No, the Income Tax is very legal and has been held up in court many times over.
The problem is that the film Freedom to Fascism is very disinformative. But don't take my word for it.
From the NY Times: "Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in ‘America’"
"...examination of the assertions in Mr. Russo’s documentary.. shows... they ... collapse under the weight of fact."
"Many of the reviews in major newspapers have accepted as having some factual basis the film’s main contention, ... even though every court that has ever ruled on these issues has upheld the constitutionality of the income tax.
"... Mr. Russo says ...that the Internal Revenue Service has refused every request to show any law making Americans liable for an income tax on their wages. ... Yet among those thanked in the credits for their help in making the film is Anthony Burke, an I.R.S. spokesman. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Russo called him asking what law required the payment of income taxes on wages, he sent Mr. Russo a link to documents, including Title 26 of the United States Code, citing the specific sections that require income taxes be paid on wages. Title 26 says on its face that it is law enacted by Congress."
"..Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them..."
"... Mr. Russo says in the film that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and thus a tax on wages is unconstitutional. This claim has been made in various forms by thousands of tax protesters since 1913, and so far their batting average with the courts is .000.
To buttress the claim that the 16th Amendment is invalid, the film displays a quotation from a federal district judge, James C. Fox. But the transcript from which the judge’s words were taken shows that while he spoke those words, they were in the context of laying out issues and that the conclusion he reached was the opposite of the words quoted."
(ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?ei=5088&en=05c0d0988f58fc50&ex=1311998400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs )
And those Income tax laws that the filmmaker couldn't find? Here they are, right in title 26 of the U.S. Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006012----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000003----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006651----000-.html
I don't think there has been a single court case where the defendent escaped tax liability based on the argument that the tax is illegal. Try to find one for yourself. There have been court cases where people have avoided being found guilty of Income Tax Evasion but that is usually based on a showing of 'good faith' to get answers or trying to pay; in the end they were still liable for the taxes.
2007-02-19 01:59:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by gray shadow 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Before 1913, Americans kept 100% of their paycheck..Yet we still had money for schools, roads, railroads, military, police, firefighters, education. Income tax is illegal because not enough states ratified the 16th Amendment. But our government is corrupt. Today the Federal Reserve is actually a privately owned bank by the elite the super rich. The Federal Reserve is a SCAM.. Why else would we have to pay interest for the money they print? Lets say for every $1 printed we owe 10 cents in interest. If their is only $1 in circulation how do we pay back $1.10? Then we go back to the FED'S print an additional dollar. Now we have $2 in circulation and now we can pay our original debt of $1.10..But it's a never ending cycle. Because now with $2.00 in circulation we now owe $2.20. Whole time the rich bankers are keeping these profits. Forcing us to be in slavery to pay for this debt.
2016-05-24 05:04:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As per some of the other anwsers above, the tax was ratified by congress. As for people who have won tax cases based on this claim. No one has won a case on the consitutional grounds.
There have been some intersesting cases where a person pleaded not guilty on the grounds that they BELIEVED they didn't have to pay taxes. Since the criminal laws relating to income taxes generally require that you knowing fail perform a legal duty. These cases, however, fail all the time, since most juries see though the pretense.
In this case common sense should tell you that if someone could have beaten it, they would have, and every person and corporation would know of it.
2007-02-18 21:07:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by tallthatsme 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
No.
Arguments in a nutshell:
Ohio wasn't a state so the 16th Amendment was not legally ratified. Answer: Enough states voted for the amendment to pass it, even without Ohio.
If Ohio were necessary, it was granted statehood retroactively to 1803 in 1953. Resisters argue that the constitution says the Congress shall make no ex post facto law; therefore, the retroactive admission was illegal. Answer: The ban on ex post facto laws refers only to criminal matters.
President Taft was born in Ohio before it was a state, so he was not legally the president and could not legally introduce the Amendment. Answer: Persons born in U.S. territories--not just in states--are U.S. citizens. So Taft was a citizen. (But the point is moot, since presidents don't introduce Amendments.)
2007-02-18 15:01:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Didn't watch the video, but unless they quote a specific case that can be verified, I would say it isn't true.
I have never had anyone make that claim that could back it up with specifics. It's an urban legend.
2007-02-18 15:04:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Citicop 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If I have to pay my taxes, you damned sure better pay yours. You are no better than the rest of the people in this country. Pay your fair share and don't put the burdon on other tax payers. Remember, nobody likes or wants to pay taxes, it is one of those things that has to be done.
2007-02-18 16:33:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by johN p. aka-Hey you. 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes it was declared illegal until the 16th amendment was passed now so say that the 16th amendment was not legal.I would pay until the 16th amendment can be reversed or proven illegal.
2007-02-18 15:08:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by shawnn 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
You really need to stop believing everything you see on the Internet.
2007-02-18 15:09:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by C B 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why don't you stop paying taxes and let us know how it turns out for you.
2007-02-18 15:01:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by John F 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
was not the revolutionary war fought for the same reasons? i would like to see this video please
2007-02-18 15:02:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by mrmiketattoo 3
·
1⤊
1⤋