Taxes are almost due...don't fall for the huxsters!

Tax returns are almost due in the US. Every time at this time of year, con artists come out and sell packages to people claiming that they do not have to pay taxes. There are all sorts of arguments people made that courts have debunked like: the sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified, the income tax is voluntary, etc.

I know many of people here have issues with the current tax laws. I don't think any reasonable person thinks there is no room for improvement in the current law. This is not to say, however, that the law is not binding. Anybody who tells you that income tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid is probably lying to you.

Don't be fooled! Don't give these con artists your money.

Below is a link that debunks the common arguments.

IRS website

Not to say many of the "get out of your taxes" routes arent going to land you in prison isnt using an IRS government "debunk" site sort of like asking RJ Reynolds if smoking is bad?

Since your little link there doesnt define it, perhaps you could define the word income as used in the 16th Amendment.

Not gross income, simply income.

I will be waiting for your definition and reference the sources I am sure you will provide for the definition as used in 1913.

Thanks for your time.

Just a bit of information about Sherry Peel Jackson, jailed IRS agent. You can see her on you tube talking about not paying taxes:
A letter she wrote:
Congressman, I don't want them to kill me in here. As you well know, I am being punished for exposing government fraud. However, millions of people don't file tax returns and I was just used as an example by the DOJ for their new program called the Tax Defiers Initiative.

I have a wonderful husband and two beautiful children. I have already spent 21 months in prison for a non crime, and I refuse to come out dead or maimed for life. I have not caused these people any problems. This is no threat but just for your information.

A blog about her recent situation, she was recently transferred without any notice to her family:
"She is in isolation
She is being punished for the magazine that had her photo on the cover and a story about the prison trying to kill her.
She is being kept incommunicado
She may be able to get letters
Her prison number is 59085019"
They are very determined to stop any tax revolt. be careful, love.

reply to post by CestLaVie


She should have kept her mouth shut and paid her bill.

If the fed stopped tossing mothers in prisons, beating down senior citizens and confiscating the homes of families how would the nation be able to afford its wars and nation building and globalist tendencies?

We should all follow "hotpinkurinalmint" and call for every head of every "tax denier" to be bashed in post haste.

One of my friends who lives on a commune in Australia is completely convinced that the income tax is unlawful.

So I asked "well has anyone ever won a court case on the grounds you mention" and she said "well TPTB don't take people using those methods to court, because if they did the whole thing would fall apart."

Of course this makes her argument unfalsifiable, because even if I were to do something like bring up a person who was involved in the freeman on the land movement that got thrown in jail for tax evasion, she could say "well he didn't do things right" or something.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I get your point. However, the IRS page does cite court cases and other documents. If you do not believe the IRS, you can look up the authorities it cites.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I get your point. However, the IRS page does cite court cases and other documents. If you do not believe the IRS, you can look up the authorities it cites.

I actually tried Googling them earlier and kept getting other Cases that only cite the cases mentioned in by the IRS. I do not have a Lexus/Nexus account, could you provide some links for those cases? You know me brother, I like to read carefully the cases cited to read for myself whether or not those cases said what the IRS is saying they said. After all, many people believe that the SCOTUS declared corporations a person in the infamous Santa Clara County decision, and more recently a plethora of talking heads in the media have grossly misinterpreted Citizens v. United including the POTUS who himself claims to be a "Constitutional scholar", and of course, there are the numerous lower court decisions that, willfully or not, tend to omit 91 words form the Brushaber ruling by The Supreme court in order to come assert that the SCOTUS said the exact opposite of what they actually said, so it would be prudent for all people to actually read the court cases being cited for themselves to make damn sure it says what people claim it says.

Hope your well, it is good to see you on the boards!

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by brainwrek



If I were a judge and asked to define "income" as it is used in the 16th amendment, I would first look to a dictionary. Assuming the definition has not changed much over time, my Webster's dictionary defines income as "money or other benefit, periodically received, as from one's labor, investments, etc."
I think it is safe to say that almost all of what the government taxes as "income" like wages, interest, dividends, gains on sales, etc. falls into this definition. Perhaps there are some exotic transactions out there that fall outside this definition, and I would be interested to know what they are.

Second, if there are any ambiguities, if I were a judge I could rely on the maxim "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." The internal revenue code's definition of income, and the case law and regulations surrounding it, have been largely accepted by Congress and courts through the decades. This historical acceptance supports the idea the code's definition of income (and the case law surrounding it) are the correct interpretation of "income" as it appears in the constitution.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Good to see you my old friend!

Sorry, I do not have any links to the cases. I did not bother looking them up. I will get flamed for this, but I am largely taking the IRS on their word for this one! I have not read most of the cases myself!

I have read some cases back in law school where the SCOTUS affirmed the constitutionality of the Income Tax. These cases are given only a cursory treatment in law school because they are not really important to a practicing tax lawyer. The legal community universally accepts the proposition the tax laws are constitutionally valid and sees these arguments as frivolous.

If anybody does look up these cases and finds room for them to be distinguished, please let me know. I would be interested in that.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Good to see you my old friend!

Sorry, I do not have any links to the cases. I did not bother looking them up. I will get flamed for this, but I am largely taking the IRS on their word for this one! I have not read most of the cases myself!

I have read some cases back in law school where the SCOTUS affirmed the constitutionality of the Income Tax. These cases are given only a cursory treatment in law school because they are not really important to a practicing tax lawyer. The legal community universally accepts the proposition the tax laws are constitutionally valid and sees these arguments as frivolous.

