Subtitle A (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/), and in fact, Subtitle A is, in its entirety, simply the codification of the original Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of October 3, 1913 (http://www.tax-freedom.com/originaltariff.pdf) identified by the Supreme Court in the first sentence of the Brushaber (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm) decision, and nothing more. There is no domestic “excise”, deceptively, intentionally hidden inside the tariff act. Again, Subtitle A contains the tariff act and its provisions, and Subtitles D and E contain the excise taxes laid under U.S. law. The income tax is in Subtitle A, laid as a tariff that is collected at the source by federal tax collectors in the form of Withholding Agents (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06001.htm) who shift the burden (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05001.htm) of the tax they pay from themselves to the subject persons (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06003.htm) from whom the tax is collected by withholding (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06001.htm) money as tax from payments made to those subject persons. The income tax is not contained in Subtitle D or E with the other excises.

Finally, if the income tax were in fact an excise, its provisions would not specify different treatment for subject persons based on nothing other than residency (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06003.htm) or citizenship (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta10003.htm). An excise is collected from everyone engaged in the identified taxable activity, without exception, in order to be uniform in its operation as required by the Constitution. Excise taxes do not provide for different treatment of persons based on citizenship or where they reside. If they engage in the taxable activity, they pay the excise regardless of where they reside or who they are. Ask anyone with a liquor license.

So, when we see that the Withholding Agents (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06001.htm)are required to deduct and withhold income tax only from foreign persons (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06001.htm) in the form of non-resident alien individuals (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06003.htm) and foreign corporations (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06005.htm), but not from resident aliens or domestic corporations involved in the same activities, we can readily recognize that this is not an excise on taxable activity, but a tariff on foreign activity conducted in the United States, laid as a duty imparted on domestic entities to collect the federal income tax from foreign subject persons (see 26 U.S.C. Sections 1441 (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06003.htm), 1442 (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06005.htm), 1443 (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta06007.htm)). Again, as soon as the non-resident (alien) becomes a resident (alien), the collection at the source of income tax by withholding from his or her pay terminates completely and is ended, because U.S. residents are not required by law to pay a tariff on their domestic activity or earnings.

If the income tax was in fact an excise tax, this differentiation of treatment of the two foreign parties would not exist in the law. It only exists to properly limit the application of the tariff ONLY to foreign activity, and never to DOMESTIC. As soon as the non-resident alien individual becomes a resident, his economic activity is removed from the jurisdiction of the federal government over foreign affairs, and is moved under the jurisdiction of the State in which the alien now resides. As activity under the domestic jurisdiction of a State, the “income” earned by the resident alien is no longer subject to collection at the source by withholding of the federal income tax tariff that he/she was subject to as a foreign person conducting foreign activity under the jurisdiction of the federal government, as a non-resident alien.

That would not be true if the income tax were an excise tax – which doesn’t care if you are resident or non-resident, domestic or foreign, only that you engaged in the activity taxed by the excise legislation. Only a tariff differentiates between foreign and domestic activity to determine subjectivity to the tax.

THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS IN THE LAW ARE STILL THE ORIGINAL TAXING PROVISIONS (http://www.tax-freedom.com/originaltariff.pdf) of the (Underwood-Simmons) TARIFF ACT (of October 3, 1913). As such the personal income tax laid in Subtitle A IS A COLLECTED TARIFF, NOT AN EXCISE. If there had ever been another law enacted by Congress, expanding or replacing the income tax provisions of the original tariff act, THERE WOULD BE SOME OTHER CASE besides Brushaber (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05003.htm) (and Stanton (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05005.htm)) addressing the constitutionality of the (new) tax. There are no such intervening Supreme Court cases because there has never been a new law that changed the original implementation of the original tariff act. So, no other challenges to the law were ever necessary, or allowed. Unfortunately now, those original, standing, controlling Supreme Court decisions (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta05000.htm) are just ignored by the federal courts, because they are no longer understood by the courts (making a distinction between personal and corporate taxation), who cannot understand (or admit) the monstrous travesty perpetrated on the American people across the last 65 years of de-facto federal tax collection and enforcement operations, since the nationalistic patriotic fervor of the American people after the end of World War II led to their allowing the direct withholding of federal tax (http://www.tax-freedom.com/EmployerAndIncomeTax.htm)es from their pay WITHOUT STATUTORY SUBJECTIVITY TO THE SUBTITLE A INCOME TARIFF TAX ever existing in law. (http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta07003.htm)

