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.

 

Where is the Income Tax Law?!?!-Freedom to fascism-A Must See!

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 
Thanks friend - but no, it really doesn't...


Joseph Banister pays his taxes. He advised Walter Thompson to not pay his employees income taxes. As an advisor, Mr. Bannister didn't really do anything wrong, anything that the government could prove anyway. However, Mr. Thompson served 6 years in federal prison and was released in 2010. Mr. Banister has since lost his licensure as a 'tax professional.'

Ah. Fair point. Has been awhile since I've done any looking into this issue, but the jury acquitted Banister of the charges against him based on their view that he believed he hadn't committed any crime because the government failed to respond to his inquiries (instead trying to charge him).


Gaylon "Whitey" Harrell sued the federal government to stop seeking his income taxes at least three times, failing each time, prior to the IRS going after him. Which they did and they did successfully, his employer was required to pay his back taxes and Mr. Harrell was ordered to pay $3,000. He did, however, manage to evade Illinois state taxes for at least one year but was then convicted of not paying them in 2006. Mr. Harrell filed a motion to dismiss and was denied. On February 5, 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2,500 and court costs, and payment of his state taxes for 1996, 1997, and 1998, plus penalties and interest.

My question is why the jury in 2000 acquitted him of the charges against him - and that was a result of the effective refusal of the judge to provide access to the federal statute requiring he pay federal income taxes, which the state income tax charge against him relied on, despite repeated requests.

As regards the specific tax codes you mention:

1) note the catch: "imposed on the taxable income of..."
2) "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived..." - how do we define "income," though?:

Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.’ (SCOTUS, Doyle v. Mitchell)...

...A gain is not derived by an employee earning a wage in exchange for labor. In effect, the employee nor the employer is not gaining anything because it is a mutually agreed upon exchange much like when one would barter one item for another item. The employee is bartering their time and effort in exchange for the wage provided by the employer. It is an even exchange of private property.

This is further elaborated on in the Coppage v. Kansas case in which the Supreme Court states that a person’s labor is their own private property. The pertinent text is as follows:

The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property — partaking of the nature of each — is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property save by working for money...

3) As regards section 6102, please note the same catch in #1 above: "Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount"
4) "When a return of tax is required under this title or regulations" - so far, we haven't established that applies to you and me, unless it's a corporate gain resulting from capital or labor - not merely the simple straight-up exchange of labor for wage.


I don't consider it stealing, so I never bother to ask. Their definition is, basically, 'whatever source derived'. If $500,000 falls from the sky into your lap, that could possibly be taxed.

Well, that's up to you, friend.

Now. Will I ever ADVISE anyone to act according to any of this? No - I don't have the legal expertise of funds to fight about it.

Do I pay my taxes? Absolutely - even though filing makes me much more statistically likely to be charged with a crime, for filing a false or inaccurate report (as compared to the number of non-filers who tend to face no prosecution).

Based on everything the government's been able to provide on this, is this right?

No.




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


Title 26 US Code, Section 7806

That sections specifies that superfluous information, such as the tables and sidenotes of the Internal Revenue Code are not law.

According to the Government Printing Office:

The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.


If you're trying to assert that US Code is not 'law' then you are wrong. Title 26 is US law, if you'd like to try and cheat on your taxes using section 7806 as a defense please let us all know how that works out for you.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





"Income" does NOT mean what we define it as in the tax code.


Income is NOT defined in the tax code. Congress has no lawful or Constitutional authority to redefine income in any other way than it was defined at the time the Constitution was written. This is why that instead Congress defined Taxable Income.


§ 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).


This definition forces us to find how Congress defined Gross Income and while looking at the definition of "gross income" keep in mind that Congress defined "taxable income" as "gross income minus the deductions allowed..."


Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:


What follows is a laundry list of occupations. Disingenuous people, including links234 in this thread attempt to use this tautology to convince people that Congress relied upon several different sections to make income appear as if it is the subject of the tax, but income is not the subject of the so called "Personal Income Tax". Whatever the subject may be it is a taxed activity not a direct tax on property. Further, and again I remind you that within the definition of "taxable income" the definition qualifies "gross income" with "minus the deductions allowed".

If you want to know how it was you were made liable for the tax to begin with you turn to Section 1 of the tax code:


§ 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—


First take note, when turning to section 1 to discover if and how you've been made liable for any income tax that Section 1 begins clear enough with its title "Tax Imposed" and then inexplicably begins speaking to "married individuals filing joint returns..." It doesn't take a "tax expert" to understand that "married individuals filing joint returns" must all know they're liable, otherwise why would they be filing? It is legal smoke and mirrors, and it is the "taxable income" that they appear to want to distract you from.

