Where is the Law that states we must pay Federal Income Tax???

Question

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

This is very interesting information

Answer 1

All of the relevant laws, including chapter and verse, are contained in the link I've provided. As a summary:

The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written.

Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition.

Now, how do you know that you have to file a tax return and actually pay the tax? Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, says: [W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

But who says you’re required to file the return? Turn back to section 6012(a) of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), which provides: Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount

Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.

And when is your return due? Section 6072 provides the answer: “[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.” This is the statutory basis for the familiar April 15 tax deadline.

Answer 2

It's very interesting video but completely untrue. However, people that don't know any better often fall for it, because the thought of not having to pay tax is attractive.



The 16th amendment clearly gives Congress the power to charge federal income tax (see prior supreme court decisions on why this amendment is necessary) and this power was implemented in the Internal Revenue Code.

Answer 3

Very interesting SCAM. Title 26 of the United States Code, better known as the Internal Revenue code is the law requiring payment of Federal Income Tax. I don't like it either, but is IS currently the law.

Answer 4

Article (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

Answer 5

16th amendment

The video was "interesting" and total fiction! There are fringe groups that say taxes are unconstitutional. Sorry but since the 16th amendment put it in, it's PART of the constitution.

Answer 6

There's a lot of wild claims made by tax protestors - that the 16th Amendment wasn't really ratified, that withholding is voluntary (even if it is, you still have to pay your taxes), and so forth.

Answer 7

Ant: We appreciate your sincere effort to seek out the facts from your fellow Y!-ians and not just rely on the "Freedom to Fascism" video.

I watched the referenced movie and found it 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.

"... 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 )

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 pesky income tax laws the filmmaker could not find, 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


For more detail on some of the "tax law denier" 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

Answer 8

I'm not going off to some other site to watch a video...

but if you don't want to pay your income tax, be my guest.

But don't be surprised when you get audited and have to pay fines or just get dragged off to jail for tax evasion.

Hey, when no other broken laws could be pinned on, say, mob bosses...tax evasion is a good way to get them into jail and off the streets.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

Answer 9

Please don't fall for tax protestor rhetoric. In addition to the links provided by Gray Shadow, you should also go to the Tax Protestor FAQ provided by attorney Dan Evans. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Every point brought up in tax protestor videos is fully covered.
You should also visit http://www.quatloos.com

BTW, just so you know, tax protestors like Aaron Russo have a habit of taking quotes out of context. For example, the quote attributed to Woodrow Wilson that starts "I am a most unhappy man...", is probably false. Large portions of the quote are taken out of context from President Wilson's book, "The New Freedom" which was published in 1913 and is basically a compilation of various campaign speeches he made. The movie wants you to think that he made that statement in 1919 in reference to the passage of the Federal Reserve act. That would be a neat trick since he said those sentences in different campaign speeches in 1911 and 1912, while the Federal Reserve Act wasn't passed until 1913. You can read it for yourself at Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

Also, the quote from President Clinton is also taken out of context. Here it is as the film quotes it.
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…”

Here is the real quote from Clinton,
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=46264
"You know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist."
As anyone can clearly see, Clinton's quote has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do about taxation.

Edit: Nicole, you are wrong. Aaron Russo is wrong also. You really need to read Dan Evans' faq. You should also read USC 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1 which is titled "Tax on Individuals". Also, in U.S. v. Hubacek, 2004 TNT 1-19, No. CV-S-03-1523
“Hubacek’s scheme to help his customers evade taxes uses the same frivolous theory that Irwin Schiff, a Las Vegas-based tax-scam promoter, created -- the ‘corporate profit’ theory. Schiff's theory rests on the premise that no section of the Internal Revenue Code establishes an income-tax liability on wages. ... This Court has held that the ‘corporate profit’ theory and its resulting zero-income returns are fraudulent and frivolous.”

Edit: Baserunner, the case you are referring to is U.S. v. Vernice Kuglin. She beat the criminal charges but ended up paying when she had to settle the civil case. Kuglin v. Commissioner, No. 21743-03, 2004 TNT 177-14 (T.C. 9/1/2004).

VERNICE KUGLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DECISION

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties in this case, it is

ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there are deficiencies in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the amounts of $52,095.00, $46,308.00, $44,386.00, $47,349.00, $53,819.00, and $52,345.00, respectively;

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6651(f), in the amounts of $39,071.25, $34,731.00, $32,283.73, $35,511.75, $40,409.25, and $39,258.75, respectively; and

That there are additions to tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6654, in the amounts of $2,648.42, $2,477.53, $1,962.83, $2,291.54, $2,877.97, and $2,091.92, respectively.

(Signed) Joel Gerber
Judge.

Entered: September 1, 2004

She only had about $920,000 in income during those years. Since she ended up paying over $500,000, she would have been better off just paying her taxes in the first place.

Answer 10

It's the 16th amendment to the Constitution