This is gonna be fun!

or Register to post new content in the forum

58 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Nov 9, 2006 10:13 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism

By contrast, Scott Moore, movie critic of the Portland Mercury, writes: "There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and some of those stupid people are going to see America: From Freedom to Fascism and buy into its half-baked, hole-ridden, libertarian rhetoric about the alleged illegality of the federal income tax. And that's a shame, if for no other reason than it'll be a small defeat for logic." Moore states: "By presenting half-baked ideas with the faux certainty that comes through sheer repetition and bending historical facts to fit his agenda, Russo manages to portray the legality of the income tax as something actually worthy of debate. Thing is, it's only up for debate among anti-tax conspiracy theorists who have anarchist, anti-social tendencies."

Now, if I know nothing of the historical facts involved (and I don't) how am I to know if he's bent them? Why, then, would I want to discuss, without having seen anything of the other side, his take on "historic facts"? Have I learned anything or am I just discussing the indoctrination I got? If there’s both side presented, then I’m game for it, if not…..<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 To me it's as if someone from Mars, who knew nothing of JFK's assassination, nothing of opposing theories and the over all controversy, who wanted to debate Oliver Stone's movie on the subject. Not to pick on Stone (I can’t think of a better example), but regardless of what you think of it, at the very best all you can say of it is that it’s thought provoking among people who know the bigger story not told there.

That’s my only point, not an insult to dude.

[/quote]

Does Moore show the actual tax law, to back his tinfoil hat assertations? Or does he merely state that to question the law is absurd? That point was covered in the film. Does Moore back anything he says?

We've got a columnist here, a financial writer who makes FAs look like crooks every week by doing some creative fact bending of his own.

I'm one of those uniformed who doesn't know. Seems absurd on the surface. How did those two people in the film beat income tax evasion/fraud charges? That's fasinating.

Nov 9, 2006 10:36 pm

Do you think the people in China deserve the American dream too?

This has nothing to do with the movie or whatever, I didn't look at it and won't waste my time with it. 

I have a client who just returned from a 2 week trip in China.  He said the air, especially in Bejing was so dirty with coal smoke and dust that he could take a direct picture of the sun with his camera without having to use a filter. It was like being in twilight all the time and everything was covered with soot.  The Chinese use coal as the major heating source in most of the country and the air pollution is incredible.  He compared it to the lethal coal/smog conditions in industrial England in the 1800's.  In addition the pollution of the oceans, rivers and harbors was just awful, with people dumping raw sewage, industrial chemicals and everything else directly into the water. 

He did say that he never saw so many BMWs and other luxury sedans in the same place as in Bejing and the gap between the rich and the poor throughout the country was astounding.

He did get to see the pottery soldiers and some of the areas of China that will soon be flooded by a huge hydro product.  The residents of that area are being booted out without much consideration as to what will become of them or to the historical and envirionmental concerns.   The Sierra Club or its equiviant doesn't exist in China.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

So before we begin to castigate our country and beat our breasts about how evil we are, we might want to take a clearer look at what the rest of the world is doing to its environment and how they treat their poor people.  At least our poor have Playstations, television, cell phones and more than ample food and access to free health care. Some of my Doctor clients call medi-cal the California Gold Card.

Nov 9, 2006 10:40 pm

http://www.quatloos.com/article.php?ID=317

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, February 24, 2006
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Professional Tax Resister Sentenced to More Than 12 Years in Prison for Tax Fraud

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Longtime tax protestor Irwin Schiff was sentenced in federal district court in Las Vegas to total of 163 months in prison—151 months for tax fraud and an additional 12 months for contempt of court—the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today. In addition, Schiff was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution and to serve three years of supervised release..

In October 2005, Schiff was convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States, aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns, filing his own false tax returns, and evading the payment of millions of dollars in back taxes owed. This marks the third time Schiff has been convicted for committing federal tax offenses. Schiff previously has spent more than four years in jail for his tax crimes. Two associates of Schiff, Cynthia Neun and Lawrence Cohen, were also convicted of aiding and assisting other taxpayers in the filing of false tax returns. On February 3, 2006, Cohen was sentenced to 33 months in prison. Neun was sentenced yesterday to 68 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution..

“Last October, a jury of his peers found Mr. Schiff guilty of serious tax crimes related not only to his own tax evasion, but also to his encouraging and enabling others to file false returns. The prison sentence handed down today reflects the seriousness of those crimes,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “The Department of Justice is working vigorously to vindicate the interests of law- abiding Americans who file returns and pay the taxes the law requires.” .