An important thing to remember about tautology is that while it is always repetitive, it is also always true. What is the truth behind the tautology of the tax code? The truth is that you have to make the lawful and legal determination that you have earned "taxable income" in order to make the income tax - at least in regards to those people who are engaged in activities that are not taxed (which is virtually most occupations and certainly the litany listed in Section 61) - legal and enforceable.

Films such as Freedom to Fascism are dangerous in their disinformation regardless of any noble intent on their part. For example, the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is a red herring of an argument and the legal reasoning behind it is extremely flawed.

By arguing that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified in order to show one is not liable for the income tax, one is implicitly arguing that if the 16th Amendment were to be properly ratified then they would be liable. However, the 16th Amendment does not make a soul liable for any tax what-so-ever. No new power of taxation was granted to Congress by the 16th Amendment, nor was any new burden placed on the people, and its only purpose was to clarify non-apportioned taxes on income.

The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent future courts (as well as the People) from viewing a non-apportioned tax on income as a direct tax, and forces all to view such a tax as an indirect tax. The Constitution requires Congress to make all indirect taxes uniform across the several states, and the tax code is certainly that. The so called "Personal Income Tax" is an indirect tax upon some taxed activity or activities not a direct tax on income. Income is merely used to measure how much tax is owed.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I posted a thread on this subject some time ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have not met a rational person that does not think the Tax Laws need a massive overhaul. This does not mean that we as citizens are legally allowed to disregard the tax laws.

There are a lot of huxsters out there making all sorts of arguments as to why the income tax is "voluntary" or "unconstitutional." These arguments would never hold up in court. Is there anybody out there that can provide a citation to a published case that says the current Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional or that compliance with it is voluntary?

I think not.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Laughable. Of course a govenrmetal agency will tell you that you must obey and that it is law. Are YOU really that gullible?
Tell you what, you keep paying,ill do whatever I want, and I DONT report back to you anything, because its none of your or anybody elses business!



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Income is NOT defined in the tax code. Congress has no lawful or Constitutional authority to redefine income in any other way than it was defined at the time the Constitution was written. This is why that instead Congress defined Taxable Income.

Fair enough, friend. It was defined by SCOTUS, though (perhaps only for purposes pertaining that case?) in a way that appears not to apply to the exchange of labor for wages. Can you advise how it was defined at the time of the constitution?

Regarding your discussion of Section 1, I'd have to say that relates back to the definition of income I mentioned previously and above here. I suppose we'll have to look into that, if you can help (and thanks in advance).


The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent future courts (as well as the People) from viewing a non-apportioned tax on income as a direct tax, and forces all to view such a tax as an indirect tax. The Constitution requires Congress to make all indirect taxes uniform across the several states, and the tax code is certainly that. The so called "Personal Income Tax" is an indirect tax upon some taxed activity or activities not a direct tax on income. Income is merely used to measure how much tax is owed.

Well, that certainly - to me, at least - makes it seem no less pernicious and troublesome, while requiring semantic and mental gymnastics.


Like I said, I'll not discourage anyone from paying such, for the obvious reasons. But do I consider it wrong and sinful? Yes, absolutely. The arguments will probably go on forever, but to me it certainly seems to cast us in light of property of the state, with our labor being exchanged, often, for things we find distasteful and wrong.

I do thank you for your input, and acknowledge that the weight of 'law' will likely always fall against my personal views on the matter.

EDIT:
Star for your contribution.
edit on 1/3/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 





I have not met a rational person that does not think the Tax Laws need a massive overhaul. This does not mean that we as citizens are legally allowed to disregard the tax laws.


Nor does it mean that those who took an oath of office to uphold the law and support and defend the Constitution are legally allowed to disregard the tax laws either.




Is there anybody out there that can provide a citation to a published case that says the current Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional or that compliance with it is voluntary?


You're being a tad disingenuous, are you not? All the case law I have read regarding people who were most assuredly convicted of some sort of "tax crime" were in regards to people who have filed, and the few who were convicted for "failure to file" had filed on previous occasions. Maybe you can provide a case ruling where a person who had never once filed, never once contacted the tax collection agencies for any reason, was convicted for "failure to file".



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Mr. Harrell managed to evade his state taxes, not his federal taxes. I don't know what sort of prosecution the state of Illinois was trying to go after him with but I do know that a speech by one of the 12 jurors indicated that the jury didn't seem to understand that the tax code was law:

Well yeah we all came to agreement, no that.. that wasn't the law, that was the tax code.


As to your points about definitions of 'who' is taxed 'what' I thought I cleared that up. Part one, section one defines the 'who', to me this applies to everyone in the United States.

Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter B, PART I defines what 'income' is, I wouldn't argue to hard on it, but the way I read it is 'income' is any amount of money you receive for any reason, at all.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 
Thanks, friend. It's definitely a muddy issue, and what happened in the Harrell case is that it was a state income tax issue, and the jury found the state tax relied on a requirement to pay federal tax - which was never provided to them by the prosecution or the judge.

I'll read through what you provided again probably in the next day or two (drinking tonight and likely getting too sloppy to be useful on such a complex issue - that's my bad), but will definitely look over it again. The main issue seems to hinge on the definition of income - caught up on that SCOTUS definition, for now (unless Jean can provide further as I've requested), plus other troublesome little things.

If they hadn't made the tax code so utterly ridiculous and convoluted, this would likely be a much shorter discussion!

Be blessed and have a great night, I may post back at you after reviewing your input again. Thanks once more.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Thought I would add a bit here, before I go.

There is at least one case where the IRS was beat.

Woman Beats IRS in Court Over Income Tax Protest

GIBSON: Okay, now, Larry, you're probably also going to want to answer this, but let me ask Verny. Verny, why did you think that you have the right, if not the duty, to refuse to pay the IRS your tax bill?

KUGLIN: It started in 1992 when I began hearing people talk about the constitutional restrictions on taxation by the federal government. I began reading the Constitution, listening to cassette tapes on the direct versus indirect taxes, then I was led eventually to court cases… after the 16th Amendment (search) was passed and then cases on down the way. And it raised a question in my mind as to the legitimacy of the federal government directly taxing a person's right to a common occupation.

GIBSON: But Verny, you look like a very reasonable citizen of the United States. And you probably would allow that it does take the money of the citizens to run all the services we avail ourselves of, highways, whatever. You were just objecting to the method of collecting these taxes by the federal government through the IRS, or you objected to taxation altogether?

KUGLIN: I believe that the founding fathers, through the constitution, set up a competent and workable tax structure and my objection is that that structure has been misapplied by the IRS.

www.foxnews.com...



The Becraft Landmark IRS Case

"A not guilty verdict came in the Eastern District of Tennessee in the case of U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long, #CR-1-93-91. The verdict came on October 15th, 1993.

This was an amazing case involving the income tax. A Chattanooga jury agreed with the argument by Long that the income tax is actually an excise tax and only applies to certain classes of people.

Nationally prominent attorney Lowell Becraft, of Huntsville Alabama, assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee. Long was charged with willful failure to file income tax returns for 1989 and 1990.

In presenting the case for the IRS, the government, represented by assistant US attorney Curtis Collier assisted by special agent Michael Geasley of the IRS, declared that Long had grossed income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year, and that he willfully failed to file income tax returns.

The defense admitted that Long had an income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year in question, and that he did not file a return. He then proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not liable for an income tax, nor was he required by law to file.

www.unitedstatesgovernment.net...

Look I fully understand that there is a fear that comes with this kind of info. It is understandable, and valid for those that will not look any further then this thread. What I fear is that people even though they are doing the "right" things are being duped.

We live in a world that have very powerful people playing games with peoples lives, homes, and money that they earn, in order to keep their pockets fully lined, and the only people that seem to be taken for granted are those that do not know.

Of course many of the things that we discuss here can be taken to the highest courts, and with the right research, minds, and goals, we as individuals and groups can actually make a change. There is no fear of those that create the system, they already know that most are scared.

I would rather know what invisible cage I live in, then to remain in the dark with ignorance surrounding me, and bringing about bliss, that so warms and comforts those who rather not know.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





Fair enough, friend. It was defined by SCOTUS, though (perhaps only for purposes pertaining that case?) in a way that appears not to apply to the exchange of labor for wages. Can you advise how it was defined at the time of the constitution?


Because income is mentioned within the Constitution for the United States and not defined in any way then income must be defined as it was at the time the Constitution was written.

The Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, which I am assuming is the case you are referring to, stated:


In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.


Then follows with this:


The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).


This ruling, however, is answering yet another contention that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Because of this, Eisner is used by both the government and by those "protesting" the tax, both believing the ruling bears out their argument. The 16th Amendment, however, is irrelevant regarding "income" as defined by the tax code. Income just quite simply is not defined by the code. No tax was ever laid upon income by the code and was instead laid upon "taxable income" or some other taxed activity.


edit on 3-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 
Hmm. I'll hold your response notice in my inbox and follow up more in the next few days. Getting a bit too foggy to think deeply on this at the moment (and want to go hunt for news), but off the bat I'm not finding income even mentioned in the constitution - just taxes in article 1 section II, sections 8 & 9 so far.

