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

[devil21]

Bingo! I've been trying to tell these people... "Laws" don't matter. You are dealing with a criminal gang called the federal mafia. Irwin was right in all his research about the "laws" and it did not help him one bit. He was put in prison and he died there because the only mistake he made was thinking that the criminal gang would follow any "law". The only "law" they follow is: "The meek are weak and the strong do eat"...

Oh, so because there are political prisoners then being in the right is pointless and the knowledge should be forgotten and ignored? I'm glad the Dali Lama, Nelson Mandela, Ron Paul and others didn't take that approach. The world will turn into a very ugly place (see my post by William Cooper about the NWO) if everyone thinks like that. There's something to be said for not making oneself a martyr and we all put up with the bull$#@! to various extents but attacking the messengers seems like really bad form and only further supports the tyranny. The thieving bankers appreciate angelatc, erowe and others defeatist posts, I assure you.

A blast from the past for old RPFers:

[Sonny Tufts]

Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers.

Absolute nonsense. It is the legal tender of the bankers that is taxable, since the income tax is the user fee (interest) for using their legal tender debt notes.

If none of that means anything to you then unfortunately you are way out of your element in this thread and probably should just keep on doing what you're doing and never think about income taxes again.

If anyone is out of his element it's someone who believes in the bilge you posted, which is peddled by someone so deranged that he once sued his own motor scooter.

[Sonny Tufts]

Could it be that most people are employees of the United States (Inc.) but don't know it? Hmm...

Could it be that you didn't read the first sentence of the statute? What part of "any person" did you not understand?

SCOTUS has explained the statute's reference to federal employees:

Nor is there merit in petitioner’s contention that Congress, by specifically providing in 6331 for levy upon the accrued salaries of federal employees, but not mentioning state employees, evinced an intention to exclude the latter from levy. The explanation of that action by Congress appears quite clearly to be that this Court had held in Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388, that a federal disbursing officer might not, in the absence of express congressional authorization, set off an indebtedness of a federal employee to the Government against the employee’s salary, and, pursuant to that opinion, the Comptroller General ruled that an ‘administrative official served with [notices of levy] would be without authority to withhold any portion of the current salary of such employee in satisfaction of the notices of levy and distraint.’ 26 Comp. Gen. 907, 912 (1947). It is evident that 6331 was enacted to overcome that difficulty and to subject the salaries of federal employees to the same collection procedures as are available against all other taxpayers, including employees of a State.” Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 112-113 (1959) (emphasis added)

[Sonny Tufts]

Of course you won't find any as such cases are unpublished opinions

Prove it. Prove that anyone has successfully avoided the income tax by using any of the crackpot tax protester arguments. Or are you one of those paranoid types who believes the absence of any such reported cases proves that there's a massive conspiracy to hide them?

That is the curious thing about the individual income tax, for every other class of income tax it's both made "liable" and "imposed", with exception to the individual income tax, it is only "imposed", but never made "liable".

The fact that Section 6151 says that if someone has to file a return he SHALL PAY the tax and the fact that there are civil and criminal penalties for failing to do so would convince anyone of minimal intelligence that there is a liability.

[Contumacious]

Prove it. Prove that anyone has successfully avoided the income tax by using any of the crackpot tax protester arguments. Or are you one of those paranoid types who believes the absence of any such reported cases proves that there's a massive conspiracy to hide them?



The fact that Section 6151 says that if someone has to file a return he SHALL PAY the tax and the fact that there are civil and criminal penalties for failing to do so would convince anyone of minimal intelligence that there is a liability.

Yo Vern,

what are "crackpot tax protester arguments"?!?!?!?


.

[tommyrp12]

Originally Posted by devil21 View Post

Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers.

Absolute nonsense. It is the legal tender of the bankers that is taxable, since the income tax is the user fee (interest) for using their legal tender debt notes.

I'll admit I didn't read throught the whole thread but it seems that all you did here was confirm that the income tax is the user fee for using private credit.
Meaning the lawful money has no such obligation attached to it.

