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.

 

help: looking for info to support an argument re: Federal Income Tax

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
there's got to be some sort of bulleted list or quick fact sheet that I could cut n' paste to show someone ...

I'm up in Toronto, Ontario Canada and some people here are thinking I'm crazy by saying that I support the Browns in that there is no law stating you must pay the federal income tax.

I'm sitting here listening to these people talk about the Browns as if they're whacked out nutjobs... and I could really use some info.

Can't really just tell them to watch Freedom to Fascism... they won't!




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The 1st argument to overcome is that most folks tend to think that federal income taxes are necessary to pay for civic services. This is incorrect.

According to the Grace Commission report conducted under the Reagan administration, 100% of all federal income tax revenue collected goes directly to the Federal Reserve to pay interest. So in essence all that money we pay out goes to the rockefellers, rothschilds, and in other families who own the Fed. And why do we pay interest on our own money when the Constitution grants the power to print money to our own govt INTEREST free.

Second, yes there is a tax on INCOME thanks to the 16th amendment. However, a person's labor isnt considered income according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Income is defined as corporate gains or profits but not a person's labor.

A lawyer in Lousiana just won his case against the IRS using this argument. His labor doesnt count as income and therefore is exempt from federal income taxes.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

There is an organization called We the People Foundation that is currently involved with a lawsuit against the federal goverment over this issue.

www.givemeliberty.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.


From Here

I just love knowledge.

To respond to Adm. Riker :
You are correct. Labor isn't income.
It produces income.
Taxable income.

Those lawsuits are far from over.

Anyone can complain enough for a lazy
judge to send it to a higher court.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Adm. Riker,

Please consider making either a generous one-time donation
or a recurring monthly donation

From givemeliberty
a "non-profit" organisation.

Too funny.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.


From Here

I just love knowledge.

To respond to Adm. Riker :
You are correct. Labor isn't income.
It produces income.
Taxable income.

Those lawsuits are far from over.

Anyone can complain enough for a lazy
judge to send it to a higher court.

Regards,
Lex


The money we earn from our labor isnt considered "income" either according to the United States Supreme Court. Its one of the founding principles of this country. The Founding fathers wanted to ensure we were free from taxation. They also thought that giving away one's labor in exchange for money, food, trade, etc was a god-given right and could never be taxed. Heck, its the very reason why we rebelled against England.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
Adm. Riker,

Please consider making either a generous one-time donation
or a recurring monthly donation

From givemeliberty
a "non-profit" organisation.

Too funny.


Unlike the federal reserve which can print its own money in defiance of the constitution, the We the People foundation does need revenue to pay for the lawsuit.

I dont understand people like yourselves. Its a proven fact that all income tax revenue goes to the Federal Reserve. Its a fact that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. Therefore the money we all pay is basically being STOLEN by these owners.

Its a completely unnecessary tax that is simply a means to transfer money to the elite bankers.

gas taxes pay for roads
corporate taxes pay for military
property taxes pay for schools, police, firemen
etc.

We dont need a federal income tax.

Oh and by the way, the Federal Reserve is illegal. The Constitution clearly states that only congress shall have the power to print money AND that money must be backed by gold or silver.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Here you go fattyp, try this link and print the page out to show people who don't want to believe what you say. Specifically the part about "The Hart System" of income tax avoidance.

www.prolognet.qc.ca...

[edit on 15-8-2007 by truthseeker420]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
However, a person's labor isnt considered income according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Income is defined as corporate gains or profits but not a person's labor.


Please provide a cite to the case law that supports this assertion.

Here's what the Supreme Court really said in the landmark case of Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass...

The Court observed that Congress, in imposing the income tax, had defined income to include:

"gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever."

The Court held that "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field the full measure of its taxing power", id., and that "the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

The Court then enunciated what is now understood by Congress and the Courts to be the definition of taxable income, "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Id. at 431. The defendant in that case suggested that a 1954 rewording of the tax code had limited the income that could be taxed, a position which the Court rejected, stating:

"The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended. Certainly punitive damages cannot reasonably be classified as gifts, nor do they come under any other exemption provision in the Code. We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income."