Will do some more reviewing after tonight and also see if I can find more information from the framers themselves, and get back to you. Much obliged.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I am sorry for any confusion and it is my fault. I unintentionally implied earlier that the word income was used within the Constitution at the time it was written. I meant to type at the time the 16th Amendment was written.

The legal principle is this:

Because Congress failed to define income within the 16th Amendment, the general usage of the word at the time the 16th Amendment was written becomes the accepted definition. Income means today what it meant in 1913.

The reason that Congress does not define income in the tax code is because they did not define income in the 16th Amendment. Were Congress to replace the language of Section 1 of Title 26 and instead write "...there is hereby a tax imposed upon income..." this would make that tax a direct tax on income instead of the indirect tax it is today. As a direct tax, Congress would then be bound by the Constitutional rule of apportionment. Thus, income is not defined and instead "taxable income" is.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by links234
 


Laughable. Of course a govenrmetal agency will tell you that you must obey and that it is law. Are YOU really that gullible?
Tell you what, you keep paying,ill do whatever I want, and I DONT report back to you anything, because its none of your or anybody elses business!


This is perhaps the truest statement yet made about this atrocious and so called "Personal Income Tax". It is nobody's business, outside of the one liable and the tax agency, who is liable for the tax and certainly nobody's business how much money other people make. Such a principle has been a long held rule of etiquette with many people and was certainly instilled into to me by my parents; that it is rude to ask other people how much they make.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Congress did define income in the tax code, section 61:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.


The parantheses is where it's really important, "including but not limited to..." Meaning any income, unless otherwise specified, is taxable.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 





Congress did define income in the tax code, section 61:


This is precisely the disingenousness I have accused you of. Section 61 does not define "income" but instead defines "gross income". That is the point of law and the matter of fact of it.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


*shakes fist*

Semantics!



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


*shakes fist*

Semantics!


~Shakes both fists in righteous outrage~

More disengenuousness! How dare you point to a tax code riddled with tautological semantics and accuse me of the one engaging in semantics. You cannot point to the body of a definition and claim the body is what is being defined. That is not a definition!

Let's use your disingenuousness to discover other "definitions". Here is the definition of horse:


A large hoofed mammal (Equus caballus) having a short-haired coat, a long mane, and a long tail, domesticated since ancient times and used for riding and for drawing or carrying loads.


Why look at that! Large hoofed mammal's have just been defined as a horse! Oh well, so much for elephants, zebra's and gazelles. They'll just have to accept that by definition they are a horse.


edit on 3-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.


I still do not see where the word "income" or "gross income" is specifically defined as money.

Looked in the thesaurus for money and read the following:

almighty dollar, banknote, bankroll, bill, bread, bucks, capital, cash, check, chips, coin, coinage, dough, finances, fund, funds, gold, gravy, greenback, hard cash, legal tender, loot*, medium of exchange, pay, payment, pesos, property, resources, riches, roll, salary, silver, specie, treasure, wad, wage, wealth, wherewithal

Not trying to split any hairs here..... I just find it confusing what INCOME really is.

Is it money? that paper stuff from the federal reserve that itself is not a federal agency? If so, am I to understand that one non federal agency (IRS) wants to take materials from me that another non federal agency (Federal Reserve) provides?

Quite hinky.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by azbowhunter
 





Not trying to split any hairs here..... I just find it confusing what INCOME really is.


This is the hard reality of it. The word income is fairly ambiguous in its every day usage. It is used interchangeably to mean the wages of labor, the profits of a quarterly or yearly business, or as "earnings". Take note of the contradiction. Wages as income means the higher the wage the higher the income...that is for the employee, but not for the business. For the business the higher the wages the less profit made.

Income can also mean "everything that comes in", as in a person who maintains a full time job but also works on the side doing small contract labor jobs such as mowing lawns, or babysitting, or cleaning, etc., etc., etc. However, for the business "everything that comes in" is quite a bit more than any profit or "earnings".

In every day usage the word is rather ambiguous. In law there is no room for ambiguity and a word such as income must be clearly defined. At this point, the only way to do so would be to create yet another Constitutional Amendment doing so.

The real key here lies in your genuine confusion. I know of no one, myself included, and certainly the tax attorneys that post in this site, that practice "tax law" outside of this site, the tax collectors who enforce this "law", the prosecutors who prosecute it, and the judges who preside over the prosecutions, that understands the tax code. If judges, prosecutors, tax collectors and tax attorneys cannot understand it, then how can any of us be expected to understand it? If a person of reasonable intelligence cannot understand the tax code then any application of that code becomes - as a point of law - null and void.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join