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 05:21 PM

yea, cause there is NO way the courts, the judge or the prosecution that all want to keep their jobs would ever play unfair. Its not like they all work for the same team or are paid by the same entity. I mean, its not like their paychecks rely on the defense losing.

If this were true the government would never lose a case. But it does. Here's a story about a tax case the government recently lost that is estimated to result in $1 billion in savings to taxpayers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/25/huge-taxpayer-win-supreme-court-tells-irs-3-years-to-audit-is-plenty/

I guess someone didn't get the memo that the government is supposed to win all the time.

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 05:31 PM

If this were true the government would never lose a case. But it does. Here's a story about a tax case the government recently lost that is estimated to result in $1 billion in savings to taxpayers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/25/huge-taxpayer-win-supreme-court-tells-irs-3-years-to-audit-is-plenty/

I guess someone didn't get the memo that the government is supposed to win all the time.

hahah, its not even close.

A win of a a tax protestors lawful applicability would DESTROY the income tax and their ability to impose it upon us. The link you provided can be circumvented or simply not followed by the IRS anytime it pleases.

heavenlyboy34

11-04-2013, 05:33 PM

If this were true the government would never lose a case. But it does. Here's a story about a tax case the government recently lost that is estimated to result in $1 billion in savings to taxpayers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/25/huge-taxpayer-win-supreme-court-tells-irs-3-years-to-audit-is-plenty/

I guess someone didn't get the memo that the government is supposed to win all the time.
Meh. Constittuionalism is completely arbitrary, so you get glitches like this on occasion.

Zippyjuan

11-04-2013, 05:37 PM

If this were true the government would never lose a case. But it does. Here's a story about a tax case the government recently lost that is estimated to result in $1 billion in savings to taxpayers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/04/25/huge-taxpayer-win-supreme-court-tells-irs-3-years-to-audit-is-plenty/

I guess someone didn't get the memo that the government is supposed to win all the time.

What they "Lost" was the time they can go back on tax returns to audit (limited to three years according to the ruling)- not the ability to tax.

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 06:06 PM

I've heard this argument, and I disagree.

There is so much that is hopelessly wrong in the site you linked to, it's hard to know where to start, but I'll address some really stupid claims.

An excise tax, on the other hand, as stated by the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911), are:

"Excises are taxes laid upon:

(1.) the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country,

(2.) upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and

(3.) upon corporate privileges;”

In further identifying and describing the nature of an excise tax, the court held:

“.. the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable ... it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.” Flint, supra, at 151 -152

Flint was a case that dealt with the validity of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, a tax that applied only to corporations, and its reference to "such taxes" was not to excises in general but only to taxes on corporate privileges. The Court's description of an excise was not exclusive; just ten years earlier it upheld the constitutionality of the estate tax as excise (it doesn't appear on the list in Flint). And in 1929, the Court upheld the gift tax, and noted that it too was an excise:

... this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class. Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 136 (1929) (emphasis added)

Since receiving property one is contractually entitled to is certainly the exercise of a power over property incident to ownership, it follows that the income tax can be viewed as an excise on the receipt of income. "If the gift of property may be taxed we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance... or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax.... Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property." Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U. S. 340 (1945)

The bottom line is that excises cover a much broader ground than those listed in Flint.

However, one should carefully note that despite its above referenced reasoning, the Pollock court did not uphold the income tax legislation tested in that case as an excise, but rather struck down the legislation completely as an unconstitutional attempt to tax directly without apportionment. Also, this statement by the Court seems to ignore the fact that “income tax” had already been previously enacted once in 1861 as an “Income Duty” laid on foreign imports, and also as an “Income Duty” on the pay of officers in the employ of the United States, i.e.: the federal government, Union army, or navy.

