| |
  
|
||||||||||
Are you liable for income tax?
Submitted by larjerr on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 18:45
in
Take this quiz and see. » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
didn't take the test
But if you want to see the playbook the IRS is using, please refer to this website. I am not debating anyone here, just simply pointing out how the courts have ruled in the past. ANYONE, especially those you tell you that they are NATIONALS and not citizens are crackpots. Don't follow the leader on this one unless you want to follow these people straight to Jail. You can send in any paperwork you want, you can't renounce your citizenship unless you are leaving the country for good or if you are convicted of treason and they take it away from you. It is stupid to think you can just because you filed a magic paper that was ignored. You are a citizen, CITIZEN ciTIzen however the hell you want to punctuate it.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#TOC
simple question: Are
simple question:
Are nationals subject to income tax according to the IRS?
heres a hint:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00007701----...
(B) Nonresident alien
An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001101----0...
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
and last question:
Do you think Indian reservations are considered "within the United States"?...If United States means the entire country like you think, and not a 'federal zone', then the answer must be yes!
I don't need to answer that
I won't do mental gymnastics with you again. You can't renounce your citizenship unless you LEAVE the country or it is taken from you.
So your questions don't matter. FINAL
prove me wrong.
How do I prove you wrong?
I will try...
"Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability."
[U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982)]
So above it clarifies that a "citizen of the United States" has a tax liability,
USC Title 26, 7701
then there is this definition:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101.
Sec. 1101. - Definitions
(21) The term ''national'' means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
also,
The American Jurisprudence Legal Encyclopedia, at 3C AmJur 2d 204 in section 2677 entitled “Presumptions concerning citizenship” says the following:
"As a general rule, it is presumed, until the contrary is shown, that every person is a citizen of the country in which he or she resides.[1] Furthermore, once granted, citizenship is presumably retained unless voluntarily relinquished,[2] and the burden rests upon one alleging a change of citizenship and allegiance to establish that fact. Consequently, a person born in the United States is presumed to continue to be a citizen until the contrary is shown, and where it appears that a person was once a citizen of a particular foreign country, even though residing in another, the presumption is that he or she still remains a citizen of such foreign country, until the contrary appears."
so, even though the cards are stacked against us (the ones who had inadvertently become 'citizens of the U.S.'), all is not lost.
Im with you 100% that this seems kooky, I remember 12 years ago hearing about this shit, and thinking it was crazy...but the truth is, once you spend 10 years researching ALL of the codes, there is no missing link. There isnt a section missing, or a part where you say "man...if I could only find this one definition"...
Instead, you'll find that the IRS and lawyers for congress have done things like swap out the word "means" for "includes" throughout the USC/IRC so the average person will think "includes" means whatever it normally means, PLUS this new definition.
This is a common trick throughout history,
If congress and the IRS could do anything they want, with no regard for law, they could easily make a one page tax code, enact it into public law, and collect income tax that way...
it could say "Any human who receives any compensation for any type of service or labor must pay a tax of 33% on the amount received"...but the fact is, they dont, because they cant. Not legally, BUT what they can do, is make a confusing code that SEEMS like something else by using tricky definitions.
This is NOT uncommon. As I have mentioned before, MANY statutes have a savings clause that states "no right is affected by this code"...this is in there for the same reason, if no one notices, then they will consent.
Want to end the income tax?
Recruit the unemployed, especially federal and state workers to picket IRS building during business hours. Show them the truth about the income tax, how most states have "piggybacked" on the federal income tax to cheat them, and how states "slush funds" hide surpluses. Make the picket signs as provocative as possible without threatening violence. IRS business will come to a screeching halt, agents will be intimidated by the truth and many may resign. Do you think the MSM could hide this for long?
NO
Under Article I section 9 of the Constitution it says "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid" so how does the income tax get around this? Before you jump an say the 16th Amendment look at what the Supreme Court had to say about the 16TH Amendment.
"The Sixteenth Amendment.....does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects....
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)
What this means is the taxing power congress had before the 16th Amendment remained the same after the 16th Amendment.
Do you not find it funny that the the income tax started right after the Private Fed started in 1913???
Besides income itself is not a tax.........the word income is the tool used to measure the amount of tax that is due from the activity or source that is being taxed. Does your wages or labor fall under one of these?
It is not a direct tax. It is an excise on various privileges.
However, most people are not enjoying those privileges, so their wages and salaries do not fall under liability for the tax. The reason so many people can be prosecuted for not paying, or failing to file, is that they have filed OTHER paperwork claiming that the tax applies to them or they wish to be treated as if it does.
These include prior 1040 forms and their derivatives, as well as W-4 Request for Withholding forms. There are others, but these two are the most common.
