 |
 |
Wesley Snipes to Go on Trial in Tax Case
Posted January 14th, 2008 by Michael Nystrom
output
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON | New York Times
Published: January 14, 2008
From 1999 to 2004, the actor Wesley Snipes earned $38 million appearing in more than half a dozen movies, including two sequels to his popular vampire thriller “Blade.”
The taxes he paid in the same period? Zero.
But unlike other celebrities who find themselves on the wrong side of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Snipes has a flamboyant explanation: he argues that he is not actually required to pay taxes.
Mr. Snipes, who is scheduled to go on trial Monday in Ocala, Fla., has become an unlikely public face for the antitax movement, whose members maintain that Americans are not obligated to pay income taxes and that the government extracts taxes from its citizens illegally.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
More on Goebbels
----- Original Message -----
From: <861-list-owner@mail-list.com>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: More on Goebbels
Normally I wouldn't care much what some extortion apologist has to
say, but since David Cay Johnston pretends to be a "reporter," and
since his propaganda appears in the New York Times, it's worth
pointing out, not only how biased he is, but also how dishonest he
is.
Regarding calling Wesley Snipes a "coward," in an effort to goad
him into answering the questions of a government propaganda hack, David Cay Johnston said: "I said it and I make no apologies for my reporting techniques, which I lecture on widely and always draw a large audience." Well, it's nice to know that lots of other people apparently also want to know how to be obnoxious buttheads. So I guess that makes it okay.
But, to be fair, being an obnoxious butthead isn't as bad as being
dishonest. So is Mr. Johnston at least an honest butthead? I'll
report; you decide. Mr. Johnston just sent the following summary of
his stated position (or should I say, "frivolous section 61 tax
fraud scheme"?) in an e-mail to someone, who forwarded it to me:
"Just what do you believe given that Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution ("The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes...) and Internal Revenue Codes sections 63 (all income is
gross income) 61 (gross income less deductions and exemptions is
taxable income) and Section 1 (a tax is hereby imposed on the
taxable income...followed by charts of incomes and taxes due) have
been upheld by the courts without exception since 1913?" [David Cay Johnston]
So Section 61 means that "all income is gross income," and Congress can tax anything it pleases? Does he actually believe that? Aside from pointing out that Mr. Johnston got Section 61 and 63 reversed, at the moment I won't give any comments of my own regarding Mr. Johnston's stated position. I would, however, like to pass on some comments from various U.S. Supreme Court justices and regulation-writers at the IRS and Treasury:
1) “It is elementary law that EVERY statute is to be read in the
light of the Constitution. HOWEVER BROAD AND GENERAL ITS LANGUAGE it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” [McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)]
2) "It should be noted, too, that the court, speaking of the extent
of the TAXING power, used these cautionary words (p. 541): There
are, indeed, certain VIRTUAL LIMITATIONS, arising from the
principles of the Constitution itself." [Bailey v. Drexel
Furniture, 259 U.S. 20]
3) "And while [the federal income tax] cannot be applied to any
income which Congress HAS NO POWER TO TAX [citations omitted], it is both nominally and actually a general tax." [William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)]
4) “‘From whatever source derived,’ as it is written in the
Sixteenth Amendment, DOES NOT MEAN from whatever source derived.” [Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938) (dissenting opinion)]
5) "The tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income
exempted by statute OR FUNDAMENTAL LAW, nor expenses incurred in connection therewith, other than interest, ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME as defined in section 21." [26 CFR 39.21-1, Meaning of net income (1956)]
6) "Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt
from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items,
however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified.
No OTHER items may be EXCLUDED from gross income EXCEPT (a) those items of income which are, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT;..." [26 CFR 39.22(b)-1, Exemptions; exclusions from gross income (1956)]
7) "Among the items entering into the computation of corporate
earnings and profits for a particular period are all income
exempted by statute, income NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, as well as all items includible in gross income under SECTION 61 or corresponding provisions of prior revenue acts." [26 CFR 1.312-6(b)]
8) "To the extent that another section of the Code or of the
regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of
income, such OTHER provision shall apply NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 61 and the regulations thereunder." [26 CFR 1.61-1]
9) "For purposes of this section, the gross income to which a
specific deduction is definitely related is referred to as a 'CLASS
OF GROSS INCOME' and may consist of one or more items (or
subdivisions of these items) of gross income ENUMERATED IN SECTION 61, namely: (i) Compensation for services, including fees,
commissions, and similar items; (ii) Gross income derived from
business; (iii) Gains derived from dealings in property; (iv)
Interest; (v) Rents; (vi) Royalties; (vii) Dividends;... [more
items listed]." [26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(3)]
"See... paragraph (d)(2) of this section which provides that a
CLASS OF GROSS INCOME may include EXCLUDED income." [26 CFR 1.861-8(b)(1)]
I and many other having been quoting all of the above for years. So
did Mr. Johnston never NOTICE these citations, or did he simply
choose to ignore evidence which destroys his neat little
misinterpretation of the law? I don't think he's unobservant enough
for it to be the former. I do, however, believe he's intellectually
dishonest enough for it to be the latter.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
http://www.861.info
regarding the 861 Stuff..