Unless you were just restating what the theory is I think we should all take note of the booby trap that is private credit.

[devil21]

I'll admit I didn't read throught the whole thread but it seems that all you did here was confirm that the income tax is the user fee for using private credit.
Meaning the lawful money has no such obligation attached to it.

Unless that is you were just restating what the theory is I think we all take note of the booby trap that is private credit.

Bingo. Legally, a way to avoid the private credit of the bankers and therefore the user fee attached must be included in statute. Otherwise it is an unconscionable contract which can not be enforced since there is no other choice. Everything is based in commercial contract law now. No one can force you to enter a contract and using the banker's private credit is agreeing to a contract even if you don't realize it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I don't personally have a problem with private credit and user fees but I do wish people were able to make an informed choice in the matter instead of being brainwashed into it and then being hamstrung when they run afoul of something they didn't even realize they were agreeing to.

Lawful money is legal tender but legal tender isn't necessarily lawful money. Private banker credit is legal tender but is not lawful money unless it is specifically notated as lawful money per 12USC411. A FRN is lawful money IF handled in accordance with 411. If not in accordance then it is only legal tender, with user fee attached.

Could it be that you didn't read the first sentence of the statute? What part of "any person" did you not understand?

Now we're getting to the meat. This should be fun. A 'person' means a corporate entity, not a flesh and blood human. The key is to realize that the english that the average person speaks is not the english that a lawyer (someone that drafts legislation, for example) speaks. What Joe Blow interprets as a person is not what a lawyer interprets as a person. This is why Romney said "corporations are people". Under legal terminology, he is correct. The corporate entity 'person' the IRC refers to is the all capital letter "person" that everyone sees on their tax bills, their drivers license, their credit cards, etc. That all capital letter "person" is not the living human that carries those items around. The living human is (usually unknowingly) the representative of the all capital letter corporate entity that is created when the human's certificate of live birth is turned over to the state. The state sends it on to the Feds, who turn it into a financial instrument and then turn it over as collateral to the bankers. Since practically everyone is securitized in this way as collateral against the debt, it means that practically everyone is actually a federal employee, since they are working to repay debt that the government accrues. Now 6331 should make more sense....

I'm sure you'll say that's all crackpot theory or whatever but it is historically factual and goes on every day.

[Sonny Tufts]

A 'person' means a corporate entity, not a flesh and blood human.

Wrong again. The term is defined in IRC Section 77101(a)(1):

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

"Individual" means a human being.

[Sonny Tufts]

Yo Vern,

what are "crackpot tax protester arguments"?!?!?!?.

Here's a whole list of them, along with their refutations: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[ChristianAnarchist]

Oh, so because there are political prisoners then being in the right is pointless and the knowledge should be forgotten and ignored? I'm glad the Dali Lama, Nelson Mandela, Ron Paul and others didn't take that approach. The world will turn into a very ugly place (see my post by William Cooper about the NWO) if everyone thinks like that. There's something to be said for not making oneself a martyr and we all put up with the bull$#@! to various extents but attacking the messengers seems like really bad form and only further supports the tyranny. The thieving bankers appreciate angelatc, erowe and others defeatist posts, I assure you.

A blast from the past for old RPFers:

Never said "being right" is pointless (indeed, the point I make is "right"). I said that my friend Irwin was "right" about the tax code and the "goons" didn't give a damn and they never will. I don't want good people going to "court" thinking they have some magic words to say to the judge that will allow them to walk free when the goons want their money. Ain't gonna happen. Goons with guns win every time.

To make any change we need to say "no" in numbers that they cannot ignore. We don't say "no" because some magic passage in the code says we can say "no". We say "NO" because it's the right (moral) thing to do whether their damn "law" says it is or not. It is RIGHT to keep your money and it's WRONG for them to steal it. That is what people need to realize and when enough of the people wake up their goon squads won't be big enough to break our legs and burn down our houses. THEN we win...

