can anybody answer these 4 questions on tax.

ere are four questions that need to be asked and answered for the people to have confidence that the law is being applied correctly.

1. What is the definition of the word Income as used in the Internal Revenue code? Please cite the source of authority?


2. Is the Income tax a Direct tax or Indirect tax?

3. What statute makes me liable for the Individual Income Tax?
(Please cite statute and corresponding regulation).

4.What form is required by law to pay the Individual Income tax and where does the law say that?
(Please cite statute and regulation).

Lets look at the four questions and see why they are important and need to be answered.

1. What is the definition of the word Income as used in the Internal Revenue code?

Gross Income, taxable income, adjusted gross income are words defined in the Income tax code. They are subspecies of the word income. One cannot understand the meaning of these terms without having a definition of the word income. There is no definition of the word income in the income tax code. We want the official definition of the word. (Hint: Income, profit separated from its capital source). Note/ Please do not cite court cases. The executive branch of government enforces the law. What law are you enforcing?

2. Is the Income tax a Direct tax or an Indirect tax?

The constitution allows for two types of taxation with specific rules that govern each specie of tax. A direct tax must be apportioned and indirect taxes must be uniform. I know if it’s a direct tax that the income tax is not apportioned and if it’s an indirect tax it’s not uniform. So what is it?

3. What statute makes me liable for the Individual Income tax?

Not one person, lawyer, accountant or tax preparer that I've asked this question can answer it, and I have asked many. Not one. If I called the County Sheriff and asked him what statute would I be violating if I take my neighbors car without asking him, he would say Wisconsin State statutes ß XXXXXXXX Grand Theft Auto. The law can be looked up in a book of Wisconsin State statutes. It is knowable. The same cannot be said about the income tax law. I've looked. Ask a government official the same question and they act as if the law that requires someone to pay the Individual Income tax is classified information. I wonder what they are hiding?

4. What form is required by law to pay the Individual Income tax and where does the law say that.

Government agencies promulgate rules governing its interaction with the public in accordance with the laws passed by congress. They are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. This one should be easy for the IRS. So what say you, IRS?

We live in a nation where the rule of law governs. I am not against taxes. I understand the government’s need for revenue to meet the legitimate functions of government. The legitimate needs of all the people will never be met if the government refuses to meet its obligation to inform us of the laws we are accountable for. Its time to stop playing hide the ball. The American people have a right to answers from their elected officials. Our elected officials must do their fair share to resolve this problem.

don't pay and then shortly, you will be able to tell US the statute and regulation.

Hint: You are required to pay.

www.quatloos.com

and go to the hall of tax scams link to find each and every one of these questions answered and debunked.

Also check out the very hilarious discussion of Nigerian fraud emails.

Look, I don't care whether the original poster pays taxes or not. Up to you. But I don't want to see the headline tomorrow in the NYT "Liberal website endorses tax fraud" nor do I want to see and DUer's name in a tax protestor law suit.

They don't work
They never work
Not once. Not ever.
Civil penalities. Criminal fraud.
If it seems too good to be true, it is

but i cannot...

however, this may help point you in the right direction:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

MadAsHellNewYorker thanku for the interesting link

not sure if its 100% true, but it is well documented and did make me put on the ole :tinfoilhat:

you now have doubts about the existence of the law?

and that turned out to be true!

I just think there is a lot more that goes on that we don't know about. This just seems to fit into that mold of keeping the people down.

IIRC, wasn't there just a federal court decision saying the IRS cannot compel us to give them anything without a federal court order? I mean doesn't that show that they might not be as powerful as we think?

and the kicker in the article is the point made about our tax return NOT being notarized...that at least brought it home for me a little, making me wonder if this is more then just some kooky bs...

I'm just a sucker for this kinda shit really. I don't trust the government as far as I could throw it. :tinfoilhat:

Dramatic Development:

U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS
Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer
Without A Court Order

Tax Payers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons


Queensbury, NY – On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a federal court order.

Quoting from the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv),

“...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order… cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing.”

Without declaring those provisions of the Code unconstitutional on their face, the court, in effect, nullified key enforcement provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, stripping the IRS of much of its power to compel compliance with its administrative demands for personal and private property. The court characterized IRS summonses issued under Section 7602 as mere “requests.”

The court went on to say that the federal courts are there to protect taxpayers from an “overreaching” IRS, and that the IRS must go through the federal courts before force can be applied on anyone by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS.

although i do notice the article you linked below is from a conservative site. I believe Libertarians and Progressives are much closer in their world view then some would like to believe, and really hope that they can come together in a new alliance to defeat the current "Conservative" republicans.

Sometimes i wish this board was more open to that part of the right a little more. I think we have a lot of commonalities. I see the political spectrum as circle, not a line of extreme left or right. Sometimes there are those who are so left they become conservative and vice-a-versa. but I digress...

...part of the Treasury Department. Well, maybe it ain't but all of the IRS employees carry Treasury credentials (they are very similar in appearance to ss credentials, btw).

:evilgrin:

So they sued Boxer because she said she would meet with them and didn't. I'm fairly certain there is nothing illegal about that. And I notice they don't ever mention anything about the decision in that case. They just say they must have been correct because "Boxer was completely silent".

Yeah, every time I walk away from a raving nut job it's because I have decided they are correct, it's not because I just don't want to engage some raving nut job in conversation.

Then there is the "proof" that the 16th Amendment was never ratified. Some states ratified it with a simple majority in the legislature instead of a two-thirds super majority. Unfortunately for this argument is that it only takes a simple majority of a state's legislature to ratify an amendment. The super majority is in reference to passage of the amendment by the FEDERAL legislature.