The author is lying. Pollock dealt only with investment income, and the Court was careful to note that taxes on other kinds of income had been held to be excises:

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.

He also misrepresents the Civil War income tax, which applied to anyone residing in the U.S. who earned over $800 per year. You can read the statute here (it's Section 49): http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=340

Tariff acts do not lay excise taxes applicable in the fifty states, they generally lay and impose a tax in the form of a tariff on foreign goods or foreign activity entering the U.S, or as an impost in the form of a duty on income, as was done in 1861. Tariffs on foreign goods and imposts on foreign activity, however, do not tax domestic activity in the fifty States.

Apparently the author doesn't realize that the calling an act a tariff act doesn't mean that everything in the act deals with tariffs. Congress threw a lot of stuff in that act, including the income tax, which was not a tariff. Or maybe you think that the only thing the Affordable Care Act deals with is affordable care?

Excise taxes are not graduated, and do not have tax “brackets” for different groups of persons, because under the Constitution the excise tax must be uniform.

Wrong. The estate and gift taxes are excises, and they have brackets (which have recently become obsolete, given the now-applicable 40% rate). And the uniformity the constitution requires for excises is geographical uniformity; it doesn't mean rates can't differ among classes of taxpayers. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

The income tax is in Subtitle A, and in fact, Subtitle A is, in its entirety, simply the codification of the original Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of October 3, 1913 identified by the Supreme Court in the first sentence of the Brushaber decision, and nothing more.

Garbage. All previous internal revenue laws were repealed when the 1939 IRC was enacted, and it in turn was repealed by the 1954 IRC, which is the one we have now (except its name was later changed to the IRC of 1986).

Finally, if the income tax were in fact an excise, its provisions would not specify different treatment for subject persons based on nothing other than residency or citizenship.

But the income tax does differentiate. Nonresident aliens are taxed differently than U.S. citizens or resident aliens.

Excise taxes are not taxes on general occupations (or on the work of citizens conducted by constitutional right)

Wrong again. Excises include such taxes:

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

The entire site is a waste of bandwidth.

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 06:08 PM

The link you provided can be circumvented or simply not followed by the IRS anytime it pleases.

It's a Supreme Court decision; the IRS can't refuse to follow it.

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 06:14 PM

It's a Supreme Court decision; the IRS can't refuse to follow it.

Also, the IRS cannot spy on us or target specific political groups, the NSA cant do that either. That is illegal, NO WAY they would do that, the Director of the IRS told us they do NOT spy on us, NO WAY she would lie.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/23/confirmed-irs-lois-lerner-to-be-called-back-in-front-of-congress-n1604687

Sonny Tufts

11-04-2013, 06:23 PM

Also, the IRS cannot spy on us or target specific political groups, the NSA cant do that either. That is illegal, NO WAY they would do that, the Director of the IRS told us they do NOT spy on us, NO WAY she would lie.

Let's put it this way: if the IRS tries to collect taxes beyond the 3-year limitations period in a case like Home Concrete, who's gonna win? I'll give you a hint: not only will the IRS lose, it'll end up paying the taxpayer's attorneys fees.

Henry Rogue

11-04-2013, 06:39 PM

constipate?
Reading this thread will probably make me constipated.

LibForestPaul

11-04-2013, 07:17 PM

Danke

11-04-2013, 07:34 PM

heavenlyboy34

11-04-2013, 07:36 PM

Let's put it this way: if the IRS tries to collect taxes beyond the 3-year limitations period in a case like Home Concrete, who's gonna win? I'll give you a hint: not only will the IRS lose, it'll end up paying the taxpayer's attorneys fees.
The right hand paying the left hand. (IOW, tax loot taken from one agency and given to another) I am not impress.

DamianTV

11-04-2013, 07:39 PM

I still say the best solution is to AUDIT THE FED and the IRS.

