Why are we forced to pay income tax if there is now law requiring us to do so?

Question

I can't find the law in the US tax code that says we have to pay income tax. I believe it's blatently Unconstitutional and that the government has been robbing us of our money for yours. Am I right? Also, I've heard that this money they collect from income tax just goes to pay off the interest that comes with every dollar loaned to the government by the federal reserve. Is this how the money is being spent?

Answer 1

You didn't look very hard. The law concerning taxes is codified in the U.S. Code as Title 26.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
It is very dry reading, but it is all there.

The specific sections that apply to most people are
§ 1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
§ 61
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html
§ 62
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000062----000-.html
§ 63
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html
§ 3402
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003402----000-.html
§ 6011
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006011----000-.html

The income tax is not unconstitutional because Congress has always had the power to lay and collect taxes. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."

In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”

The 1895 Pollock decision was concerning a tax on income from property, in other words, rental income. The court declared that tax as unconstitutional as being a tax on the land and a direct tax. However, the court also admitted that they may have the constitutional intent wrong.

Because of the Pollock decision, the 16th amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states. Arguments saying the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified are wrong. Ohio was a state, Tennessee did not violate it's constitution, and minor spelling and capitalization errors were inconsequential and did not affect the validity of the ratification. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated,
[BEGIN QUOTE]
"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

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....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."
[END QUOTE]

So, no you are not right.

Concerning the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve does not loan money to the government directly. The government borrows money by issuing securities which are sold at auction. Anyone can buy these securities, even you. The government pays about 4.5% to 5% interest on the securities. In 2006, the government paid about $405 billion in interest on the approximately $8.5 trillion in debt. The government collected about $1.04 trillion in individual income taxes alone. Those were receipts, not what was due. Now, the Federal Reserve does hold about $800 billion in U.S. Government securities and the government paid approximately $36.5 billion in interest to the Federal Reserve. HOWEVER, the Federal Reserve is required by law to return excess income to the U.S. Treasury. This is a fact commonly overlooked or ignored by conspiracy theorists. In 2006, the Federal Reserve returned $29.1 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
This can clearly be seen on the independently audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve which are part of the Federal Reserve's annual report to Congress.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/audits.pdf
I bet someone told you the Federal Reserve has never been audited too.

Answer 2

Because the Federal courts have said you have to. That has set a legal precedent. That means that in the future the precedent will be the controlling authority. That can be changed by Congress, or by amending the Constitution, but don't count on Congress doing something that would reduce the governments' revenue. A more likely scenario will be to adopt a different method of collecting taxes. See: http://www.fairtax.org

Answer 3

All forms of Governments are legal crooks. They are robbing from us all year and then again at tax time. All they are doing is getting richer and spending our money, by overpaying for stuff. This society NEED to wake up and take back the power that the people gave to all levels of government! We are not our driver license number, our social security number, birth certificate number, or any numbers that you can think of. We are the numbers on the back of your social security card! We are commodities, that is sold and traded, just like the stock market.

Answer 4

No, there is not law saying you have to pay income taxes. But there is a government agency, IRS, that is legal, and they collect income taxes. If you want to defy a legal government agency, then they you might get to meet some other nice government agencies, like the FBI.

And yes, we are currently spending much more money they the government collects from taxes.

Answer 5

Constitution allows taxation; not a specific law.

This gets posted a dozen times a month here.

Answer 6

Look up 16th Constitutional Amendment.

Answer 7

I guess there is no law which obliges the government to provide you roads and connection to water supply or accept you in a hospital for free..

Answer 8

So don't file a return or pay your taxes. You will then find out one way or the other.

Answer 9

Check your 16th Amendment - on taxation