Is there a law that requires a U.S Citizen to pay income tax on their labor? If so, where is it?

Question

I recently saw the movie "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo . He states that the 16th amendment was never ratified by a sufficient number of states to become law and also that the Supreme Court ruled in 1916 that the amendment did not bestow on congress the power to create any new tax (ie. federal income tax). Any thought as to the validity of this assertion. Has anyone here done any independent research on it?

Answer 1

The US income tax system is supposed to be based on "voluntary compliance." Voluntary means you don't have to if you don't want to.

If the government wants it to be mandatory it should be "mandatory compliance."

Mandatory compliance means you have to comply, voluntary compliance means if you want comply do it, if not, don't do it.

Moreover, on the subject of taxes, we pay far too much in taxes. Our founding fathers would lead another rebellion if they were around today.

Answer 2

Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was ratified on February 3, 1913.


"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."

......The power to impose taxes (whether deemed direct or indirect taxes) is granted by Article I, section 8, clause 1. Indirect taxes (or "excises," in the parlance of the text of the Constitution) are required to be geographically uniform, according to Article I, section 8, clause 1 and the court decisions interpreting that provision.

What gets misinterpreted is the right to calculate your own taxes; which is what we do when we fill out our 1040 forms. We do not have the right to not pay them.

Answer 3

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It empowered Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code ( 26 U.S.C.) and is a lineal descendant of the income tax act passed in 1913, following ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified." One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.

Answer 4

freedom to fascism is a ficitonal movie. russo has been proven wrong by the simple fact of what is STATED IN THE 16th Amendment. His lame excuse that it wasn't ratified is just that; lame

It was RATIFIED!


The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional.

This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.

The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the 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. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

In November 2004, the Justice Department filed a civil injunction complaint against William Benson, asking the court to bar Mr. Benson from selling a fraudulent tax scheme and from unlawfully interfering with the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Benson’s tax scheme relies on the frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04752.htm; see also 2004 TNT 223-20 (Nov. 16, 2004).

The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, which discusses this frivolous argument in more detail, warning taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds.
Relevant Case Law:

Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) – the court stated, “We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure.” The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a “patently frivolous” position.

United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) – stating that “the Secretary of State’s certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts,” the court upheld Stahl’s conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) – the court affirmed Foster’s conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

Socia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994) – the court held that defendant’s appeals which challenged Sixteenth Amendment income tax legislation were frivolous and warranted sanctions.

Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) – the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as “totally without merit” and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. “Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it,” the court observed.

Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823 (2005), aff’d, 436 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2006). – the court imposed sanctions totaling $25,000 against the taxpayer for advancing arguments characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that have been universally rejected by the courts, including arguments regarding the Sixteenth Amendment. In affirming the Tax Court’s holding, the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s request for further sanctions of $6,000 against the taxpayer for maintaining frivolous arguments on appeal, and the Fifth Circuit imposed an additional $6,000 sanctions on its own, for total additional sanctions of $12,000.

Answer 5

Russo is part of a movement often called "tax protestors" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester ) A more accurate term would be "tax law deniers". They surround themselves in dubious legal claims that thrive within their community, but fall short in the courts.

I found the movie "Freedom to Fascism" to be incredibly misinformative. 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.

"All of the federal income tax revenue, the film says, goes to these bankers to pay interest on the national debt, even though by the broadest measure the federal government’s interest payments are less than 40 percent of the individual income taxes"

"... 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 )

For more detail on some of the income tax arguments, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments

The particular contention that the 16th amendment was not ratified is principly based on a book by William Benson called "The law that never was". The book argues that many of the state ratifications didn't count for reasons like Illinois misspelled the law when they ratified it. These arguments have never been successful argued in court as a basis for not paying taxes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Sixteenth_Amendment_ratification_arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_that_Never_Was

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-law-that-never-was

Answer 6

Gee, the 19th amendment does. The whole argument comes down a technicality about Ohio not technically being a state in 1916 because they didn't sign some law into effect...whatever, it's all BS.

If you want to end up in prison and have your property taken away, follow the doofus' advice. Otherwise, yes, you have to pay up.

Answer 7

just pay your taxes like everyone else and stop whining

Answer 8

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html