Title 26 of the U.S. Code states:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income ...

What is "taxable income"?

the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter

What is "gross income"?

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived

Whatever source derived. According to every court in the land this will include wages and salaries.



A lawyer in Lousiana just won his case against the IRS using this argument. His labor doesnt count as income and therefore is exempt from federal income taxes.


No. Cryer was acquitted of the *criminal* charge of *willfully* not paying federal income tax. He was not found guilty because the jury bought that Cryer really didn't think he had to pay. Cryer's frivolous arguments had no bearing or weight and his acquittal lends no validity to these arguments.

Cryer will lose the civil suit and will have to pay his back taxes, plus penalties, plus interest. If he tries this again he'll do prison time. See the case of Vernice Kuglin.


The Browns and their ilk do not have a leg to stand on, legally. That's why they get convicted.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

Originally posted by admriker444
However, a person's labor isnt considered income according to the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Income is defined as corporate gains or profits but not a person's labor.


Please provide a cite to the case law that supports this assertion.

Here's what the Supreme Court really said in the landmark case of Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass...

The Court observed that Congress, in imposing the income tax, had defined income to include:

"gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever."

The Court held that "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field the full measure of its taxing power", id., and that "the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

The Court then enunciated what is now understood by Congress and the Courts to be the definition of taxable income, "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Id. at 431. The defendant in that case suggested that a 1954 rewording of the tax code had limited the income that could be taxed, a position which the Court rejected, stating:

"The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended. Certainly punitive damages cannot reasonably be classified as gifts, nor do they come under any other exemption provision in the Code. We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income."


Title 26 of the U.S. Code states:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income ...

What is "taxable income"?

the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter

What is "gross income"?

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived

Whatever source derived. According to every court in the land this will include wages and salaries.



A lawyer in Lousiana just won his case against the IRS using this argument. His labor doesnt count as income and therefore is exempt from federal income taxes.


No. Cryer was acquitted of the *criminal* charge of *willfully* not paying federal income tax. He was not found guilty because the jury bought that Cryer really didn't think he had to pay. Cryer's frivolous arguments had no bearing or weight and his acquittal lends no validity to these arguments.

Cryer will lose the civil suit and will have to pay his back taxes, plus penalties, plus interest. If he tries this again he'll do prison time. See the case of Vernice Kuglin.


The Browns and their ilk do not have a leg to stand on, legally. That's why they get convicted.


We could argue all day over this so I'll pass.

There are Supreme Court cases by the way where the court ruled that the 16th amendment didnt grant the govt any new power of taxation. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that the 16th amendment was never properly and legally ratified.

Regardless of those points (i can see both sides of the argument), here are two facts that arent in dispute...

The federal reserve is illegal. The 1913 Federal Reserve Act violates the Constitution.

All of our federal income tax revenue goes directly to pay the interest on the debt.

I dont see how any person in their right mind can think those two issues are acceptable.

Our country got along just fine without a federal income tax before 1913. We had no national debt. Most americans owned their homes. Inflation from 1776 to 1913 was almost nonexistant.

After 1913... we have rampant inflation, today a dollar is worth about 4 cents now. Less than 5% of americans own their homes now, our national debt is closing in on 9 trillion dollars, and we pay up to 35% of our gross pay to cover the interest on this debt with no hope of ever paying it off.

I think its time we went back to the previous system where the goverment made the money interest free and we paid no federal income tax.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Here is a link about the Grace Commission. This was a federally funded study by 150 of the best business minds in the country. The study was directed by President Reagan to find ways to stop wasteful spending.

www.freecanadian.net...

A portion of the report states..

"I realize some of you may be thinking "What will support the services offered by the government if none of us pay Federal Income Tax?" Well, below is a report requested by President Ronald Reagan to see just where the Federal Dollar goes."

"The Grace Commission Report has no copyright notice in it. Since it appears to be in the public domain, the beginning of the report is found below. The Grace Commission confirms the allegation that the income tax revenues go 100% to pay the interest on the national debt and not a single nickel of it goes to the government. Whatever government services we have, they are not being financed by the income tax."