ZENemy

11-04-2013, 07:45 PM

Let's put it this way: if the IRS tries to collect taxes beyond the 3-year limitations period in a case like Home Concrete, who's gonna win? I'll give you a hint: not only will the IRS lose, it'll end up paying the taxpayer's attorneys fees.

So you are saying that all tax payers with taxable income are only liable for 3 years of it. If one goes 10 years without paying, he is off the hook for all but 3 years?

RonPaulFanInGA

11-04-2013, 07:46 PM

On Monday, her jury is expected to return with a verdict on her contempt charge.

So, where's the verdict?

Danke

11-04-2013, 07:55 PM

Peter Hendrickson has an extremely high IQ and is a member of Mensa. Just to give you a little background.

Anyway, read his book, then come back here and try to pick apart any part of his research.

The deniers posts so far are gibberish. Are there any limitations on what is "taxable income?"

Of course, they can't tax a Chinese man in China receiving Federal Reserve Notes for payment of services.

So just what stops them, well read the book, "Cracking the Code."

http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

Not the latest edition, but free: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf

HOLLYWOOD

11-04-2013, 08:08 PM

You think anyone of us would receive 2-2 1/2 sentence for robbing $750K? I couldn't find the link, but read an article of a door-to-door book salesman committing check fraud for $200 on a senior citizen and he was sentenced to 2 1/2 tears. The poor dude was afraid to lose his job for not meeting his quota. Yet, Jesse Jackson Jr., with all his wealth, Rolex's, etc, who is in the public trust, on the taxpayers dime, banking a lucrative retirement, 6 figure salary, parties, on & on, will do less time than that book salesman. In other news, read a bank robber was given 70yrs - to life, for robbing 2 banks of their FRNs. This country's government is full blown wacko.
Well, sometimes... Former US Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr has projected release date http://thegrio.com/2013/11/03/former-us-rep-jackson-has-projected-release-date/ Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. could be released from federal prison on Dec. 31, 2015 — if he behaves himself. The projected release date is listed on the Federal Bureau of Prisons website. Bureau of Prisons spokesman Ed Ross says that date is based on the assumption the former Illinois congressman receives the maximum reduction of 54 days a year for good behavior. The 48-year-old Jackson entered a North Carolina prison Tuesday to begin serving a 2 1/2-year term for illegally spending $750,000 in campaign money on everything from cigars to a gold watch. Ross says federal statute calls for that reduction for a full year and a portion of that number for any partial year an inmate serves. -t

Danke

11-04-2013, 09:24 PM

No, it is a lie. Hendrickson's claim that wages earned in private employment isn't taxable is as bogus as they come.

He does not claim that. You have not read his book and speak out of ignorance. Which is common with the tax truth deniers.

heavenlyboy34

11-04-2013, 10:03 PM

He does not claim that. You have not read his book and speak out of ignorance. Which is common with the tax truth deniers.

Love how you borrow language from absurd rhetoricians like that. :D

Danke

11-04-2013, 10:21 PM

Love how you borrow language from absurd rhetoricians like that. :D

Yes, they want to paint us as "tax protesters."
The proper way of addressing us is as members of the "Tax Honesty" Movement. Wikipedia couldn't stand such discussions and removed the Tax Honesty entry by Mr. Chapman.

That is very telling as to their motivations.

jtap

11-05-2013, 08:06 AM

Reading this thread will probably make me constipated.

That warning should be a lot earlier in the thread :(

Henry Rogue

11-05-2013, 08:42 AM

That warning should be a lot earlier in the thread :( To be honest, it's not so much the thread content as it is me. All that legal speak makes my eyes glaze over. I want to learn. It's constitutional/it's not constitutional, I'm more confused now then I was when I started reading it. That and the idea we are forced to snitch on ourselves every year. Plus the government forces employers to do their dirty work for them, by withholding taxes. It's all so irritating.

Sonny Tufts

11-05-2013, 09:33 AM

So you are saying that all tax payers with taxable income are only liable for 3 years of it. If one goes 10 years without paying, he is off the hook for all but 3 years?