I've been reading a bunch of comments on here. The people who use the 16th Amendment to claim that everyone owes an income tax no matter where that income came from are missing one very simple basis of law. No matter what the 16th Amendment says, it's the statutes and regulations which serve as the rules of application. In our case, it's Title 26 of the Statutes and its accompanying Regulations.. Start there and then you will understand why the 861 argument is perfectly valid.
The 861 "argument" is completely bogus
Section 1 of the IRS Code says, clear as day, that everyone has to pay tax on their income:
Then section 61 defines, clear as day, that all income is included:
And just to be clear, section 63 defines "taxable income" to mean "gross income minus deductions:
And, just for fun, Treasury Regulation section 1.1-1(b) (near the bottom of the page) specifically rebuts the 861 "argument":
Paying taxes sucks. Nobody likes it, especially around this time of year. But the law couldn't be more clear that you have to pay income tax. If you choose to fight it then I congratulate you for fighting what you see to be an unfair law. But you can't pretend that it doesn't exist. The law could not be any more clear that your income is taxable. Don't take my word for it? Take a tax lawyer's word for it.
Don't let greed get in the way of justice. If you want to fight the law then do so. But to fight the law you have to acknowledge that it exists. Denying that wages are taxable is based on even worse evidence than denying that the Holocaust happened.
BTW..
You can verify all this info for yourself.. The tax code will give you a headache but it's all there..
Update......
He was charged with 3 misdemeanors. I guess the IRS is afraid that if they hammer him too hard, this will help the good Dr. Blade needs to come out and publicly endorse the good Dr. to stop the Gestapo.
I hope he can appeal this.
I hope he can appeal this.
Up to 3 years in jail,
Up to 3 years in jail, because the IRS would not show him the law!
not guilty of felony charge of tax evasion
convicted on misdemeanor charge not filing, which was not contested.
All in all, a good outcome for Snipes.
Still three years in jail AND all the taxes AND penalties
In other words, he's still going to jail for up to three years. Three years of jail is not a "good outcome."
His "advisors" were found guilty of felonies and could be in jail for up to 16 years (maybe more) each.
you sound very happy
to live in one of the few countries that imprisons people for not paying taxes.
I may not admire Wesley Snipes for his legal expertise, but he has the spirit of freedom, and the understanding that the right to claim your earnings as your own are what separates a free man from a slave.
Keep cheering on slavery, you may have the law on your side (for now), but you will never have morality in your corner.
Snipes CONVICTED, up to three years in jail
MSNBC on the story.
Snipes himself could get up to three years in jail.
His "advisors" are worse-off:
I believe Kahn and Rosile could face up to 16 years each, but it might be more.
Right On Larkin Rose
I've been a big fan of your's for many years.
Keep up the good work.
You Cult Freaks!
----- Original Message -----
From: <861-list-owner@mail-list.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:55 PM
Subject: You Cult Freaks!
Some people think I'm being melodramatic when I use terms like "tax heretic." On the contrary, I am being literally precise. "Heresy"
is a forbidden belief, a conclusion which the powers that be will
not tolerate--not because they can prove it's wrong, but because
they have DECLARED it to be wrong.
Consider Galileo. Did the clueless "authorities" who persecuted and
imprisoned him have any PROOF that what he was saying was wrong? Of course not. Instead, there was evidence available to all that the wise men of "the church" were clueless jackasses. The official doctrine of the "authorities" back then was that the earth was the middle of everything, and everything else revolved around us. However, anyone who took a little time to track the movement of the other planets through the sky could see that at times they would apparently swerve around wildly. If they were going around us, like the moon, they would just make smooth, simple arcs. Instead, the planets were doing loopty-loops, and some people noticed that. (Galileo was not the first.)