"The underlined section of this report is from the Grace Commission that proves that none of the personal income tax goes to pay for any government services and is used to pay only the interest on the national debt"

How can anyone be okay with paying their taxes when it doesnt pay for any civic services ?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
There are Supreme Court cases by the way where the court ruled that the 16th amendment didnt grant the govt any new power of taxation.


That's true because it didn't. I assume you are referring to the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad...

en.wikipedia.org...

The income tax wasn't a "new power of taxation" that sprung into existence after the 16th was ratified. There were income taxes on salaries before 1913. In order to help pay for the Civil War, the government imposed its first personal income tax in 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861. This ended in 1872. Other income taxes followed.

What the 16th amendment did was to remove the constitutional apportionment restriction by making all income taxes indirect taxes. This paved the way for the modern federal income tax system.




In addition, there is sufficient evidence that the 16th amendment was never properly and legally ratified.


Sufficent to whom? Certainly not to any court where this frivolous argument has been presented.




Regardless of those points (i can see both sides of the argument), here are two facts that arent in dispute...


Your feelings about the federal reserve system and how our federal income taxes are spent are not relevent to a discussion of the legal basis of the federal income tax.

Heck, I don't think *anyone* likes to be taxed or likes how our elected officials squander the money given to them. However, attempting to use these feelings as a justification for not paying, while noble, will not win the day in a court of law.

You know, *we* created the Constitution, *we* created the IRS. *we* passed the 16th amendment, *we* created the federal reserve, and *we* created Title 26 of the USC through the people *we* elected to represent us. For change to occur we must follow the same path and elect the representatives that will enact the change we want. Or stage a revolution.

All this phony-baloney stuff these tax protester types are attempting are non-starters and will lead to nothing.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
The Court observed that Congress, in imposing the income tax, had defined income to include:

"gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever."
Salaries, wages. are not income as defined by the tax code, however, Income can be made by Businesses corporations and employers, by the labors of employees, and a tax may be withheld upon those wages

They could clearly in the tax code and these rulings fraised that statements like this,
The Court observed that Congress, in imposing the income tax, had defined income to include:

"gains, profits, salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever."

But they did not. just as in the tax code, it states similar verses

Such as the employer may withhold income upon such wages rather then stating the employer may withhold income from such wages.


What is "gross income"?

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived

Whatever source derived. According to every court in the land this will include wages and salaries.


Again, look at the meaning of gross income, read the List of what gross income is, then read the beginning, The list is Gross income, but they are also sources... Gross income GAINS can come from other sources, but the sources are defined in the list, labor is not gross income nor is it a gain,, Compensation for services, is the only thing that remotely comes close, but in the full context of the tax code, this is referring to the employers end, and his gains based upon that labor.

Word games.



[edit on 16-8-2007 by C0le]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

Originally posted by admriker444
There are Supreme Court cases by the way where the court ruled that the 16th amendment didnt grant the govt any new power of taxation.


That's true because it didn't. I assume you are referring to the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad...

en.wikipedia.org...

The income tax wasn't a "new power of taxation" that sprung into existence after the 16th was ratified. There were income taxes on salaries before 1913. In order to help pay for the Civil War, the government imposed its first personal income tax in 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861. This ended in 1872. Other income taxes followed.

What the 16th amendment did was to remove the constitutional apportionment restriction by making all income taxes indirect taxes. This paved the way for the modern federal income tax system.




In addition, there is sufficient evidence that the 16th amendment was never properly and legally ratified.


Sufficent to whom? Certainly not to any court where this frivolous argument has been presented.




Regardless of those points (i can see both sides of the argument), here are two facts that arent in dispute...


Your feelings about the federal reserve system and how our federal income taxes are spent are not relevent to a discussion of the legal basis of the federal income tax.

Heck, I don't think *anyone* likes to be taxed or likes how our elected officials squander the money given to them. However, attempting to use these feelings as a justification for not paying, while noble, will not win the day in a court of law.