“Mr. Schiff earned this sentence,” said IRS Commissioner Mark Everson. “For years he has preyed on others by holding out false hope that they need not pay their taxes.”.

According to the indictment and the evidence introduced at trial, beginning in 1995, Schiff aided thousands of taxpayers in the filing of false federal income tax returns with the IRS that reported zero taxable income in spite of the taxpayers earning reportable income. Schiff owned and operated Freedom Books, a business that sold books, tapes, and informational packages encouraging customers not to pay income tax. According to a government witness who testified at trial, between 1997 and 2002, Freedom Books sold more than $4.2 million of these products..

The evidence presented at trial also proved that Schiff evaded the payment of more than $2 million in taxes he owed the IRS from 1979 through 1985. Schiff concealed income he earned from Freedom Books, in part, by using offshore bank accounts and conducting financial transactions through secret “warehouse” banking services. The evidence also showed that Schiff used debit cards issued by offshore banks to obtain funds he transferred offshore, that he opened bank accounts using multiple tax identification numbers and that he concealed his wealth by hiding his assets through the use of nominees..

Assistant Attorney General O’Connor thanked Tax Division Trial Attorneys Jeffrey A. Neiman, David J. Ignall, and Melissa Schraibman, who prosecuted the case. She also thanked Criminal Investigation Special Agents David Holland, Adam Steiner, and Autumn Woodard of the IRS, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada, whose assistance was essential to the successful investigation and prosecution of the case..

Additional information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax.

Nov 9, 2006 10:43 pm

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism

By contrast, Scott Moore, movie critic of the Portland Mercury, writes: "There are a lot of stupid people in this world, and some of those stupid people are going to see America: From Freedom to Fascism and buy into its half-baked, hole-ridden, libertarian rhetoric about the alleged illegality of the federal income tax. And that's a shame, if for no other reason than it'll be a small defeat for logic." Moore states: "By presenting half-baked ideas with the faux certainty that comes through sheer repetition and bending historical facts to fit his agenda, Russo manages to portray the legality of the income tax as something actually worthy of debate. Thing is, it's only up for debate among anti-tax conspiracy theorists who have anarchist, anti-social tendencies."

Now, if I know nothing of the historical facts involved (and I don't) how am I to know if he's bent them? Why, then, would I want to discuss, without having seen anything of the other side, his take on "historic facts"? Have I learned anything or am I just discussing the indoctrination I got? If there’s both side presented, then I’m game for it, if not…..<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 To me it's as if someone from Mars, who knew nothing of JFK's assassination, nothing of opposing theories and the over all controversy, who wanted to debate Oliver Stone's movie on the subject. Not to pick on Stone (I can’t think of a better example), but regardless of what you think of it, at the very best all you can say of it is that it’s thought provoking among people who know the bigger story not told there.

That’s my only point, not an insult to dude.

[/quote]

Does Moore show the actual tax law, to back his tinfoil hat assertations?

They keep saying "law" and they ignore the fact the T Regs ARE law....

Or does he merely state that to question the law is absurd? That point was covered in the film. Does Moore back anything he says?

We've got a columnist here, a financial writer who makes FAs look like crooks every week by doing some creative fact bending of his own.

I'm one of those uniformed who doesn't know. Seems absurd on the surface. How did those two people in the film beat income tax evasion/fraud charges? That's fasinating.

It would be, see Shriff's conviction below.

[/quote]
Nov 9, 2006 10:50 pm

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106509,00. html

II. Internal Revenue Code Arguments

(1) There is no Internal Revenue Code that imposes taxes;
(2) Only "individuals" are required to pay taxes; or
(3) The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.

The Truth: The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them. However, any taxpayer whose income falls below the statutory amount, does not have to file a return.

III. Sixteenth Amendment Argument

The Constitutional Amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified.

The Truth: The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified in 1913, and it states "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."

IV. Constitutional Argument

Filing a Form 1040 violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The Truth: The courts have consistently held that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.

Nov 9, 2006 10:52 pm

EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies

These are people who really believed in the tax protestor literature, who followed it to the letter, and then was either sent to prison for tax evasion, or sanctioned or fined for asserting a stupid theory in court, or had some goofy case against the IRS dismissed, etc. These cases demonstrate conclusively that irrespective of what the scam artists who sell the tax protestor materials tell you, the only thing that will happen is that you will get creamed by the IRS in court. Oh, and you will also have lost the money you paid for the materials, your defense attorney's fees, the value of your lost time fighting the IRS, and your reputation as a sensible individual.

Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

United States v. Schiff; “America’s leading untax expert” is convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of willful failure to file. Some expert!

United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.

Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.

Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to get out of jail. He loses this too.

In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is denied too.

Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98 (December 27, 1999)
Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties, and on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for abuse and delay.

Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No. 49T10-9806-TA-70 (January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income under either Indiana law or the Internal Revenue Code.

Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117 (January 11, 2000)
Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S. income taxation.

Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No. 94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)
Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax protestor could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had structured their affairs specifically to avoid the IRS's lien for back taxes owed.

Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January 21, 2000)
Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of government-related entities.

Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No. 99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating information to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.

Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021 (August 4, 1999)
Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no statute or regulation that makes him "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" liable under the IRC; as "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" he did not earn "wages" or "gross income" as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he had no taxable "income" according to the meaning of the term and the Supreme Court's definition of the term.

McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98 (February 3, 2000)
Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to "Dear Taxpayer" were fraudulent, and that "income" cannot be defined -- In addition to losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the court for making frivolous arguments.

House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No. 2:99-2428-23AJ (January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not "persons" within the meaning of the IRS statutes as they are instead "citizens of the Sovereign State of South Carolina" and cannot be taxed by the United States

Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:

United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns is unclear.

United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana is not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.

United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has "the Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or implied agreements with the Federal Government."

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have "inland jurisdiction," that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.

United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over "sovereign citizens," that he was not a "taxpayer" under the federal tax laws, and that the word "includes" is a term of restriction, not expansion.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a"person" under the tax code.

United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control number, that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses because no Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal Register, and that the district court has no jurisdiction.

United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.

Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments are takings.

United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen of the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.

United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a "white, natural born, state citizen," the income tax does not apply to him, that he is not a "person" or a "resident," and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.

McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he didn't owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the income tax is a taking.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable income.

Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.

Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.

Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any privilege from a governmental agency.

Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax, that there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of "income" is vague.

Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority to impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.

Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are "natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from an agency of government."

United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not persons, and that the word "includes" is a term of limitation, not expansion.

United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.

McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into the "maritime flag of war." A Favorite!

United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that summonses from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing regulations.

United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a "person" under the Internal Revenue Code.

United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme Court for the Republic of Texas," and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty.

Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States, and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.

Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla. 1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a "contract" with the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural sovereign citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social Security system.

United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified lawfully.

United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.

Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by "positive law," that the tax code does not apply to "sovereign citizens," that the tax code is a bill of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.

Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of the government of the United States.

McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a "Sovereign Individual," the "Common Law of the United States of America, a Republic" protected him from penalties for filing a frivolous tax return.

Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear title and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby preventing foreclosure.

Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a "federal land patent" grants an interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.

Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F. Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis of a "land patent" which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the County Recorder of Deeds Office.

Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d 387 (Ill. Ct. App. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.

United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County, 851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and that enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.

City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses unconstitutionally restricts one's right to travel.

State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Argued that as a "free man" the motor vehicle laws do not apply to him without his consent.

State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)
Argued that Montana's compulsory automobile liability insurance statutes are unconstitutional.

Nov 9, 2006 10:54 pm

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

That link goes with the above post.

Nov 9, 2006 11:11 pm

[quote=babbling looney]

Do you think the people in China deserve the American dream too?

This has nothing to do with the movie or whatever, I didn't look at it and won't waste my time with it. 

I have a client who just returned from a 2 week trip in China.  He said the air, especially in Bejing was so dirty with coal smoke and dust that he could take a direct picture of the sun with his camera without having to use a filter. It was like being in twilight all the time and everything was covered with soot.  The Chinese use coal as the major heating source in most of the country and the air pollution is incredible.  He compared it to the lethal coal/smog conditions in industrial England in the 1800's.  In addition the pollution of the oceans, rivers and harbors was just awful, with people dumping raw sewage, industrial chemicals and everything else directly into the water. 

He did say that he never saw so many BMWs and other luxury sedans in the same place as in Bejing and the gap between the rich and the poor throughout the country was astounding.

He did get to see the pottery soldiers and some of the areas of China that will soon be flooded by a huge hydro product.  The residents of that area are being booted out without much consideration as to what will become of them or to the historical and envirionmental concerns.   The Sierra Club or its equiviant doesn't exist in China.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

So before we begin to castigate our country and beat our breasts about how evil we are, we might want to take a clearer look at what the rest of the world is doing to its environment and how they treat their poor people.  At least our poor have Playstations, television, cell phones and more than ample food and access to free health care. Some of my Doctor clients call medi-cal the California Gold Card.

