They say there is not a law.

But they got Al Capone... they will get you too if you don't pay.

American citizen's obligation to pay federal income tax has been determined by 'countless' lawsuits, in what is called 'case-law'.

So yes, you are obligated to pay federal income tax if you are a united states citizen.

Although, if you are an expatriate (live and work outside the US for more than 330 days of the year), then you can exempt up to about 78,000$ USD.

That is as close to not paying taxes as you can get. However, you're still required to file a return.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Choronzon]

Choronzon made the best point about precedent setting case law. It is totally legal. Every argument has been brought forth and found to be false, in the eyes of the law and court system. I have heard about this for over 30 years and I do believe I have heard every argument both pro and con, first hand.

People don't file taxes all the time claiming this or that dodge. People go to jail all the time from filing false claims using this or that dodge. The IRS will find you and you will pay one way or another.

If you don't like the IRS or the tax system, there is a very easy fix. Vote for people who believe what you do. In this case, they are called Libertarians. OR, run for the House or Congress and try to get the law changed.

Search for "tax protestor arguments" on wikipedia, I think wiki does an outstanding job of debunking all of them, except for the ones based off of personal convictions.

Personal convictions will not save your ass in court, however.

I was going to quote Voxel (Jon) and go point by point. I decided not to do that. I don't like seeing others doing it. So I won't.

The lifetime appointment of Federal judges is a power bestowed on men, later with women added, for the very purpose that they would not have to curry favors or other enticements from voters for elected positions.

The Supreme Court decides cases, that it picks and chooses, for constitutional review. This is the only requirement they have in fulfilling their obligation to the Federal system. Court cases of national prominence can be directly filed with the Supreme Court, but these cases can also be rejected.

Case law is built from the bottom up. A person is involved in a tax evasion case and it is carried over to a federal court. It can go to the three judge Appeal Board, then to the full District Court of Appeals, then up to the Supreme Court. At this point, the very basis of the appeal and the point of law that convicted the person will be constitutionally defined. This is very technical definitions within the law, or the actual interpretation of the applied law, that are being addressed; not the innocence or guilt of a person.

The tax law is driven from the top down. Congress enacts the Tax Code as law. The Supreme Court can review the "new" law for constitutionality. In this particular case of taxes, the 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution for this purpose. You need a certain number of states to enact an amendment. A question of the proper number of states required for this purpose has been discussed over the years with various groups. The case was resolved within 5 years of the amendment passage in 1913. This amendment has also been determined that the Tax Code can be updated or changed as needed.

I do not know of your source of information, but without a doubt, is somewhat biased. I base this on the title.

A Federal Judge can be removed from office by impeachment. This is defined as a treason, high crime, or misdemeanor. It has been done before.

The system of our government is not perfect. I consider it better than most other forms of current governments. The checks and balances within the system work most of the time. People argue about this and I find that great, our form of government allows for public dissent within the system. More importantly, I'll defend your right to be as wrong as you want. This is what makes America great!

I think that Mr. Russo did an excellent job of presenting his arguements, as well as several others' points of view.
I was especially glad to see Ron Paul, who is running for president, and I knew nothing about.
The movie, taken as a whole, scared the hell out of me.

I had already known that there was no tax law written by congress. We all give them "permission" to tax us whenever we begin a job. We even tell them what rate we expect them to tax us at: We provide a W-2 form.
I had been told also that you could refuse to sign one, or note "under duress" under your signature if your employer requires you to sign as a condition of employment.
I'm sure the IRS would still take the taxes out, so what is the point of not filing a 1040? I mean, if they took too much and I'm due a refund, I want that, don't I? It really burns me that they don't pay me interest on that refund though... They would charge me interest if I owed...
Stupid Feds.

By filing a w-2, it could be considered a violation of your constitutional rights (5th amendment) of self incrimination.

Laws can only be passed on this issue one way and it has not been done yet. The way the Constitution says it has to be done. Just because some judges think its legal it doesn't even come close.
It is very illegal what the government has done with the IRS and the Federal Reserve.
Till our corrupt government gets cut off by us taxpayers all at one time our country will keep going down the crapper.
Show me the law that has been ratified by the states and I will show you a pink elephant dancing on George Bush's head.

so can Choronzon or hinky kindly tell us where is the law? (like a link to the relevant section)

That is the whole point of the movie linked in the OP. No one in the movie was able to clearly show Mr. Russo where the law was stated. No one in this thread has shown us either.

simple: Show us the law!

Just to add to the last post I have heard recently of 7 cases of acquittals in Idaho by a judge and jury willing to do the right thing.

What the people of juries have to remember is they have the given right to interpret the law as they see fit and as a jury of someone peers but the judge will not tell you this.
Never let a judge dictate your verdict.

When a jury is confronted with a case of no law to violate in order to prosecute than they have the obligation to come back with an acquittal.

If you can find a judge willing to allow the constitution into evidence, you can prove income tax on an individual is illegal and the amendment authorizing said personal income tax was never ratified, though a temporary tax, long since expired, was.
Better be extremely wealthy with your money offshore, and current on your taxes before trying it though.
And have a decade or so to dally about courtrooms, as precedent rules, irregardless of the real laws.

Originally posted by Choronzon
American citizen's obligation to pay federal income tax has been determined by 'countless' lawsuits, in what is called 'case-law'.

So yes, you are obligated to pay federal income tax if you are a united states citizen.

Although, if you are an expatriate (live and work outside the US for more than 330 days of the year), then you can exempt up to about 78,000$ USD.

That is as close to not paying taxes as you can get. However, you're still required to file a return.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Choronzon]

The constitution forbids direct taxation. Allows taxes to be gathered from corporate exchanges and tariffs. The federal reserve was created on jekyl island by unknowns who send our congressman masons to go back and in a christmas session, give birth to the one thing that robbed our country of real sovereignty, the federal reserve. Since then it has murdered the lives of innocent resistors, in a criminal attempt to maintain authority by use of of fear and oppression. They are the mark of hitler, and socialist elitism, and use mob tactics to make you pay. They are criminal. period.

p.s i heard it said that "to rule from the bench" means "to rule from the bank" in latin..

[edit on 11-10-2007 by mastermind77]