Income tax is unlawful and unconstitutional.

16th Amendment

that's a very interesting doc. the guy who made it just recently died.

16th Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax. "There is no Constitutional basis for tax on waiges of americans living and working in all 50 states of the union. (at 25.15) Peter Gibbons. Tax attorney.

Ask Wesley Snipes.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to levy and collect taxes. Read it one day. Or, don't pay your taxes and be roomates with Wesley Snipes and Peter Schiff's father.

alpine292
Yes. Taxes on income. According to documentary there is no definition of income in tax code. But there is definition of income in Constitution which defines income as ganes or profits (in other words -corporate tax is legal), but tax on waiges and salaries is not legal, and 16th ammendment did not gave the government power to levy it.

oh come on...where is this going?

who let the tin foil hatters onto SE?

Supreme Court says: "Your labor is your private property". Labor and other servises are EXCHANGED for money or other forms of property. Supreme Court says you don't have to pay taxes on your labor. And
IRS doesn't have the law that requires you to file and pay incometax.

ok genius...don't pay your income tax. spare us the rest of your rant.

here you go 555. Now please stop embarassing yourself:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

columbiacounty,
if you want to be spared from my rant, skip this topic.
I wan to know if the case when jury found Whitey Harrell not guilty for not filing taxes was true.

yep...its true...real simple...don't file your taxes...don't worry about a thing....you're in good company.

If you don't pay your taxes, you can be arrested and seteneced to 4 years as Treasury Secretary.

alpine, maybe you can get your sentence reduced for bad behavior.

alpine292
are you telling me that IRS code is more important that the Constitution of USA?
Please furnish us link to the actual statutes, that impose the obligation on people to file and pay income tax.

i dont' mind income taxes but i would love to be able to opt out of FICA. i want no benefits in exchange for no taxes going to SS/Medicare. is that too much to ask for?

The NYTimes magazine just had a long article about these tax denier types

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29taxes-t.html

Don't take this any further, 555.

hey, wanting out of FICA is not being a denier. it's being pragmatic regarding what a raw deal is for the young. that's all.

So in the 1894 The Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional.
In 1913, there was enough support (SUPPORT from who? Did people of US desided to impose income tax on themselfs voluntarily?) to ratify the 16th Amendment — which grants Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes . . .

(but they don't give definition of incomes in IRS code, INCOME according to Constitution means GANE OR PROFIT ARISED FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITY not waiges or labor! Waiges are not an income)

On January 25, 1916 same NYTimes wrought "IN SUBSTANCE, THE COURT HOLDS THAT 16TH AMENDMENT DID NOT EMPOWER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LEVY A NEW TAX".

Tax on personal income are neither direct nore indirect it was NEW. So basicaly Supreme Court said NO to personal income tax again. How in the world it was reinstitutionalized? Where is logic in that?
Or is it happen to be that you think it's the law and you have all the guns, so be it?

write your congressman. then write again.

Yep, good idea is to write my congressman.

26.03 in the documentary it says ...letter from US Senate dude "...Based on research... by the Congressional Research Servise, there is no provisions which... require... an idividual to pay an income tax."
Huh?

I took a class in 1983 at a top Ivy called economics and libertarianism. guess what we talked about. old news, people. they've been trying for years.

ok, let's just imagine one could halt the income tax machine. in the short term? no services. in the long term, if an amendment couldn't occur, either anarchy or corporate taxation that simply reduced workers income by a commensurate amount (after the anarchy of no services convinced people that anything would be better than said anarchy).

Public services financed out of CREDIT from PRIVATELY OWNED Corporation called FRS. Why does US government halt its ability to issue money and instead prefers to borrow it from FRS? And why your income tax goes to pay interest on borrowed money, which has to be public to start with?
Why FRS never discloses anything? They create credit out of thin air, but to whom does these paid interest belongs to? Why US President appoints FRS heads only from the list submitted to him by FRS?

Where does anarchy come from? From you being able to allocate: spend or invest your earned dollars that you exchanged on your labor or services? Worst comes to worst - if you paying for services, police and government salaries ets..., why can't you put them as dependents and get deductions?

Anarchy comes from no funds to support the things that everyone wants but nobody would like to pay for, as you say police, health care, etc.

it's the process. how would you envision this would work? in 1983 i supported the notion, as an exercise, and got the class vote for most-likely-to-succeed-semi-anarchy. good work, if you can get it, except it's not, because it won't work.

Yep, next time don't waste your time on economics, take a class about money. Because everything is a product of how it is financed.
I want to know who ownes FRS, what do they do with the interest they receive?
I want to see a report from the Governmant:
This is how much we collected from you as an income tax.
This is how much from Corporate America.
This is how much we are getting from FRS and other financial institutions as a CREDIT.
This is how all these numbers work.

Is this too much to ask for as a law obeying citizen?

Tell me were there anarchy prior 1913 when FRS was born and income tax was "reinstitutionalized"? How did people lived prior 1913 if nothing worked?

FRS & Treasury Secretary:

April 23 (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis testified under oath that U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pressured the bank to not discuss its plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co, the Wall Street Journal said.

Bernanke and Paulson implicitly ordered Ken Lewis to keep silent about the massive losses Merrill was sustaining in Q4

Q: Were you instructed not to tell your shareholders what the transaction was going to be?

A: I was instructed that 'We do not want a public disclosure.'

Q: Who said that to you?

A: Paulson...

Q: Had it been up to you would you [have] made the disclosure?

A: It wasn't up to me.

Q: Had it been up to you.

A: It wasn't.

This is presumably why Ken Lewis said that, in going ahead with the Merrill deal, BAC took one for the country.

