Why I still support the Federal income tax

She says:

"Even if it were unconstitutional in its current form, I would totally support building legal infrastructure behind the practice to continue it. So, whether or not it's unconstitutional... you know, umm... what was it that, I think it was Deng Xiaoping... it doesn't matter if the cat is black or if it's white as long as it catches mice. Federal income tax is a necessary evil."

Umm... derrr... uhhm, yeah.

---

Personally, I never had to go to court. I stopped filing back in 1982 and when they showed up on my property with their guns and badges and IRS windbreakers in 1991 they quoted Title 26, IRS Code Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012 as being their authority to talk to me. I asked them if they had read those sections, did they know what they said? And they said: "Well, ummm, ahhh, ummm, ahhh, ahhhh..." so I pulled out my copy of the code and we read them together and discussed them for a few minutes and then they left and I have not heard from them since.

Wait, let me get this straight. Barring all the points made by MK, you're telling me that police or IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents showed up at your house with a valid warrant to arrest you in your own home, and you talked them out of it? Based solely on your interpretations of the code? And the bought that and walked away?

Forgive my skepticism.

Rush,
Yes, exactly that. I was at work, my wife called me and said "there are people here from the IRS who want to talk to you. I grabed my copy of the code and drove home where they were standing around waiting for me. They cited the sections of the code that, in their opinion gave them the right to talk to me, and I asked them if they had ever actually read those cites or were they just quoting what they had been taught to say. Their exact answer was "Well, ummm, ahhh, ahhh ummmm, ahhh, ahhh" at which point I interrupted and said "Okay, let's read them and see what they say. So I pulled out my copy of the code and we read them and discussed them for several minutes and they left. Two weeks later I received a handwritten note on a 4.25" by 5.5" torn off somebody's desktop memo pad, in an envelope postdated 26 FEB 1991, that reads, and I quote,
"Internal Revenue Service
date: Feb. 26, 1991
to: Mr. Gxxxx
I would like you to
file your 1990 Federal
Income Tax Return with me
on or before April 15, 1991.
Thank You,
Special Agent
S. Kxxxxxx"

I didn't respond to it as I saw no demand for response.

About two weeks after that, in an envelope postdated 11 MAR 1991 I received another handwritten note, aparently from the same desktop memo pad the reads, and, again I quote,
""Internal Revenue Service
date: 3-11-91
to: Mr. Gxxxx
Please file your 1990
Federal Income Tax return
with me on or before
April 15, 1991. It is time you
took responsibility to file,
especailly with the fact that you
have a business.
Special Agent
S. Kxxxxxx"

I didn't respond to that one either. It is now 16 years later and I have never once heard from them again.

I have retained the original postmarked envelopes and the notes they contained as evidence.

I reiterate, I do not recommend that anyone tangle with this beast based on ANYONE elses experience or statements or, most especially some info package someone sold you. You must do your own due diligence research as it is YOUR neck in the noose. I believe that before you start this journey you must know that you are willing to die for your beliefs if necessary. If you are not sure of that, don't take the first step. I just know what worked for me and I haven't died yet so I won't guarantee that it will continue to work for me. Only that it has so far.
JG

