can a person sue the IRS for answers ?

Question

1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States, requires Americans to file an income tax ?CONFESSION? (return) and pay an income tax.
2. How can Americans file an income tax ?CONFESSION? (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right not to give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.
3. Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist, was lawfully added to the United States Constitution.

Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed above. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions above.
http://www.livefreenow.org/30K_challenge.cfm

Answer 1

Early efforts to tax income
In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800; rescinded in 1872). Other income taxes followed, although an 1895 United States Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held that taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, and rents were direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (below).


Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment
In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913), which states:

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.

As the Supreme Court held in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing taxing power but rather removed any requirement for apportionment of income taxes (meaning tax on profit or gain from any source) among the states on the basis of population (i.e., regardless of whether the tax was deemed direct or indirect).


Modern interpretation of the power to tax incomes
The modern interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment taxation power can be found in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1955). In that case, a taxpayer had received an award of punitive damages from a competitor, and sought to avoid paying taxes on that award. The Court observed that Congress, in imposing the income tax, had defined income to include:

gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.

348 U.S. at 429. The Court held that "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field the full measure of its taxing power", id., and that "the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted." Id. at 430.

The Court then enunciated what is now understood by Congress and the Courts to be the definition of taxable income, "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Id. at 431. The defendant in that case suggested that a 1954 rewording of the tax code had limited the income that could be taxed, a position which the Court resoundingly rejected, stating:

The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended. Certainly punitive damages cannot reasonably be classified as gifts, nor do they come under any other exemption provision in the Code. We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income.

Id. at 432-33. Tax statutes passed after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 are sometimes referred to as the "modern" tax statutes. Hundreds of Congressional acts have been passed since 1913, as well as several codifications (i.e., topical reorganizations) of the statutes (see Codification).

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978), confirmed that wages and income are not identical as far as taxes on income are concerned, because income not only includes wages, but any other gains as well. The Court in that case noted that in enacting taxation legislation, Congress "chose not to return to the inclusive language of the Tariff Act of 1913, but, specifically, 'in the interest of simplicity and ease of administration,' confined the obligation to withhold [income taxes] to 'salaries, wages, and other forms of compensation for personal services'" and that "committee reports ... stated consistently that 'wages' meant remuneration 'if paid for services performed by an employee for his employer'". Id. at 27.

Other courts have noted this distinction in upholding the taxation not only of wages, but also of personal gain derived from other sources - but there are limitations to the reach of income taxation. For example, in Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971), a couple had lost their home to a fire, and had received compensation for their loss from the insurance company, partly in the form of hotel costs reimbursed. The court acknowledged the authority of the IRS to assess taxes on all forms of payment, but did not permit taxation on the compensation provided by the insurance company, because unlike a wage or a sale of goods at a profit, this was not a gain. As the Court noted, "Congress has taxed income, not compensation".

Answer 2

1. The Internal Revenue Code is the law passed by Congress that requires the payment of income taxes. Passed in 1939, this bill creates the Internal Revenue Service and the basic tax structure we know today. It has been modified several times. It is listed as 36 U.S.C. and section 1 applies specifically to the collection of personal income taxes.

2. The 16th Amendment allows the government to collect this information for the purpose of collecting income taxes. There is a wealth of case law at the Supreme Court level to back this up.

3. The 16th Amendment was ratified lawfully on February 3, 1913, when the required number of states (36) ratified the amendment. All but three states, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah would eventually ratify the amendment. The process is legally consistent with that outlined in the Constitution.

Answer 3

Why would you sue the IRS to show something is public record? If you want to know the statutes involved, it is called the Internal Revenue Code. If you want to know how the 16th Amendment was adopted, pick up a history book or fly to D.C. and check out the National Archives.