So, after Galileo wrote down his evidence and logic, and his
resulting conclusions--e.g., the earth goes around the sun--what
was the rebuttal from the establishment? Did they respond with
facts and figures, evidence and logic? Of course not. They
responded with cries of "Heresy!" And what does that mean? It
means, "WE say what the truth is, and the truth is what we SAY it
is, because we say it--and we say you're WRONG!" Well, that radical Galileo kept saying it anyway, so they imprisoned him. (Wow, this story somehow seems really familiar.)
Now consider the income tax issues. Without getting into details,
as I've done recently, many people have now seen, with their own
eyes, evidence which unmistakably DISPROVES the "conventional
wisdom" (aka accepted doctrine) about the income tax. As just one
example, the so-called "experts" think that all income is taxable
unless specifically exempted by statute, but decades of regulations
have stated that some income is exempt, not because of any section of the tax code, but because of the Constitution itself. (See
Article 71 of Regulations 111 (1920's), 26 CFR 39.22(b)-1 (1956)),
and the current 26 CFR 1.312-6.)
And how has the establishment responded to that hard evidence? With contrary evidence? With alternative explanations? Of course not. They responded with "Frivolous!," the modern equivalent of
"Heresy!" In all my years of studying the issue, and TRYING to get
rational counter arguments out of the government, I have NEVER seen any court ruling, at any level, any IRS ruling, or even an IRS form letter, which even MENTIONS the regulations saying that some income is not taxable because of the Constitution itself.
But they don't need to. They yell "frivolous," and that ends all
debate. It is a SIN, don't you know, to believe something that the
high priests of taxation have declared invalid. Don't ask for
citations, or evidence, or lines of reasoning. THEY SAID SO is all
you need to know. To not believe as they do (no matter what the
reason) makes you a heretic, a sinner, and in need of mental
adjustment and correction. Still think I'm exaggerating? Check out
this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Bus...
Here are some highlights, straight from the mouths of the self-
annointed high priests of tax law.
1) J.J. MacNab, supposed a "tax expert," declared that the 861
evidence is "a cult belief." (Having tried to question Ms. MacNab
in the past about a few things which the LAW says, I can personally vouch for the fact that she is astonishingly ignorant of the law, and doesn't CARE that she has no rebuttal or explanation whatsoever to any of the 861 evidence.)
2) She goes on to say that "You're not going to become a tax
protestor unless you're really angry, a little bit paranoid--you
have to think someone is hiding words in the code that the rest of
us don't see." So you can't believe you don't owe income taxes as a result of study and logic. No, it's because you're psychologically
maladjusted, and in need of attitude correction. Don't worry, I'm
sure the federal Ministry of Love will be happy to help you out.
(In another article, she opined that "tax protestors" are mainly
middle-aged, poor, white, male racists. Well, I have the "white"
and "male" qualifications.)
3) One tax lawyer in the article opined that "if there was a legal,
efficient way to evade taxes, chances are we'd already know about
it." Um, HOW? When someone tells you--no, SHOWS you something you don't know about, how do you react? With insults and veiled threats. I can just picture the self-righteous "authorities" of the past declaring, "If the earth went around the sun, we'd already
know about it."
4) But the most amazing, sickening thing in the article was where
another attorney was talking about a lottery winner who wasn't
happy with how much the feds wanted, and ended up believing some unorthodox tax theory (I have no idea which one). Here is the
attorney's follow-up comment (have a barf bucket handy): "It wasn't
until two special agents from the IRS showed up with guns at his
kid's school that he discovered what he was doing wasn't right." He
discovered that what HE was doing wasn't right, because armed U.S. Nazis showed up at his kid's school?!?!
There you have it: "We can HURT you, and that PROVES you're wrong!" YOU should feel bad, because THEY hurt you (thereby proving that you were in the wrong). In other words, might makes right. That is the theme of EVERY propaganda piece put out by the U.S. extortion racket (and faithfully parroted by people pretending to be reporters): HERE is what will happen to you if you believe this!
Even if they don't lock you up, they'll take all your money!
Repent, sinner! Um, can we get some answers, or a rational
discussion? No! Shut up, heretic!
I spent a year in prison because some utterly moronic bureaucrats,
and a handful of profoundly ignorant lower court "judges," "TOLD
ME" that the 861 evidence was invalid. And twelve village idiots in
the jury box, who would never be "heretics" themselves (because a
prerequisite to thinking outside of the box is having a brain)
decided that was enough. You see, I COULDN'T believe what I was
saying, because self-proclaimed "authorities" TOLD me I was wrong!
