quote:

Basically, the laws say whatever they say it means on whatever day you end up in court.

quote:

I think this issue is more complicated than you can accept, luckydog1.

The law on this is all smoke and mirrors. But you will never see them say that no one has to pay the tax, then the scam would fall apart. But there's no real solid legal foundation for many of the rulings we get from the courts. You will pay because they have the means of distraint to make you pay - by force, by the threat of imprisonment and financial ruination.

Court cases tell us the following strange things: the income tax is both direct and indirect, it is an excise tax on labor, it is not an excise tax on labor, it is subject to the rule of apportionment, it is not subject to the rule of apportionment, it is superseded by the 16th Amendment, and the 16th Amendment has no effect on the existing powers of taxation. Basically, the laws say whatever they say it means on whatever day you end up in court.

In theory, the income tax as it is applied to individuals should be unconstitutional for reasons of it being direct tax without following the rule of apportionment and etc as stated in the main body of the Constitution. FWIW, I am also one of those that thinks that the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly, but I wouldn't try to win any court cases because of that possibility.

One thing you will find is that people are occasionally acquitted of various tax crimes because nowhere does the code actually state who exactly must pay - you are hooked in via a supposed tax liability, if you can argue that you felt you weren't liable for whatever theory you maintain it's possible that a jury may believe that you are making a good faith attempt to merely avoid tax liabilities. I suspect they still nail you for the financial part of it and make your life a misery.

But it's all bullshit and maintained by force alone. The tax laws bend any way they say.

I wouldn't challenge the IRS simply because the vast majority of people lose and lose big. It's sad, and a shame that the laws are so messed up.

quote:

But we all know we have to pay something to support the government in any case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Basically, the laws say whatever they say it means on whatever day you end up in court.

That masterful analysis should pretty much end the argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I will argue that.  The law says whatever it says after the appeals process kicks in, just as the US constitution says. 

Sugar, that is the basis of all laws, force.

There are indeed many legal ways of lowering/avoiding some taxes. 

So sub fever is admitting there is not a single court case that backs up his claim.

I would love to see a simplification and reform of the tax system, that is far different than arguing taxes are illegal.

quote:

The IRS can trace its authority back to the Revenue Act of 1862.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Sugar, that is the basis of all laws, force.

quote:

However that doesn't get them out from under the debt they owe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

My apologies subfever, I meant termyn8tr, I do get you folks who believe the Protocolls of the Elders of Zion  are true (white supremist is a nice shorthand IMHO) confused  sometimes.

He claimed there is no law requiring payment of taxes, and that court cases back that claim up.  So to be clear, since you disagree with termyn8tr and do not want to be lumped in with him on his issue, you do feel that taxation is legal, and that not a single court case has ever backed up his claim.  And we are in agreement now.  Very good.  Glad you have seen the light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever
By all means... share it with us!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rumtiger

Since the case is settled I can comment about it. I consulted with the government lawyers for this case, and theres a bit more to this story which put the IRS in a much worse light then anything this article can say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
thats the problem, most irs atrocities are covered up