[/quote]

I don't know where you got the impression I was in any way endorsing China...just making a point that could be attributed to any emerging economy, not just China.

China's interest in 'the American Dream' is driving it's using enormous amounts of coal for power.  This is exactly the kind of problem I'm alluding to, a world which can't support everyone (or even a  significant portion of the worlds population) living like we do.

Nov 9, 2006 11:17 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106509,00. html

II. Internal Revenue Code Arguments

(1) There is no Internal Revenue Code that imposes taxes;
(2) Only "individuals" are required to pay taxes; or
(3) The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.

The Truth: The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them. However, any taxpayer whose income falls below the statutory amount, does not have to file a return.

III. Sixteenth Amendment Argument

The Constitutional Amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified.

The Truth: The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified in 1913, and it states "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."

IV. Constitutional Argument

Filing a Form 1040 violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The Truth: The courts have consistently held that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.

[/quote]

Talk about citing a biased source....geez.  I'm supposed to believe it because it has a bolded The Truth by it?

Nov 9, 2006 11:44 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

That link goes with the above post.

[/quote]

Damn Mike, you the man! Wow good stuff!

However, not convinced that this is all for naught(is that the right word?)

Without the transcripts of the above cases it's impossible to tell how fair these trails were. Did the agents lie?  Did the IRS manufacture evidence? My case never got to a courtroom because there was no finding of fraud. I can tell you from experience though that the IRS agents lied their asses off. I got railroaded. They, on several occassions, showed up at my doorstep and threatened me. Scary stuff! When I complained they not only denied that it had happened, they denied that agents with the names I mentioned even existed. Obviously, I was making this up. So, I had my own plan. Mind you I was cooperating fully, yet it made no difference. I waited because i knew they would do it again. And they did. They had their usual nice guy attitude on to gain entry to the house where they told me they wanted to discuss my situation. This time I told them to wait a minute and left the room. As I reentered the room I quickly raised a camera and snapped off a picture. I was also holding a tape recorder. The agents without saying another word got up and left. That ended that problem. I for one am not surprised by these convictions, or  by Irwin's.

So, yeah, all this proves is it doesn't pay to fight the powers that be. I'm not going to fight. I've already gone my 12 rounds with these guys. That was enough for me. And I wasn't a tax protestor like my former friend. I'm just fine with the status quo.

Nov 9, 2006 11:45 pm

Look...I'm not a tax lawyer (Thank God) and don't claim to have the knowledge to stand behind this movies claims.  I thought it would be interesting to access this board's collective insight to ascertain whether this holds any water. 

MikeB, yes my assertion that the current tax system is illegal is borrowed from the movie...I don't necessarily buy it 100%, but I thought the movie was quite persuasive (albiet one pointed) and until someone can clearly point me to the laws which contradict the assertions, I'll stand by it merely for sake of this discussion.  I'm obviously nowhere near the point where I'll forego filing my taxes, since I'm not THAT convinced yet. 

Never the less, I think most here would agree that there are some serious problems with our tax code and the IRS in general.

Thanks for the links MikeB, good addition to the discussion.

Nov 9, 2006 11:47 pm

What’s the group’s take on Real ID and RFID technology?

Nov 9, 2006 11:51 pm

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

That link goes with the above post.

[/quote]

Damn Mike, you the man! Wow good stuff!

However, not convinced that this is all for naught(is that the right word?)

Without the transcripts of the above cases it's impossible to tell how fair these trails were. Did the agents lie?  Did the IRS manufacture evidence? My case never got to a courtroom because there was no finding of fraud. I can tell you from experience though that the IRS agents lied their asses off. I got railroaded. They, on several occassions, showed up at my doorstep and threatened me. Scary stuff! When I complained they not only denied that it had happened, they denied that agents with the names I mentioned even existed. Obviously, I was making this up. So, I had my own plan. Mind you I was cooperating fully, yet it made no difference. I waited because i knew they would do it again. And they did. They had their usual nice guy attitude on to gain entry to the house where they told me they wanted to discuss my situation. This time I told them to wait a minute and left the room. As I reentered the room I quickly raised a camera and snapped off a picture. I was also holding a tape recorder. The agents without saying another word got up and left. That ended that problem. I for one am not surprised by these convictions, or  by Irwin's.

So, yeah, all this proves is it doesn't pay to fight the powers that be. I'm not going to fight. I've already gone my 12 rounds with these guys. That was enough for me. And I wasn't a tax protestor like my former friend. I'm just fine with the status quo.[/quote]

BondGuy,

It's stories like yours which get me flaming angry!  Whether or not the current tax code is legal or not, the behavior of the IRS is clearly illegal in your case and many others I have heard of. 

