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

[erowe1]

No they are not voluntary if one falls under the definition of a "taxpayer", which is a voluntary class, therefore making taxation voluntary as Reid stated. You seem to have trouble grasping that part. If you'd like to discuss what makes one fall under that definition (or not), we can.

And people use this argument in court and avoid prison?

[Zippyjuan]

And people use this argument in court and avoid prison?

The only cases I have been able to find where somebody is claimed to have "beaten" the IRS is over either deductions or penalties assessed. I can't find one where the person was told they didn't have to file their taxes.

[Danke]

The only cases I have been able to find where somebody is claimed to have "beaten" the IRS is over either deductions or penalties assessed. I can't find one where the person was told they didn't have to file their taxes.

"file their taxes."


Losing position if one admits they have taxes due.

We have at least two here on RPFs that I know of who do not file.

[erowe1]

We have at least two here on RPFs that do not file.

Have either of them been audited?

[devil21]

And people use this argument in court and avoid prison?

If one is a "taxpayer" and doesn't pay, then no (though Reid himself said prison sentences almost never happen regardless). That's the whole point. Read the Federal Reserve Act 12 USC 411. Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers. 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.

[Zippyjuan]

If one is a "taxpayer" and doesn't pay, then no. That's the whole point. Read the Federal Reserve Act 12 USC 411. Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers. 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.

Let's see what that actually says. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

Makes no references to income or income taxation other than to say the notes can be used to pay taxes.

Did you mean some other law? Rest of Federal Reserve Act: https://www.federalreserve.gov/about.../section16.htm

(I don't find anything else in the rest of that either).

[erowe1]

If one is a "taxpayer" and doesn't pay, then no. That's the whole point. Read the Federal Reserve Act 12 USC 411. Lawful money is not taxable as it is not the private credit of the bankers. 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.

What's the point of using this argument if it results in your going to prison?

Is it possible that you're not as much in your element as you think you are, given that you have repeatedly claimed that people have succeeded at using your arguments in court, but you are unable to cite any examples of that?

[devil21]

What's the point of using this argument if it results in your going to prison?

Is it possible that you're not as much in your element as you think you are, given that you have repeatedly claimed that people have succeeded at using your arguments in court, but you are unable to cite any examples of that?

Apparently I am talking to a brick wall and you have some fixation with prison.

I've said enough on this thread. Can lead a horse to water blah blah. Anybody that wants to know more is free to PM me.

It's hard to free people from the chains they revere. When Zippy, erowe and angelatc are all defenders of the Communist Manifesto on Liberty Forest, we've officially entered bizarro world.

[erowe1]

Apparently I am talking to a brickwall and you have some fixation with prison.

Staying out of prison is the whole point. If your arguments don't actually work in court, then they're pointless. This might have seemed like less of a fixation if you had cited your examples the first time I asked for them (after you had claimed there were many).

What are you going to do if you get audited and taken to court for having never filed income taxes, and the judge or jury don't accept your arguments? Are you just going to say, "You are out of your element, you need to read such-and-such."?

[Zippyjuan]

I am not arguing for or against taxes here. I am arguing that you can't avoid them (legally).

[Danke]

What creates the liability to pay an income tax?

[devil21]

Staying out of prison is the whole point. If your arguments don't actually work in court, then they're pointless. This might have seemed like less of a fixation if you had cited your examples the first time I asked for them (after you had claimed there were many).

What are you going to do if you get audited and taken to court for having never filed income taxes, and the judge or jury don't accept your arguments? Are you just going to say, "You are out of your element, you need to read such-and-such."?

The arguments aren't needed in court since there IS NO THREAT OF COURT IF YOU OPERATE LAWFULLY as a "nontaxpayer". There is no judge or jury if you have operated within the law. The law isn't "pay your taxes". What part do you not grasp?? You're talking about court and prison, which is a possibility for someone that acts illegally. It is not a possibility if someone is not a taxpayer, by definition.

Here, educate yourself: https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/ctcforfree.pdf Cracking the Code

If you post again and haven't read that then I'll know you have no interest in productive discussion, only disruption for some reason.

[Zippyjuan]

Short version- what is a "non-taxpayer"? How does one establish themselves as one? How many have successfully avoided having to file taxes without penalty?

[erowe1]

The arguments aren't needed in court since there IS NO THREAT OF COURT IF YOU OPERATE LAWFULLY as a "nontaxpayer".

Why do you believe this?

Obviously it is a possibility, since some of the people who have followed the Cracking the Code approach, including its author, have been imprisoned for it.