And a few governors vetoed the ratification. Unfortunately, ratification is not subject to a governor's veto. So a grandstanding political play by some governors is not pertinent.

i gave the link cause it does show where direct and indirect taxes come from, and does hit a few of the points in the original posters questions...

if you don't follow the directions on the tax forms they send you, you are fine huge fines and risk going to jail.

Tax Protester Is Convicted on 13 U.S. Charges

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Jan. 28 - Al Thompson, the businessman who became a hero to tax protesters when he stopped withholding taxes from the pay of workers at his small manufacturing plant more than four years ago, was convicted on Friday on all but one of 14 tax charges.

The conviction is the latest blow to the "tax honesty movement," a mélange of groups that assert various theories that Americans are tricked into paying taxes.

Mr. Thompson, 58, of Redding, Calif., was convicted of filing a false tax return, false claims against the government and willful failure to withhold and pay taxes.

The jury acquitted Mr. Thompson of conspiring with Joseph Banister, a former Internal Revenue Service criminal investigator, to defeat the tax laws. Mr. Banister, a certified public accountant in San Jose, Calif., who tells clients no law requires them to pay taxes, asked to be tried separately in June.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/business/29tax.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all

It's jump through the flaming hoops time. Let's set up four questions requiring research and make Democratic Undergrounders jump through the hoops. Everybody loves jumping through hoops.

If you have a point to these questions why don't you just say it? Conversely if this is something you are curious about (i.e. you don't already know the answer to these questions) why don't you google it?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

discovered that theres no statute that makes american citizens liable for the Individual Income Tax! is this true?

Better minds than you have tried this stunt. It doesn't work. :eyes:

Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,(the "Code" clearly imposes an obligation to pay individual income tax. The Code is Title 26 of the US Code. Gross income is defined in Section 61 of the Code. Section 6001 of the Code requires the filing of any documents required by the Secretary of the Treasury and includes income tax returns. Section 6012 sets for the the requirements for the filing of individual income tax returns.

Why write coy questions? Just give us your screed about how it's unconstitutional already.

I personally favor a top bracket of at least 40%...


Anyway, I highly suggest you test the legality of the Income Tax by not paying, then come back here and cry about your seized assets.

And here's some answers for you. By the way, it took me about 90 seconds to find this information. How long did you look?

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/InternalRevenueCode.htm

onenote

There is a long history of tax protestors, determined, through the range of courts in this nation, to be liable for paying income taxes. You can research the US Code, various court decisions, to whatever extent you are personally willing to do this.

A starting point (from the IRS website): http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=98137,00.html


I work as a tax preparer - the IRS tax code and its letters and determinations are too complicated for any one person to try to explain in a short statement. Defining income???? After many years of confusion, the IRS has finally, this year, decided to define "CHILD". Maybe they will work on "Income" next. They have lots and lots of definitions for it. Given the detail of your questions, any of my "short" answers would be meaningless and frustrating. Suggest you start with some basic review of tax code as adopted by US Congress (last time I looked they were authorized to pass laws in this nation), and then read some of the court decisions in tax protestor cases to find additional citations for your information.

The IRS has recently suggested on their web site that 26 USC §§6011, 6012, and 6072 are statutes that impose liability.

http://treas.gov/irs/ci/tax_fraud/docnonfilers.htm.at page 4. If the IRS believes this, why are the statutes not cited in pleadings as required by due process? The suggestion that these statutes impose liability must be taken as an acknowledgment that pleadings for decades---without having the sections cited---have not fulfilled the basic requirements of due process. And their refusal to cite such statutes upon innumerable demands in court documents, congressional inquiries, and correspondence to the IRS itself even pursuant to FOIA, can only be seen as a deliberate and willful effort to prevent any law that might impose liability from being exposed to judicial attack.

It is interesting to compare the IRS website above with the latest Congressional Research Report identified in Part 3. In question 8 ridiculing the "arrogant sophistry" of individuals who request identification of a statute imposing liability, the Congressional Report declares IRC §§ 1, 61, 63, 6012 and 6151 "working together, make an individual liable for income taxes." Oh, what a tangled web we weave... Even the IRS and the Congressional Report writer cannot agree.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/living/part1.html this link will open some closed eyes.

Again, I decided to focus on their 16th Amendment argument. Their claim vis-a-vis the 16th Amendment is that it does not authorize the collection of taxes on wages/salaries. Here is the 16th Amendment in its entirety:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

I believe "from whatever source derived" speaks for itself.

Are you paying taxes to Uncle Sam? Or to the British government?

that,find the law that is appield to all equally.

That's a good one!!! Perhaps I should have inquired as to where you are being ASKED to pay taxes???

Sheesh... :eyes:

What do you hope to accomplish by asking questions you've already answered? What's YOUR ACHIEVABLE SOLUTION to this perceived dilemma?

i found the link in post 18 which answered the questions online after i posted the question.thaanku very much for your interest.

You acknowledge that the term Gross Income is defined in the IRC, but seem to find it significant that the word "income" isn't defined. Apart from the fact that the definition of Gross Income gives specific examples that don't use the word "income" exactly where would your deep analysis stop. If the IRC defined the word income as "profit separated from its capital source" would you insist on a definition of the words profit and capital? How about separated? Or "its" and "from". And what about the words used to define those words. Maybe Congress should just amend the IRC to include Websters as a separate chapter.

As for your claim that the statute state that you liable for the individual income tax, you're correct if you are looking for a provision that says "Mirror is liable for the individual income tax". But the fact that the Internal Revenue Code doesn't mention a couple hundred million Americans by name is irrelevant. The IRC clearly mandates the filing of returns and the payment of taxes and imposes penalties ("liability") for failure to comply. What part of the statutory provisions in secs 6651 and 7501 (imposing penalties for failure to pay tax) as well as the general obligation to pay tax stated in section 1 couldn't you find with all your research.

onenote