Tax Expert Says Employers Withholding Federal Income Tax is Illegal. Here’s Why.

[ChristianAnarchist]

And none of this matters because they are "THE FEDERAL MAFIA"... They will jail or kill you if you don't pay the extortion money. Goons will be goons and we need to recognize them for what they are - LAWLESS GOONS!! They don't care whether the 16th am was ratified or whether you are properly defined as a "taxpayer". They will steal your money and if you think otherwise, try not paying for any length of time (I suggest 10 years) and see for yourself...

[Contumacious]

You can question the rulers all you want, but if you raise the same stupid arguments that have been consistently rejected as frivolous time after time WITHOUT EXCEPTION (e.g., wages aren't income; Congress can tax only in D.C. and other federal areas; only foreign income is taxable; only income from a federal privilege is taxable), you will get off with a warning the first time, but if you continue to waste the courts' time with such drivel you run the risk of being fined.

Interestingly, I have no issue with what you posted about the 16th Amendment. But then you spoiled everything by claiming the income tax is a privilege tax, which is demonstrably false -- e.g., income from illegal activities is taxable; when did Congress begin granting privileges to engage in criminal activity?

BULL S H I T


Bill Benson presented CERTIFIED NOTARIZED documentation that the 16A was NEVER RATIFIED. He was given all kinds of pretexts for not admitting the documentation , from "you are raising a "political" question which they could not address to the whole gamut. If the US attorney labels you as a "tax protestor" either in the pleadings or exparte, then the litigant has no rights the federal "judiciary" has to recognize.


.

[Sonny Tufts]

Bill Benson presented CERTIFIED NOTARIZED documentation that the 16A was NEVER RATIFIED.

No, he presented stuff that he claimed demonstrated that the 16th wasn't ratified, but the courts disagreed.

You realize, don't you, that even without the 16th Congress has the power to levy an unapportioned tax on wages?

[erowe1]

BULL S H I T


Bill Benson presented CERTIFIED NOTARIZED documentation that the 16A was NEVER RATIFIED. He was given all kinds of pretexts for not admitting the documentation , from "you are raising a "political" question which they could not address to the whole gamut. If the US attorney labels you as a "tax protestor" either in the pleadings or exparte, then the litigant has no rights the federal "judiciary" has to recognize.


.

And how well has this line of argument worked in court?

[kfarnan]

No, he presented stuff that he claimed demonstrated that the 16th wasn't ratified, but the courts disagreed.

You realize, don't you, that even without the 16th Congress has the power to levy an unapportioned tax on wages?

In the United States, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes).

[Sonny Tufts]

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3[/URL][COLOR=#252525][FONT=sans-serif] of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.

Yes, but a tax on wages isn't a direct tax.

[ChristianAnarchist]

And none of this matters because they are "THE FEDERAL MAFIA"... They will jail or kill you if you don't pay the extortion money. Goons will be goons and we need to recognize them for what they are - LAWLESS GOONS!! They don't care whether the 16th am was ratified or whether you are properly defined as a "taxpayer". They will steal your money and if you think otherwise, try not paying for any length of time (I suggest 10 years) and see for yourself...

Wow... It seems I'm on "ignore" here. No one wants to comment on what I have to say...

[Danke]

Wow... It seems I'm on "ignore" here. No one wants to comment on what I have to say...

I don't think anyone is ignoring you here. We all understand that we have a lawless government and a bunch of thugs supported by lawyers and CPAs like Sonny that derive their income from extortion by the barrel of a gun and they will try to justify what they do just like any of the three alphabet organizations.

[Zippyjuan]

Yes, but a tax on wages isn't a direct tax.

Income taxes are considered a "direct tax". http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html

A government levy on the income, property, or wealth of people or companies. A direct tax is borne entirely by the entity that pays it, and cannot be passed on to another entity.

Examples include corporation tax, income tax, and social security contributions. Unlike consumption taxes (see indirect tax), direct taxes are based on the ability to pay principle but they sometimes work as a disincentive to work harder and earn more because that would mean paying more tax. See also progressive tax.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Income taxes are considered a "direct tax". http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html

Semantics. Would you care much about the explanation a robber has for you when they take your property ?

[Sonny Tufts]

Income taxes are considered a "direct tax". http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court, not businessdirectory.com, gets to determine the meaning of "direct taxes" as used in the Constitution, and it says that "direct taxes" are only capitations, property taxes, and (if you think the Pollock case would be decided the same way today) taxes on investment income. All else, including a tax on wages, are indirect taxes that needn't be apportioned.

The argument that a tax on personal earnings is a direct tax was considered and rejected in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), where the Court held that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of a duty or excise.

[Sonny Tufts]

I don't think anyone is ignoring you here. We all understand that we have a lawless government and a bunch of thugs supported by lawyers and CPAs like Sonny that derive their income from extortion by the barrel of a gun and they will try to justify what they do just like any of the three alphabet organizations.

It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not. It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.

[Danke]

It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not. It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.