At Galileo's sentencing, he was rebuked for having the gall to
believe "that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after
having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture" by
the authorities. So he was imprisoned, and coerced into saying that
his conclusions were wrong. In his recantation, he described his
own sin as having expressed his theories about the earth and the
sun, even "after having received a notification that the said
doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ." They gave him "notice," and he
had the gall to not change his mind. Damn heretic!
Not much has changed in the last three hundred years.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
http://www.861.info
"When a well packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to
the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly
preposterous and it's speaker a raving lunatic."...Dresden James
Larken Rose, American Hero
For anyone who doesn't know about Larken Rose, I urge you to find out more about this American patriot. He put his freedom on the line for all of us, and he spent a year in prison because of it. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude. When the IRS finally is closed down, it will be because of people like Larken, who have fought the good fight for so many years.
xntryk1's post
Very good information and a well written post. Thank you for taking the time. Words from a man that's been there, done that.
Snipes case may bring this more into the limelight. Also those people in New Hampshire...ummm...help me out here. The man and his wife, just arrested, she's a dentist. I was following some of this story until I have gotten so heavily into theis campaign. It is another of many.
"You Cult Freaks!"?
This refrain should sound REAL familiar to Ron Paul supporters - with the exact same conclusions being drawn (i.e. that those who fling such invective, haven't a clue about what they're talking about)....
We don't live in a
democracy we live in a republic.
There is a world of difference. See here for more information.
http://www.devvy.com/pdf/...
I can see now why you take the position you do. You are a positivist - you believe apparently that government grants rights and liberties and thus can take them away. You don't believe as we here at dailypaul and the founders did in natural law - that our rights and liberties come from our creator (or from our nature as man if you don't subscribe to being created) and that NO government can take them away or legislate them out of existence. You apparently do not believe that man has a right to the fruits of his labor, not because some old guys raised their hands upon the question, but because such is necessary for man's survival.
So we will have to agree to disagree - since you are for tyranny of the majority and we here are fighting for liberty.
I abhor democracy as did the founders. It is a vile and wretched form of government that always collapses into a dictatorship over loose fiscal and monetary policy. I'd rather a republic based on true liberty thank you very much.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb fighting over what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Learn the Truth
http://losthorizons.com
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington
Tax Code Confusion
Pepole remain in a state of confustion about the crazy IRS regulations. I don't really care what the tax code says, I did not vote for, nor do I agree with the income tax, and I will not support it. It is a form a slavery and an invasion of privacy. The people who support and love the income tax should be committed to a mental institution.
Nobody loves the income tax
I don't think anybody loves the income tax. It sucks. There's a lot wrong with it.
But part of living in a democracy is living with the Rule of Law. If a law is passed then you are bound by it, even if you don't personally agree with it. You don't get to just opt-out of whatever laws you don't like; if that were the case then we'd have 300,000,000 different ideas about what the law is. I don't like the speed limit, but I still have to pay the ticket when I get pulled over for violating it. The law was passed by the democracy and it's not my choice to simply pretend that it doesn't exist.
If you think the income tax is SO far beyond reasonable that you want to protest it through civil disobedience--not paying--then feel free, but don't be surprised if you have to pay the automatic $5,000 penalty and possibly go to jail.
Part of a democracy is accepting that other people have different opinions, and accepting that they might make law based on those opinions. We're not voting for Ron Paul as dictator-for-life, we're voting for him as President.
See this
http://www.truthattack.or...
slapshot, get your head out.........
of the sand. "But part of living in a democracy is living with the Rule of Law. If a law is passed then you are bound by it, even if you don't personally agree with it."
A. We do not live in a "democracy" , you just don't get it yet do you?
B. I piss on "laws" daily that are unconstitutional as per my rights outlined in said constitution.
C. I don't need their dumbass draconian laws or any of their laws period, I am a law unto myself. I can see you shocked at this statement and wonder how I can have the audacity to state this, well it's real simple. If you understand the basics of the Constitution and the right to ;Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and respect these rights in others you do not need any laws.
Federal Judge admits Constitution is toilet paper to those in charge:
“I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the Internal Revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment. ... Yet nonetheless, I'm sure no court's going to say that the 16th Amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason”.
cite:
US District Court, Judge James C Fox, Sullivan vs. USA, at al, March 21, 2003
Entire case in PDF format:
http://tinyurl.com/ygqjbv
And BTW
Believing in something, just because you are afraid of what will happen if you don't believe it, is no reason to believe in something. This is belief bourne out of fear.