I feel that the behavior of the IRS alone should be enough to bring it down...unfortunately Americans don't really care unless it comes knocking on their doorstep.

Nov 10, 2006 12:03 am

More interesting stuff:

from: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

The Discovery

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning. The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress. The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

Thoughts?

Nov 10, 2006 12:19 am

 

The Whitey Harrell case, a state cse, btw, not Federal;

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1006367&a mp;highlight=&sid=5441350d7c8acd2afd2aa1612ebc4fc0

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/viewtopic.php?t=1005771

Basic jury nullification....btw, he's been charged again....

Nov 10, 2006 12:20 am

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106509,00. html

II. Internal Revenue Code Arguments

(1) There is no Internal Revenue Code that imposes taxes;
(2) Only "individuals" are required to pay taxes; or
(3) The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.

The Truth: The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and it is clearly set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). Our system of taxation allows taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate forms "voluntarily" rather than have the government do it for them. However, any taxpayer whose income falls below the statutory amount, does not have to file a return.

III. Sixteenth Amendment Argument

The Constitutional Amendment establishing the basis for income tax was never properly ratified.

The Truth: The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified in 1913, and it states "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."

IV. Constitutional Argument

Filing a Form 1040 violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The Truth: The courts have consistently held that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.

[/quote]

Talk about citing a biased source....geez.  I'm supposed to believe it because it has a bolded The Truth by it?

[/quote]

That's the way it came from the IRS source, dude.

Nov 10, 2006 12:24 am

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

That link goes with the above post.

[/quote]

Damn Mike, you the man! Wow good stuff!

However, not convinced that this is all for naught(is that the right word?)

Without the transcripts of the above cases it's impossible to tell how fair these trails were.[/quote]

Perhaps true, but the point is there have been many, many convictions. I'm sorry to hear about your problems with them.

Nov 10, 2006 12:26 am

[quote=dude]

More interesting stuff:

from: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

The Discovery

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. ......

Thoughts?

[/quote]

Yeah, the USSC has decided Bill's all wet 

Nov 10, 2006 1:00 am

I don't know where you got the impression I was in any way endorsing China...just making a point that could be attributed to any emerging economy, not just China.

Dude, I didn't get that impression about you at all.  I just thought it was interesting that the issues (pollution, rich upper class and very very poor lower class, ecological disasters) my client saw in China are never ever brought up while in the USA we are beaten about the brow and told how bad we are.

When the Chinese get their gigantic hydro power plant going that will probably relieve the dependence on coal.  However, can you just imagine the caterwauling if we proposed to dam up the Grand Canyon to generate power for Las Vegas?

As to the IRS, I've been audited. It wasn't fun, but it wasn't hell either.  The IRS agent was actually very nice, but then so was I.... very cooperative and properly deferential and acted awed to be in the presence of the little bureaucrat.   You know, the fly/honey thing.  Maybe being a woman, who can't/won't wear polo shirts, had something to do with it  

Trying to tilt against windmills is not, IMNSHO, a very productive use of time. 

Nov 10, 2006 4:03 am

Thanks all for an interesting thread.  As a part-time practicing accountant, I've heard my share of interesting stories.  It was common knowledge among the teaching staff at my university that the IRS would target the BOTTOM 20% of accounting students for new hires.  The supposition was that they were trying to save money on new hires.  I can tell you for a fact that although I was top 10% of my class, the IRS recruiter didn't so much as say hello to me, so as far as I could see the bottom of the barrel story was true.

I can also tell you that except for errors in reporting estimated tax payments (client indicates that all estimates are paid and then when the notice arrives, says "oops!"), every notice my clients have received for as long as I can remember, has been due to an IRS error.  Sadly, clients pay for my time dealing with the IRS to correct the error, which is almost like paying another tax for IRS stupidity.

In fairness to the IRS agents I've dealt with in recent years, I no longer believe that they hire from the bottom (if indeed they ever did).  Erroneous notices are almost always the product of IRS computer matching errors, and I've found the actual employees to be very helpful in resolving the erroneous notices.  It just seems wrong that clients have to pay for resolving these errors, but I'm certainly not going to eat my time when it's not my error either.

As far as dealing with difficult agents, a CPA I once worked with actually smeared something (I think he told me that it was a teargas derivative) on the walls of his conference room when an agent was due in for an audit.  I think the agent was in the room for 30 minutes tops and decided that the books looked good enough to take a pass...