Did you know we as american citizens are not liable to pay income tax?

Question

http://www.tax-freedom.com

Answer 1

If I understand your question correctly, YES! You asked if American Citizens are not liable and in most cases, they are not. This has nothing to do with tax evasion or that income tax is unconstitutional. IRS is constitutional and the tax on income. However, no one wants to take the time to read the IRS code to see if they are liable or not. They rather complain about how much taxes are taken out of their checks. Funny how if I was to ask anyone of the people who participate in this forum that they owe me money, Im sure they would push back and ask why and how. Why dont we ask that with the IRS? FEAR! Well those of you who fear do not deserve freedom. Its fear itself that we will lose all of our rights! The truth is always the truth even if it looks like a lie. The truth here is to be liable of an income tax, you must first understand what it is. No one here seems to know. Why? Because no one bother to check the rules and regulations that pertain to it. Rather they just pay because everyone else is doing it (followers). Now some may quote tax cases where the plaintiff has lost but there are much cases where the plaintiff has won. Hmmm...possible IRS agents on this web? Again no one has referred to the IRS book which lies all the tax rules and who it pertains to in plain english. In order for congress to impose a direct tax on its citizens it must be apportioned amongst all citizens. The amendment in the constitution did not give congress any additional powers to tax citizens when ever they feel like they can. No one here probably doesnt know the definition of income as described in the IRS book. Try looking up the definition of wages as defined in the IRS book. You will be surprised what you will find. Most Americans believe that we are actually paying an income tax when we are really paying a employment tax (tax on wages). If you are an employee, then you collect wages. Well look up employee in the IRS book and see its definition. You will be surprised again that it most lickely does not describe you. If you want to know the answer to the question then read the IRS code and see for yourself and stop listening to these cornballs that have not bothered to check it out themselves. In order for the IRS to proosecute you first they must prove in court that a crime has been committed and there was intent(willful failure to file). They also must prove that you are liable for the tax in question. The problem here folks is fear and those that have alot to lose (IRS, H&R Block, accountants, lawyers etc). I'll bet my life that if 3 quarters of the country stop paying taxes lawfully, the rest would follow suit. This is why most of us pay taxes. We all do what everyone else does without questioning it. Well if we continue to let the govt do whatever they please with confidence that we wont question it then we are in for a good ride. We forgot that the govt is ran by the people and not the other way around. Keep trusting the govt to take care of us and see how we will become a fascist state. Which will be done soon into the future as soon as the old folks (patiotic ones) die off and the new pepsi generation leads the way. By then they will all be brain washed to think we live in a dangerous world and the govt is here to keep us safe. God be with us all! Last but not least, someone please quote the IRS code that shows that all American Citizens are liable for income tax or tax on wages. Besides ask yourself this....Do you collect federal income? If not, then why are we paying taxes on it?

Answer 2

United States Constitution, Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. 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.

Answer 3

Did you know that we as American citizens ARE required to pay income taxes under the Constitution. That argument has failed many times in the courts.

Answer 4

Yeah, it was intended to be a temporary thing to help rebuild the economy and help pay for some new programs the government was starting. They actually had to change the constitution in order to enact it in the first place.

But, as someone else just stated, see what happens if you don't pay your taxes.

Answer 5

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 6

Well, you just go ahead and refuse to pay your tax, and when you're hauled into court, be sure to reference that Web site.

That info. has been floating around for years, and no one's ever been able to get out of paying taxes as a result.

Answer 7

That's a hoax, too many people go to prison for not paying their taxes. In other words, it's the law.

Answer 8

Did you know that you are wrong? I don't have the time to read and refute the 34 pages of drivel at the link you provide. What I gather from the first two pages of stupidity is that the author believes that the income tax only applies to corporations. Here are a few court cases squarely on that point.
In Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 296 (1998), the court stated, "Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this ‘indirect excise tax’ can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff’s many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens."

In Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999). In affirming, the 6th Circuit stated that, “Tornichio’s legal assertions are patently spurious, as it cannot be seriously argued that an individual’s taxable income is based solely on income derived from corporate activities,” and imposed additional sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.
The court's opinion stated, "Plaintiff argues ‘income’ should be interpreted as limited to corporate activities, and not include wages. He relies on a series of Supreme Court cases rendered shortly after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and which define the scope of corporate income. NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that only corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra, many of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED”. See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918); Stratton’s Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913) (emphasis added). In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as imposing a tax on “every person residing in the United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing from all sources”. Thus, the plain language of the authorities upon which Plaintiff relies belies his position."

In Myrick v. United States of America, 217 F Supp 2d 979, 2002-2 US TaxCas 650,487, KTC 2002-457, aff’d Docket: 02-16428, KTC 2003-327 (9th Cir. 2003), the court stated, "One of the bases for Plaintiff’s position is that he had no taxable income since “income” can only be a derivative of corporate activity. This position, however, is simply untenable and is directly contrary to the law."

If the author of the 34 pages of tripe, was instead attempting to prove that only foreign income is taxable. Here are a few cases on that point.
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) the court stated, "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."

If the author of the gibberish is claiming that only taxpayers are liable for the income tax and that most Americans aren't taxpayers, here are a few more court cases.
In Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986). See also, Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 756 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1985) the court stated, "Plaintiff claims on appeal that he is not a taxpayer subject to IRS jurisdiction.... Plaintiff’s claim that he is not a taxpayer is unsupported and frivolous."

In United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. den., sub nom., Jameson v. United States, 464 U.S. 942 (1983), the court said, "Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is ‘immune’ from the Internal Revenue Service’s jurisdiction as a ‘nontaxpayer.’ This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit."

So, are there any other frivolous arguments in the 34 pages of gibberish that I can squash for you?

Answer 9

Yes you are.
There is a nice federal law, which you violate if you do not pay taxes.
"Tax Evasion" can get you up to 40 years in jail if you owe enough.

Answer 10

Try not paying taxes and see what happens.