P.S. In answer to KWSN, my newest copy of the code is 9,559 pages long. And I don't have time to parse your answers to my original post. Your request for the site for the court papers is interesting as I am sure that you know that, in almost all cases of such wins against the IRS, the Judges systematically and immediately clamp gag orders on everything having to do with the cases so all that's left is the reports of it. The sites with actual papers may turn up eventually but I did post an interview with Tom Cryer and if you do a youtube.com search for "Tom Cryer" you'll be able to hear it from the horses mouth instead of merely as hearsay from me.
KWSN: Let's just cut to the chase, instead of quibbling over definitions and this and that which I'm sure we could spend the rest of our next 10 lifetimes doing please give the the specific code citation that establishes LIABILITY for the average American wage earner. I've looked diligently for it. Many OTHER people have looked diligently for it. Thousands of people have ASKED the IRS, the Justice Department, their Congress person and other supposed authorities to "SHOW US THE LAW" and people have even offered large sums of money to ANYONE who can provide it. IRS Agents have heard tax honesty people on the radio and vowed to "PUT THIS TO BED ONCE AND FOR ALL" and done their own due diligence search for the code section that establishes liability and finally been forced, in good conscience, to quit their jobs with the IRS when they couldn't find it, so PLEASE, if YOU can finally be the one to reveal the citation that establishes liability for the average American Joe just IMAGINE all the grateful people who would FINALLY have their question answered... I just know that when it is asked for by a judge in court neither the IRS nor the Justice Department has yet been able to produce it... If you can finally be THE ONE then IMAGINE the honor that would bring you!

---

P.S. In answer to KWSN, my newest copy of the code is 9,559 pages long. And I don't have time to parse your answers to my original post. Your request for the site for the court papers is interesting as I am sure that you know that, in almost all cases of such wins against the IRS, the Judges systematically and immediately clamp gag orders on everything having to do with the cases so all that's left is the reports of it. The sites with actual papers may turn up eventually but I did post an interview with Tom Cryer and if you do a youtube.com search for "Tom Cryer" you'll be able to hear it from the horses mouth instead of merely as hearsay from me.
KWSN: Let's just cut to the chase, instead of quibbling over definitions and this and that which I'm sure we could spend the rest of our next 10 lifetimes doing please give the the specific code citation that establishes LIABILITY for the average American wage earner. I've looked diligently for it. Many OTHER people have looked diligently for it. Thousands of people have ASKED the IRS, the Justice Department, their Congress person and other supposed authorities to "SHOW US THE LAW" and people have even offered large sums of money to ANYONE who can provide it. IRS Agents have heard tax honesty people on the radio and vowed to "PUT THIS TO BED ONCE AND FOR ALL" and done their own due diligence search for the code section that establishes liability and finally been forced, in good conscience, to quit their jobs with the IRS when they couldn't find it, so PLEASE, if YOU can finally be the one to reveal the citation that establishes liability for the average American Joe just IMAGINE all the grateful people who would FINALLY have their question answered... I just know that when it is asked for by a judge in court neither the IRS nor the Justice Department has yet been able to produce it... If you can finally be THE ONE then IMAGINE the honor that would bring you!

The actual number of pages was not important to my point in that post. The fact that it is a huge amount of text is. I was trying to say 'get an electronic copy or use the library's copy' instead of buying these yourself. The actual number of pages will depend on page size and formatting. However, downloading an electronic copy from the US House of Representatives of Title 26 USC is easy enough to do. Uncompressed, Title 26 USC is about 23.8 MB... of Text... Thats a whole lot of text.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml

Title 26 CFR is even larger.

I said 'prove it' on those links you provided to news stories and 'Tom Cryer's statement. Show me some evidence that these 'cases' ever even happened, and if they did, what their final disposition was. The only complete way to do this is to link to the records on the court's website. But, if as you say this is not yet possible, how about even a jurisdiction and case number to 'tide us over' until you get ahold of the case link. Not that the jurisdiction and case number is proof, but at least it would show a good faith effort on your part.

KWSN: Let's just cut to the chase, instead of quibbling over definitions and this and that which I'm sure we could spend the rest of our next 10 lifetimes doing please give the the specific code citation that establishes LIABILITY for the average American wage earner.

Ok, since we are NOT quibbling over definitions of this and that, words must be taken at their common definitions, and you are not allowed to 'quibble'. In other words, by invoking that, you cooked your argument's goose.

Title 26 USC, Section 1 establishes that 'taxable income' has an Income Tax imposed upon it.

§ 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.

