Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close

[Contumacious]

Quote by: tivodan1116 There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . :

What is "Taxable Income"?

What section of the code reads "There is hereby a tax imposed on the wages of every individual . . ?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Sigh... Of course. The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states: [Interesting tax code references snipped.] The amazing thing is, despite the vast complexity of our tax code, those sections are easy enough to understand. Your argument is so tired and silly that making it in federal court will get you a $5000 fine. I know, I know, EVERY federal judge, lawyer, court clerk, stenographer, and bailiff is "part of the conspiracy" to keep this totally illegal tax system afloat, right? :rolleyes:

Sorry, Dan. I did not mean to make you think that I was actually framing an argument. Really, I was just wondering if you knew what the relevant tax laws were. You've met this request handily, and I thank you. :)

However, I'm still curious about something. When was the first income tax law passed, and where can I find reference(s) to it? Do you know?

- Rob

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Contumacious What is "Taxable Income"? What section of the code reads "There is hereby a tax imposed on the wages of every individual . . ?

I answered both of these questions quite clearly in the previous post. Could you try reading the whole thing before replying?

Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close

In a nutshell:

s1 says there is a tax imposed on taxable income...
s63 says taxable income is gross income minus the allowed deductions
s61 says gross income is all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to - the language of the statute) compensation for services, fees, commissions, interest, dividends, and a million other things.

Quote by: Autolykos Sorry, Dan. I did not mean to make you think that I was actually framing an argument. Really, I was just wondering if you knew what the relevant tax laws were. You've met this request handily, and I thank you. :)

My bad. You can see by the post above yours where these things usually go...

However, I'm still curious about something. When was the first income tax law passed, and where can I find reference(s) to it? Do you know? - Rob

In August 1861 the federal government passed an income tax to help fund the Civil War. A few months later the Internal Revenue Act of 1862 was passed, half a century before the 16th Amendment.

Income taxes never really needed the 16th Amendment to be legal, since only direct taxes need to be apportioned, and direct taxes are only capitation taxes and taxes on land. (Springer v. US, 1880)

[Autolykos]

Quote by: tivodan1116 My bad. You can see by the post above yours where these things usually go...

Not a problem. :)

In August 1861 the federal government passed an income tax to help fund the Civil War. A few months later the Internal Revenue Act of 1862 was passed, half a century before the 16th Amendment.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was wondering when the first income-tax law was passed after the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. That law, whatever and wherever it is, set up the income tax under which we live today.

Income taxes never really needed the 16th Amendment to be legal, since only direct taxes need to be apportioned, and direct taxes are only capitation taxes and taxes on land. (Springer v. US, 1880)

This is true. It makes me wonder -- was the 16th Amendment really established to establish an income tax per se? Or was there something else at work?

- Rob

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yes gramps, they "could be" considered constitutional, but then again, there is debate about the VALIDITY of that "consideration", and the depth at which that consideration should be afforded by the people, regardless of its issuers fancy hat, position, or claimed powers.

As long as the process for amending the Constitution was correctly followed, there is nothing to discuss. Now, if you can prove that a particular amendment did not undergo that specific process, let's see the proof. Otherwise, we must consider the amendment to have become part of the Constitution. You or I may not like the particular amendment but, as with the 18th amendment, it can be repealed.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're coming out against the amendment process like this.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor, I am coming out against the amendment process because it is flawed.

The notion of a such an amendment is unconstitutional on its face, and the notion that it could be passed by the means it was (strongarm by lobbyists) set precedent for the lobbyists we have today, which have fully eroded the checks and balances in our system.

How can you reform the system if you don't fix the problems that led to the corruption, since the problem will still exist in the fixed system, it will simply repeat itself as cycles of corruption always do.

For example: A hypothetical.....

If the Constitution stated "you own your own body, and are responsible for it as an individual in all ways: economic, socially and regarding all actions, consumption and situations"....

and then in the first amendment they passed, the amendment stated: "No person shall consume corn, as the government deems corn to be a hazard to human life" with no basis for making such an argument, is this a blatant violation, regardless of how it is passed? It DIRECTLY contradicts the law of the land, and does not address the issue of how it does in the new amendment.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready For example: A hypothetical..... If the Constitution stated "you own your own body, and are responsible for it as an individual in all ways: economic, socially and regarding all actions, consumption and situations".... and then in the first amendment they passed, the amendment stated: "No person shall consume corn, as the government deems corn to be a hazard to human life" with no basis for making such an argument, is this a blatant violation, regardless of how it is passed?

