It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability


www.worldnetdaily.com

Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
newsbusters.org




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I know it is WorldNutDaily but the fact remains the IRS is steadily losing a grip on the gun it holds to the U.S. taxpayers head. I see this as a turning point in tax litigation... There have been victories before, but it seems that they are increasing in number and with the amount of publicity they receive. I hope that this fraud that has been perpetrated upon the citizenry is soon rescinded.

www.worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
One thing that gives me the willies about all this is the fact that once people start figuring out the income tax scam, they might start figuring out other stuff as well like the federal reserve system. Yes of course this knowlege is a good thing, but it seems like it would be similar to trying to jerk a honey jar out of a bears paws. That's one big fat old grouchy bear that isn't going to like it.
The more this becomes public knowlege, the greater the perceived threat is to the establishment, and the establishment is hardly above violence and subversion to perpetuate their own power. It seems to me that any time in western history that a people has figured out and resisted what was really going on with the whole concept of finance, it has gotten ugly for them.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I looked into this case a bit and this news was interesting, to say the least. What needs to be understood is that he is not guilty of not filing the returns. The reason for not filing is what we need to understand and, is he going to be forced to file one and not pay penalties and interest on any taxes owed?

His argument is that the money paid for services is an exhcange and, therefore, not profit, which is taxed. That's fine and dandy but he was being tried for not filing returns, not for filing fraudulent returns (hiding his income).

When he does file those returns, if he only reports investment income, he might then find himself in court again, this time for not reporting all of his income. And what he also needs to understand is that the IRS can turn around and say "ok, you exchanged your legal expertise in return for money and it is an even barter but your money received is $200 an hour more than this lawyer here so that is all profit"

I doubt it will come to that but that would be the outcome. Fixed rates for all services. Personally, I despise attorneys and I'd love to see some high court enforce a fixed rate on them (ask Springer, he'll attest to that) but that would also mean my fees would be fixed and all your salaries and other fees would be fixed and that would/could destroy commerce as we know it.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Great find.


I have been following this issue for years and this attorneys legal argument is the most logical and the best I have heard to date on the issue of taxing salaries and wages.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I agree that it seems more and more (for the good I believe) people's eyes are being opened.
I wonder if the Brown's can use this in any way to help their cause.
Here's the lawyer's site...Truth Attack



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Another score for the good guys.

Thanks for the update. Now if only we can get Ron Paul elected and scale the government back down to it's intended size.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I don't understand. If they are unable to provide a law to pay taxes, why are we still paying them? Why hasn't there been a case yet of the scale of "US Peoples vs IRS"?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There have been a few cases where individuals fought and won cases against the IRS because the prosecution couldn't provided evidence of a law to the jury. But, there have been many more where the jury willing convited the innocent just because of plain ignorance.

It will take mass protest and public display of support for abolishment for someone to attempt to take on the IRS or government on a massive scale. Let's face it, most people are just too busy keeping this economy going by working and spending to even care where there money is going.




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The argument is that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified. The money you earn from working is not "profit".

Why are we still paying them is the big question. One person doesn't its no big deal. A million people do it, and people will start opening their eyes.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
So how can we find out how much profit we actually make? If I can cut the amount of taxes I pay I would be very happy. Controlling where my earned money, not profit money, is spent should be up to me not the gov't.

I wish this guy the best of luck with future court battles. This is exactly what we need to see happening, someone denying ignorance.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
I don't understand. If they are unable to provide a law to pay taxes, why are we still paying them? Why hasn't there been a case yet of the scale of "US Peoples vs IRS"?

Damn good point. Why not a class action lawsuit?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I'm not an expert on this so take what I say with a grain of salt. Its my understanding that the idea is people do not have to fill out a W-2. The only person responsible for paying taxes are the people who withhold them (ie: the tax agent).

Now of course the problem is, chances are if I go to my employer and tell them "I don't want to fill out a W-2", they will just let me go on the spot.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
So how can we find out how much profit we actually make?


If you take a job for $10 per hour, then you agree that your time and effort is worth $10 per hour.

If you take a job for $100k/year, you agree that your time and effor is worth $100k/year.

So, if the only money you receive is from work performed for an employer, you have no profit. Now, if that stock you've been holding on to earned you $10k last year, you've got 10K in profit (as you exchanged nothing for that income).

Edit for spelling

[edit on 7/26/2007 by Unit541]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
I'm not an expert on this so take what I say with a grain of salt. Its my understanding that the idea is people do not have to fill out a W-2. The only person responsible for paying taxes are the people who withhold them (ie: the tax agent).

Now of course the problem is, chances are if I go to my employer and tell them "I don't want to fill out a W-2", they will just let me go on the spot.


not quite true. You can tell your employer to withhold pretty much whatever you want. The employer will give you more money and when you file your taxes you will probably owe money as a result. I have seen clients with W-2's of $25-35 grand and no withholding. They usually have some side business that loses money to offset the W-2 and lately we've seen audits of those side businesses. The money that they take is yours so you can tell them not to withhold income taxes, they must take social security and medicare out of your pay. You just need to be prepared for the taxes due at the time of filing.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I have heard a good arguement for the Federal Government only being allowed to tax commerce. This is used to make a case for a National Sales Tax, which I support. Maybe if this is accurate it might be a step towards a NST.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
I don't understand. If they are unable to provide a law to pay taxes, why are we still paying them? Why hasn't there been a case yet of the scale of "US Peoples vs IRS"?

Damn good point. Why not a class action lawsuit?


I don't believe that's possible. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we prevented from suing the IRS, since they're not considered an entity? For example, one cannot sue the Congress because they are not an entity in the same regards that a naturalized citizen is.

I hope this is correct, as it's been several years since I had this conversation in a Constitutional class.

TheBorg



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I think we had a go about this before here.

I believe it was proven that the IRS is not legal.

They have robbed the American people and many of us tried telling everyone that they are using you money to do you in.

You are going to work and making them rich.

I had all the information about this at one time but I finally gave up and chucked it all out.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me


I see this as a turning point in tax litigation...


That may well be true when it comes to income tax, however no matter what people do there is no way out of taxaxtion by the government in one form or another as much as we all hate it. All they will do is start new tax and give it a new name, which means they still get the money the want and in some cases need.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
This is great! But a ruling form a higher court would really help the cause.

I remember reading that the constitution only supports a tax on income from foreign sources and income being described as profit...such as you being a port owner and having to pay taxes on any profit earned from foreign companies that you do business with. A modern example would be a tax on the profit earned from imported or exported goods or services.

I also believe that income tax was something set up temporarily as a war provision (WW1 or WW2?) but never revoked...could be wrong.

BUT, if income tax was abolished, our government, structured the way it is currently, would collapse. Many, many, many changes/backups/alternative sources of income would have to be put into place. I agree that maybe we would be better off if America wasn't as rich, but as someone stated in an earlier post, it's ognna be pretty hard to get those in power to give it up.




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join