Paulson told Ken Lewis he would oust him and the BAC board if Ken Lewis stopped the Merrill deal. Ken Lewis then immediately backed down:

WSJ: During his testimony, Mr. Lewis described a conversation with Mr. Paulson in which the Treasury secretary made it clear that Mr. Lewis's own job was at stake. Mr. Lewis still was considering invoking his legal right to terminate the Merrill deal. Mr. Paulson was out on a bike ride when Mr. Lewis phoned to discuss the matter, according to the transcript.

"I can't recall if he said, 'We would remove the board and management if you called it [off]' or if he said 'we would do it if you intended to.' I don't remember which one it was," Mr. Lewis said. "I said, 'Hank, let's de-escalate this for a while. Let me talk to our board.' "

--- In other words privately owned FRS can presure privately owned bank to hide quite important information from its shareholders. Do you still believe in free market economy?

555, you're comparing today's system to prior to 1913?

The supreme court has rules on income tax cases multiple times since 1913, and has always found that its legal. End of story.

555 - I suggest you change your handle to Passenger 57.

Jason - agreed.

aboutready,

do you mean today's system of credit & debt and prior 1913? Different systems for different times (but they didn't pay tax on waiges and salaries!). Can care less about 1913, but you can't say it was an anarchy and nothing worked then.

Merry Crisis! Do you know what is wrong with today's system? Why it doesn't work?

555 - if you learned how to spell "wages", you might seem a (tiny) bit less like a raving lunatic.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

pjc - and then again, maybe not.

jason10006

Please furnish us link to the actual statutes, that impose the obligation on people to file and pay income tax. Then it would be end of story.

555 - What part of this do you not understand:

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Pjc

1. US Constitution forbids direct non-apportioned taxes on waiges and salaries of US citizens.
2. Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." - [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)]

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937] -

http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html

pjc
if you so smart and know how to spell, tell me why FRS is a private bank and not a government agency?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

FROM WHATEVER SOURCE. That is what the actual amendment says, you dummy.

From our friends at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that (1) the Sixteenth Amendment removes the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes (such as taxes on income "derived from real property" that were the subject of the Pollock decision), be apportioned among the states according to population;[26] (2) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law; (3) the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (relating to the requirement that excises, also known as indirect taxes, be imposed with geographical uniformity)."

"In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), the Supreme Court, through Justice Butler, stated:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes....But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived"..."

ALREADY HAD THE POWER. ON ALL INCOMES. BUT NOW FROM ALL SOURCES, AND NOT STATE BY STATE.

"In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party,[27] gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances,[28] and certain scholarships.[29"

ALL INCOME. RULED ON BY THE COURT IN 19 FRICKIN 55 you dummy.

"Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the "source" of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes (a power the Congress has had since 1789), but only removed the requirement, if any, that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In the Penn Mutual Indemnity case, the United States Tax Court stated:

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution."

"The case of Cheek v. United States involves a U.S. Supreme Court decision on tax protester arguments. The Cheek case involved a tax protester who was prosecuted for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. In Cheek, the Court stated:

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. 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. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.[47]

The Supreme Court in Cheek continued:

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.[48]

After a remand by the Supreme Court, the tax protester in Cheek was ultimately convicted, and the conviction was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear his petition for review of his conviction after the remand, and he was sent to prison.[49]

If a jury finds that a criminal defendant had a subjective good faith belief due to a misunderstanding based on the complexity of the tax law (and not based on an argument about its constitutionality), that belief may be a defense with respect to the element of willfulness, even if the belief is unreasonable.[50] This is due to the general mens rea requirement needed to hold someone criminally liable and the specific intent needed in the Cheek case and word willfully in the statute (see specific intent crimes). Persons acquitted of criminal tax evasion may still be prosecuted civilly, and required to pay the taxes assessed, along with civil penalties."

"Many Appeals Courts have made blanket statements repudiating tax protester arguments. For example, see the Seventh Circuit case of United States v. Buckner:[46]

For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered "objectively reasonable" in this circuit:
(1) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was improperly ratified and therefore never came into being;
(2) the belief that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional generally;
(3) the belief that the income tax violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
(5) the belief that wages are not income and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income."

"the Fifth Circuit once noted:

We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system—including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established... [Petitioner's argument] is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_(United_States)

For a list of each and every one of the nutjob arguments that has been struck down by the courts on this topic, go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

I would skip paying my taxes except...I'm too cute for jail...

I still believe that person's wages or salary is a compensation for his labor/servise, not an income from dividends, or capital, thus it shouldn't be taxed, at least up to sertain (minimum living expence) amount.

Too bad that the courts, at every level up to the Surpreme Court, has ruled that wages for labour ARE taxable. What is worse for crazies like you is that the amendment say "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..."

That means ANY form of income, and the courts have consistently ruled on this very point.

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937] -

http://irwinschiff.homestead.com/CasesOnIncome.html

Wages are not an INCOME, it is a compensation for labor. Did you read US Constitution?

555 you're dumb

ok, as i said earlier, why don't you stop paying. let us know how it works out for you.

Oh no! A Paul-Tard.

Please, do us all a favor and move to Somalia. No income taxes there.

crescent thanks for the link to NYT article. extremely entertaining.

Here is a good one. "Gongress gets a lot of money from Credit Card industry"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6borpDebEHc

How much money does Congress gets from IRS?

And for you, "bardamu", I am not advocating for no income tax. I am against taxes on compensation (wages and salary). If you smart enough to understand the difference bwn. wages and income from capital.

You are linking to Irwin Schiff's web site, who is now in jail for 13+ years? Don't pay taxes, you may get away with it, or you may get 3-5 years in jail.

Do you feel lucky, punk?

It might be more fun to taunt 555 than 407PAS. I urge everyone to continue baiting this idiot.