You never have to pay Federal Income Tax ever again. So don't.

NEVER PAY TAXES.

Its 2 hours, but its totally worth it.

I couldn't find anything recent on the boards about it, so I hope its not a repost.

I am leaving the country the summer I graduate from university. I simply cannot stand it anymore. UK here I come! I hope my welcome is friendly.

Its time to try something different. Taxes are high there, but I'm not being lied to about it.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment

Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax

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.

Tell me what that means to you?

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.

It is an amendment, but there is no law explicitly enforcing it, making it unenforcable.

Not only that, but the amendment, in detail, only applies to entities that were taxable before. Meaning that it was not applicable to new subjects.

That and the IRS code says compliance is voluntary.

When it comes down to it, its illegal on the government's part.



[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

An Amendment is just that, a change to the consititution therefore it would change the previously written code that federal taxes have to be apportioned.

I suggest you watch the video before posting, unless you've already seen it.

Sorry for the editing of my previous post, I felt as though I didn't convey what I wanted to. I didn't mean to make your reply seem unrelated.

The supreme court specifically ruled that the 16th amendment was not applicable.

There was "No new power of taxation" according to the supreme court, with regards to the 16th amendment.

The 16th amendment says it can collect tax on incomes etc, but there is no "federal income tax" in writting. It just doesnt exist. It is an implied tax, which is not enforceable, and is utterly voluntary.


[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

Or how about this, from the documentary:

"based on the research by the Congressional Research Service, there are no provisions which require an individual to pay an income tax"

Interesting, I dont know if you have seen this, but its definately worth a look.

Alex Jones, Interview with an ex IRS special agent

Good luck, Regards xS_Gx

Originally posted by Galvatron
I suggest you watch the video before posting, unless you've already seen it.

Sorry for the editing of my previous post, I felt as though I didn't convey what I wanted to. I didn't mean to make your reply seem unrelated.

The supreme court specifically ruled that the 16th amendment was not applicable.

There was "No new power of taxation" according to the supreme court, with regards to the 16th amendment.

The 16th amendment says it can collect tax on incomes etc, but there is no "federal income tax" in writting. It just doesnt exist. It is an implied tax, which is not enforceable, and is utterly voluntary.


[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

Thanks for clarifying about your editing of your post, I wasn't sure at first if you edited or if i was just losing it.

Anyhow yes i have seen the entirety of the movie. I realise that this movie is very scary, however before i commit to believing what someone tells me i must independently verify the facts of the matter. I have not yet gotten to the supreme court rulings on the issue however i felt that the movie miss represented the 16th amendment. However, my opinion is not set in stone until i verify the facts.

I always wondered why people had such a huge problems with the taxes in the USA...

It's not that I particularly LIKE paying taxes, and I don't always approve of how those tax dollars are spent (especially the last 6 years), but I enjoy the benefits of a well funded government on a daily basis in countless ways.

Roads - Very expensive to build, expensive to maintain. I'd really hate to try and have to get to work each day via a donkey trail, or gravel path.

Waste Management - Litter aside, our streets and sidewalks are not covered in filth, feces, and trash. Someone has to pay for the land to dump it in, maintain that land, the fleet of trucks, the people to haul it from your place to theirs.

Healthcare funding - Our poorest charity hospitals are the equivolent of the finest some countries have to offer, or better. Yeah, some places do healthcare a helluva lot better than we do, but without even the pittance of funding they currently get, our public health would be at dangerously low levels.

Law Enforcement - Someone bashing in the door and killing you and your family is still rare enough in this country to make the news when it happens. Someone has to pay for the police, the lawyers, the jails, the rehabilitation centers, the judges, the lawmakers, etc...

Postal Service - Even though UPS and FedEx eat up a lot of US Snail's business, there's still a lot of demand for physical items to be shipped from Point A to Point B. Again, someone has to pay for these distribution centers, fleets of vehicles, and the postal worers.

Defense - There's a lot to be said for having a super advanced military capable of immediate mobilization, staging, and deployment, that it is still an all-volunteer Army, and that the pay grade is actually quite good if you live on base.

Public Works - That park near you? The government probably paid for it. Those gardens, camping grounds, ballparks, zoos, museums, libraries, performing arts centers, and other artsy or outdoorsy places that serve no other purpose than to educate, entertain, and display culture? The vast majority of those are subsidized by the government.


Need I go on? Taxes aren't evil, they're just a means to an end, and we enjoy quite a bit for our buck.

