New IRS pub on why taxes are not voluntary - Schiff one example
Submitted by JO4RP on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 21:00February 16, 2012 "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments"
they must be getting desperate now...
»
- Login to post comments
How to Survive the IRS
Here's a book I'd like to read... I'm really curious!
How to Survive the IRS
by Michael Louis Minns
preface written by RP :)
http://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-IRS-Battles-Against/dp/156...
The review you see first on Amazon is written by RP's brother, Wayne Paul.
Working for US policy in the mideast that serves AMERICA's interests http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/
Piracy and High Treason?
there is no Federal Income Tax because what passes for Federal Income Tax was never made legal according to law - only by case law from crooked and/or intimidated magistrates (pseudo-judges). Therefore it is theft/piracy by criminals in a vast conspiracy. So the resolution would be to arrest the criminals and shut down their criminal operations and return the stolen property to their victims. This is not a political issue but a criminal one.
http://www.svpwiki.com/
Laws do NOT need to be
Laws do NOT need to be enacted as positive law when applied to federal persons or federal personnel.
D.C. is a tricky place where Congress makes all the rules, and Federal Persons residing throughout the states are subject to the same federal jurisdiction as those living in D.C.
That Sure Is Strange; it says right here on the cover of their
very own "Special Agents Handbook", that it "IS" based on individual assessment and VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE, does it not?
http://privateattorneygeneral.spruz.com/gfile/75r4!-!GKEEFJ!-!svyr5/irs_part_1_book_manual.pdf
But hey, who wants to argue about whether it is or isn't voluntary, right? I mean why throw out these "frivolous" argument as they call them, on whether or not we're liable for the income tax, and let's start addressing the MORE important issue at hand:
Dear IRS, if you're claiming I owe you some tax money, then you must be under the "presumption" I'm a government employee who's liable for that tax as listed here under ...
USC Title 26 ss 6331 under Section A, which says:
Excerpt: " Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.
"Are YOU an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia?
If not, then perhaps it isn't YOU that owes THEM money, but instead maybe THEY owe YOU money for the labor they say YOU'VE been doing as one of their employees, that's ran up this tax bill they claim you owe. And if that's the case, and you've never received your gov't check, then,
I think we might just have a MAJOR labor dispute to settle here, what say you?
http://www.dailypaul.com/226071/irs-failure-to-file-lets-add...
I wonder what the difference would be in money owed, if we really sat down and done the math?
Over [X-amount] of years of presumed gov't employment, they've taken out 25% of your paycheck every week as taxes owed, let's say they are presuming you owe $50,000.00 okay?
Now, if YOU owe THEM $50K in back taxes, that must mean that you made somewhere in the ballpark of $200,000.00 as the government employee they are "presuming" you to be; and if that's the case, from the math I come up with, it looks like someone (your presumed employer) owes YOU a rough shot estimate of somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000.00 because of their "presumption" you're one of their employees.
Do you have any check stubs laying around the house from the gov't check you've been getting every two weeks that's proof of your employment? If so, then by all means you do owe the tax, if you fall under Section A, and you've been getting your weekly/monthly check, then you really should just write out the check and pay your bill.
But, if you don't have any gov't check stubs laying around the house as proof of gov't employment, and they are under the "presumption" that you currently are, or have been an employee of their Corporation, and they insist you owe them the tax money, then don't we have a MAJOR labor dispute here?
I'm just trying to be fair; and I'm under the "presumption" they want to be fair as well, so maybe we really should sit down at the table and see who really owes who.
Just a few things to consider if they insist we owe this tax: Where's our back vacation pay; reimbursement for dental insurance, health insurance, fuel, etc; How about our past Christmas bonuses and vacation pay we've accumulated over all these years of "presumed" employment by them, and last but not LEAST, where's all our hourly/monthly pay that we have yet to receive from our "presumed" employer?
Heck, maybe we should just go along with this "presumption" we're liable as they say, huh?
Maybe this "presumption" we owe this tax is a good thing; maybe we need to all line up at the IRS headquarters with an itemize list of all the money they owe us due to their "presumption" we are employees of their corporation? Maybe we should be knocking on THEIR doors and asking where's the money THEY OWE US instead, right?
I mean there are laws against slave labor in this country, aren't there? I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone can make us work for free, can they?
I mean they can't even keep their heads above water paying their employees who actually DO fall under Section A, are they sure they want to hire the rest of us who DON'T fall under section A and take us on as "presumptive" employees too?
That "presumption" that YOU are, or have ever been employed by them, sure could be an expensive "presumption" for them, don't ya think? :)
This whole operating under "presumptions" thing, just might be exactly what the Doctor ordered. I sure could use a new vehicle and I was thinking a nice underground pool in the back yard; and the wife hasn't had a new gold tennis bracelet or diamond ear rings in years, and now that I'm a "presumed" employee of their Corporation, and I'm about to collect all this back pay from my "presumed" employer, the future sure is looking grand and prosperous for me and my family.