P.S. If I'm wrong then show me the 100's of "patriots" who have gone to court and won... Oh, ok, show me 10 who have won... 5???

[erowe1]

Oh, so because there are political prisoners then being in the right is pointless and the knowledge should be forgotten and ignored?

When it comes to the arguments of the gurus who claim that federal laws do not require people who earn incomes to pay taxes, what it would mean for them to be in the right is that their arguments would actually work in court. That's it.

[devil21]

Wrong again. The term is defined in IRC Section 77101(a)(1):



"Individual" means a human being.

There is the "corporation" right there in the definition and I already explained how most humans are not "individuals", per that definition under the IRC, but are rather representatives of corporations (the all capital letter name) by unknowing consent. Sure, a "person" can be an individual under that definition but under the IRC most "persons" are not individuals. The human is a representative of the corporate entity that the tax is being assessed to. The tax is not being assessed to the human, it is being assessed to the corporation.

That definition can call a "person" a monkey with a hat on but if there are no monkeys with hats on then what difference does it make? Btw, you're taking angelatc's route of picking out minutae to argue over and acting like it negates the entire post. That's a sign of intellectual dishonesty and a losing argument.

When it comes to the arguments of the gurus who claim that federal laws do not require people who earn incomes to pay taxes, what it would mean for them to be in the right is that their arguments would actually work in court. That's it.

That is a fair enough assessment, however where most screw up is that showing up in court in the first place generally means admitting to being the representative of the corporate entity that I described in my last couple posts.

Judge: "Are you erowe1?"
erowe1: "Yes and here's my argument....."

You just f'ed up already by identifying yourself as the representative of the all capital letter corporate name that the tax is being assessed to. You took on the role as surety. One of the earlier posters was on the right track in saying that justice won't be found in their courts. I think you previously attributed some statement about court victories to me that I never claimed. I said some have prevailed against the IRS and Danke posted a link to some of them. Seems you turned it into something about court cases and prison and whatnot.

[Contumacious]

Here's a whole list of them, along with their refutations: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

The website identifies the first constitutional fallacies as

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

Bull$#@!

1- CERTIFIED Historical EVIDENCE shows that the 16A was NOT adopted

2- the tax is on income not principal , ie, wages

3- the tax exempts incomes of less that $4000 (in 2010 dollars that is $374,000.00

So f u c k you and the miserable pieces of s h i t who claim to be Article III "judges"

.

[devil21]

Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition in court because the Constitution is no longer the law of the land and therefore not "law" in courts. Courts are commercial courts under UCC, not common law. Like I said, it's all commerce now. The Constitution is only a guideline but is not binding. How many know that the original Constitution wasn't only replaced with a new Constitution but an entire amendment was removed before it was replaced? The history of this land mass known as America (but is really United States Inc.) isn't what most people believe it is, because they are taught LIES from day one.

[Sonny Tufts]

The human is a representative of the corporate entity that the tax is being assessed to. The tax is not being assessed to the human, it is being assessed to the corporation.

The IRC includes alimony in gross income. Since when did corporations begin receiving alimony?

[Sonny Tufts]

1- CERTIFIED Historical EVIDENCE shows that the 16A was NOT adopted

2- the tax is on income not principal , ie, wages

3- the tax exempts incomes of less that $4000 (in 2010 dollars that is $374,000.00.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1. The 16th was indeed ratified. But the 16th wasn't necessary to tax wages, since the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War income tax in 1880 based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The only reason the 16th was adopted was to overturn an 1895 case in which the Court held that a tax on investment income (but not wages) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.

2. The argument that wages aren't income is one of the most brain-dead claims out there. It has been consistently rejected by the courts, and people who continue to raise it are often fined by the court for wasting their time with such frivolous arguments.

3. Guess again. The $4,000 exemption for a married couple under the 1913 tax act (long since repealed) equates to $96,671 in today's dollars. But the Constitution doesn't mandate any particular exemption amount.