Section 1(a) establishes that a married individual filing joint returns, etc., has a tax imposed on taxable income. In the interest of saving space, I will only refer to the following sections: 1(b) establishes same for 'head of household's, 1(c) for unmarried individuals, and 1(d) for married individuals filing seperately.

Taxable income is defined in Title 26 USC Section 63(a) as

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

Gross Income is defined in Title 26 USC Section 61 as

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Note that the 'Average American wage earner' is covered explicitly under (1). Wages are 'compensation for services'. So then, the Average American wage earner recieves wages, which are part of their gross income. Their taxable income is their gross income minus the deductions allowed. The imposed tax on that taxable income is calculated from the chart in the appropriate part ((a),(b),(c),(d)) of section 1 that matches their status.

Boom, there is a tax imposed on wages.

Title 26 USC Section 6012

§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—
(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or
(iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.
<snip>

Title 26 Section 6012 establishes that people with gross incomes in excess of the amoout of the exemption amount (plus, depending on their status, some additional smaller amounts) must file a tax return.

Title 26 Section 6151

§ 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
(b) Exceptions
(1) Income tax not computed by taxpayer
If the taxpayer elects under section 6014 not to show the tax on the return, the amount determined by the Secretary as payable shall be paid within 30 days after the mailing by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice stating such amount and making demand therefor.
(2) Use of government depositaries
For authority of the Secretary to require payments to Government depositaries, see section 6302 (c).
(c) Date fixed for payment of tax
In any case in which a tax is required to be paid on or before a certain date, or within a certain period, any reference in this title to the date fixed for payment of such tax shall be deemed a reference to the last day fixed for such payment (determined without regard to any extension of time for paying the tax.)

This section requires that if you are required to file a return, you are required to pay the tax it shows you owe.

There are additional references I could make to Title 26 USC that might tighten up a few points such as 'time and place' for filing tax returns, but, quite frankly, I have proven my case. If you so desire to look those up yourself, feel free.

Ok, in summary, Title 26 USC Section 1 establishes that an income tax is imposed on your 'taxable income'. Section 63 defines 'taxable income' in terms of your gross income. Section 61 defines 'gross income' as explicitly including wages. Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if your gross income exceeds a certain amount. Section 6151 requires you, if you are required to file a return, pay such tax as it indicates that you owe.


Instant replay:
Title 26 USC Section 1: tax is imposed on taxable income.
Title 26 USC Section 63: taxable income defined in terms of gross income.
Title 26 USC Section 61: gross income is defined as all income from whatever source derived.
Title 26 USC Section 6012: requirement to file return.
Title 26 USC Section 6151: requirement to pay tax imposed.

Game... Set... Match...

Booyah!

I said 'prove it' on those links you provided to news stories and 'Tom Cryer's statement. Show me some evidence that these 'cases' ever even happened, and if they did, what their final disposition was.

Jury acquits lawyer of evading taxes

I assume this is the same case.

---

Yes, exactly that. I was at work, my wife called me and said "there are people here from the IRS who want to talk to you. I grabed my copy of the code and drove home where they were standing around waiting for me. They cited the sections of the code that, in their opinion gave them the right to talk to me, and I asked them if they had ever actually read those cites or were they just quoting what they had been taught to say.

Well, I guess, maybe. I'm skeptical because I wouldn't think that IRS Special Agents would have taken the time and effort to obtain a warrant for your arrest and then come to chat about it. The first version suggests a criminal investigation and a warrant ("with their guns and badges and IRS windbreakers"), the second suggests auditing ("there are people here from the IRS who want to talk to you"). Those are two completely different things.

This isn't to say I don't applaud your efforts, just that the idea that taxes haven't been legally created by a combination of common, case, and regulatory law is absurd.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Instant replay:
Title 26 USC Section 1: tax is imposed on taxable income.
Title 26 USC Section 63: taxable income defined in terms of gross income.
Title 26 USC Section 61: gross income is defined as all income from whatever source derived.
Title 26 USC Section 6012: requirement to file return.
Title 26 USC Section 6151: requirement to pay tax imposed.

