Federal Income tax.....Legal or illegal.?

Question

Many Americans pay Federal taxes every year. I do as part of my "Fair Share" into the system. I've read of the people in New Hampshire, and many Ex-IRS agents are starting to come forward and claiming that Fed Taxes are illegal and unconstitutional for the "in-country" citizen. They claim that it was never ratified or written into law. Some jurors in tax evasion cases were threatened by the FEDs to rule in their favor or they would face some type of backlash. These people are not evading anything...their jurors in a court case. One group offered anyone 50,000dollars for anyone to prove that the income tax was legal,and enforceable. It's been several years and no one has been able to claim the money. In all cases in court you would think that the court would allow the tax code as written to be used as evidence in the case. I've learned through the"freedom of information act"that in ALL cases that the court would not allow it to be looked at or even admitted into court. What's up people?

The current tax laws are unreadable and obsolete. I don't understand why more people can't research this and try to straighten things out. I guess being an idiot is preferable to being on top of things by the way the general public is reacting to a problem that has been a problem for the last 80 years. 80 freaking years. Has the public turned into an ostrich and stuck it's head upo it's own @$$ or would we rather just ignor it and stagnate into poverty. I found that the IRS is obligated by LAW to provide an itemized list of income tax expenditures to joe public on demand. I've tried for the last 6 years to get one and they never do, in fact i've even called and they've hung up on me. What is going on in our country? Please fill me in.

Is it legal or not. And please cite sources if they exist.

No need to be rude people, Just list the facts and not more opinions. I ask because it concerns me. As for proof of some of the claims I stated, there is no way for me to give links to info I found on this site since most of the claims are recorded by me from radio and TV interviews. Please keep the answers coming though. You are all doing a great job.

Answer 1

Go to liefreezone.com for information about a Louisiana attorney who recently won his court case regarding the filing of income taxes.

Answer 2

However, the Consititution does give the government the right to levy taxes. This was done in Amendment XVI. The original constitution didn't call for it, but remember that the Constitution allows for Amendments. Amendment XVI passed within the law. Here's the contents of that amendment ... 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. Proposal and Ratification The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

Answer 3

Legal, of course.

If you can't read it, hire an attorney or CPA or go to law school or business school.

The courts will allow evidence from the code into evidence since it is often used to substantiate the government's case. Where you get FOIA requests that say otherwise beats me.

At least one juror turned out to be a Tax Kook himself. His attempts at entering "evidence" during deliberations got him prison time for jury tampering.

Anyone who claims to have been a juror in a Federal tax trial who was pressured outside of the court setting by "The Feds" to rule one way or another is either a Tax Kook themselves or a liar.

A few Tax Kooks have dodged the bullet on conviction, either due to jury nullification or poor planning by the prosecution. To date NONE of them have successfully dodged the tax liability issue, however. In most cases the final bill was an order of magnitude or two larger than it would have been had they just filed and paid when they should have. That, IMHO, makes the Tax Kooks little more than idiots. Paying $30k on a $5k debt is just plain stupid.

Answer 4

Amendment XVI

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.

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

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Answer 5

Same old story over and over. Read the 16th Amendment to the nation's constitution, endless Supreme Court rulings covering the tax aspect (they have the same effect as written law) and Title 26 of the IRS code.

Answer 6

I'm going to take every point you bring up and cite court cases for you.

You said,
1. ...Fed Taxes are illegal and unconstitutional for the "in-country" citizen...

In Kaetz v. Internal Revenue Service, 225 F.3d 649 (M.D.Pa. 1999).
“The arguments in Kaetz’s appellate briefs, which he shrouds in hyperbole and platitudes, do not further his position. Through linguistic gymnastics, Kaetz contorts the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations to deduce that he does not have taxable income for the years 1991-1997. He premises his argument, inter alia, on the belief that United States citizens only earn taxable ‘gross income’ when living and working outside the United States, and that the ‘Foreign Earned Income Form 2555 is the only form required to be filed[ ] by U.S. Citizens.’ Appellant’s Brief at 16-17, 18. He concludes his intricate deductive argument quite bluntly: ‘Goodbye Income Taxes on Citizens with domestic income.’ Id. at 18. The problem with his deduction is that it is based on false premises. Income earned in the United States, including salary, is taxable, see I.R.C. section 63, and ‘Gross Income’ can be quantified.”

In Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000), (penalty of 25% imposed for failing to file a valid return; penalty of $5,000 imposed for filing a frivolous Tax Court petition).
“Petitioner claims that ... his income is not from any of the sources listed in section 1.861-8(a), Income Tax Regs., and thus is not taxable; ....
“Petitioner’s arguments are reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. We shall not painstakingly address petitioner’s assertions ‘with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.’ Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the deficiency determined by respondent.”

2. 16th amendment was never ratified.

This is a false argument. It is mainly based upon Bill Benson's so-called 'research' into the ratification. He says he researched it for over a year. It took me all of five minutes to find he misread the Tennessee Constitution as it was in 1909. Anyway, full counter arguments to Bill Benson and his claim that the 16th amendment was never ratified can be found at http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm

Also, the courts have had many decisions on the matter. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”

3. Jurors were threatened by the FEDs.

Ridiculous claim. Jury tampering is a very serious offense and any lawyer caught would be disbarred. Besides, the Federal Government has no need to tamper with a jury in a tax case, because in most instances, the Government is following the law and the defendant is incompetent.

4. One group has offered $50,000.

Yada, yada, yada. So far, I've shown several people the law and I have yet to see one cent from them. Why, because as soon as I show them the law, they claim some government conspiracy or some other ridiculous reason why they don't have to pay.

Some professional charlatans make a big show of offering a reward to anyone who can prove that their own brand of gibberish isn’t true. Why hasn’t anyone collected? Because they’ve rigged the offer so that no one can ever collect.
See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#rewards

5. ...you would think that the court would allow the tax code as written to be used as evidence in the case...

This shows your complete misunderstanding of U.S. jurisprudence. In the U.S. Judicial system it is not allowed, with some minor exceptions, for either the plaintiff or defense to show the jury the law. They are only allowed to put forth their version of the facts. It is the judge's responsibility to inform the jury what is in the applicable law. This is to prevent the jury from MISINTERPRETING the law. However, Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the prima facie law covering income taxes.

6. Please provide a reference to the law stating the IRS is obligated to show a list of expenditures. Are you asking about the IRS budget? Or are you asking for what the income tax revenue is used.

7. You said, "As for proof of some of the claims I stated, there is no way for me to give links to info I found on this site since most of the claims are recorded by me from radio and TV interviews."

I'm not asking for a link, I'm asking for a reference. If someone on a radio show said "the Supreme Court said, ...", I want to know to which case that person is referring. If someone said, "There is a law requiring the IRS to provide a list of expenditures...", then there should be a reference to the applicable law (ie. Title 26, Title 12, 26 CFR or some other reference).

Answer 7

We've a few days with one of you Tax Protester types.

Here is the actual law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

The reading is a bit dry but it is all there.

"...Some jurors in tax evasion cases were threatened by the FEDs ...." That's a pretty funny quote which I am sure that you have evidence to back up.......

Typical conversation with a Tax Protester:

".....no law.....yada yada....16th Amendment.....yada yada.....Section 861.....yada yada......doesn't apply to state citizens....yada yada......paying is volunary....yada yada......I can't lose........"

6 months later....

"Of course I lost, the courts are corrupt!!"