No. If the two sections of the hypothetical constitution are given equal weight, as all of the sections of our Constitution are, then the effect of the law is that persons have control over their own consumption with the exception that they may not consume corn. There are many situations in which our Constitution does this - many of the Amendments create an "asterisk" on earlier provisions or remove them outright.

That is the definition of AMENDMENT - it changes the sum total of what the Constitution says.

It DIRECTLY contradicts the law of the land, and does not address the issue of how it does in the new amendment.

No, it IS the law of the land once it becomes an amendment.

The amendment does not need to address the issue of how it contradicts the law of the land. Look at the 17th Amendment. It never says that it contradicts Article 1, section 3. A person only reading Article 1, Section 3 would assume that section is still valid. A person reading only Amendment 17 would never know that Amendment directly contradicts an earlier clause, and even though it does, it is the law of the land.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Autolykos Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was wondering when the first income-tax law was passed after the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. That law, whatever and wherever it is, set up the income tax under which we live today.

There was an income tax as part of the IRC as early as 1913. Several other amendments to the code made changes here and there, but, the birth of the code that we have today was the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. That one provides the basic structure and semantics of the Code we have today. From 1954 on, whether the changes have been major or minor they have stemmed from editing the 1954 Code - the last "clean slate" rewrite.

This is true. It makes me wonder -- was the 16th Amendment really established to establish an income tax per se? Or was there something else at work?

Well, income taxes on the income from property was struck down by Supreme Court cases around the turn of the 20th century, most notably Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. Because Congress did not want to limit the income tax to wages, they sought the 16th Amendment. Ironic that in all of the delusional ranting done by tax protesters against the 16th Amendment they do not realize that, had the amendment not been passed, the tax on their wages would likely be higher, since Congress could not tax things like capital gains without apportionment.

[Osborn F Enready]

If this is the "legal" case, Chancellor and Tivo, I ask you then why not revolt today?

Is it not obvious the goal is to remove your rights, piecemeal, to an end of national tyranny?

States rights are currently being suppressed by National Agents, regarding medical marijuana as well as many other issues.

Where is there an end to this madness without revolt?

A quote I see more than fitting:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
-Lysander Spooner, 1870, in No Treason #6

It is time to rectify the wrongs of partisanship.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If this is the "legal" case, Chancellor and Tivo, I ask you then why not revolt today?

Because I have a family, and that places demands on my life such that I cannot ask my family to make the same sacrifices I would make.

Is it not obvious the goal is to remove your rights, piecemeal, to an end of national tyranny?

No, it's not obvious. I would peg the government and the motivations of politicians as far more stupid than sinister.

States rights are currently being suppressed by National Agents, regarding medical marijuana as well as many other issues.

That's more of something requiring a paradigm shift than anything else. Just like any other issue, the second Congress realizes there are more votes to be had from supporting legalization than supporting the "War on Drugs", they will mysteriously have an enlightenment. That will happen as the current 65+ crowd dies off and the hippies/boomers take their loose morals into old age with them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: Because I have a family, and that places demands on my life such that I cannot ask my family to make the same sacrifices I would make.

What future will they have if we stay silent my friend?

Tivo said: No, it's not obvious. I would peg the government and the motivations of politicians as far more stupid than sinister.

Since when do men directed by honor, reason and logical observation stand silent and bow to the demands of stupid leaders?

Tivo said: That's more of something requiring a paradigm shift than anything else. Just like any other issue, the second Congress realizes there are more votes to be had from supporting legalization than supporting the "War on Drugs", they will mysteriously have an enlightenment. That will happen as the current 65+ crowd dies off and the hippies/boomers take their loose morals into old age with them.

It does not deny the fact that the Fed is attempting to remove and trample states rights, and peoples will, both of which are unacceptable.

[tivodan1116]

Update:

The Supreme Court has denied cert on the ridiculous WTP Foundation lawsuit.

It's over, folks. The whole "petition for a redress of grievances entitles me to an answer" nonsense is dead.

Hopefully some of these people will start (continue?) paying their taxes now, before they all wind up in jail.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Update: The Supreme Court has denied cert on the ridiculous WTP Foundation lawsuit. It's over, folks. The whole "petition for a redress of grievances entitles me to an answer" nonsense is dead. Hopefully some of these people will start (continue?) paying their taxes now, before they all wind up in jail.