Game... Set... Match...

Booyah!

[/quote]

Now when you find a lawyer that can win the case and you fight the fight you will become a Folk Hero remembered for all time.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

I said 'prove it' on those links you provided to news stories and 'Tom Cryer's statement. Show me some evidence that these 'cases' ever even happened, and if they did, what their final disposition was.

Jury acquits lawyer of evading taxes

I assume this is the same case.

Oh, well that is hardly a case of not filing one's own income tax return and paying one's own income tax. This person is not an 'Income Tax Protester'.

He was charged with failure to report income from a trust (of which he was the trustee) by filing an income tax return for that trust, therefore not paying $73000 of income tax on income that the trust had in 2000 and 2001. He maintained that he DID report it (I presume on his own return, therefore paying tax on it). The jury agreed with him.

The US Supreme Court (I forget which ruling, I could look it up if it is important) has ruled that as long as it was an honest mistake, and there was no intent to defraud, people should not be convicted of tax fraud because they misunderstood the tax code, and rightly so. People are frequently acquitted of tax fraud charges because they made an honest mistake. They still, however owe the tax (plus interest and penalties). This only means that they are not thrown in jail over an honest mistake.

Tommy Cryer was able to convince the jury that he made an honest mistake, and that he did, in fact, report the income; just in the wrong place. He still owes any unpaid tax (plus interest and penalties). He just can't be jailed over this one little 'oops'. This is NOT a 'tax protest' case.

This is NOT a 'tax protest' case.

MajorKong it has been a tax protest case for awhile. And that's why the gov was going after him.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains."

- Tommy Cryer

Okay, here's more on the case from sheveporttimes.com.

---

Ok, per data from the IRS

Using data from 2004 (the latest currently available), comparing Adjusted Gross Income to percent of Total Income Tax collected:

Taxpayers in the top 1% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $328049) paid 36.89% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 5% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $137056) paid 57.13% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 10% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $99112) paid 68.19% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 25% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $60041) paid 84.86% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 50% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $30122) paid 96.70% of the total Income Tax collected.

What can we see from this data?

The people in the lowest 50% of income in the US paid only 3.3% of the total Income Tax collected.

The people in the highest 1% of income in the US paid over 1/3 of the total Income Tax collected.

The people in the US with an AGI of about $100000 or more paid over 2/3 of the total Income Tax collected.

I submit to you that this data proves that the lower end of the middle class and the poor (i.e. those least able to pay) do not suffer an undue burden when it comes to income tax. In fact, the Poor barely even know it is there. The burden of the Income Tax falls primarily on the Rich and the upper end of the middle class (i.e. those BEST able to pay).

(edited for clarity of terms)

Wow, very interesting discussion here.
Just wondering how the Adjusted Gross Income is calculated.
I am not firm with the US system but guess it's kind of the same over here in Europe where you can drastically decrease that Income if you are just wealthy enough while the average guy hasn't the money to invest can't.
That would be one of those "don't trust a statistic you did not false yourself" statistics. IMHO the taxation rate of the total income i what is important - and Warren Buffet wouldn't risk his million without a good reason. Showing that this rate is actually the problem, that taxes could probably even be lowered fo all if there weren't so many ways to evade "fair" taxes for all if you are just wealthy enough to be able to afford it.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now let someone say that the money one earns is not their property.

---

The Bill of Rights

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now let someone say that the money one earns is not their property.

'Just Compensation'. The services the Government provides are a public good. Things like roads and other public infrastructure... National Defense... FDA... EPA... The list goes on and on and on. If you are a US Citizen or a Resident Alien, you receive these benefits. Therefore, you are justly compensated for the taxes you pay.

This is a non-issue.