No. The Home Concrete case involved an overstatement of basis, not an understatement of income. These are the rules: the normal statute of limitations for the IRS to seek a tax deficiency is 3 years from the date the return is filed. But if the return understates income by 25%, it's 6 years. If no return is filed at all, or if the return is fraudulent there is no limitations period, and the IRS can seek a tax deficiency at any time.

jtap

11-05-2013, 09:34 AM

To be honest, it's not so much the thread content as it is me. All that legal speak makes my eyes glaze over. I want to learn. It's constitutional/it's not constitutional, I'm more confused now then I was when I started reading it. That and the idea we are forced to snitch on ourselves every year. Plus the government forces employers to do their dirty work for them, by withholding taxes. It's all so irritating.

I was just trying to be funny but I understand where you are coming from. It's hard to keep focused and read a big wall of text when you have to stop and learn the definition of words every other sentence.

Sonny Tufts

11-05-2013, 10:30 AM

Peter Hendrickson has an extremely high IQ and is a member of Mensa. Just to give you a little background.

Big deal. I once defended a Mensa member who was so full of himself that he lacked the common sense of a cocker spaniel. Like Hendrickson, he was a narcissist who thought everyone else in the world was wrong. Why do you think that Hendrickson bans anyone from his website who dares to take issue with anything in CtC?

Are there any limitations on what is "taxable income?"

Only what's provided in the statutes and in certain SCOTUS cases dealing with taxing the States. There's certainly nothing in the Constitution that limits the kind of income Congress can tax.

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts
No, it is a lie. Hendrickson's claim that wages earned in private employment isn't taxable is as bogus as they come.

He does not claim that. You have not read his book and speak out of ignorance. Which is common with the tax truth deniers.

That's precisely what he claims.

Consequently, theonly lawful objects of the "income" tax are activities for which one is paid by the federal government or a fedferal agency or instrumentality; activities effectively connected with the performance or conduct of a public office; activities as a federal, federal instrumentality, or federally-chartered "State" worker; or activities as a paid officer of a federal corporation (page 88)

In light of the Supreme Court's clear and repeated expressions regarding the untaxable nature of private activities... (page 91)

Being unable to declare private-sector, unprivileged activities to be subject to the tax or to -- itself -- declare that a private-sector individual engaged in taxable activities, the government instead attempts to cause private-sector individuals to legally declare -- for themselves -- that payments with which they are associated involved taxable activities. (page 108)

There is not and never has been a federal tax on private receipts (or the activities that produce them) (page 187)

The only "tax truth deniers" are con artists like Hendrickson who peddle phony tax-avoidance theories, the crackpots who post, cut, and paste inane drivel on tax protester websites, and the gullible lemmings who buy into such nonsense. To use the term "Tax Honesty" to describe these people is a blatant misnomer.

Here's just one example of Hendrickson's lies: on page 12 of CtC, he quotes the following:

It is to be noted that by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services . (from the lower court ruling)
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731 (1930)

This language is not from either of the lower court rulings. It is from Mr. Earl's brief filed in the Supreme Court. Mr. Earl lost in the trial court, got a reversal in the 9th Circuit, and lost again in the Supreme Court. His private-sector salary was held to be taxable. What Hendrickson should have quoted, but was too intellectually dishonest to do so, was the following from the Supreme Court's opinion: "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earn them" Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).

heavenlyboy34

11-05-2013, 10:45 AM

Sonny-is there a good, well-sourced, credible book out there on this subject? Thanks. :)

Sonny Tufts

11-05-2013, 11:07 AM

Sonny-is there a good, well-sourced, credible book out there on this subject? Thanks. :)

I don't think there's one specifically dealing with Cracking the Code, but if you're interested in a website that comprehensively debunks tax protester claims, I highly recommend Dan Evans's Tax Protester FAQ: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

He does have a section dealing with Hendrickson-like claims that only income from "privileged activities" can be taxed, and he shows how such claims have been consistently rejected by the courts.

roho76

11-05-2013, 11:15 AM

Hung jury following deliberations.

