Do you think the Feds and the IRS private banks have people online to counter Federal tax law questions?

Question

Every time anyone questions the Federal Income Tax law there is an instant slew of responses and attacks.

The answers just seems to immediate and filled with that typical tax jargin like "Article 26" and the "16th Amendment was ratified" but they never just show us the law.

Then you get that "Just quit paying and see what happens" crap

They can't show the law, but they sure like to throw around prison comments and stuff like "you just wait and see"

It really is quite disturbing

It is just to fishy if you ask me.

Damn, do you see what I mean!

I said a show me a law and they tell you to look at the tax code!

That is tax code - it is not a LAW

The 16th amendment was never officially ratified because there were states that did not agree - it fell through - not ratified so it is void

Title 26 only applies to the District of Columbia and only certain business

It does not apply to me - a statesman!

How can you tax my labor - that is my private property

I give my work in exchange for pay

It is mine!

Why am I a slave in my own country!

Answer 1

The assertions that there is no law is just nonsense spread by the the quixiotic and delusional "tax law deniers" fringe group.

The "instant slew" is because we care. As part of the Y! community, we are saddened when people fall for this crap. But we see the posting of the questions and rebuttals as opportunities to bring out the truth, both to the poster and readers.

"Tax Protesting" is a respectful and time-honored American tradition. Continual restatements of contrived and discredited positions detracts from the real issues.

I, for the record, am a private citizen who believes that a healthy democracy requires a populace that is suspicious of government, and demands openness and accountability.
Frankly if the Federal Reserve and IRS did indeed have people online answering questions, I would think that to be a wonderful service. There should be public Q&A forums throughout the government.

OK, so you want tax laws? Here you go. For the income tax laws, check out:
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


"Tax law denier" groups dismiss the citing of the U.S. Legal code as 'not law'. If you believe that, I encourage you to ask any lawyer. Or reference any authoritative source.

So after dismissing the U.S. Legal Code, 'tax law deniers' say 'show me the law as passed by congress'. OK here you go. 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

After Congress passes a law, it becomes 'codified' in the U.S. Legal Code. This is a good thing. Before U.S. law was organized into the U.S. Legal Code in the late 1800s, lawyers and courts had a tough time sifting through and interpreting the myriad of acts passed by congress since the nations birth.


I will say that the '16th Amendment was never ratified' argument is wonderfully creative. It's an interesting collection of arguments, some with merit, and some totally absurd. In the end, the final arbitor on it's merits is the courts who have never sided with the 'tax law deniers'. But they keep argument the same old thing on the internet since they can't do it successfully in the courts. I implore you: PLEASE come up with some new and creative arguments against the 16th amendment ratification. Reinterating the same old discredited arguments is boring.

For interesting reading on the subject, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Sixteenth_Amendment_ratification_arguments
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_that_Never_Was
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-law-that-never-was

Answer 2

Do you need someone to quote the 16th Amendment to you? It's actually pretty short:

"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."

If you want the freak'n tax code, forget it, it's HUGE. I used to work for a CPA office and every /week/ we'd get a package of pages the size of a Tom Clancey novel just with the updates of the wall full of tax law books she had. Don't know how much has changed since 1985, but I'm pretty confident it wouldn't fit in a single post.

Answer 3

The law is contained in the IRS tax code, if you would go look at it you'll find it.

Section 26 of USC.....that is the tax code, it states you have to pay taxes on income, congress voted the tax code into law, the supreme court has upheld this time and time again.

Its no diferent than when congress gave the EPA the power to enforce enviromental law. Cogress does not vote on every rule and law the EPA puts in place, It is considered an administrative law ,,,,it holds the same weight

Answer 4

No its just the anti-fed tax people are particularly stupid and we like to make funny of idiots

Answer 5

They don't have to, people are stupid enough to repeat what they are told as fact instead of question it.