Ok, per data from the IRS

Using data from 2004 (the latest currently available), comparing Adjusted Gross Income to percent of Total Income Tax collected:

Taxpayers in the top 1% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $328049) paid 36.89% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 5% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $137056) paid 57.13% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 10% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $99112) paid 68.19% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 25% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $60041) paid 84.86% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 50% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $30122) paid 96.70% of the total Income Tax collected.

What can we see from this data?

The people in the lowest 50% of income in the US paid only 3.3% of the total Income Tax collected.

The people in the highest 1% of income in the US paid over 1/3 of the total Income Tax collected.

The people in the US with an AGI of about $100000 or more paid over 2/3 of the total Income Tax collected.

I submit to you that this data proves that the lower end of the middle class and the poor (i.e. those least able to pay) do not suffer an undue burden when it comes to income tax. In fact, the Poor barely even know it is there. The burden of the Income Tax falls primarily on the Rich and the upper end of the middle class (i.e. those BEST able to pay).

(edited for clarity of terms)

Wow, very interesting discussion here.
Just wondering how the Adjusted Gross Income is calculated.
I am not firm with the US system but guess it's kind of the same over here in Europe where you can drastically decrease that Income if you are just wealthy enough while the average guy hasn't the money to invest can't.
That would be one of those "don't trust a statistic you did not false yourself" statistics. IMHO the taxation rate of the total income i what is important - and Warren Buffet wouldn't risk his million without a good reason. Showing that this rate is actually the problem, that taxes could probably even be lowered fo all if there weren't so many ways to evade "fair" taxes for all if you are just wealthy enough to be able to afford it.

I am in total agreement with saying the income tax system is not exactly fair.

I dislike the idea of an Income tax (a Tax on production). I would much rather it be replaced with a tax on consumption. However, in the absence of that (since we seem to be stuck with an income (production) tax at the moment, it needs some overhaul to make it totally 'fair'.

First, eliminate ALL 'deductions and exemptions'. No more loopholes for ANYONE for ANY REASON. Second, get rid of the multiple rate structure and go to one tax rate for ALL income, and set that rate to be revenue neutral compared with the current structure. Just as a guess, I would say that that rate would be somewhere between 10% and 15%. EVERYONE would pay the SAME tax rate on ALL their income. Thats fairness.

This is NOT a 'tax protest' case.

MajorKong it has been a tax protest case for awhile. And that's why the gov was going after him.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains."

- Tommy Cryer

Okay, here's more on the case from sheveporttimes.com.

Ok, I can admit when I am wrong. That first link didn't give enough information. But reading the second link, I see that Cryer is a tax protester. However, all he was acquitted of was the criminal charge of 'willful failure to file'. All this means is that the prosecutor didn't prove 'criminal intent' on Cryer's part to the satisfaction of the jury. It does not affect Cryer's liability for the tax. He still owes it. The IRS is likely to pursue other means of collecting.

Another item of note: this is not a case of taxes on standard, regular wages. It involved a 'trust'. Trusts are somewhat known as 'tax dodges' for the 'rich'. These trusts are usually set up expressly for the purpose of making tax collection difficult. Cryer is hardly a hero for the common man who is upset about his tax burden. He is just another 'rich scuzzball' trying to 'game the tax system'.

Instant replay:
Title 26 USC Section 1: tax is imposed on taxable income.
Title 26 USC Section 63: taxable income defined in terms of gross income.
Title 26 USC Section 61: gross income is defined as all income from whatever source derived.
Title 26 USC Section 6012: requirement to file return.
Title 26 USC Section 6151: requirement to pay tax imposed.

Game... Set... Match...

Booyah!

Now when you find a lawyer that can win the case and you fight the fight you will become a Folk Hero remembered for all time.

Oh, I don't have to prove jack **** in a 'court case'. JG asked me to show him the law that says he has to pay income tax. I did. He is the one that might have the court case, not me. I obey the law, and pay my taxes, even though I don't like it very much. JG, if his post can be believed, is the criminal.

