Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You have to read the IRC as a whole, as courts do. You cannot look at one section in isolation, draw a conclusion, then claim there is an
inconsistency because because some other section yields a conclusion which is inconsistent with the conclusion you reached from the first section.
This is called harmonizing the law.
You are concluding section 61 does not make a person liable for income tax because the verbage of section 61 does not contain the word "person" or
individual. Yet, later sections clearly authorize the law to impose penalties on people who fail to pay taxes. If you harmonize the sections, you
will see that the law clearly permits the courts to impose penalties on people who fail to pay their taxes.
You may be getting high five's from some people on ATS about the arguments you are making, but the fact of the matter is you would get crushed if you
tried to make these arguments in a real court. I would not even attempt to make these arguments because I could be subject to sanction and cause my
clients to receive stiff fines for making a frivolous argument.
I have done my very best to look at the law as a whole. However, as you have pointed out the law is contained in a five volume set
problematic in itself. How can anyone be expected to understand this law?
That is what must be understood here! The only argument that I am making is that I don't understand this tax law!
Because of this, in a
court of law, I would not be making any other argument, just as, for all intents and purposes, I have not really made any arguments here. I have
responded to your arguments. Your assertions only go to show, and it would possibly be the only other argument in I make in a court of law, which is,
neither you, nor anyone else understands this law either!
I have made no conclusions about Section 61, you have and the conclusion you made is that this law defines "income" through Section 61, however, it
does not define income, it defines "gross income". It is tantamount to arguing that anger has been defined by pointing to the definition of ire.
Since ire is defined as anger then we know what anger is. A horse is horse of course, of course. This is not a definition.
You assert that if you harmonize the sections that I or anyone can clearly see that the law clearly permits the courts to impose penalties on people
who fail to pay their taxes. There should be no doubt that if one has actually been made liable for
a tax and is therefore subject to
the revenue laws, that a penalty can be imposed. It should further be noted that for those who have been made liable for a tax, and are therefore
subject to the revenue laws, that if they owe a tax and have failed to pay or refuse to pay, then a penalty should be imposed.
However, your arguments that all a prosecutor has to do is merely accuse a person of this crime and that in and of itself is enough to establish
jurisdiction is ludicrous. It is tantamount to a prosecutor, who is prosecuting someone accused of murder and making this for an opening
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the law is very clear in this matter and states that murder is illegal. The defendant is the person who has been
accused for murder and since we all know that murder is against the law then we will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the defendant who has
been charged with murder, so the only possible verdict you can reach is guilty."
And then with that the prosecutor concludes his case without ever presenting any evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is
guilty. No witnesses to link the defendant to the murder scene, no "smoking gun", no motive, no establishment of lack of alibi, just the accusation
itself and pointing to the law as all the evidence that is needed. Where is the Due process of law
You claim that in a court a law that I or someone else would be crushed if they or I or you tried to make such arguments. Again I must insist that in
a court of law no arguments would be made other than no one understands the law. Furthermore, the only way that I or someone else would even be in
such a situation is because the prosecutor ignored the challenges of jurisdiction just as did the tax collectors and now the judge is doing the
Even further, since it would not at all be prudent for someone who doesn't understand the charges against him or her, to plead. Then if it is at the
point you describe, that could have only happened because the judge made a plea on the defendants behalf and entered a plea of not guilty. If a
prosecutor brings up all the sections of the code that you have brought up and then makes the dubious arguments you have made and the defendant
questions those arguments and a judge attempts to suppress the defendants cross examinations, this would be obstruction of justice
In fact, when looking to read what the law says about obstruction of justice, or acting under color of law, or malicious prosecution, or even
impersonating a government official, one does not have to scour any five volume sets of law and these laws are clear, concise and easy to
For the second time now you have claimed that other members of ATS might be giving me high fives for my question, and even though no other members
have high fived me for these questions, I can only assume you have now said this twice because here in this thread, the questions I have asked and the
challenges I have made to your assertions, leads you to believe that you are being crushed in this debate.
What is the subject of the tax? Is it People, Property, or Activities and where in the Code is a tax laid upon that subject?
[edit on 11-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]