Corrupt Judiciary and Politicians
Ahhh, but when laws are based on the evil corruption of bankers and politicians who are then supported by corrupt Judges, you simply can not respect the rule of law. Even a violation of the speed limit is a punishment bourne out of fear of what might happen, not what actually happened. Punishing people based on paranoia is unethical and immoral. And just because something like the income tax is made legal, does not make it right. This in no way speaks to cardinal crime like murder, rape and robbery where there is actually a physical victim. In most repsects, the income tax is robbery and a crime against Society.
Democracy is mob rule
The tyranny of the majority, if you will.
The founding fathers detested democracy, Karl Marx had no problem with it.
Karl Marx also advocated the income tax and central banking system.
If you had been around in 1776 it appears that you would be advocating the divine right of Kings and allegiance to the crown.
It was, after all, the rule of law.
If you cannot see that the income tax turns total control of the earnings of citizens over to the government then you must be a die hard socialist.
If the "rule of law" is contrary to the principles of individual liberty and the right to "pursuit of happiness", then a rebellion is in order.
True
Our forefathers feared the oppression of majority rule, that's why they tried to establish equal protection for all.
861
Everyone's arguments here go way beyond the scope of "861." I'm not a tax expert, but I can read. The article's author, David Johnson, is lying about what 861 says. It doesn't deny that wages are taxable. Section 861 it is about whether the "source" of commerce from which wages are derived, is taxable. If your wages are derived from those sources, they are taxable. The legal presumption is that if a list of sources from which wages are derived are taxable, wages from any source outside the list are not.
B.T.W., "slapshot" is a strange handle for an IRS agent -- or maybe tax accountant? (who's about to lose his job when RP is elected.)
What are taxable "sources"
Could you please point to anything in section 861 that says whether or not any particular source is "taxable."
I've read through section 861, and its regulations, several times, and all I can find are rules for determining whether (a) gross income is from a source within the United States or from a source outside the United States and (b) how to figure out what deductions go with what income (in order to calculate the taxable income--which is gross income less deductions--from sources inside or outside the United States).
So, for example, section 861(a)(3) says that "compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States" shall be treated as income from sources within the United States, and section 861(b) says that "taxable income from sources within the United States" is the gross income specified in subsection (a)--such as compensation for labor performed in the United States--less the deductions property apportioned or allocated to that income.
How anyone could conclude from this that wages earned in the United States are not taxable income is a complete mystery to me.
Unless they are being deliberately dishonest, of course, which is what I suspect of Mr. Snipes.
Sorry, that definition of individual is not in title 26
But no matter, the point is WHO is made LIABLE to PAY or FILE?
I care not who the tax is IMPOSED upon. That is mostly irrelevant.
WHO does subtitle A say is REQUIRED to PAY or FILE subtitle A returns and taxes?
1)non-resident aliens earning US source income
2)resident aliens earning US source income
3)foreign corporations earning US source income
4)domestic corporations doing business with the US govt
5)witholding agents for #1 or #2
6)withholding agents for #3 or #4
THAT'S IT - NO ONE else is made LIABLE to PAY or to FILE - I dare you to prove otherwise.
And for the record, both the High Court and Sutherland state that yes you are to use the common meaning of a word to determine it's meaning, but ONLY if there is no controlling definition in the law - in that case - you use the definition and ONLY the definition supplied by the legislature in question.
The law says it, and the regulations clarify it
I'm sorry, but what part of
is in any way unclear?
Source: Treas Reg. 1-1.
Regulations have the force of law when they clarify existing law. Your "non-resident alien" nonsense is by drawing ONE part out of the statute. The rest of the statute makes clear that "individual" has the common-sense everyday meaning of "any person" without any regard for alienage.
What's my prize?
read on
As you read further in Treas Reg 1.1-1 (linked above), the third sentence states, "The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income).", the same as 26 CFR 1.1-1, so your prize is squat.
You proved nothing I asked for
I asked for proof of WHO is made LIABLE to FILE and PAY.
NOT on whom the tax is IMPOSED.
There are plenty of sections concerning who is liable to file and pay and plenty of regulations - NONE of them reference mere individuals in the common definition - ALL of them are with regard to the 6 categories I mentioned.
You are stuck on the imposition of a tax, when the key is WHO does the LAW require to FILE and PAY that tax? These are NOT the same thing. (if they were, there would be no need for all that darned code)
What part of it is unclear?
"Tax is imposed" means "pay the tax." There's nothing unclear about that, at all.
In terms of filing, Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code plainly states that
From the Supreme Court, once again:
U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).
From the lower courts:
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
Where's my damn prize? This is the worst anti-tax argument in the history of anti-tax arguments.