What time am I supposed to show up to work boss?
what most don't know
The Social Security number is the IRS leverage tool, everyone wants one, and everyone wants good credit; so everyone satisfies them with forced payments under duress. Is it legal? YES, because it's contract law. YOU agreed to be a member of a group that allows taxation by declaring to be a "citizen OF the UNITED STATES" without first looking at that definition. This definition that you claim to be allows the IRS to LEGALLY presume that you are in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA where Direct taxes are PERFECTLY legal.
Representatives and Direct taxes ONLY need to be apportioned among te states of the Union, NOT D.C., a statutory "citizen of the United States" is a person "subject to its jurisdiction" referring to the UNITED STATES government, because "its" cannot refer to several states.
Title 26, 7702 (39) for example shows how "citizens of the United States" and "Residents of the United States" will be treated.
(39) Persons residing outside United States
If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.
What does "UNITED STATES" mean?
(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
WHEN congress wants a statute to include the actual states of the Union, they define it like this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103
(5) State
(A) In general
The term “State” means—
(i) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
http://www.dailypaul.com/129564/what-most-people-dont-unders...
If it's contract law, then they won't mind providing a copy of
the "contract" that shows:
1.Consent
2.Full Disclosure
3.Valuable Consideration (what are you being paid for your services?)
I can "presume" someone owes me Union Fees till the cows come home; I can send them a bill; send them a membership card, etc. and tell them there's a statute in my corporations rule book that says because they live in a brick house in Dallas Texas, they are members of my Union and owe me a fee. If they don't rebut my presumption, do we have a contract? ...... Yep, because that's called "agreement" of two parties. Now is the contract "enforceable"?
Not unless I can produce the contract showing the 3 points as listed above with their signature on it. Isn't that what the 1040 is? Aren't we admitting we made that money they say we owe while operating in the capacity of a gov't/corp.US employee? Well, that's one half of the point, but if so, where's my pay? what about the "valuable consideration"? What am I getting in return? Am I working for free? Am I just "gifting" the money to them? Did they disclose that in the contract?
Or am I just having my ass "presumptively" handed to me because I didn't rebut?
Just because someone has the card, does that mean that someone was "performing a function of gov't/corp.US" when they made the money the IRS says they owe?
Does jurisdiction follow money?
Does the IRS/corp.US have payroll records proving that someone was "performing a function" of gov't/corp.US when the money was made?
I've got a Block Buster Video card too, but that doesn't mean I'm getting a check from them on the 1st and 15th; it just means I have the "privilege" or renting movies if I so "choose". And if I do "choose" to rent a movie for the night, two things happen: I get a movie and they get $4.50 (valuable consideration). Now, if BBV takes it upon themselves to "manipulate the contract" by "presuming" I'm an employee of theirs because I have a rental card in my pocket, and they decide to add $64.00 to my bill as a tax, do they have a payroll record/shift record; or employment contract to back up their "presumption"?
If I don't rebut their "presumption", isn't that an agreement of two parties?
If that's the case, then I guess it's okay for Block Buster to charge any gov't/corp.US employee that has one of their cards in his/her pocket a tax on their gov't income, even if the gov't/corp.US employee isn't employed by Block Buster. Is that BBV rental card an employment/labor contract? I guess it could be if the gov't/corp.US employee doesn't rebut Block Buster's "presumption".
julius, I know this comment you left was on the 17th, just wanted to let people see the other conversation we had over here so they can see other pertinent information concerning this topic:
http://www.dailypaul.com/226071/irs-failure-to-file-lets-add...
Just want to make sure others see both sides of the coin when making the determination of whether they are, or they are not operating in that capacity, which is an important topic to be aware of.
I say good luck with this
I say good luck with this route! Perhaps you should research a bit more, maybe read Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923) where the supreme court talks about implied contracts.
"founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding." Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States
There doesnt need to be a signed piece of paper for you to be arrested and convicted for fraud. And I'll bet there is a signed piece of paper by you declaring under penalty of perjury that the info therein is true and correct. (check all your past irs docs.)
Implied Contracts?
How about this one: Ya think it could be argued in court that the IRS was meddling in your/our estate by bonding the SS Card to our "legal person" by way of an "implied contract"?
Are they attempting to Administer your/our estates without our written consent?
Lets assume they are under the "implied contract" presumption that you are employed by them because of a birth cert or SS Card.
If I'm a presumed employee, how am I getting paid? Are they going to say I/you were paid with anything other than "public money"? Wouldn't they have to prove that?
What if people are not signing a "gift" tax form 1040? How many people in this country do not pay an income tax? Why is the IRS so persistent of people sending that 1040 in? Don't they already have all our pay history for the year that was provided by the employer? Why do we need to send them something they already have? Could it be because the information they already have doesn't have your "signature" on it? Could it be an "implied contract" just isn't enough to enforce the presumption if someone really knows what they're doing?
Is it possible they "really" need that 1040 with your signature to contract you, if you're not actually employed by them? They can presume we're under some sort of "implied contract", but what if you rebut that presumption?