[Zippyjuan]

Short version- what is a "non-taxpayer"? How does one establish themselves as one? How many have successfully avoided having to file taxes without penalty? (noting that 45% of income tax filers owed no net income taxes last year)

http://www.constitutionpreservation....ws-prison-term

'Cracking the Code' author draws prison term

Paul Egan / The Detroit News

Detroit -- A man whose claims that most earnings are not subject to income tax have drawn national attention was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison Monday by a federal judge.

Peter Hendrickson, 54, of Commerce Township, whose views on federal income tax are detailed in his book "Cracking the Code," was found guilty of 10 counts of filing false documents by a federal jury in October.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen bristled when a courtroom full of Hendrickson's supporters burst into applause after the defendant's pre-sentencing speech and said Hendrickson has taken on the mantle of an anti-tax hero.

"You simply do not respect the law and do not respect your obligation as a citizen to follow the law," Rosen told Hendrickson.

He also ordered Hendrickson to pay a $25,000 fine, close to $30,000 in restitution, and repay the cost of his prosecution. After he is released from prison, Hendrickson is to serve six years of supervised release, Rosen said.

Hendrickson testified at his trial that income tax is an excise tax and excise taxes may only be levied upon those who benefit from a government privilege, such as a government job. But the government called expert witnesses from the Internal Revenue Service who rejected Hendrickson's arguments.

Mark Daly, an attorney with the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, D.C., said Hendrickson's books and website postings have convinced many others that they are not subject to income tax.

About 10,000 income tax returns have been filed in a manner similar to what Hendrickson uses, Daly said. "The court needs to send a message to this large community."

Hendrickson, who was allowed to remain free on bond until the Bureau of Prisons asks him to report, said he will appeal both his convictions and his sentence.

Have you followed his advice successfully?

[Danke]

Short version- what is a "non-taxpayer"? How does one establish themselves as one? How many have successfully avoided having to file taxes without penalty? (noting that 45% of income tax filers owed no net income taxes last year)

[url]http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/may-7-2010/cracking-code-author-draws-prison-term[/url

Have you followed his advice successfully?

I have followed the cases against the Hendricksons. They never prove a tax liability

[erowe1]

I have followed the cases against the Hendricksons. They never prove a tax liability

So they didn't go to prison?

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...es-t.html?_r=0

(He did once send a bomb to an IRS office)

There’s one thing, though, that has prevented Hendrickson’s complete metamorphosis from mail bomber to soccer dad: his views about the income tax. Although he no longer contends that the tax is unconstitutional — a misguided notion, he says, that led to his misguided actions of 19 years ago — he does believe the tax is grossly misapplied. The incomes of most Americans, he argues, aren’t legally subject to state or federal income tax. It’s a belief he has spelled out at some length in his book “Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America.” One part Talmudic reading of the tax code, one part populist jeremiad against “a swollen cadre of politically astute private interests and their camp-followers,” the book, which he self-published in 2003, claims to prove that the only income that’s taxable under the law is that which is paid out by the government in salaries, grants, investment dividends and other means.

He was inspired by Peter Schiff's dad (who also went to jail for his tax avoidance ideas).

Nathan Hochman, who until recently served as the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s tax division, notes that if a tax denier is taken to court, the odds are overwhelmingly against him. “In over 95 percent of the cases that go to trial against tax defiers,” he says, using the term that the Justice Department now prefers for tax deniers, “the government has convicted these folks.” Tax deniers often make the government’s case rather easy, as many base their defenses on the legally unsound arguments that got them in trouble in the first place. Some make it even easier by coming up with newer, even more frivolous arguments — like maintaining that if the American flag in the courtroom features gold fringe, then that flag is a “maritime flag of war” and the court therefore has no jurisdiction.

When a prominent tax denier loses in court, it almost invariably spells the end of the popularity of whatever argument he was promoting. “Obviously, getting sentenced to 13 years in prison doesn’t really recommend you to anybody,” says Dave Champion, a tax denier in California who runs a firm that advises individuals whom he insists on calling “nontaxpayers.” (“My adversary is the most powerful machine,” he cautions, “so I want to make clear I only work with nontaxpayers.”) But while a criminal conviction causes a tax denier’s clients to lose faith in a particular guru, few of them lose faith in the movement as a whole. They simply go in search of a different guru with a different argument. “They’re like a bunch of lost sheep,” says JJ MacNab, a financial planner who has testified on the tax-denial movement before the Senate Finance Committee. “And there are all these shepherds fighting with one another to bring them into their flocks.”