These forms are only for use by "taxpayers" - people upon whom an internal revenue tax has been imposed. If the tax hasn't been imposed on you, why are you acting like it has been? Don't you think that if you claim on the one hand the tax does apply to you by filing these forms, that you then aren't allowed to claim you don't owe the tax, or that you can't refuse to pay it?
For more info and a way to avoid filing these forms without running afoul of the law please see: http://originalintent.org/edu and http://nontaxpayer.org.
Another good study
I have been studying this issue for a number of years now and most recently started reading the IRS Hoax on line though famguardian1.org. I am finding the resource to be one of the most informative I have studied. I would recommend that any interested in protecting their rights to the fruit of their labor to get involved in this inclusive study. I would also agree with the other posters that one doesn't undertake this battle unprepared with knowledge and understanding of the history of the tax and your relationship to it.
The answer is no...
quiz or not...
Mine is paid in protest.
"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul
bump
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI
This was definitely an interesting approach to the subject
as far as getting people to think about the tax and the law without getting too bogged down in case citations and statute excerpts.
But SteveMT is correct to warn people to be careful here.
I know there are several people trying to get to the bottom of this and everyone thinks they have the answer. But there is one man who can tell you WHY the other guys get it wrong and has correctly predicted that they will be convicted, Schiff and Hendrickson being among them.
I encourage anyone contemplating this subject to DO YOUR HOMEWORK. And on that note, be very wary of people who try to sell you the information. One gentleman does NOT try to sell you information that "proves" you aren't liable. He NEVER claims to decide for you or anyone other than himself, just who is or is not liable for these taxes. What he does, is present the information for free as to his interpretation of the law, and then urges you to do your own homework and make up your own mind.
He does offer paid for counseling and legal services to non-taxpayers who want to remain non-taxpayers and who want to make sure they don't accidentally volunteer themselves into being taxpayers or make any accidental and erroneous claim that they are taxpayers when they are not.
His informational site can be found at http://originalintent.org/edu
His services site can be found at http://nontaxpayer.org
He also has a radio show since 2003 that has online archives at http://davechampionshow.net and http://amercianradioshow.us.
He specifically discusses Pete Hendrickson's Cracking the Code approach in the following shows:
Feb 12, 2005
http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive2005.html
Mar 4, 2006
April 15, 2006
May 6, 2006
Jul8, 2006
Dec 30, 2006
http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive2006.html
May 12, 2007
Sep 22, 2007
http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive2007.html
The most important thing to take away, is that Hendrickson and this online quiz correctly point out that filing a 1040 is used against you in court as evidence that you owe the tax, yet he has people file amended and "zero" returns to rebut the presumption that any money paid to you is federally connected. Champion explains in these episodes, just why doing this is in reality making the situation worse and will likely land you in jail.
Dave Champion
We'll have to be sure to plug Dave's upcoming book on the income tax here, Sam. I'm very much looking forward to it. :)
_________________________
Moobi
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
Be careful with this. Others have tried.
Irwin A. Schiff (born 1928) is a prominent figure in the tax protester movement. Schiff is known for writing and promoting literature that claims the United States income tax is applied incorrectly. He has lost several civil cases against the federal government and has a record of multiple convictions for various federal tax crimes. Schiff is serving a 13-plus year sentence for tax crimes (with his location listed as the Terre Haute Federal Correction Institute as of April 21, 2009). His projected release date is 7 October 2016.[1] Irwin Schiff is also the father of stockbroker and US senate candidate Peter Schiff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff
Schiff was convicted because he was "guilty"
What he was guilty of was filing paperwork claiming he was a person that the law applied to and then claiming that he didn't owe the tax and trying to sell that to others as well as refusing to pay the tax, even though he had filed paperwork claiming he was a person that the tax was imposed on.
That dog just won't hunt.
For more on why Schiff was convicted, from the guy who predicted he would be and WHY, see http://davechampionshow.net, and visit his educational site for more in depth explanation of the issue in general at http://originalintent.org/edu
CORRECT!! People ALWAYS
CORRECT!! People ALWAYS talk about 'tax protesters' who went to jail...The "tax protesters" that go to jail are Never nationals, without "income" from Washington D.C., or corporate activity
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyAN...
not the same
the income tax IS constitutional....it just may not apply to you....a little pre-mature response on your part. You didn't bother taking the quiz did you?
I just took the test....
and I still say the same thing: be careful.
If the IRS specialists don't know the intricacies of entire 65,000 pages of the tax, they can use that to their advantage.
The IRS can make an example out of anyone. This is the one case where you are guilty until proven innocent.
ok
they do mention Irwins book at the end but I think Pete Hendrickson might have the better arguments, he's not in jail....yet. But they are trying hard.
For info purposes only, don't knock it till you learn more.....