can Anyone SHOW me a LAW that Requires me To Pay a IncomeTax ?

Question

IRS special agent Joe Bannister challenges system
Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says

U.S. code Title 26
National Constitution

Answer 1

"In examining the history of the debate and ratification of the 16th Amendment, there is no evidence upon which the government can rely for their claim that the American People desired to have their wages and salaries taxed. No evidence can be found in the law journals of the time, not in the journals on political economy or economics, not in the Congressional Record nor other Congressional documents, nor in any of the newspapers of record of the time. In other words, the government's position that wages and salaries equals income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is 'wholly without foundation.

Capitation Taxes are direct taxes and are required by the Constitution to be apportioned among the 50 States. The 16th Amendment had nothing to do with Capitation Taxes.

In the few hours just prior to the Senate's passage of the 16th Amendment the morning of July 5, 1909, the Senate twice by vote rejected two separate proposals to include direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment.

In briefs and argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, both Brushaber and the Government claimed that the 16th Amendment provided for a direct tax exempted from the Constitutional apportionment rule. The High Court called this claim an "erroneous assumption...wholly without foundation.

In the Stanton and Brushaber Cases, the Supreme Court ruled correctly by excluding direct taxes from the 16th Amendment. The intent of the American People and that of Congress was never to directly tax the American People, but only to tax income severed from accumulated wealth.

There is not, and never has been, any delegation of authority from We the People to the government for the collection of an unapportioned direct tax on the wages and salaries of the American People. It has been a maxim of English Law since the Magna Carta of 1215, that the People must consent to all taxation. "We are being taxed without our Consent!"

TAX LAW ORIGINS AND AUTHORITY
Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 US 1). This power was subject to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according to population (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., [N.Y. 1895] 125 S.Ct. 673, 157 US 429). The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Feb. 25, 1913) giving Congress power to:

"Lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

Evens v. Gore, [Ky 1920] 40 S.Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245,
Kasey v. C.I.R., [C.A. 91972] 457 F2d 369,
Cert. denied 93 S.Ct. 197, 409 U.S. 869



It did not limit or expand the power of Congress to tax under the constitutional provisions authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes but instead merely provided for taxation of income without apportionment (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. 493; Simmons v. U.S., [CA Md 1962] 308 F2d 160).

The Brushaber court ruled that the 16th Amendment separated the source (capital) from the income (profit) permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income, but leaving the source (wages, salary, compensation, fees for service, first time commissions and capital) untouched and free of tax. If these things were to be taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax, unquestionably in violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax in income void.

There still remains the question as to what is constitutionally allowable as "income" which can be taxed, as Congress is not constitutionally free to define "income" in any way it chooses (Simpson v. U.S., [D.C. Iowa 1976] 423 F.Supp. 720, reversed on other grounds, Prescott v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [C.A.] 561 F2d 1287). Further, the labels used do not determine the extent of the taxing power (Simmons v. U.S., [C.A. Md. 1962] 308 F2d 160; Richardson v. U.S., [C.A. Mich. 1961] 294 F2d 593, cert. denied 82 S.Ct. 640, 360 U.S. 802, 7 L.Ed.2d. 549).

To reiterate; the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution has not changed except as to separate the source of "income" from the income itself permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income by leaving the source (wages, salaries, fees for service, and first time commissions) free of tax (Brushaber, supra.) despite how some politicians interpret the 16th Amendment.

NOTE:

The Brushaber court referred to an earlier case, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 [1895] which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, as it's effect would have been to leave the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way, what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. This result, the court held, could NOT have been contemplated by Congress.




Since the general term: "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, (U.S. v. Ballard, [1976] 535 F2d 400) and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives it's power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised (Eisner v. Macomber, [1920] 252 U.S. 1889).

Since the Rules contained in the I.R.S. Manual, even if codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, do not have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Horne, [C.A. Me. 1983] 714 F2d 206) and the power to promulgate regulations does not include the power to broaden or narrow the meaning of statutory provisions beyond what Congress intended (Abbot, Procter & Paine v. U.S., [1965] 344 F2d 333, 170 Cl.Ct. 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself is without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution (C.I.R. v. Van Vorst, [C.C.A. 1932] 59 F2d 677).

Since the ultimate Appellate Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, we must look to that Court for a definite answer on the question of conformance and affirmation that Wages are not classified as income which can be taxed.

The Court has recognized that:

"... It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not `income' ..."

Eisner v. Macomber, [1920] 252 U.S. 189

and determined that:

"... `income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in, the true function of the words `gains' and `profits' is to limit the meaning of the word `income'"

(So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847);
(U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917);
(247 U.S. 30 [1918])

The Court determined that:

"... the definition of income approved by the Court is:

`The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'"

Eisner, supra.