Actually Pete thinks it's still a lawful system. And it should be. But I understand that our courts are corrupt (and have a vested interest in that ignorance ) and it seems something Pete does not want to acknowledge, this fact. He still has a belief in the system as being ultimately just. I don't share his fantasies. Most here do not ( just look at the police abuse threads) unless they are profiting from the system like you.

The Supreme Court has even ackknowledge they don't want to hear about the "law" in recent court cases because collecting taxes (unjustly) is too important to the function of government.

[Danke]

Income taxes are considered a "direct tax". http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...irect-tax.html

Wow, two statist arguing. Sonny boy is right on this one,it is an indirect tax. And indirect tax is a tax on a privilege. Read my signature. All of it.

[Danke]

It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam..

Interesting that you use the word "scam"


If he was a perpetrator of a scam, then there would be some financial benefit for him.

He and his wife have served jail time for their beliefs. Are you saying selling a few books is a financial benefit for him and his family to suffer that hardship?

No he did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that he has. Government prosecutors have tried to get his book banned. But they could not find any information in it that was wrong to do it.


A man who is sacrificed everything to bring knowledge to all of us.

Just like Ron Paul, who wanted to eliminate the criminal IRS.

You can disagree and debate specific points that he is brought up in his research. But it is not a scam. The real scam is people like you are perpetuating your profession to collect taxes that are unjust and unlawful. Similar to what politicians are doing.

[Sonny Tufts]

And indirect tax is a tax on a privilege. Read my signature. All of it.

Your signature is hopelessly wrong and misleading. I've already pointed out that income from illegal activities is taxable, yet you and the other Hendrickson lemmings have yet to show what privilege is involved in such cases. You have also failed to produce a single case in which someone has avoided taxation because his income was earned in private, non-privileged activity. This isn't surprising, since there aren't any. In fact, everyone who has made this lame argument in court has lost. And it's not because "the courts are corrupt" -- that is the last pathetic excuse tax protesters like you come up with when all of their crackpot legal arguments have been rejected for the intellectual swill that they are. No, they are rejected because they are wrong as a matter of law.

A statist is one who believes that everything the State does is OK. I do not. Your use of the term to smear anyone who dares expose the idiotic misrepresentations of the law peddled by Hendrickson, Schiff, and other charlatans simply demonstrates that you can't defend your position on legal grounds.

Incidentally, I've also pointed out that your reference to Federalist 15 has nothing to do with current law. The quote was a criticism of the taxing system under the Articles of Confederation, which was an utter failure.

[erowe1]

It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not. It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.

The kind of laws it's based on are the kind that people just make up.

But I agree that it's ridiculously foolish to argue against the federal government that its own made up laws don't allow it to make us file and pay income taxes out of our wages when its courts say that its laws do allow that.

[ChristianAnarchist]

TAXATION IS THEFT!!! (yes, I'm shouting...)

[kfarnan]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court, not businessdirectory.com, gets to determine the meaning of "direct taxes" as used in the Constitution, and it says that "direct taxes" are only capitations, property taxes, and (if you think the Pollock case would be decided the same way today) taxes on investment income. All else, including a tax on wages, are indirect taxes that needn't be apportioned.

The argument that a tax on personal earnings is a direct tax was considered and rejected in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), where the Court held that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of a duty or excise.

You can't superimpose a law that expired indefinitely into the future. It was a temporary act, meant to expire, not an amendment. Why did they need the 16th, if they already decided in 1881?
Enjoy the slavery.

[Sonny Tufts]

Why did they need the 16th, if they already decided in 1881?

The 16th was needed because the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned in order to be constitutional. But the Court went out of its way to limit its holding to taxes on investment income and in dicta recognized the validity of an unapportioned tax on wages.

[devil21]

My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way. That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit. If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer". The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity. Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes. In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create. Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".

The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations. That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.

(why was this thread moved? too much truth for too many eyes? it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)

[kfarnan]

My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way. That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit. If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer". The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity. Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes. In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create. Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".

The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations. That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.

(why was this thread moved? too much truth for too many eyes? it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)

Avoid their game altogether. They don't play fair. The only way to win is to not engage them.

[Zippyjuan]

My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way. That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit. If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer". The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity. Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes. In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create. Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".

The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations. That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.

(why was this thread moved? too much truth for too many eyes? it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)

Can't exactly give up your birth certificate but you could surrender your citizenship. You must leave the country first and make the application in a US Embassy abroad. Also to note they say it does not remove the possibility of owing taxes to the US Government. They still expect their cut. https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...tizenship.html

E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION

Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.

Or you could just go underground- only work for cash and live like an illegal immigrant.

[devil21]

Can't exactly give up your birth certificate but you could surrender your citizenship. You must leave the country first and make the application in a US Embassy abroad. Also to note they say it does not remove the possibility of owing taxes to the US Government. They still expect their cut. https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...tizenship.html

(not that I'd take any advice from Zippy without using extreme diligence....but just for giggles)

Why can't the birth record be given up? They make it clear that it's not yours (same with SS card, drivers license, credit cards, bank accounts, etc that are all directly linked to the NAME) and you only receive a copy of it to hold and "use", thus unknowingly consenting to be the bodily surety for the NAME they created and whatever rules they arbitrarily affix to that status. Seems there would be a way to return it to the owner, the state that created it, thus canceling the surety position. Probably something to do with the state's Secretary of State office since they issued it. Since modern citizenship is truly defined as consenting to being the surety for the NAME, "citizenship" is given up when the contracts arising from the birth record are canceled. No need to leave the land mass. In fact, I think that's the worst possible step! Not holding "Citizenship" doesn't mean you can't live on this land mass. Only means you can't use the services/benefits provided (nor be liable for the liabilities like income tax) reserved for the "federal employees".