Lets say they are under the presumption you're an employ of their corp.US and demand you file a 1040. What happens when someone writes them back via an affidavit and asks them by what authority are they attempting to administrate the "legal fiction" corp/name on the birth certificate? Don't they have to prove that "legal fiction" name was operating in the capacity of, or thru the "title" of an agent of their corp?
Lets "presume" for a moment that the IRS is operating off of the "implied contracts" theory.
They either presume you're domiciled in their jurisdiction, and you rebut that fact; or they presume you're an employee. Can they take money out of your check as an "income" tax if you're not one of their employees? I suppose they can presume you're an employee, and if you don't rebut the fact, it becomes an "implied contract" or "agreement" of two parties.
And last but not least: Why is a foreign corp.US extorting taxes out of the people they're supposed to be paying taxes to for letting them operate on their land?
My birth certificate is my proof of equitable title, what do they have? Presumptions?
If I'm not operating in that capacity as an agent of the foreign corp.US and they can't provide some payroll records from "public funds" proving I was; and I don't send in a 1040 "gift" form, what else to they have to stand on, other than your lack of rebuttal to their presumptions?
You can throw all the "implied contract" BS up there you want; we still have to address the problem of "proof of claim". If I say "juliusbragg is an employee of mine; under my statutory jurisdiction; and has been performing a function of paper delivery boy for my business", and I believe he owes me some union fees, and you rebut that, what do I have to do to prove my claim?
Lets say you have an ID in your pocket that shows you may work for me, that's your title while working for my business; but you haven't actually been receiving a check from me for close to 6 months. But because I know you have the ID, I'm just going to presume I can BS you into paying me some fees.
Can I just say "well, he's carrying my business card in his wallet" and that's it? Or would I have to prove up my claim by producing some kind of payroll history proving you were actually operating in the capacity as one of my paper delivery boys at the time you made the money I claim you owe?
NOTE: Gov't/foreign corp.US did "NOT" finalize the creation of the birth certificate name or "legal fiction" aka "presumption of law" aka "agent in commerce". Our signature finalized it. Just because this "legal fiction" name is there, does not mean the gov't/corp.US has jurisdiction over us.
They presume everything your "agent in commerce" does is a function of gov't/corp.US, and that simply is not true!
Everything gov't does is a privilege "we extend to them", not the other way around.
They are operating under the "presumption" there is already an employment contract in place, and if we don't rebut that "presumption", then I guess they can presume us all the way to the poor house.
Just because an employer at McDonald's is acting as a with holding "agent", does that mean you're performing a function of gov't/corp.US while cooking cheeseburgers from 9 to 5? Or does it mean foreign corp.US presumed the owner/CEO of McDonald's into employment like they do every one else, and now McDonald's is doing what they believe is right by taking money out of their employees paycheck?
Isn't the CEO/Owner of McDonald's the one who created the corporation? Why does he have to do what foreign corp.US tell him to do?
PS .. Please don't thumb through the entire post and pick out one little itty bitty section and post a rebuttal to that and expect that to completely destroy the entire comment like you obviously seem to be doing on other posts and threads.
Rebut my claim "point by point" or don't even bother.
Apparently the IRS hasn't seen this yet:
Why do you think the Founders carved "In God We Trust" all over the buildings in DC and the state capitols?
Because the whole damn country was set up as a TRUST !!!!!
Go read my post that for some reason I still can't understand keeps getting moved to OFF TOPIC.
This is NOT off topic, it is the ONLY topic !!!!
This is why those scumbags in congress and the courts won't listen to a word we say: They have presumed us into the Trustee position of the Corporation.
URGENT-URGENT-URGENT ..... FRONT PAGE NOW !!!!!!!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/226838/the-united-states-corporatio...
Of course taxes are
Of course taxes are voluntary...
Senator Harry Reid says so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8
Michael Steel believes they are voluntary as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=bDK7QEzHtXA
...
no need to get distracted by the IRS
We already know what they stand for.
From The Document
"United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 812 (2005); see also http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04551.htm. – the court affirmed a federal district court’s preliminary injunction barring Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N. Cohen from selling a tax scheme that fraudulently claimed that payment of federal income tax is voluntary. In subsequent criminal trials, these three individuals were convicted of violating several criminal laws relating to their scheme. See 2005 TNT 206-18. Schiff received a sentence of more than 12 years in prison and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution to the IRS;...."
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.--Thomas Jefferson
And the thieving Estabnlishmenbt has the gall
to publicize their crimes against these peaceful, brave individuals who are morally far superior to the official thugs.
from the horses
from the horses mouth:
4.10.7.2.8 (01-01-2006)
IRS Publications
IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007.html
if citing their previous actions are not valid
to determine their future actions, then the only conclusion you can draw is they will not follow their own rules, and likely instead just use force if angered.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
Think I''ll skip that link
Don't want to give that company more hits.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant
They are great deceivers...
Whenever you confront them face to face with knowledge and law, they are cowards and never answer anything!
You can research the truth right here:
www.losthorizons.com
It's like anything else in life I suppose.....Once you learn the truth, there's no going back!
" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~