It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The federal tax evasion statute is an example of an exception to the general rule under U.S. law that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution." Under the Cheek Doctrine (Cheek v. United States), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense to a charge of "willfulness" ("willfulness" in this case being knowledge or awareness that one is violating the tax law itself), even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. On the surface, this rule might appear to be of some comfort to tax protesters who assert, for example, that "wages are not income." However, merely asserting that one has such a good faith belief is not determinative in court; under the American legal system the trier of fact (the jury, or the trial judge in a non-jury trial) decides whether the defendant really has the good faith belief he or she claims. With respect to willfulness, the placing of the burden of proof on the prosecution is of limited utility to a defendant that the jury simply does not believe.
Originally posted by RealSpoke
The only way this would work would be if the whole entire country stopped filing,
I don't think they can even demand that you have a social security number. According to some "experts", it never was a law that you must have a SS # to work and the only thing the law says about it is if you don't have a number FICA can't be withheld anything from your pay.
If the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section, such person must request the other person's number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating.
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(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). (b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus— (1) the standard deduction, and (2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section
(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(a) General rule For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions:
Lemons are still relatively cheap lol. And think about it, you set up your stand and the cops come harass you, maybe even arrest you.
Better with lemons than guns.
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by RealSpoke
One example isn't enough. People do care, most just can't articulate why. So, you add a little info to your lemonade stand. You get others involved etc etc. Lay the ground work at least, pretty soon it won't be just a few people here and there needing a channel to empower themselves with. Better with lemons than guns.
Since you appear to have the IRS code handy, could you maybe find the part where it says exactly WHO is liable?
(a) Corporations in general A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation.
The argument I made is not "playing dumb", nor is it admission of dumb, but is in fact a good faith argument.
The federal tax evasion statute is an example of an exception to the general rule under U.S. law that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution." Under the Cheek Doctrine (Cheek v. United States), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense
Really RealSpoke, does that make sense?
Doesn't it raise the question as to why Congress just didn't impose a tax on income and be done with it?
They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable.
We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who “willfully” refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Kali74
Better with lemons than guns.
Indeed! If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. If government gives you headaches about licensing schemes regarding that lemonade, challenge the jurisdiction and shift the headache to where it belongs, and enjoy your lemonade.
Tax activist wins in federal court
Ex-IRS agent says Congress has no power to collect levy on income
A former IRS agent who believes citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes was acquitted today on charges he attempted to defraud the government.
A leading figure in the “tax honesty” movement, Banister was taken into custody Nov. 19 by IRS agents and released on $25,000 bond after pleading not guilty.
A jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento found him not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government and on all three counts of aiding and assisting the filing of false tax returns for a client.