"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and in such connection gain means profit ... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal"

Staples v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737,
(U.S. Dist. Ct. EDPA, 1937)


In the case of Lucas v. Earl, [1930] 281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that:

"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service." [Emphasis added]




The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v. Edwards, [1921] 255 U.S. 527 and in 1969, the Court ruled in Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187, that:

"Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income .... Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation."

"... one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them."

Edwards v. Keith, [1916] 231 F. 111


Even at the state level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court:

"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law."

Oliver v. Halstead, [1955]
196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858
and:

"Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered in not profit."

Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews,
345 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d. 277, 280 [1946]




Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect to what is or is not income, we find the word "income" does not mean all monies that come into the possession of an individual, but profit or gain FROM the money one takes in, such as interest, stock dividends, profit from an employee's labors, but not from an individual's wages, which are compensation for his labor. This means that the average person in America, who has no large investments or riches upon which he receives interest, dividends, etc., in excess of the amounts listed above (1992) but merely works for wages, has income insufficient in amount to be required to file a tax return.

Answer 2

You're not too smart are you? It's AN income tax, not dyuhhh- A income tax to start. Because someone on Yahoo Idiots doesn't have the tax code in front of them doesn't mean you dont' have to pay.

I dont' like paying taxes, and I've been audited. I've gone through several levels of resistance in my life toward taxes- from not wanting to pay, to paying an amount, and finally to paying in full. What my big complaint is the AMOUNT to which they feel they are entitled. Another complaint is that 25% of our income tax (according to an IRS official that I heard on the radio) goes to keeping the IRS functioning.

I think there should be no income tax just a higher sales tax- so you can control what you pay by what you buy. That would eliminate the need for the IRS, compliance, fraud, etc.

So I pay, I hate it, I fear the IRS, but what about all the people through history who have paid, and then our generation is not going to? Plus there are worse sacrifices for your country- what about soldiers? It's not fun, but, yes, it is against the law to not pay taxes.

Answer 3

From what I researched, the 16th amendment to the US Constitution gives congress the right to impose an income tax. Everyone residing in the USA must pay this tax.

Source:
http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/courses/econ4211_1/IncomeT.pdf

This issue has been challenged in court and the supreme court has ruled that it is a valid tax. As much as I hate paying it, its legal and I have no control over how it is spent.

So my advice is to pay your tax, quit whinning about it, and get on with your life. Paying it beats sitting in a jail cell for tax evasion.

Answer 4

The National Archives transcript of the Constitution has the following:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


You will note in the above the language "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union". This gives the Federal government the right to levy taxes. It does not state any specific form for those taxes.


The 16th amendment to the constitution is:

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

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

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.

Which gives the Federal government the explicit right to collect income taxes.

Answer 5

I believe that the Income Tax Act requires you to do so.

Alleged "former" IRS-CID agent Joseph Banister is a regular speaker at "tax protestor" events and has published the book "Investigating the Income Tax". In just a couple of years, Banister has emerged as the poster child of the de-tax gurus, appearing on national TV interviews -- where, amazingly, he admits that he himself reports and pays his income tax, although advocating to others that the payment of income taxes is "voluntary". Strange.

But it gets even stranger: Many of the "tax protestor" gurus are convinced that Banister is simply a plant and is still working for the IRS-CID in an attempt to infiltrate the de-tax industry. Pat Shannan, who lingers on the periphery of the tax protestor crowd, claims that Larry Becraft has warned that Banister is still an IRS-CID agent and a "Trojan Horse" to infiltrate the business. According to Shanna, Becraft purportedly told Bill Benson, "I don't care what he says, Bill, he's still a !@#$% IRS agent, and I don't trust him!"

Answer 6

The 16th amendment to the US Constitution gives Congress the power to tax your income.

Answer 7

Joe Bannister has helped a lot of people go to jail.

You might want to refer to the 16th amendment and IRS code 7201.:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007201----000-.html

My husband is a tax lawyer with an additional Master of Laws in Taxation, and I can tell you from experience in his office that the IRS will send you to prison if you don't pay your income taxes.

Answer 8

Joseph Banister is making alot of money playing his own version of the, telemarketing/ infomercial snakoil salesman crap we are bombarded with daily, and paying taxes on EVERY PENNY.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems the term "tax evasion" comes to mind when I think of NOT paying taxes. Tuff enuff for me trying to find the appropriate 'loopholes' to pay as little as possible each year. My church forgives the IRS don't, ask Willie Nelson.

Answer 9

Yeh and just dont pay the taxes and see if he will defend you when they come for your house.There is no program that ensures absolute amnesty from prosecution.This guy just wants you to spend your money on his program,hes making money off suckers every day.

I dont have time to check it out,but it seems last year I heard something about him either getting busted or the feds were after him for some reason.I am sure you can find it.Thanks BBC for the info.

Answer 10

The law was passed in 1913 after the 16th amendment was ratified.

Answer 11

The 16th amendment to the US Constitution.