[Contumacious]

Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition in court because the Constitution is no longer the law of the land and therefore not "law" in courts. Courts are commercial courts under UCC, not common law. Like I said, it's all commerce now. The Constitution is only a guideline but is not binding. How many know that the original Constitution wasn't only replaced with a new Constitution but an entire amendment was removed before it was replaced? The history of this land mass known as America (but is really United States Inc.) isn't what most people believe it is, because they are taught LIES from day one.

Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition because FDR ABOLISHED the Constitution (1787) and replaced it with the fascist welfare/warfare police state Constitution of 1935.

[devil21]

Constitutional arguments are a losing proposition because FDR ABOLISHED the Constitution (1787) and replaced it with the fascist welfare/warfare police state Constitution of 1935.

My research indicates that it was prior to that, with the Organic Act of 1871 that created the corporate District of Columbia.

Take a look at this timeline if you haven't before. The contents line up as well as any I've seen based on my own research.
http://www.teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm

The IRC includes alimony in gross income. Since when did corporations begin receiving alimony?

smh

You can't truly be this obtuse. How many times do I have to type it? The CAPITAL LETTER NAME is the corporation. The bank account is in the CAPITAL LETTER NAME. Alimony is private banker credit (with user fee) deposited to a bank account of the CAPITAL LETTER NAME corporation. Most humans unknowingly take responsibility for the CAPITAL LETTER NAME (using the benefits but also taking on the liabilities) and take responsibility for the taxes assessed to the CAPITAL LETTER NAME. You (the living human) doesn't receive alimony. The CAPITAL LETTER NAME corporation does. I realize this is a difficult abstract concept to grasp for someone that isn't familiar but damn....

Here's something most people can relate to that should help to understand. When a cop asks for your drivers license, he is asking you to present yourself as the representative of the capital letter name on the license. That name is not you. But by adding your picture and your signature voluntarily (you did apply for the license of your own free will) you are agreeing to be surety for the capital letter name corporation on the license. This also applies to Social Security, which is also in the capital corporate name. Get it yet?

[Sonny Tufts]

I realize this is a difficult abstract concept to grasp for someone that isn't familiar but damn....

It's not so much difficult as it is vacuously inane, insipid, and downright stupid.

[devil21]

It's not so much difficult as it is vacuously inane, insipid, and downright stupid.

Psst. You're losing.

[Jamesiv1]

Is tax protesting a cult?

Tax protesting certainly seems to have many of the characteristics of a religious cult.
For example, a religious cult usually has at least some of the following characteristics:

• Cults claim a monopoly on truth (or salvation). So, for example, members of a cult will believe that only their members are saved, or will go to heaven, and that everyone on earth is damned. Similarly, tax protesters believe that only they know the truth about the federal income tax, and often believe that everyone who disagrees with them is not only ignorant, but a “slave,” “communist,” “statist” (meaing someone who worships government like a religion), or “sheeple” (meaning a sheep-like person).
  
• Cult members are typically isolated from the rest of society, either at the urging of the cult leader (who want to control the thinking of the cult members) or because the cult members themselves feel hostile or alienated from society. Similarly, promoters of tax protester schemes typically tell their followers not to talk to lawyers and accountants, and tax protesters themselves often withdraw from family and friends as they become obsessed with their tax battles.
  
• Cult members may suffer from “cognitive dissonance” as they find their beliefs leading them further and further from reality. So, for example, a group that believes that the world will end (or space aliens will come to rescue them from earth) on a particular day will not change their beliefs when the expected event does not occur, but will create new beliefs (and new expectations), consist with the old beliefs, in order to explain the dissonance between what they believe should have happened and what actually happened. Similarly, tax protester who believe that they are correct will not change their beliefs when they lose in court and are convicted, sanctioned, and enjoined, but will simply make up a new theory about why the courts are wrong or corrupt.
  
• Cult members frequently engage in self-destructive behavior, giving up fiends, family, spouses, money, and even their lives in order to comply with the demands of their cult. For example, the followers of Jim Jones, at “Jonestown” in Guyana, committed mass suicide (and mass murder) at his urgings. Similarly, tax protesters who have “drunk the kool-aid” will continue to follow tax protester nonsense even as it leads them to financial ruin and prison.