Subject: Hauert case: Willful failure to file indictment dismissed

************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert O'Brien
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:16 PM
Subject: transcript of Hauert

Hauert: Willful failure to file case dismissed (Another serious victory over the IRS!)

Patriots: Please keep this going: Hauert was indicted on five counts Sec.
7203 WILLFUL FAILURE etc. Hauert wanted to know the OFFENSE statute he was
accused of violating and would be pleading guilty to. (Such a Statute does NOT exist!)

He wanted to know the particular statute that made him the person required to pay the income tax. His attorney (addressing the judge) "The prosecution has been trying to get my client to plea bargain. My client is interested
but has a few demands of the prosecution in order to understand the charges and determine the potential guilt. He has a serious question that nobody will address. Will the court entertain that question?"

Judge: "Certainly."

Hauert: "Your honor, Section 7203 of the I.R. Code is a DIS-CIPLINARY STATUTE. It defines the penalty for someone who has broken the law. I need to know the underlying offense statute that is used to determine if I am the "any person" required to file. The term "any person" is ambiguous.

Judge: "I don't know what he is asking for. (Looking at Prosecutor) Do you know what he's asking for?"

Prosecutor: "No, your honor, I don't know what he's asking for either."

Judge: "I am not knowledgeable of every law and can't be."
(Hey, isn't he presumed to know the law?)

Hauert: Could you please bring me the I.R. Code book with 7203 in it so I can show you what I am talking about. (note: the clerk brought in the I.R.Code book.)

Judge: (Reading Sec. 7203) " Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return..."

Judge: "Sounds clear to me."

Note: (In the words of Hauert) "I looked at the prosecuting attorney and criminal investigator looking business-like and smiling confidently and I thought, these suckers have gotten to the judge."

Hauert: "May I see the book? (Reading) any person required by this Title...What I am asking is, what statute establishes the FACT that I am one of these "persons" required, by this title, to pay the tax?
Where, exactly, in the Title is the offense defined, where am I made the subject of the tax?"

Note: (In the words of Hauert: "I then handed the judge back the book. Looking perplexed, the judge read those words over and over again for what felt like an eternity.")

Judge: "So what you're asking for, Mr. Hauert, is the Statute, referred to in Section 7203, that makes a person liable for the tax and subject to the penalties imposed by Section 7203?"

Hauert: "Yes, that's what I have been asking the prosecutor for. I have also been asking the IRS the same question for several years and no one will give me the Statute of law that I am accused of breaking."

Note: In one sentence that would destroy the government's entire case!

Judge: "No problem, Mr. Prosecutor, I'm sure that you can provide a copy of that statute."

Prosecutor: (Stammering and stuttering) "Um, ohh.. I'm...uh.. not familiar with.. uh.. that part of the code." (With that, the Prosecutor lost his business like composure and the case was concluded. The prosecutor was ordered to find someone who knew which statute defined the offense.)

Hauert's attorney then requested a Bill of Particulars, defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for Hauert to pay the income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return. A Bill of Particulars is a written statement of the SPECIFIC CHARGES agains the defendant. This switched the burden of proof back to the government to provide such a statute. After an extended period of time, the prosecution still could not supply the court with the offense statute or regulation that made Tom Hauert (or any American Citizen) the person made liable to pay the S.1 graduated Income Tax (because no such statute exists).

Hauert, therefore, filed for and was granted a dismissal!

=============================================

No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9 (or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent
jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.

http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsentualTaking.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Instant replay:
Title 26 USC Section 1: tax is imposed on taxable income.
Title 26 USC Section 63: taxable income defined in terms of gross income.
Title 26 USC Section 61: gross income is defined as all income from whatever source derived.
Title 26 USC Section 6012: requirement to file return.
Title 26 USC Section 6151: requirement to pay tax imposed.

Game... Set... Match...

Booyah!

Now when you find a lawyer that can win the case and you fight the fight you will become a Folk Hero remembered for all time.