You know, *we* created the Constitution, *we* created the IRS. *we* passed the 16th amendment, *we* created the federal reserve, and *we* created Title 26 of the USC through the people *we* elected to represent us. For change to occur we must follow the same path and elect the representatives that will enact the change we want. Or stage a revolution.

All this phony-baloney stuff these tax protester types are attempting are non-starters and will lead to nothing.


Whether we agree or not on pay for labor counting as "income" the fact is the Federal Reserve is illegal.

The Constitution has never been ratified to allow a private bank the power to print money. Only Congress has that right. And our money must be backed by gold or silver.

Every single politician in office right now is guilty of treason plain and simple. They all take an oath to uphold the Constitution and yet each day we wake up to a privately owned bank printing our money and charging us interest for it.

Are we not a nation with laws ? How can anyone be expected to follow any law whether it be taxes or otherwise when its clear our own goverment wont.

Abolish the Federal Reserve and the following happens...

1. eliminate federal income tax. no more fed = no more debt to pay interest payments.

2. economic boom would result from americans with more disposable income.

3. no more inflation as the govt prints money backed by gold or silver. finally americans will know exactly how much they will need to save for retirement. No more guessing how much bread or milk will cost 20 years from now.

4. politicians become more honest and work for the people instead of the banks. right now most politicians are beholden to the fed and its easy money. take the drugs away (fed money) from the policitians and watch how fast they get clean.

It would literally be heaven on earth once the federal reserve is abolished.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Good points admriker, the sad thing is because that loan from the Fed is at interest, most Americans dont realize this debt isn't only a burden, which is goign to be "hard" to payback, but a debt which can "never" be paid back..

So many people just don't understand how unjust this is, they just "accept" it.

People the Bankers scammed this country, they created a problem in the last century the financial collapse, and had the solution for that problem, themselves, they tricked our leaders or paid them who knows, Into instituting this BS, and giving away the congressional authority to create money backed by gold or silver..

Not only that, but our government borrows money, at interest form the fed, then pays it back through our labor.

This "loan" can NEVER be repaid, We are slaves to the fed.. They loan us "x" amount of money, at interest, the problem is when we go to pay them back, we can only pay them back what they let us borrow, the interest can never be repaid, thus this never ending cycle of slavery...


But go ahead people try and justify it, just accept it, and be good little Americans, after all our founders would have accepted it right?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I do not pay federal income tax. In fact last year the Gov paid me $800 over what I put into it.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
As eloquent as the arguments might be claiming the current income tax regime is unconstitutional or illegal, keep in mind that no court is going to buy into those arguments. Income taxes consitute a significant source of revenue for the government. No judge is going to dismantle the foundations of our government by stripping it of one of its major sources of revenue. So that being said, if you want to stay out of trouble, pay your taxes (even though it is wrong:puz



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
As eloquent as the arguments might be claiming the current income tax regime is unconstitutional or illegal, keep in mind that no court is going to buy into those arguments. Income taxes consitute a significant source of revenue for the government. No judge is going to dismantle the foundations of our government by stripping it of one of its major sources of revenue. So that being said, if you want to stay out of trouble, pay your taxes (even though paying them is wrong.)


[edit on 16-8-2007 by hotpinkurinalmint]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
As eloquent as the arguments might be claiming the current income tax regime is unconstitutional or illegal, keep in mind that no court is going to buy into those arguments. Income taxes consitute a significant source of revenue for the government. No judge is going to dismantle the foundations of our government by stripping it of one of its major sources of revenue. So that being said, if you want to stay out of trouble, pay your taxes (even though it is wrong:puz


Thats just it, it isn't a source of revenue for the government, its a source of revenue for the Fed, to repay a debt which has no reason to exist.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le

Thats just it, it isn't a source of revenue for the government, its a source of revenue for the Fed, to repay a debt which has no reason to exist.


Maybe we should declare ourselves as a new independent state and say all prior debts are no longer honored, but before we do that let me cash in my saving bonds first.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join