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageOne

roho76

11-05-2013, 11:16 AM

If it's such an open and shut case for the IRS why all the shenanigans?

Sonny Tufts

11-05-2013, 11:20 AM

Hung jury following deliberations.

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm#PageOne

Hendrickson forgot to mention that the vote was 11-1 for conviction.
http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/

What shenanigans?

Ender

11-05-2013, 11:49 AM

Hendrickson forgot to mention that the vote was 11-1 for conviction.
http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/

What shenanigans?

A hung jury is still a hung jury.

And this trial is about IRS shenanigans and NOT about taxes. The wife didn't write the book.

Peace&Freedom

11-05-2013, 03:28 PM

I don't think there's one specifically dealing with Cracking the Code, but if you're interested in a website that comprehensively debunks tax protester claims, I highly recommend Dan Evans's Tax Protester FAQ: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

He does have a section dealing with Hendrickson-like claims that only income from "privileged activities" can be taxed, and he shows how such claims have been consistently rejected by the courts.

I heartily recommend the very lengthy materials at SEDM.org, which thoroughly rebut the debunking propaganda like the above mentioned government troll site.

"Consistently rejected by the courts" is the usual pugnacious, strategically incomplete misdirecting canard designed to intimidate rather than enlighten. As mentioned before, these 'courts' omit contrary court rulings, and cases that dismissed IRS claims (where the tax honesty advocate won), or rulings that were never published (at the IRS's request). It again ignores the words of art typically used to bypass the 'misapplication' points made by the honesty advocate and mischaracterizes them into a 'protestor' case the advocate did not even make. Most of these cases are thus useless to cite or comment on, as their main purpose is tax propaganda, rather than tax truth.

Note how Tufts uses the "protestor" term to mis-describe the issue, and constantly leads with bullying derision, similar to how Ron Paul's critics call him an "isolationist" instead of a non-interventionist---it is a tactic of creating an easily disposable strawman to put one side on the defensive, while scaring others off from considering it. In the Mrs. Hendricksen case just hung, the IRS appears to have shopped for both a judge and jury, complete with passing unconstitutional instructions to both, but one uncowed/unbrainwashed jurist nullified their project:

http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/#.Unj0i1MlIg_

Czolgosz

11-05-2013, 03:46 PM

Show me my contractual obligation.

Danke

11-05-2013, 03:48 PM

I heartily recommend the very lengthy materials at SEDM.org, which thoroughly rebut the debunking propaganda like the above mentioned government troll site.

I don't completely agree with them, but they do have a lot of good information.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/TRFAQ/TRFAQ.htm

More reporting on the trial: http://taxcourthelp.net/federal-assault-against-doreen-hendrickson/

Sonny Tufts

11-05-2013, 05:11 PM

I heartily recommend the very lengthy materials at SEDM.org, which thoroughly rebut the debunking propaganda like the above mentioned government troll site.

Mr. Evans is an attorney working in private practice, not a governmental agent. Characterizing his website as you have is typical of the anti-government paranoia shared by some tax deniers.

"Consistently rejected by the courts" is the usual pugnacious, strategically incomplete misdirecting canard designed to intimidate rather than enlighten. As mentioned before, these 'courts' omit contrary court rulings, and cases that dismissed IRS claims (where the tax honesty advocate won), or rulings that were never published (at the IRS's request).

Oh, please. There are no contrary rulings. Look, I'll make it as plain as possible: No court in the history of the country has ever held that pay-for-work, whether in a private job or otherwise, isn't income for federal income tax purposes. To the contrary, IN EVERY SINGLE CASE that has dealt with the question of whether pay-for-work is income for federal income tax purposes the court has said it is, WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION.

No "tax honesty" litigant has ever avoided the income tax by relying upon the arguments found at Lost Horizons, Family Guardian, SEDM, or other crackpot websites. The reason is simple: these websites are WRONG. And the claim that the courts are hiding taxpayer victories at the IRS's request is simply pathetic. If you have any evidence of this, let's see it. Otherwise, it's simply sour grapes and ignorant speculation.

