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.

 

Supposed "Tax Myths" Site.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Here is the website.

docs.law.gwu.edu...


So if this is true the way he says it, then why have people won Supreme Court cases against the IRS for not providing the "law" that requires us to pay income tax?

Also the reason he gives for the ratification of the amendment is hard for me to understand, does anyone have any advice, info, etc.?


If there is a better way to post a link I was too lazy to look, sorry.




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111

So if this is true the way he says it, then why have people won Supreme Court cases against the IRS for not providing the "law" that requires us to pay income tax?


Can you point me to one of those Supreme court cases?

Thanks



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Cryer v. United States, IRS v. Kuglin, Springer v. United States.

Cryer is the case that has brought on the most attention, because it was a direct challenge to the IRS to prove the constitutional relativity of the income tax.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...



Cryer was acquitted on July 11, 2007.[9] Cryer did not make any of his arguments about the legality of the income tax to the jury itself. Instead he asserted that he really did not believe that he owed the taxes, so there was no criminal intent. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Cryer convinced jurors that he genuinely believed he was not liable for the $73,000 in taxes the government says he owes for tax years 2000 and 2001. Absent proof of criminal intent, the jury acquitted him.[10]

Although the jury was not convinced of Cryer's willfulness,[10] the theories he raised in his motions for dismissal have been repeatedly rejected by the courts. (See Tax protester arguments and related articles.)





........But, I hasten to add for anyone getting any ideas here, you still owe the money. Crazy beliefs may keep you out of jail, but they don't change the fact that you owe your taxes, plus the interest, plus the penalties -- which can add a whole lot to your tax bill. It's cheaper to pay what you owe. The government, one can be confident, will be coming down on Mr. Cryer for a pile of cash.

jsiegel.blogspot.com...


As Fed-Ex pilot Vernice Kuglin learned, though, beating the rap still leaves you on the hook for your taxes. The same goes for Mr. Cryer.




Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (U.S.D.C. W.D. Tenn. 8/8/2003). According to newspaper accounts of the trial, jurors found persuasive the defendant's argument that she attempted to obtain an explanation of the Service's authority to collect taxes from her but her correspondence went unanswered. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).

In the case of Ms. Kuglin, we also know that she did not escape civil liability for the taxes because she was later interviewed on a radio program and admitted that the IRS had garnished her salary to pay the taxes she owed. "American Radio" with Dave Champion (1/31/2004). Eight months later, she entered into a settlement with the IRS in Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, No. 21743-03, 2004 TNT 177-14 (T.C. 9/1/2004).

On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that a notice of federal tax lien had been filed against her in the amount of $188,025. www.memphisdailynews.com...


tpgurus.wikidot.com...


U.S. Supreme Court
Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)

The jury found for the United States, and a motion for a new trial having been refused, to which refusal the defendant excepted, judgment was rendered accordingly. The defendant then sued out this writ, and here assigns for error --

1. The admission in evidence of the deed and other papers in the court below.

2. The refusal of the court to charge the jury as requested by him.

3. The giving of the charge requested by the plaintiff.

4. The refusal to grant a new trial

supreme.justia.com...



Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax that had existed from 1864 to 1872. By a 7 to 0 vote, the Court rejected the claim that an income tax was a "direct tax" prohibited by the Constitution unless apportioned among the states. The Court concluded that only taxes on real estate and capitation taxes were direct taxes. Although it rendered a seemingly contrary decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust (1895), the constitutionality of an income tax was confirmed with the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.

www.answers.com...



If you decide to try it, let us know how it goes



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
define income?

job wages is an even swap if i recall

i work for you you pay me even swap no income earned wright??

but if i invest the money i earn and then make profit off my investment of my wages

then the actually profit becomes taxable

but the wage itself is unconstitutional to tax.

as far as i understand

[edit on 2-2-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


No, I don't have the money to deal with a court case. I am content with just complaining about paying taxes!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


You know, I never thought of it like that, makes perfect sense.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


No, I don't have the money to deal with a court case. I am content with just complaining about paying taxes!


Probably the safest way to go. And in the long run, probably the cheapest.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I am in the UK and have a friend who has just taken these very steps.

In England, it involves dropping your National Insurance number and notifying Inland Revenue and the appropriate authorities of your right to not be subject to any "law" that isn't covered by Common Law.

"Travellers" (AKA Irish 'gypsies') in England are not subject to any child welfare laws AFAIK due to the fact that they do not register their children at birth and are also not required to have drivers licenses as they have the common law right to travel. They are also not required to pay any tax on their incomes...

I am in two minds whether to take this route. Without an NI number it will be almost impossible to get a job (as they pretty much all require one), the only avenue one has is to become self employed or find somewhere that will take you and not declare it.

I was a huge sceptic before my friend chose this path but having seen the complete lack of response from the agencies involved I've definately changed my mind about it.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Ill tell you why.
Its because the person who wrote it, is a greedy evil rich psychopath, who has offshore corporations and pays no tax.
That's why.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join