Please take the time to view this entire film ... Federal income tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! What do you think?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI

This film has disturbed me to my core. It has consumed since I first saw it about a week ago. I spend no less than 3 hours a night looking for proof that we HAVE to pay federal income tax, all I seem to find is more evidence that it us unconstitutional.

Trashy:

Our highway system is paid for with excise taxes, i.e. taxes on gasoline. Our Defense budget is the same amount of money collected from corporate income taxes. In a government report, they found that not one nickel of the income taxes collected from wage earners pays for a single government service. It is completely eaten up by interest payments to the federal reserve (a private bank, if you didn't already know that) This is all explained in the film and backed up with proof from the government of all places.


CEPM:

If you research the Supreme Court rulings, the federal income tax was struck down in the late 1800's and again in the early 1900's. There are no less than eight Supreme Court decisions that heave said that the 16th Amendment gave Congress NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION. BTW, people have beaten federal income tax evasion charges using this exact argument.

Please just watch the film so you will at least have some information about this.

Wayne Z:

I'll name 2 ...

Whitney Harrell and
Joseph Banister (a former IRS Criminal Investigator)

Bostonianinmo:

United States District Court; Northern District of Illinois; Eastern Division

United States of America v. William J. Benson

case number 04 C 7403

Judge Filip
Magistrate Judge Keys

Read it for yourself. He holds Benson's argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified as the truth.

p.s. I'm not some off-the-wall conspiracy theorist. I just found this extremely interesting and have yet to see any evidence that they are incorrect. I'm not about to stop paying my fed. income tax anytime soon, even if I know I'm right. Federal prisons probably contain some innocent people and I'd like to see my kids grow up.

Answer 1

I watched the film you cited and found it 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 )

The filmmaker Aaron 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.

For those income tax laws they filmmaker could not find, see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax
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

For the major acts passed by congress regarding the Federal Income Tax...

Revenue act of 1862:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862

1894 Income Tax and the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act:
http://law.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/income-tax-wilson-gorman-tariff-act

Revenue act of 1913:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913
http://law.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/federal-income-tax

Internal Revenue Code of 1954:
http://law.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/internal-revenue-act
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1954
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1954

Tax reform act of 1986:
http://www.answers.com/topic/tax-reform-act-of-1986
http://law.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/tax-reform-act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

What about that claim that all income taxes goes to Federal Reserve? Nonsense. Check it out yourself:

Revenue from income taxes: $809B
(ref: http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=7)

Budget of the Federal Reserve: $2.9B
(Ref: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/frbbankbudgets/2007ReserveBankBudgets.pdf)

Budget deficit for this last year: $250B http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.pdf

Answer 2

I think the film was produced by some off-the-wall whack job who doesn't have a CLUE about the reality of tax law. (And who has most likely spent a fair bit of time in PRISON for tax evasion and filing frivilous returns.)

You'll find ALL of the proof you need in Title 26 of the US Code. That's ALL you need to concern yourself with.

If you want "3 hots and a cot" compliments of the US Government, go ahead and follow their idiotic advice. But if you cherish your freedom, pay up and ignore the IDIOTS who claim that income taxes are unconstitutional.

BTW, the SC rulings on the unconstitutionality of the income tax were PRIOR to the 16th Amendment. All rulings SINCE then have VALIDATED the income tax as perfectly LEGAL. If you'd research the court rulings directly (instead of reading the clueless "analysis" by some screwed-up tax protestor) you'd see what I did: The income tax is all quite legal. PERIOD!

One more note: Mr Harrell got off on a charge of STATE tax evasion in IL. His case was NOT a federal case and did NOT involve the IRS! If you actually researched the case yourself, you would have noted that fact, conveniently left out by the tax protester nut-cases! These CLOWNS use incomplete facts, errors in reading case law, and outright LIES to "prove" their point. The classic one is that OH was not a state until the early 1950s. There's a half-truth there in that there were some errors in OH's admission to the union that were not corrected until then. However, at least 2 more states ratified the 16th Amendment AFTER OH did and before the ratification deadline so OH's status is irrelevant to the argument.