Yes, I admit to having derision for those who misrepresent the law, take quotes out of context, ignore established precedent that contradicts their position, and, like Hendrickson, flat out lie about the law by attributing phony quotes (from a losing brief, no less) to court decisions. Such liars and charlatans do a great disservice to those who would like to eliminate the income tax.

As far as SEDM is concerned, its attempt to rebut Mr. Evans is a colossal failure, and it contains some if the most brain-dead and profoundly ignorant claims I've ever seen, such as: (a) only a trade or business is taxed by Subtitle A of the Code, (b) a trade or business is limited to the functions of a public office, (c) Subtitle A taxes the Social Security Trust, and (d) people domiciled in the States are nonresident aliens. This kind of wacko misreading of the law would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

PRB

11-05-2013, 05:48 PM

failing to sign or failure file the 1040? is she required to filed a 1040 if she doesn't owe taxes?

dannno

11-05-2013, 05:56 PM

Hendrickson forgot to mention that the vote was 11-1 for conviction.
http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/

What shenanigans?

How much do you get paid to post here again?

I heartily recommend the very lengthy materials at SEDM.org, which thoroughly rebut the debunking propaganda like the above mentioned government troll site.

"Consistently rejected by the courts" is the usual pugnacious, strategically incomplete misdirecting canard designed to intimidate rather than enlighten. As mentioned before, these 'courts' omit contrary court rulings, and cases that dismissed IRS claims (where the tax honesty advocate won), or rulings that were never published (at the IRS's request). It again ignores the words of art typically used to bypass the 'misapplication' points made by the honesty advocate and mischaracterizes them into a 'protestor' case the advocate did not even make. Most of these cases are thus useless to cite or comment on, as their main purpose is tax propaganda, rather than tax truth.

Note how Tufts uses the "protestor" term to mis-describe the issue, and constantly leads with bullying derision, similar to how Ron Paul's critics call him an "isolationist" instead of an non-interventionist---it is a tactic of creating an easily disposable strawman to put one side on the defensive, while scaring others off from considering it. In the Mrs. Hendricksen case just hung, the IRS appears to have shopped for both a judge and jury, complete with passing unconstitutional instuctions to both, but one uncowed/unbrainwashed jurist nullified their project:

http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/irs-vs-doreen-hendrickson-verdict/#.Unj0i1MlIg_

+rep

and on the 5th of November!!

PRB

11-05-2013, 06:06 PM

Mr. Evans is an attorney working in private practice, not a governmental agent.

He's not a government agent because he didn't say he was, right?

Tod

11-05-2013, 06:51 PM

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/irs-defeated-by-hung-jury-against-tax.html

IRS Defeated by Hung Jury Against Tax Resister (http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/irs-defeated-by-hung-jury-against-tax.html)

Sally Oh
Activist Post (http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/irs-defeated-by-hung-jury-against-tax.html)

This morning, the jury in Doreen Hendrickson’s trial (http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/doreen-hendrickson-irs-suborn-testimony/) returned to the courthouse and deliberated all day. At around 5pm, they finally emerged and presented their verdict: hung jury. Hung by ONE! What a delightful victory!!!

One juror stood up to the others, stood up to the IRS (no small undertaking) and to the judiciary — who was clearly making decisions on the side of the IRS.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-98PNuLtk4uY/UnktQGhUkVI/AAAAAAAAB3Y/n-JCyfKDYb0/s400/tax+meme.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-98PNuLtk4uY/UnktQGhUkVI/AAAAAAAAB3Y/n-JCyfKDYb0/s1600/tax+meme.jpg)

Judge Roberts admitted all the IRS’ evidence and almost none of the defendant’s. Her instructions to the jury were unconstitutional at best, criminal at worst (http://www.kyfreepress.com/2013/11/doreen-hendrickson-irs-suborn-testimony/). She should be removed from the bench and disbarred.