I found an interesting website a while back that claimed an individual won a case against the IRS using the PRA (Paperwork Reduction Act). I haven't reviewed the information myself so I cannot verify or deny the verity of these claims. Nonetheless, it is an interesting read:

1040 checkmate

From the Citizens of the American Constitution website itself:

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ's discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500-3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OBM) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

Libra,

Federal income tax does not pay for any of those. Sorry. Defense is paid almost to the dollar by corporate income tax, not private. Of which, by the way, there is a written law for. There is none for private federal income tax. Law enforcement is local and state taxes. Roads is through excise taxes, such as the tax on gasoline. Eductation, local and state taxes. Waste Management is again state and local taxes. Need I go on?

I'm sorry, but if you watched the film, and/or did some tax research you would realize that you are incorrect.

I thought the exact same thing as well when watching the film, which initially made me think it was bologna, then they covered it in the film and I did a little research at my university's library because it piqued my curiosity to such a degree. Federal income tax for private persons is not spent on those things. In fact, the US literally loses over a trillion a year.

Also, according to the 16th amendment, the "income tax" it mentions is not apportioned accross the several states, meaning that theres no way it would pay for roads, or schools, or law enforcement etc.

So yes, we do indeed enjoy a fair bit of our dollar, but only from dollars given to local governments.

People, please watch the video before posting.



[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

Originally posted by thelibra
I always wondered why people had such a huge problems with the taxes in the USA...

It's not that I particularly LIKE paying taxes...

You dont have to pay taxes, thats the point.

Roads -

Paid for by gasoline tax and toll roads in some areas

Waste Management -

Paid for by various municiple taxes

Healthcare funding - Our poorest charity hospitals are .......

Im not sure about this. Do taxes fund hospitals? And if so, why?
Sounds kinda socialistic to me but thats another topic.

Law Enforcement -

Paid for by various municiple taxes

Postal Service -

Paid for by....stamps.

Defense -

Paid for by corporate tax i believe.

Public Works -

Paid for by various municiple taxes.

Need I go on? Taxes aren't evil, they're just a means to an end, and we enjoy quite a bit for our buck.

The income tax is the issue here. The fact that income is derived from buisiness gains. I dont own a buisiness and I get no gains, I exchange my labor for a wage. There is no 'gain' there, it is an even exchange.

Check out ..100 years ago these taxes didnt exist

I'm sorry, I should have clarified in the title. Never pay Federal Income Tax Ever Again.

The thrust of the arguments against the legality of the 16th ammendment is that is isn't specific enough in mentioning income from wages that is just mentions income and that it was not properly ratified. The courts have ruled on these issues.

Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below).

All courts that have considered these positions have rejected them, and have imposed sanctions on persons who raise these arguments.

That's the 1st prong of the argument .. that income is too general and the argument in courts was that wages are not income becuase labor is traded for wages; a bit of a weak argument.

Similar "Sixteenth Amendment arguments" have been uniformly rejected by the courts in other cases including Ficalora v. Commissioner;[5] Sisk v. Commissioner;[6] United States v. Sitka;[7] and United States v. Stahl.[8] The non-ratification argument has been specifically deemed legally frivolous in Brown v. Commissioner;[9] Lysiak v. Commissioner;[10] and Miller v. United States.[11]

William J. Benson, the co-author of the book mentioned in the Thomas case above, was unsuccessful with his Sixteenth Amendment argument when he had his own legal problems. He was prosecuted for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns. The court rejected his Sixteenth Amendment "non-ratification" argument in United States v. Benson.[12] William J. Benson was convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns in connection with over $100,000 of unreported income, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation. See United States v. Benson

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "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." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Source for quoutes above (16th ammendmant infornation)

The second prong of the 16th ammenment issue is that is wasn't ratified. Sounds like a serious claim ... the argument that it was not ratified is based mostly on minor spelling problems, missing commas, semicolons and other punctuation marks. Considering in 1913 a group of typists probably had to re-type this document who knows how many times so it could go past each of the states for ratification ... not a huge issue. If we looked back at almost every single constituional ammendment we could probably nitpick every one apart on issues such as these.

I'm curious as to what tax protestors would consider a fair and equitable tax? If one feels taxes should be abolished then how do we fund the government services of the government? The US doesn't have super cheap taxes but compared to other countries (I believe including Canada) we are taxxed quite a bit less.