Oh, I don't have to prove jack **** in a 'court case'. JG asked me to show him the law that says he has to pay income tax. I did. He is the one that might have the court case, not me. I obey the law, and pay my taxes, even though I don't like it very much. JG, if his post can be believed, is the criminal.

I was just messing with ya...If one of these people that tell everyone that they don't have to pay taxes would make a landmark case about it...but they won't as there is too much money to be made in seminars telling people they don't have to pay...My brother believed a guy and just got his 24,000 paid off to the IRS, he pays his taxes now also.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

The Bill of Rights

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now let someone say that the money one earns is not their property.

'Just Compensation'. The services the Government provides are a public good. Things like roads and other public infrastructure... National Defense... FDA... EPA... The list goes on and on and on. If you are a US Citizen or a Resident Alien, you receive these benefits. Therefore, you are justly compensated for the taxes you pay.

This is a non-issue.

That's not how I see compensation. In my opinion it's more like, if something that you own is taken, something of equivalent value is given in return. If your Lamborghini Murciélago is taken and you're given a Ford Fiesta it's not exactly compensation. The examples that you gave are quite easily funded by other revenues.

---

This is NOT a 'tax protest' case.

MajorKong it has been a tax protest case for awhile. And that's why the gov was going after him.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains."

- Tommy Cryer

Okay, here's more on the case from sheveporttimes.com.

Ok, I can admit when I am wrong. That first link didn't give enough information. But reading the second link, I see that Cryer is a tax protester. However, all he was acquitted of was the criminal charge of 'willful failure to file'. All this means is that the prosecutor didn't prove 'criminal intent' on Cryer's part to the satisfaction of the jury. It does not affect Cryer's liability for the tax. He still owes it. The IRS is likely to pursue other means of collecting.

Another item of note: this is not a case of taxes on standard, regular wages. It involved a 'trust'. Trusts are somewhat known as 'tax dodges' for the 'rich'. These trusts are usually set up expressly for the purpose of making tax collection difficult. Cryer is hardly a hero for the common man who is upset about his tax burden. He is just another 'rich scuzzball' trying to 'game the tax system'.

I wasn't trying to stick it to you by providing the link, just providing a little extra information.

I'm willing to bet that the jury didn't actually believe that he didn't willfully fail to file. After all, he is an attorney, and I'm sure they were aware of that. They probably just wanted to take sides. Yes, despite the law. Also consider that, according to Tommy Cryer, prosecuters dismissed two fellony tax evasion charges against him prior to the trial.

---

The Bill of Rights

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now let someone say that the money one earns is not their property.

'Just Compensation'. The services the Government provides are a public good. Things like roads and other public infrastructure... National Defense... FDA... EPA... The list goes on and on and on. If you are a US Citizen or a Resident Alien, you receive these benefits. Therefore, you are justly compensated for the taxes you pay.

This is a non-issue.

That's not how I see compensation. In my opinion it's more like, if something that you own is taken, something of equivalent value is given in return. If your Lamborghini Murciélago is taken and you're given a Ford Fiesta it's not exactly compensation. The examples that you gave are quite easily funded by other revenues.

Thats not quite how it works. Your 'taxable income' is defined as your 'gross income' minus 'deductions & exemptions'. The 'final selling price' is included in 'gross income'. What it cost you is included in 'deductions & exemptions' (business expenses).

In the case of someone selling a tangible item, such as a loaf of bread for $2.00 that they had to buy wholesale for, lets say $1.50, that would be a gross income of $2.00 minus a 'business expense' of $1.50, giving a taxable income of $0.50...

In the case of someone selling an item that they 'found, or got for free' for $2.00, that would be 'gross income' of $2.00, minus 'business expense' of $0.00, or taxable income of $2.00.

In the case of selling your labor for a wage, your labor has no cost associated with it. You get it for free. If you are paid $2.00 to do something, that is $2.00 of gross income, $0.00 'business expense', giving 'taxable income' of $2.00.