The lone principled juror was even called out and grilled about his decision. He was not swayed by the badgering: “I just wasn’t convinced.” Thank you! Neither were we.

Henry Rogue

11-05-2013, 07:56 PM

I was just trying to be funny but I understand where you are coming from. It's hard to keep focused and read a big wall of text when you have to stop and learn the definition of words every other sentence.You were and i was trying too. Someone once said "all comedy is rooted in tragedy" or something like that. Good news for Mrs. Hendricson, I fear that lone juror will be audited soon.

Ender

11-05-2013, 08:11 PM

You were and i was trying too. Someone once said "all comedy is rooted in tragedy" or something like that. Good news for Mrs. Hendricson, I fear that lone juror will be audited soon.

Absolutely- think of the things we actually laugh at.

We laugh so we don't cry.

Danke

11-05-2013, 11:28 PM

Discussion on "trade or business."

http://www.losthorizons.com/Documents/TaxGuideforBusinessmen.pdf

ZENemy

11-06-2013, 09:00 AM

No court in the history of the country has ever held that pay-for-work, whether in a private job or otherwise, isn't income for federal income tax purposes. To the contrary, IN EVERY SINGLE CASE that has dealt with the question of whether pay-for-work is income for federal income tax purposes the court has said it is, WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION.
.

Man...you keep saying shit like that as if the gov has credibility. Its like saying "The Mafia has NEVER allowed a member of the neighborhood to lawfully take back their BLOCK from Italian mob henchmen" lol.....OF COURSE nobody will EVER win. I'm not saying that ANY of the members of the tax honesty movement are right, what Im saying is it DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE RIGHT because when you are being ruled by criminals you can expect to be wrong no matter how right you are.

Now Im sure, ALL judges are perfect human beings that NEVER do wrong. Neither do prosecutors, these are PERFECT humans that would NEVER work to conspire together regardless of the fact that they are paid for by the same entity and their paycheck relies on taxation by gunpoint. They do their jobs perfect and when a normal slave catches something wrong these lawful member of government always admit to guilt and changes are made right? oh wait, no they don't, they plead the 5th and get to "resign" with a paycheck provided by stolen money.

Things like this never actually happen.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20131023/14363624989/texas-judge-forced-to-resign-after-being-caught-texting-instructions-to-assistant-da-during-trial.shtml

Texas Judge Forced To Resign After Being Caught Texting Instructions To Assistant DA During Trial

Elizabeth E. Coker may forever be known as the "texting judge," but her notoriety will soon be all that is left of her days on the bench of the 258th District Court of Polk, Trinity, and San Jacinto Counties. Coker signed an "AGREEMENT TO RESIGN FROM JUDICIAL OFFICE IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION" with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct…

The agreement comes in the wake of a recent investigation revealing Coker texted instructions from the bench to a Polk County Assistant District Attorney who was assisting in the prosecution of a case in Coker's court.

Sonny Tufts

11-06-2013, 09:36 AM

Man...you keep saying shit like that as if the gov has credibility.

Credibility has nothing to do with it. The written law is crystal clear that pay-for-work is income (see Section 61(a)(1) of the IRC), and it's only brain-dead tax deniers who try and twist the language of the statute to rationalize their preconceived anti-tax position.

Sonny Tufts

11-06-2013, 09:42 AM

He's not a government agent because he didn't say he was, right?

And he must be a government agent because he debunks moronic tax denier arguments, right?

dude58677

04-21-2019, 01:54 PM

Credibility has nothing to do with it. The written law is crystal clear that pay-for-work is income (see Section 61(a)(1) of the IRC), and it's only brain-dead tax deniers who try and twist the language of the statute to rationalize their preconceived anti-tax position.

Credibility has nothing to do with it? HAHAHAHA! Seriously? I guess you’ll tell us when you’ll make sense?

PursuePeace

04-21-2019, 02:21 PM

Update, as well as info about some others:

https://yearofjubile.com/doreen

Schifference

04-21-2019, 03:13 PM

Sure is easy to be innocent.