I see you edited with more info - so...
ON the first point,
If I'm not mistaken, 6012 is in subtitle C which is EMPLOYMENT taxes. But If I'm incorrect, I digress. However, the earlier arguments about individual here still stand. Individual here is key. As is 'taxable income' which my earlier case cites, that you have not refuted, clearly say does NOT include a SALARY or anything other than GAIN derived from CORPORATE activity. (a gain CAN be derived from labor but only BY a corporation off the labor of its employees - not an employee off himself)
On the second,
This is the reverse definition - not good. We need something that says that if a tax is imposed on a person's income, that is also the person who must pay.
On the third,
Of course payment is optional - FOR THOSE ON WHOM NO LIABILTY EXISTS.
On the fourth,
Porcaro and Schiff claimed they were such an individual on whom the tax was imposed by executing a W-4 Agreement for Withholding and by filing a TAXPAYER ID Number with the IRS. Thus they fell under the section of the code where a person can "ELECT" to be treated as one of the six people I listed earlier as IF the tax were imposed on him. So the court is entirely correct considering THEIR circumstances.
ONE BIG THING you should have learned in that top ten law school is that you cannot construe a case outside of the circumstances of the case. In this instance, Schiff & Porcaro had executed paperwork CLAIMING to be covered by subtitle A. THAT is the only way their CIRCUMSTANCES could cause such a decision to be rendered by the court. THAT is why they lost.
NO PRIZE FOR YOU !! (I never promised one anyway - where did yo get that idea?)
This is a pathetic tax-denier argument -- you owe tax, sorry
Putting common-sense aside, Section 6151 says, clearly and directly, that the person FILING THE RETURN must PAY THE TAX:
Ouch.
We know that you must file a return becuse section 6012(a) commands you to:
And you're an individual covered because Treas Reg. 1 says you are:
In other words: individuals include citizens and non-citizens, individuals must file a return, and people who file a return must pay the tax.
QED.
If that weren't enough, common-sense still carries the day. You are an individual under the common-sense meaning, and the statute does NOT alter that meaning.
You agree that "taxable income" is just "gross income minus deductions", right? You can't deny that.
The law (26 USC 61) defines gross income:
Compensation for services means pay for labor. In other words, it means salary.
What you apparently didn't learn because you either don't have a law background or have willfully chosen to ignore it, is that you generalize from a case to find a general rule. If courts are repeatedly saying "it is common-sense that the person upon whom a tax is imposed must pay it" then you don't get to go around and say "oh, well they only meant THAT tax and not this other tax."
That's why I don't file
As for 6151, slapshot is right; 6151 says exactly what s/he said. That's why I don't file. According to 6012(a), titled "general rule", it states, "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:" [emphasis mine]. There is no requirement under subtitle A (or anywhere in Title 26) for an average American to file a return (and, because of 6151, pay the tax). Besides, filing and paying via coercion violates rights listed in the 4th (papers and effects) and 5th (witness against himself) amendments.
What part of
Made LIABLE to FILE and PAY do you not understand?
I care not on whom the tax is IMPOSED.
I want you to deal with the sections that make one LIABLE to FILE and PAY that tax!!!
And for the record, I don't disagree with the tax. I am not a tax protester. This particular tax, (like say the excise tax on distilled spirits) does not apply to ME because I am not a person on whom the law has declared a LIABILITY for me to FILE or to PAY it.
Do you think I have been capitalizing those words just for kicks? That is for emphasis, because it is the LIABILITY to FILE and PAY that is the crux of the issue. On whom the tax is IMPOSED is pretty much not relevant if that same person is not also LIABLE to FILE or to PAY that tax. GET IT NOW?????
But for the record, I see you were not able to respond to my earlier post on the Court's destruction over 60-70 years ago of your very positions. The best you could muster is 'that's not how law works' No analysis - explanation - nothing.
Got you buddy. COLD. From both ends.
Nope, you owe me a prize
Sorry, the only thing "COLD" in here is the cold hard truth -- "tax is imposed" plainly means that YOU OWE THE DAMN TAX.
"A speed limit is imposed on Highway 1 of 55 miles per hour" means "everyone must go 55 miles per hour."
"A tax is imposed on X" means "you have to pay the tax for X."
It could not be more clear. You are being willfully blind.
You are right that you're not a tax "protestor." You're a "tax denier." Like a holocaust denier, you ignore the plain truth sitting in front of you in order to live in a fairy tale world in which words don't mean what they mean.
Um..
"A speed limit is imposed on Highway 1 of 55 miles per hour" means "everyone must go 55 miles per hour."