I'm disappointed: having the Court formally declare the 16th Amendment properly ratified and formally addressing the issues these folks keep raising (even if it's just to say that these people are full of manure) would have done more to put the issue to bed. But, by denying cert, the Court has ensured that the issue will live on and groups such as these will continue on as before.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor I'm disappointed: having the Court formally declare the 16th Amendment properly ratified and formally addressing the issues these folks keep raising (even if it's just to say that these people are full of manure) would have done more to put the issue to bed. But, by denying cert, the Court has ensured that the issue will live on and groups such as these will continue on as before.

Well, without pointing any fingers, some people here would say that's exactly what "they" want.

I mean, the Court did what you were hoping for implicitly by denying cert. Problem is, none of these WTP people are intelligent enough (or are in denial) to realize that.

Here's what the WTP people think it means, right from their website:

Quote by: WTP Foundation News On February 25, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, without comment, voted again not to hear We The People v. United States. Thus, SCOTUS ducked its Constitutional duty, yet again, to declare the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment. The Court elected not to be put into the position of having to declare the unalienable Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution’s essential principles, enumerated powers and explicit prohibitions. Instead, the Court has chosen to conspire with the political branches in a collective decision to protect, preserve and enhance the treasonous notion that constitutional violations are mere issues of current public policy, subject only to the will of the majority of People voting in precincts and the halls of Congress.

El Oh El

My favorite is the second paragraph about the unalienable right of the people to hold the government accountable... Uh, we already have that, it's called VOTING.

Apparently, WTP thinks that anyone with a blog and a stamp should be able to shut down any action of the federal government, regardless of how wacky their "grievance" might be.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Well, without pointing any fingers, some people here would say that's exactly what "they" want. I mean, the Court did what you were hoping for implicitly by denying cert. Problem is, none of these WTP people are intelligent enough (or are in denial) to realize that.

Don't presume to tell me what I was or was not hoping for! I meant exactly and only what I wrote.

Here's what the WTP people think it means, right from their website: El Oh El My favorite is the second paragraph about the unalienable right of the people to hold the government accountable... Uh, we already have that, it's called VOTING.

The issue of petitioning for redress of grievances is valid - though the right to petition for redress doesn't necessarily require a response to the petition.

Apparently, WTP thinks that anyone with a blog and a stamp should be able to shut down any action of the federal government, regardless of how wacky their "grievance" might be.

They have the right to petition for redress of their grievances. There is not necessarily a right to actual redress.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor The issue of petitioning for redress of grievances is valid - though the right to petition for redress doesn't necessarily require a response to the petition. They have the right to petition for redress of their grievances. There is not necessarily a right to actual redress.

Absolutely. But what WTP was arguing was precisely that they DO have a right to a response AND a right to redress, which is why they are nuts.

They think, as I said, that one clown who doesn't like something government does, should be able to circumvent our political system and shut down the government just because they say so.

[Roxdog]

Taxing people's labor is slavery....Anyone who pimps a federal "income" tax pimps and condones slavery.

[Charlatan]

Laws to pay your taxes? Incime tax is a way that the government looks to expand on it's wealth at the expense of the people, that was how it originated, and then got used for things after it was supposed to enrich the king or state, so any way that they can make it legal would be sought, as now the state needs the money it has gotten used to for services, as opposed to it being a luxurious thing in the way distant past. In paying income tax you are paying for the working of your government, in avoiding income tax you still get a government that 'works' for you, so the right thing to do is to pay your tax, but it is always desirable to avoid paying it as people need the money today as a standard of living has become more costly than in the days when tax was intoroduced.

A site that said people do not need to pay taxes, and showed them how, would be criminal, as that is criminal, right? It sounds like a conspiracy to avoid paying for what you get, sounds like theft, theft from the state. Why do we need to pay taxes? Because it enriches our borders and other things, things that need enrichment to function. You have things that are not billing us directly, and have zero income, being paid for by the state, who gets the funds from us through taxes. So a site that told people how not to fund these things is taking away from the funding directly, and that is criminal, to conspire to underfunding of state entities.

Freedom of speach is a right to say anything. A crime is what they speak about, so a right to spread criminal activity is what they are fighting for, and that is not a freedom offered under any constitution. If you told people how to withold funds from the state, you would be an accomplice in that wrong doing, so we should call it fraud and fraudulent teachings.

[Roxdog]

Um, no. They are merely pointing out to people what should be self evident. What needs "enrichment" to "function" and why is the federal income tax the only way to "enrich"? Most of the things that it pays for I couldn't give a sh^t less about so I don't see you point at all...

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Roxdog Um, no. They are merely pointing out to people what should be self evident.

They were "pointing out" how to commit tax fraud and enticing people to do so. The only thing that's self evident is that they violated the law.