You'd best read EVERYTHING on United States of America v. William J. Benson. He's been convicted of tax evasion a number of times. In the end, virtually every appeal was denied. He's a fraudster more than anything else, selling his claims that the 16th was never ratified. He's under a number of injunctions to stop selling his fraudulent materials.

Right from the appeal transcript 8/15/06:

"In light of this precedent, the Court finds, as it did in its opinion denying Mr. Benson’s motion to
dismiss, that the question of whether the sixteenth amendment was properly ratified has been resolved for
purposes of this litigation, as the validity of the sixteenth amendment is now “beyond review.” Thomas, 788
F.2d at 1254; Benson, 941 F.2d at 607 (quoting Thomas, 788 F.2d at 1254). The Court is bound by this
precedent and will apply it here. Accord, e.g., Miller, 868 F.2d at 241 (discussing stare decisis). Therefore,
in accordance with binding precedent, this Court will not allow the admission of evidence regarding the
validity of the sixteenth amendment in this matter. That issue has been conclusively decided, is “beyond
review,” and is therefore not at issue here. See Benson, 941 F.2d at 607; Miller, 868 F.2d at 241."

Answer 3

>>>>BTW, people have beaten federal income tax evasion charges using this exact argument. <<<<

Name one. A few people have beaten criminal charges by claiming that they were "....too stupid to understand the rules..." but they have all had to pay.

Tax Protesters have been making various arguments for decades and not one of them has gotten out of paying their taxes and most of them end up with hefty penalties and interest and some of ended up in jail.

The truth is that the Federal Income Tax is 100% constitutional and valid. After 1913, the Supreme Court has never ruled it wasn't. Do a search for "Title 26" and you will have the law.

Mr Russo (who did this film) owes the IRS a ton of money and the truth is he just doesn't want pay. He was hoping this film would start a groundswell of anti-IRS feelings. So far, except for a few vocal nutjobs, it hasn't

File your returns and pay your taxes, you will be much much happier in the long run.
--------
Mr Harrell's tax case was a state tax case, not Federal. He has since been indicted again.

Mr Bannister has been disbarred by the State of California. One of his prize clients (Al Thompson) is currently in prison for following his advice. Mr Banister was aquitted of charges in the Thompson case. It had nothing to do with his own taxes but telling Mr Thompson to stop paying. Giving bad advice is not a crime. As Mr Thompson found out, following bad advice is. Also, I believe there was a story about Mr. Bannister paying his taxes in to a trust and naming the IRS as beneficiary in order to try and avoid criminal charges.

Answer 4

The 16th amendment to the US constitution was proposed and ratified for the sole purpose of MAKING the Federal income tax constitutional. More than half of the Federal government as we know it IS unconstitutional, but the IRS is NOT. The ONLY evidence that could possible support your claim would be if the 16th amendment was not ratified. Please name ONE state legislature willing to state for the record that they did not ratify the amendment.

Answer 5

If the Fed income tax were unconstitutional, it would have been struck down long ago! Deal with it and support the government.

Answer 6

THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL I SAW THEM ON THE INTERNET:

Nobody ever really landed on the moon - it was a giant hoax. What you saw on TV was filmed in Utah.

Elvis is still alive, and performing marriage ceremonies in Las Vegas.

It is unconstitutional for the government to tax your wages (income tax), and most of what we think of as income isn't really income anyway.

Excuse me now....I just won 2 million pounds in the online UK lottery when my email was randomly selected, and I have to go answer the email.....

Answer 7

Federal taxes fund alot of things you take for granted. The Interstates is a federal road system. Our defense. And numerous other things. while I agree it is not always spent in a wise manner you cant live without it.

Answer 8

I didn't look at the film but I can tell you that I think Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional, however, we are in a catch 22...the government doesn't care about the constitutionality of it if you don't pay you will find yourself in a jam. Both financially and legally. Wish things were different. If you decide to stop paying GOOD LUCK.

Answer 9

it is unconstitutional because the amendment to the constitution was never ratified by enough states