Using the above argument then cops should be writing tickets for people driving 35 in a 55 then right, or does that only apply to the upper limit?
The point he is trying to make is that there is a disparity in the wording of the law. Although it may say that the tax is imposed upon the individual in the broadest sense, the requirement(s) for adherence to the law "in the spirit of the law", does not spell out in black and white that you are required to file and pay.
If it required for you to file then it would be unconstitutional to bear witness against yourself pursuant to the 5th. By requiring someone to file they must prove and report all of their earnings as a sworn affidavit. If you neglect to report all or have an ommission that affidavit can and will be used against you. So in the spirit of the law, you are required to prove your innocence by filing an accurate return instead of the burden of proof being upon the tax collector that you are guilty or am I not understanding the premise here?
This is Law and law uses Legal terms
The fact is the gain must be separable from its source to be constitutional income, i.e., subject to tax, either from labor or capital or both if it is not separable from its source then it is not constituional income subject to tax. Income does in fact have a legal meaning. Also, the 16th amendment does say in a declarative sentence that the tax is on income but only implies the individual. The Supreme Court has stated that tax laws must be strictly construed.
More hogwash -- The constitution is not a "tax law"
You appear to be arguing that the 16th Amendment is not specific enough.
Even if we did construe tax laws strictly, we don't apply the same tools to the Constitution. The Constitution is given a plain, common-sense interpretation. When the Constitution says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived," we give that a common-sense meaning: "Congress shall be able to tax income."
"Income" is given a common-sense meaning, in plain English. It means income, including wages, capital gains, rent, awards, prizes, and everything else that we know as "income" in common-sense English.
The rest of your argument is gibberish that I can't make heads or tails of. It's so far from law that it's like asking "What color is 7?" There's no intelligent way to answer.
16th Amendment
Referring to the 16th Amendment, is it a direct tax, or an indirect tax? Many Supreme Court rulings say it's the latter.
Nope - still wrong
Still no luck on that angle.
If you read the constitution that way (wrongly) then it would be perfectly constitutional for Congress to tax the payment of wages by employers, even if Congress couldn't take the reciept of wages by employees. That'd turn your whole argument into a matter of form over function. It doesn't matter whose hand you take the money out of, as long as the money is taken.
That said, still wrong.
Federal courts say "no way":
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989).
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
Regardless.........
No one SHOULD have to pay tax to an evil government. Regardless of the result of the case - I would be on snipes side all the way - simply due to the fact he is against contributing to an evil government.
The law may be the law, but the law is not always righteous. Im not for unrighteous laws or the governments that support, sustain, and/or enforce them.
Oh and btw, the way the courts work today are in my judgement wrong and evil. How many unjust so called "judgements" have they delivered? Too numerous to properly account for.
The laws and regulations of this country are a joke. And it would take naivite' of incredible proportions to truly believe otherwise.
There is no "rule of law" in this country...
Anyone who thinks otherwise, should re-read Bastiat's "The Law" (http://bastiat.org/en/the...) and discover just how warped, perverted and corrupt the judicial system has become (and how far it has strayed from the way "law" should be). When el presidente can ignore the (supposedly) highest law in the land by initiating wars of aggression and occupation without even a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution, you know "the law" is a joke, and only meant to keep the peasants in line. If you REALLY want to see how far the rabbit hole goes, check out Lynsander Spooner's "The Constitution of No Authority (http://tinyurl.com/5gyfx). You'll discover that the ENTIRE basis of this country's "law" is founded upon a false premise. None of it should be binding on a TRULY free people. And the ONLY reason it is "binding" is due to force of arms. Yeah, that's a "free country" for sure! Government is only legitimate if it has the consent of the governed (http://tinyurl.com/yqlt6g). I can't speak for anyone else, but I've NEVER given anyone consent to govern ME...
Good Luck Wesley
Good Luck to Wesley Snipes. I hope more people start standing up to this B.S. government. This government is a bunch of crooks, liars, cheats, and evil people concerned only about thier own power and fortunes.
26 USC Internal Revenue Code Doesn't define income
Check it out Neither Congress or the IRS are legally authorized to define Constitutional income, only the Supreme Court has been given the authority to define Constitutional income" In other words the term income used in the 16th Amendment. This is why 26 USC Subtitle A CH. 61 gives a definition for income as Gross Income. Why does the 26 USC use the term Gross income and consider this the Supreme Court says not all income is Constitutional income it may be part of "Gross Receipts"
U.S. v. BALLARD, 535 F2d 400 (1976): “Gross income and not ‘gross receipts’ is the foundation of income tax liability…” At 404, “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” At 404, “… ‘gross income’ means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources.”;
Rule No. 1: What comes in is NOT “income”, but “gross receipts”, and in order to determine if there is any income in what comes in we must first deduct from those gross receipts the value or cost of whatever was given in exchange for it because income is only the gain or profit from the conversion of capital.