The examples that you gave are quite easily funded by other revenues.

As far as your statement goes, all Tax revenue that Washington gets from whatever the source (with possibly a FEW small exceptions) goes into General Revenue. Note that this includes SocSec tax and Medicare Tax. Once the money hits General Revenue, there is no differentiating it. All the tax money the Federal Government gets essentially goes towards paying All the expenditures the Federal Government makes.

Along these same lines, you the taxpayer are not allowed to sift through the Government Budget and decide which expenditures you agree with and will fund, and which expenditures you disagree with and will not fund. That is the function of your elected public officials. Disagree with their decisions, then vote them out.

Government expenditures, in total, are held by our modern society to be a Public Good. That is they benefit the Public, in total. You, as a member of The Public are, in fact, justly compensated for the loss of your income to taxes because you are a member of The Public, and the Public as a whole benefits from Government Expenditure.

I know it sounds screwy, but it is the way it is considered. And its just about the only way it CAN work. Society (The Public) as a whole benefits from Government Expenditure as a whole. Trying to make sure that people are individually compensated to the exact amount of their individual tax contributions would only serve to force those who pay the least taxes to receive the least benefit, and vice versa. That is no way to fairly run a Government.

Yes, I agree that the tax rates (in total) in the USA are WAY too high. But, as long as the Government persists in massive Transfer Payment programs and other non-Article I Section 8 (the list in the US Constitution that the Federal Government can LEGITIMATELY spend money on, and only on things explicitly on that list) Expenditures, you are going to see high taxes.

The proper course of action here for The People is to force the Federal Government (through pressure at the ballot box) to reduce and eliminate its expenditures on things it has no constitutional authority to spend money on. The proper course of action here for The People is NOT to follow some half-baked, asinine, snake-oil theories about how they don't have to pay one or more particular taxes. Even IF The People were successful in getting the Federal Income Tax thrown out, the Federal Government would have no choice but to jack up other taxes to cover the HUGE revenue shortfall that would result. Tax Protesters would, if successful, be stuck playing a Game of Whack-a-Mole writ large.

I am NOT a Tax Protester. I AM, however, a Spending Protester. The fight you people NEED to be fighting is to cut spending on things the Federal Government has no business spending on in the first place, let alone the Constitutional Authority to do so. Last time I saw the numbers, those expenditures made up at least 55% of the Federal Budget. Eliminate all the Transfer Payments (only dubiously constitutional anyway), and make reasonable cuts in other expenditures, if possible, and we could probably see maybe 65% of the Federal need for Revenue go 'poof'. Of course, this would make all the Leftie-Libs in the USA (and likely worldwide as well) get their undergarmets in a knot, for it would drive a wooden stake in the heart of the creation of theirs of which they are most proud: the giant, ever-hungry, bloodsucking undead vampire that is the US Government infected with the Socialism disease.

Trying to turn (and moderately successful at it too) the USA into a Socialist Welfare State has produced high Government Expenditures. High Government Expenditures has created the need for high Tax Revenue. The need for High Tax Revenue has, in addition to making all Taxes high, created the need for a comprehensive Federal Direct Tax on its Citizens (The Federal Income Tax). Don't go after the symptom (The Federal Income Tax). Go after the disease itself: the Leftie-Lib created, ongoing transition of the USA into a Socialist Welfare Nanny-State with its mandated High Government Expenditures. But no.... All the 'Tax Protesters' want to do is just start a Game of Whack-a-Tax.

Think about it, 'Tax Protester' people. If you DO manage to get the Federal Income Tax done away with, do you REALLY expect the Federal Government to just roll over? They won't. Unless you can get Government Expenditures under control and vastly cut first, all the Federal Government will do is either jack up some other tax, or invent a new one to make up for the Loss in Revenue. $30.00/gal gasoline anyone?

Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.

You think that's high income taxes?

---

Account frozen...