Your link is interesting and the wording is very carefully chosen. Technically, the US Secretary of State is in a foreign country/territory. It's called Washington D.C. No need to leave the land mass to renounce there. The "United States" is the federal corporation, not the land mass. Such an interesting topic!

Or you could just go underground- only work for cash and live like an illegal immigrant.

Would still have to cancel all of the contracts that create the liabilities.

[ChristianAnarchist]

My extensive research on this topic leads me to conclude that the only way to truly and lawfully avoid personal income tax is to cease being a "federal employee" in any way. That means canceling your birth certificate, rescinding social security membership and no longer using the banker's private credit. If any of those are still in effect then one is still a "taxpayer". The next step is to incorporate a new corporate entity (instead of the current corporate entity you live under, called the ALL CAPITAL NAME, which dies once the BC and SS are canceled) and live under the new corporate entity. Then, you can take advantage of all of the loopholes that GE, et al, take advantage of to not pay any corporate taxes. In essence, remove your body from a position as surety for the corporation that THEY created (which makes you a federal employee) and instead become surety for the one YOU create. Or, instead of creating a new "corporation" that you control, you could just go plain sovereign and not engage in any of it and just live off the land, barter goods and any FRNs you come across use as barter instead of as "money".

The whole system is based on consenting so stop consenting by using their creations. That's obviously the Cliff Notes version but that's the big picture.

(why was this thread moved? too much truth for too many eyes? it's not a constitutional issue since the constitution doesn't exist as law any more.)

Ya, except my birth certificate does NOT have all caps. Mine was hand typed and used proper capitalization (as all birth certificates did before the age of computers). The ALL CAPS comes about because that's the way the early computer systems worked.

So I guess I'm free and clear then because my birth certificate does not have ALL CAPS...

[devil21]

That's not how it works. Trust me, if you were born in a hospital here and have a certificate of live birth, regardless of the capitalization of that record, it was forwarded by your state's Secretary of State to the Department of Commerce for conversion into a securitized financial instrument that is currently in the custody of the bankers.

http://realityinsight.weebly.com/the...and-bank-notes

[Weston White]

You realize, don't you, that even without the 16th Congress has the power to levy an unapportioned tax on wages?

This is the core of deception that you mindlessly spew all over the Internet and God knows where else--Congress may ONLY levy or impose unapportioned taxes upon income FROM wages, but NOT wages. This is the CRUX of why the USSC has to date avoided every request for certiorari concerning individual income taxation.

Certainly, wages ARE income, it is just that wages are NOT taxable income--in so far that such is not qualified as 'constitutional income'.

[Weston White]

The argument that a tax on personal earnings is a direct tax was considered and rejected in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), where the Court held that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of a duty or excise.

There is an obvious distinction between a tax imposed directly upon an object/activity and a tax imposed upon what is derived from an object/activity. Gee, one would imagine that your supposed many, many, many years of lawyerly experience would have at least taught you that.

[Weston White]

It's understandable that someone who has fallen for Peter Hendrickson's scam would think that the income tax system is lawless, but I assure you that it is not. It may very well be bad policy, but to claim that it isn't based on the law simply displays ignorance.

Peter Hendrickson's scam? Certainly, his method overlooks a few necessary aspects as stated within the CFR (such as providing an affidavit setting forth your claim), it is certainly not a scam. You have EVERY legal right to file for a valid claim of refund, it is provided for with the IRC--the entire process is laid out there; however, the IRS is not whatsoever trained on this, rather ignoring it entirely--such is a matter for the IRS to review and correspond any concerns with each filer making such claims. This is not a matter for you and your Q-LOST buddies to inject your personal or professional beliefs in.

[Weston White]

Your signature is hopelessly wrong and misleading. I've already pointed out that income from illegal activities is taxable, yet you and the other Hendrickson lemmings have yet to show what privilege is involved in such cases.

A tax on illegal activities would be a tax on the privilege of violating the law, yes? Much in the same way as a speeding, parking, or red light violation ticket is a fee on the privilege of violating a state's traffic laws.

Also you cannot accurately look towards tax cases involving individuals to substantiate your point, as the majority of them are resolved in Tax Court as unpublished opinions or are settled during discovery in trial court--in-fact the only cases that really only go forward to appeals are the clear-cut frivolous argument ones and the majority of those are pro per.

However, there is one very intriguing (vacated) case that I have pointed you to before: Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, No. 05-5139, D.C. Cir., (2006), VACATED in ibid., (2007). This complete 180-degree two-fer case clearly proves that there are external forces compelling the courts to maintain the status quo.