If anybody does look up these cases and finds room for them to be distinguished, please let me know. I would be interested in that.

Yep, as I have said before, of the numerous cases I have read a good deal of them are concern frivolous arguments, and I suspect that those who do not engage in frivolous arguments do not wind up with any case law to be cited by others because it never gets far enough to be case law, and any charges brought against those people are dropped as they should be.

I believe you are 100% correct that the current revenue laws are indeed Constitutional, however, that doesn't make any arbitrary enforcement of those laws Constitutional, and that, I suspect, makes all the difference between frivolous taxpayer arguments, and non taxpayer arguments.

I hope you don't get flamed too much, and will refrain from doing so myself. In fact, I started to challenge you in this thread and when I realized the vast amount of research I would have to do, I thought better of it, and wouldn't even have posted in this thread except I though perhaps you could post some links to those cases.

Indeed, in past research efforts, I get frustrated at how many cases just can't be found on the net. While Bruhaber is an excellent SCOTUS ruling to know and understand regarding the 16th Amendment, Stanton v. Baltic Mining is an even better source as the opinion is delivered by the same Chief Justice White but much more concise and clearer in its ruling, but try that case on line, I can't. I was lucky to stumble on it at a law library one day, and have been frustrated at how difficult it is to find that law on line.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint



Alright, I'm gonna humor you one last time since your seem to be very interested in taxes. Last time you claimed to be a "tax-lawyer" I asked the same question yet the only answer I could get out of you was "ask an accountant".

Question: Can a person claim their son as dependant if their son does not have a social security number? He is 19 months old.

Please do not call me a tax cheat, a conspiracy theorist, a nut-job and all the other crap you spewed last time. I just want to know, if you have any actual expertise, if there is a legal way to do this. Thanks in advance.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by budaruskie


First of all, I do not think there is anything wrong with you just because you have a question about tax returns. Most people have questions about tax returns including CPA's and tax lawyers. Second, I cannot give advice over the internet. Do not make take any action based on what I write in this thread or any other thread. Please consult a CPA or other professional if you need tax advice.

Below is a link that is relatively easy to follow that describes tax law. It is somewhat dated, but for the most part is still relevant. According to page 13 (page 15 of the PDF) , a social security number is required to claim someone as a dependent. The link recommends getting a social security number for a person if you wish to claim that person as a dependent.

This is not to say that it is absolutely impossible to claim someone as a dependent if that person does not have a social security number. It is possible a professional tax preparer might know a procedure that can be used to overcome this obstacle.

Pub 17

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Actually, the good arguments are the ones that make it in the case law. Courts in America write thousands of decisions a day, yet only small fraction of those decisions wind up as reported cases. Reported cases usually involve issues which are controversial, important, or not obvious.

You are correct, however, in that the IRS may not always litigate when the taxpayer has the best argument. When it comes to controversial or gray areas of the tax law, the IRS will cherry pick the cases it chooses to litigate in order to generate pro-government case law. For example, it may pick a case where the tax payer used the gray area of the law in a clearly abusive way.

The joke is many of these hucksters will tell you ways to cheat on your taxes for money.

But they know better then to cheat on there own taxes so they pay there's with the money that make by selling there scam.

You don't think the IRS does not watch these hucksters closely.

surprisingly its not illegal to sell these scams. just use them.

reply to post by ANNED


I would not recommend selling tax avoidance schemes. These people can be subject to penalties too.

Check out section 10.50 of circular 230.


You are probably right in that many of these huxsters do not believe in their own product.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Thank you. I appreciate the link.

If I may ask another question, and I promise not to act upon any answer you give, your response will be taken as opinion only. I am interested in your opinion because you claim to have expertise in the field, but again, this is simply for discussion purposes only.

Question: Why does an infant, who has no income of any kind, need a number assigned to them that specifically serves the purpose of tracking a person's income?

I do realize that they claim it is in order to assure the IRS that no other person is claiming that same dependant, yet there is seemingly a plethora of other indicators that could gleaned from the information you must provide on tax forms. Whether or not my child has a social security number it should make absolutely no difference to the state, because he is too young to work...and it in no way effects my income level or anything else that I can reasonably think of.
What I am saying is, that the IRS is forcing people to "voluntarily" attain a social security number by making it "mandatory" in order to claim those people as dependant. Seems to me that in doing so, they have made the only "voluntary" action donating more income to the state, even though I'm being coerced into doing so. If all people are created equal, does a social security number then make them unequal?

reply to post by budaruskie


I'm just speculating - and I know I'm jumping in here - but I would bet it has something to do with all of the Dependants being claimed, who never existed and with no verifiable means to do so - prior to the law being changed. It's only been, what? 10 years or so? As for the reason why? As I've been told... the answer is almost always "because Congress says so"... Lol. Sort of.

Are we taxed on our income OR are we taxed for the Use and Transfer of private script (FedRes notes)?

Federal Reserve notes are private script because the Fed is private. We, through no choice of our own, must use Fed Res notes in all our transactions, business or personal.

26 CFR 1.864 says that that any dealings with the banking system, are considered carrying on a trade or business with the United States.

You get your paycheck (drawn on a bank), either deposit or cash it (at a bank), so according to 26 CRF 1.864, you are doing business with the United States.

So, is it your labor/income/ that is taxed or is it the use and transfer of FedRes notes that makes you liable for "income" taxes?

Something to think about.