However, there are significant differences between religious cults and tax protesting. Most religious cults are founded by charismatic leaders, while the “gurus” of the tax protesting cult are typically as charismatic as a damp dish rag. Most religious cults also impose a very strict standard of thought and conduct, forcing cult members to conform to various aspects of conduct, dress, speech, and thought. However, most tax protesters are inherently anarchistic and have a large number of different—and conflicting—beliefs about exactly why the federal income tax is unconstitutional or inapplicable. Tax protesters are therefore rarely able to form any kind of a cohesive group large enough to call a “cult.”

[devil21]

You forgot the link.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/...esting-a-cult/

[Jamesiv1]

You forgot the link.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/...esting-a-cult/

Why don't you do some research before you embarrass yourself again..?

[erowe1]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1. The 16th was indeed ratified. But the 16th wasn't necessary to tax wages, since the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War income tax in 1880 based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The only reason the 16th was adopted was to overturn an 1895 case in which the Court held that a tax on investment income (but not wages) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.

2. The argument that wages aren't income is one of the most brain-dead claims out there. It has been consistently rejected by the courts, and people who continue to raise it are often fined by the court for wasting their time with such frivolous arguments.

3. Guess again. The $4,000 exemption for a married couple under the 1913 tax act (long since repealed) equates to $96,671 in today's dollars. But the Constitution doesn't mandate any particular exemption amount.

How many cases of people successfully getting out of paying income taxes by using these arguments in court can you find?

[erowe1]

Psst. You're losing.

How do you figure?

Way back in this thread you claimed there were bunches of cases of people getting out of paying income taxes by using your guru's arguments, and so far you haven't come up with a single one, while at the same time it's been shown that that guru himself along with a number of his followers have been imprisoned for not paying taxes.

Have you found any of those cases you alluded to yet?

[devil21]

Why don't you do some research before you embarrass yourself again..?

You posted it, not me. Next time post a link if you're posting someone else's writing.

[Jamesiv1]

You posted it, not me. Next time post a link if you're posting someone else's writing.

That's very collectivist of you.

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

[devil21]

That's very collectivist of you.

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

Says the guy copying and pasting other people's writings as if they are his own. Never mind that the text you posted comes from a tax lawyer's website. I'm shocked that someone that swore a BAR oath to uphold the bankruptcy proceedings of the "United States" (Inc.) on behalf of the Crown bankers writes articles calling tax protestors crazy and cultish.


Btw, your avatar of a Roman statue of an ancient god that is housed in London is quite telling....you wouldn't happen to be an occultist lawyer, would ya?

Mithra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

As the Divinity of Contract, Mithra is undeceivable, infallible, eternally watchful, and never-resting. Mithra is additionally the protector of cattle (d21: cattle=tax slaves), and his stock epithet is "of Wide Pastures." He is Guardian of the waters (d21:admiralty law, law of commerce) and ensures that those pastures receive enough of it.

Thus, etymologically mitra/miθra means "that which causes binding" (d21: bondage), preserved in the Avestan word for "Covenant, Contract, Oath"

Gee, contracts and bondage. What a surprise!

The Roman cult of Mithras
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mi....php?page=main

[Weston White]

Is tax protesting a cult?

Tax protesting certainly seems to have many of the characteristics of a religious cult.
For example, a religious cult usually has at least some of the following characteristics:

• Cults claim a monopoly on truth (or salvation). So, for example, members of a cult will believe that only their members are saved, or will go to heaven, and that everyone on earth is damned. Similarly, tax protesters believe that only they know the truth about the federal income tax, and often believe that everyone who disagrees with them is not only ignorant, but a “slave,” “communist,” “statist” (meaing someone who worships government like a religion), or “sheeple” (meaning a sheep-like person).
  