U. S. Supreme Court in Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918)
If you receive wages or a salary or are paid fees for your personally rendered services, your labor, how much do you deduct from those earnings in order to determine whether you have any income? What was your cost? A part of your life? Your labor? Your skill? Your knowledge? You can’t say how much that is worth in dollars? Then let’s look at the next rule:
Rule No. 2: In order for there to be income it must be DERIVED from, that is SEPARABLE from, that portion of gross receipts that represents the investment or property given in exchange for those gross receipts. If it cannot be separated, distinguished, from the capital and spent or used without injuring the capital portion, then THERE IS NO INCOME.
U. S. Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920)
Remember we are talking about Constitutional Income and the tax in reference to it. Are you liable for the tax? Not what the IRS says you owe them....big difference.
Utter nonsense
This yet more utter nonsense. Those cases deal exclusively with BUSINESS income. Yes, you subtract expenses from BUSINESS income. But that doesn't mean you subtract expenses from PERSONAL INCOME. It is utter lunacy to suggest "the speed limit for truck drivers is 55, therefore the speed limit for all drivers is 55"--just as it is to suggest "the rules for BUSINESS income are X, therefore they must also be so for PERSONAL income."
By "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment it means "income." Just the plain old common-sense definition. Do you think the First Amendment doesn't count because it doesn't define "speech?" Of course not. It means just what the IRS says -- everything, including wages (compensation for services).
The Ballard argument is complete and utter horseshit. Ballard dealt with the question of whether business expenses counted as "income"? The answer is that they don't. It didn't come up with some kind of "constitutional income." It just defined one way that business expenses don't count.
You know what else the court said:
(alteration in original)
In other words, the court RECOGNIZED that "income" includes "wages."
It had NOTHING to do with the Constitution. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch. The only question was whether unpaid bills count as income. They don't. Once the bill is paid, it becomes income.
If you notice, Ballard LOST that case and WENT TO JAIL.
Who is spreading this nonsense?
Nope.
According to the Supreme Court in Coppage v. Kansas (1915), labor and money are both property, and payment of money for labor is a property exchange. No gain there is realized by definition. since the equal values on both side were agreed on ("My labor X is worth the equivalent of Y dollars." If there were an income, then the labor X is worth some Y-Z dollars, with Z being the income!).
Besides, look at your own post. If "gross income" is "all income from whatever source derived, including but not limited to the following items" (and lists compensation for services--but not wages), then is that list of "items" a list of incomes, or is it a list of the sources that derive income? The law is badly written and does not specifically say.
If it's the latter, if the list of items is a list our sources, then income or gain from that list of sources is still not defined. If it's the former, if the list of items is a list of derived incomes, then it mistakenly puts a property exchange in a list of incomes, meaning that labor is essentially worthless, and that receiving money for it means a gain or income, and we are taxed on that gain (which is the situation we have today).
This is the crux of the problem: Title 26 Subch A does not properly address or define its terminology in a clear and proper manner. That's what these tax cases are all about. As a result, the income tax is improperly applied. Congress could clean this up rather easily, but they won't because it gives them pork money.
"Welcome to 2008: The Year of Ron Paul!"
Your argument is not in touch with how law works
Coppage v. Kansas said nothing of the sort. You drew a partial quote way out of context.
The case dealt with a law banning labor contracts that prevented employees from unionizing. Here's the actual quote from the Supreme Court:
See how it says the right of private property implies the right to exchange labor for money? It does not say "labor is property." It says "the right to obtain personal property implies the right to work."
It's like saying "money gives me the right to buy a car" and then inferring "therefore a car is money." A car is not money, even though it's bought with money. Labor is not property, even though it's protected by the right to property.
I don't really know what you mean by "is that a list of sources of income or sources of income?" A source of income generates income, just as a water fountain generates water. You are drawing a distinction without a difference. The long list of types of income are meant to be EXAMPLES of types of income. The law is quite clear that they are examples only.
Title 26 is, actually, VERY clear as far as laws go. "Income" is defined by both a general definition and a list of examples. No court has ever found that "income" was constitutionally vague. You are simply distorting the plain meaning of words to make your point.