No tax denier has achieved more prominence than Irwin Schiff, the man whose writings helped spark Peter Hendrickson’s initial hostility toward the income tax. Schiff started his professional life conventionally enough: he ran an insurance brokerage firm in Connecticut. But after he lost his and his clients’ money in the late 1960s in a tax shelter that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, he entered the netherworld of the nascent tax-honesty movement. While many tax deniers at the time were farmers in the Dakotas who were responding to a foreclosure crisis, Schiff, who held an accounting degree from the University of Connecticut, had an aura of economic expertise.

Schiff also had the spirit — and business ethics — of a carnival barker. He wrote a half-dozen books, including the best seller “How Anyone Can Stop Paying Their Income Taxes.” He appeared on national TV shows like “Larry King Live” on CNN and “The Tomorrow Show” on NBC. When he wasn’t barnstorming the country conducting seminars, he was working out of a storefront office in Las Vegas, where, behind a giant sign that read, “Why Pay Income Taxes? When No Law Says You Have To?” he peddled his services. According to one estimate, he had more than 50,000 clients, a figure that’s even more remarkable when you consider he was operating in the pre-Internet era.

Schiff’s business model was cynical but clever. His books, which instructed readers on how to file what he called “zero returns” in order to qualify for refunds, went for a reasonable $35 or so. He made his real money on what his books wrought. As MacNab, who is writing a history of tax deniers, explains: “His readers would often have some initial success with those zero returns, but eventually they’d receive a letter from the I.R.S. alerting them that they’d made a frivolous tax argument, so they’d go back to Schiff and say, ‘What do I do?’ He’d say: ‘Oh, we have a form letter you can send in response to that. It’s an extra $50.’ And every time the thing escalated, Schiff’s next package cost a bit more money, all the way up to a $1,000 tax-court toolkit. The more desperate you got, the higher his prices went. A lot of people went to their ruin because of Schiff.”

[Danke]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...es-t.html?_r=0

(He did once send a bomb to an IRS office)

This thread is more and more approaching the stupid quotient. This has been discussed so many times here before. You guys can't read the material and know the history then nobody can help you. Enjoy your slavery.

[Jamesiv1]

"Your Honor, my client does not owe taxes because he is lawfully operating as a non-taxpayer."

"Your client earned income, and he owes taxes on it."

"No.... you see, he is a non-taxpayer."

"Have a nice orange jumpsuit."

[Danke]

"Your Honor, my client does not owe taxes because he is lawfully operating as a non-taxpayer."

"Your client earned income, and he owes taxes on it."

"No.... you see, he is a non-taxpayer."

"Have a nice orange jumpsuit."

Get a clue. Can you say the same for a client in China you paid with FRNs?

[devil21]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331

(a) Authority of Secretary

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. 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. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

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

[Contumacious]

What's the point of using this argument if it results in your going to prison?

Is it possible that you're not as much in your element as you think you are, given that you have repeatedly claimed that people have succeeded at using your arguments in court, but you are unable to cite any examples of that?

ANY argument in which you claim that you do not owe taxes will be ignored by the federal "judges" They have sworn to support and defend the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state . In their courts you lose.

[Weston White]

I quoted your exact words.

No, I was referring to this, which is your own writing, not a quote of mine:

I don't see what it has to do with your original claim that 100% of income tax revenue goes to paying interest on the debt.

[Weston White]

Uh, no. Not because I decreed it so. Because it is what it is. I said a specific point was incorrect. You said that meant therefore I agreed that that the rest of the article was correct. That's an error in reasoning, aka a logical fallacy.

No, you are fixating on a single, solitary point to thereby discount the whole of the article. And I called you out on it, your well known laziness does not grant you exception to a well acknowledged principle, you want to be silent on the remainder, then you are determined to be in its agreement. Such is by no means a logical fallacy.

ETA:

Now, if you wish only to argue only one or a few points that is perfectly fine and acceptable, but you have no entitlement to pooh-pooh the entire article in result.

[Weston White]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331



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

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".

[erowe1]

Get a clue. Can you say the same for a client in China you paid with FRNs?

If he's wrong, then please cite the cases of that argument working in court.

[Weston White]

The only cases I have been able to find where somebody is claimed to have "beaten" the IRS is over either deductions or penalties assessed. I can't find one where the person was told they didn't have to file their taxes.

Of course you won't find any as such cases are unpublished opinions and/or are administrative court cases specific only to that individual plaintiff, such as via the U.S. Tax Court.

[erowe1]

ANY argument in which you claim that you do not owe taxes will be ignored by the federal "judges" They have sworn to support and defend the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state . In their courts you lose.

Correct.

That's why these gurus who claim to have some way of avoiding income taxes by some construal of the written laws that those courts use are all con artists.

[ChristianAnarchist]

ANY argument in which you claim that you do not owe taxes will be ignored by the federal "judges" They have sworn to support and defend the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state . In their courts you lose.

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"...