The basic structure of current income tax law comes from the Internal Revenue Act of 1954. You can view the entire act in the U.S. Statutes at Large volume 68A. The U.S. Statutes at Large can be found or requested at most Federal Depository Libraries. There are probably several in your state.
The courts have repeatedly held that the Internal Revenue Code is law. In United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986), the court states, "Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable."
The Internal Revenue Code is codified in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. This is considered "prima facie" law. USC Title 1, § 204 states, "In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States—
(a) United States Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000204----000-.html
What the above basically means is that even though Congress did not specifically enact Title 26, it is prima facie evidence of the Internal Revenue Act which was passed by Congress into positive law.
The entire Internal Revenue Code is contained in Title 26.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
§ 1, Tax Imposed - clearly states that there is a tax imposed on the taxable income of [married individuals and surviving spouse, heads of households, unmarried individuals, and married individuals filing separate returns].
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
§ 61, Gross income defined - is exactly what it says. It defines gross income as ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. People with common sense need to go no further to determine that if they have income, it is included in gross income.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html
§ 62, Adjusted gross income defined. This section simply describes various things and deductions that can be taken in order to determine the ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000062----000-.html
§ 63, Taxable income defined. This section describes the basic deductions or types of deductions allowable to determine TAXABLE INCOME from the ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html
That is it. That is all a person with common sense would need to determine most American Citizens are liable to pay an income tax.
If you have heard that section 861 says that taxable income can only be obtained from foreign sources, that is false. Yes, Section 861 does refer to income from without the United States, but section 61(a) clearly states that gross income is from "whatever source derived". That does not limit gross income to a place and neither does section 861.
In Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999), the court stated, "Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is ‘hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual’ (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes."
In Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990), the court stated, "The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required."
Send the $10,000.00 to the Treasury Department. If you run into the guy that said he had $1,000,000 for someone to show him the law, tell him the Treasury Department is still waiting. Oh, if you see the person that promised 100 acres of land, the Treasury Department hasn't received the deed for that either. Of course, there is probably an IRS lien on it anyway.
Finally, many of these offers are made by people who already have numerous tax liens against them because they have already lost to the IRS. Basically, they are penniless and have no assets in order to pay the award. This is what lawyers call "judgement-proof."
2007-10-03 10:44:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by NGC6205 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
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.
2007-10-03 01:46:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
us of a shape, substitute sixteen - status of earnings Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. The Congress shall have capability to place and collect taxes on earning, from despite the fact that source derived, without apportionment between diverse States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
2016-11-07 03:30:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure, I've read it extensively. Title 26 of the US code. Google it of you wish to read it -- it's VERY dry reading.
The jerk making that reward offer is a liar. It's been proven to him countless times, but he refuses to admit that it's true. On top of that, the bonehead is a penniless prison inmate -- in the Big House for tax evasion.
So, consider your sources before you get suckered in to the tax protestor rhetoric. It's bullsh!t, pure and simple.
2007-10-03 04:11:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bostonian In MO 7
·
2⤊
0⤋