Originally posted by Galvatron
NEVER PAY TAXES.

Its 2 hours, but its totally worth it.

I couldn't find anything recent on the boards about it, so I hope its not a repost.

I am leaving the country the summer I graduate from university. I simply cannot stand it anymore. UK here I come! I hope my welcome is friendly.

Its time to try something different. Taxes are high there, but I'm not being lied to about it.

You are, in fact.

Not a single one of these cases has EVER been won in the courts. Many of these folks end up in jail.
fredmischler.blogs.com...

A very detailed analysis of the misleading information:
www.fraudsandscams.com...

You can try it. I knew someone who did. He's now almost bankrupt and lost all his property.


I don't know about " Robert Lawrence "... I don't see a real case number.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Indellkoffer]

Excellent links!

I have to admit, I saw plenty referring to the 16th amendment ratification. But I did not see any of the supreme court rulings regarding the 16th amdendment described in the documentary.

I also did not see anything referring to the written law that states you must pay federal income tax. There are references to internal tax revenue codes stating that you must pay taxes, however it is up to you to voluntarily pay income taxes, else the government determines the ammount for you. It is also interesting to note that in the court cases listed on those sites, the quoted relevent statements always contain wording belittling the defendent without actually citing anything other than IRS code.

I guess my argument is that the IRS hasn't the right to enforce, because their so called ability right now is unlawful.

Show me in writing, a US law that states I must do thus. Not an IRS code stating that they have the power to collect, not the 16th ammendment describing congressional powers to tax, the actual law that say I must pay or that the IRS does indeed have the power and that I must pay when the IRS requests that I do.

Do that, and this whole thing has become a non-issue and the thread should be locked.

But as long as that phantom law cannot be found, I think it really is an issue.

I don't mind paying taxes, I filed this year. I just require a law stating that I must. Hell, the government could draft one up, and I'd be happy. But since there isn't, I've been effectively lied to. I'm tired of being lied to by my government.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Galvatron]

When I watched the video, specifically the parts in which the maker interviewed people, it seemed like the question and response were from different sessions. The inverviewer would ask a question, and the camera shot would then switch to the answerer, but it seemed like the lighting and sound were different... the sound quality and/or background noise seemed to change each time they shifted from questioner to answerer.. this makes it seem like they spliced scenes together to fit what answer they really wanted.

anyone else notice this?

Indellkoffer: I don't know about "Robert Lawrence... I don't see a real case number.

I searched a little more for Robert Lawrence and came across this; a pdf about the case and its dismissal:

Case No. 06-10019

According to the pdf the case was dismissed due to a clerical error in the amount Mr. Lawrence owed to the IRS, not the strength of the defense itself:

Accordingly, the agents recalculated Lawrence's tax liabilities during the afternoon of May 11, 2006, and found that Lawrence's tax liabilities for 1999, 2000, and 2001 were not $10,275, $11,927, and $9,453 respectively but were $7,111, $11,927 and $702 for those years.

And the Court denied the motion to amend the indictment causing the Government to dismiss all of the counts against Lawrence:

Additionally, during the telephone hearing on May 12, 2006, the Government informed the Court and the Defendent that the Government had discovered errors in the dollar amounts set forth in the indictment. The Government orally moved to amend the indictment by interlineation. Defense counsel objected and the Court denied the motion. Later the same day, the Government moved to dismiss al of the counts against Lawrence.

Not paying federal income tax is a gamble, and it does not seem to have paid-off for Irwin Schiff who you will remember seeing in Freedom to Fascism; if memory serves, I believe the Court in his case determined that Supreme Court rulings would not be used in Shiff's defense and that the Court itself would interpret the laws for the jury. The fight is worth fighting if you maintain your eternal vigilance to face insuperable odds and are prepared to defend yourself and possibly lose all that you have.

Yes, it's a gamble to not pay taxes. But as long as the courts are hiding the evidence from the juries like they did both in the Schiff case and in the more recent Brown case, how can you not believe that there is something more going on here? The way that taxes are set up benefits only the rich and the corporations. Most of us don't mind paying some taxes, but I'd like to a) know what the government is spending my money on and b) have a fair system. Right now, between the state and federal government, I'm paying nearly half of my income in taxes ALONE!

I also wanted to agree with the person who said that taxes are supposed to be based on "income"--not your exchange with your employer.

This original link to the 2hr video has gone? Or certainly when I click it here in the UK?