• Cult members are typically isolated from the rest of society, either at the urging of the cult leader (who want to control the thinking of the cult members) or because the cult members themselves feel hostile or alienated from society. Similarly, promoters of tax protester schemes typically tell their followers not to talk to lawyers and accountants, and tax protesters themselves often withdraw from family and friends as they become obsessed with their tax battles.
  
• Cult members may suffer from “cognitive dissonance” as they find their beliefs leading them further and further from reality. So, for example, a group that believes that the world will end (or space aliens will come to rescue them from earth) on a particular day will not change their beliefs when the expected event does not occur, but will create new beliefs (and new expectations), consist with the old beliefs, in order to explain the dissonance between what they believe should have happened and what actually happened. Similarly, tax protester who believe that they are correct will not change their beliefs when they lose in court and are convicted, sanctioned, and enjoined, but will simply make up a new theory about why the courts are wrong or corrupt.
  
• Cult members frequently engage in self-destructive behavior, giving up fiends, family, spouses, money, and even their lives in order to comply with the demands of their cult. For example, the followers of Jim Jones, at “Jonestown” in Guyana, committed mass suicide (and mass murder) at his urgings. Similarly, tax protesters who have “drunk the kool-aid” will continue to follow tax protester nonsense even as it leads them to financial ruin and prison.

However, there are significant differences between religious cults and tax protesting. Most religious cults are founded by charismatic leaders, while the “gurus” of the tax protesting cult are typically as charismatic as a damp dish rag. Most religious cults also impose a very strict standard of thought and conduct, forcing cult members to conform to various aspects of conduct, dress, speech, and thought. However, most tax protesters are inherently anarchistic and have a large number of different—and conflicting—beliefs about exactly why the federal income tax is unconstitutional or inapplicable. Tax protesters are therefore rarely able to form any kind of a cohesive group large enough to call a “cult.”

What an utterly ignorant, insultingly tawdry article. Not sure your point of posting other than that you agree to the points of it--which casts you into the realm of being a jackass.

[Weston White]

Could it be that you didn't read the first sentence of the statute? What part of "any person" did you not understand?

Notice: “If any person liable to pay any tax”; thus by your liberal meaning, any tax, actually means EVERY tax, wherever.

SCOTUS has explained the statute's reference to federal employees:

There are three key aspects considered by this Statute (1) levy on property or rights to such property, (2) liens for future payments of, and (3) ‘notices of levy’ upon—not the incomes, but the salaries or wages of—federal employees of every classification. And we know that Congress cannot abscond from it Constitutional (5th Amend.) requirements thereby as to “any person” in the positive and “no person” in the negative: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

It cannot be made any more clearer: “Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.”

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1. The 16th was indeed ratified. But the 16th wasn't necessary to tax wages, since the Supreme Court upheld the Civil War income tax in 1880 based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The only reason the 16th was adopted was to overturn an 1895 case in which the Court held that a tax on investment income (but not wages) was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.

2. The argument that wages aren't income is one of the most brain-dead claims out there. It has been consistently rejected by the courts, and people who continue to raise it are often fined by the court for wasting their time with such frivolous arguments.

3. Guess again. The $4,000 exemption for a married couple under the 1913 tax act (long since repealed) equates to $96,671 in today's dollars. But the Constitution doesn't mandate any particular exemption amount.

Eh, no, no, and no. Err...Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1. The 16th Amend. was not necessary to taxes wages only if the tax is so apportioned; however, to tax income by another method it must have derived from wages--as a financial source. The tax is not upon mere compensation, recompense, renumeration, labor, livelihoods, or competency, but upon wealth acquired beyond all such provisions.

2. It is not mere income in its general sense that is the context of the income tax, but income that is uniformly taxable under our U.S. Constitution--'constitutional income' is the term referenced throughout Congressional Records.

3. In any case, it is clear that it was the original intent and purpose of the 16th Amend. and its income tax to NOT tax the common wages of day-labors, only real wealth, and only to support the temporary war efforts of the time, rather than depending solely on tariffs.