Is there a law that says we HAVE TO pay income taxes?

Question

well....I heard Income Tax is unconstitutional and was never realy approved.

Answer 1

That is an old tired argument without merit. The federal government has the right to levy income taxes under the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Many have tried and all have lost. Good luck!

Answer 2

The Federal Income Tax was unconstitutional until the passing of the shortest and Sixteenth Amendment which simply states "The Federal Government may levy a tax based on income." However, at this time the states were permitted to levy an income tax based on their constitutions.

Answer 3

Authority: Title 26 of the United States Code based upon the 16th amendment of the US Constiution. This old argument is fruitless and a complete waste of time. People who practice this argument faced legal and financial troubles and some end up in prison.

Answer 4

You heard wrong. Title 26 of the US Code. Google it and get educated.

Anyone who actually believes that the government could levy a tax for nearly 94 years without Constitutional or legal authority to do so is simply too stupid to be allowed to even run with crayons.

Answer 5

Some people feel that taxes are illegal. But I believe that the constitution allows the government to collect taxes.

Answer 6

the Supreme Court ruled several decades ago -- yes, you have to pay your income taxes.

Answer 7

Yes, there is a law saying you HAVE TO pay income taxes. You can read it for yourself in Title 26 U.S.C. It is long and complicated, but it is all there.

The specific sections that apply to most people are
§ 1 - Tax imposed
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
§ 61 - Gross income defined
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html
§ 62 - Adjusted gross income defined
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000062----000-.html
§ 63 - Taxable income defined
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html
§ 3402 - Income tax collected at source
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003402----000-.html
§ 6011 - General requirement of return, statement or list
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..."

The 16th amendment CLARIFIED the power of Congress to levy an income tax. The 16th amendment was properly ratified regardless of what tax protesting people say.

If you have further questions about the legality of income taxes or whether it applies to you, go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
and
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

EDIT: As usual, someone chimes in with an erroneous evaluation of a court case. The Eisner case concerned stock dividends and the court's discussion as to whether the dividends were taxable. The court's discussion is misinterpreted by people who claim that only corporate gains are taxable.

In Gavigan v. United States, 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-480, No. 3:99CV697 (DJS) (D.Conn. 11/30/2000), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed), the court stated, "[T]he frivolous argument that wages are not income ‘has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.’ Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985); Bey v. New York, 164 F.3d 617, 617 (2d Cir. 1998). Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code clearly defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived,’ which includes wages, salaries, and compensation for services. 26 U.S.C. section 61(a); 26 C.F.R. section 1,61-2(a). The plaintiffs erroneously rely on cases that have defined the scope of corporate income to argue that non-corporate income is not taxable. ‘To the contrary, . . . many of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”’ Tornichio [v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), 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)], 1998 WL 381304, at *3 (citations omitted). The plaintiffs’ claim that they are owed a refund because they had no tax liability for the years 1993 through 1996 is therefore foreclosed by well- established law."

In Myrick v. United States of America, 217 F Supp 2d 979, 2002-2 US TaxCase 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."

In Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 for making a frivolous appeal), the court stated, "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions."

EDIT: Concerning wages, labor and what is taxable, in order to determine gain from labor, you calculate the gain based on the difference between what you PAID for your own labor (not what it is worth) and what you receive for it. Your labor may be worth $10 an hour to you, but you paid nothing for it. When you work for someone and they pay you $10 an hour for your labor, that $10 is taxable. Let's look at another example. Suppose you are digging in your backyard and find a diamond ring worth $4,000. You clean it up and sell it for $4,000. The taxable amount is the gain you made from the sale. You calculate the gain by subtracting what you PAID for the ring from the amount for which you sold the ring. Which makes your taxable gain $4,000.

Answer 8

You're right, there isn't a law - most people just get so happy being able to pay taxes that they do it anyway. ;-}

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge for sale......

Don't believe everything you hear.

Answer 9

Niglet, and all you Tax Honesty guys: You're close, but you're asking the wrong question. Forget if the tax is constitutional. Who cares? Forget if the 16th was ratfied. Who cares?

The short answer is this: If you earn income, you owe tax on it. The income tax is incredibly legal and constitutional!

BUT HANG ON!!!

You should be asking: "Do I earn income?" No income, no tax, right?

Investigate the definition of the word "income". Not "gross income" or "taxable income" but "income". It's not in the code. The definition is found in Eisner v Macomber between "Income may be defined as..." and "Nothing else answers the description."

Here it is:
'Income may be defined as the GAIN derived from capital, from LABOR, or from both combined,' PROVIDED it be understood to INCLUDE PROFIT gained through a sale or conversion of CAPITAL ASSETS, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, PLACED CHIEF EMPHASIS upon the word 'GAIN,' which was EXTENDED to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the NEXT THREE WORDS was EITHER OVERLOOKED OR MISCONCEIVED. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but A GAIN, A PROFIT, something of exchangeable value, proceeding FROM THE PROPERTY, SEVERED from the capital, however invested or EMPLOYED, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. "

The transaction is as follows: Your labor is your property. (see below). You exchange your labor for equal compensation at the market rate. This is your fundamental "pursuit of happiness" right. Your labor has value or your boss would not pay you for it, would he? Since your labor is your invested capital, forever expended, never to be returned to you, it is the ultimate capital expense. You are at least entitled by law to deduct, or adjust your capital investment, and you do that by receiving compensation of equal value, usually in the form of a paycheck.

NEVER do you earn a profit above your fairly negotiated compensation. It is impossible to legislate what portion of your pay was capital compensation and what was profit.

Per Eisner, if you don't earn profit, you can not earn income.

In short; you have the fundamental right to earn a common living. You are not a serf to be forced to pay money to a king. All Citizens have the right to earn a living. Citizens who choose to operate a business for the purpose of making a profit above their base living expenses are excercising a privalege and are subject to excise taxes on the profits they make.

Illustration: I hire you to move a rock for $10. Your capital expense is your labor. Your labor is valued at $10. You receive no profit. You are not taxed on simply earning a living. Now, Jane hires me to move a rock. I charge her $15 and then hire you for $10 to move the rock. You earn your $10 tax free. My capital expense is your $10 compensation. I earn $5 PROFIT DERIVED FROM YOUR LABOR, and I am taxed on that $5 PROFIT. That is being taxed on income derived from labor.

Let the tax apologists answer in all their negative ways. Beware of their irrational arguments that because you did not pay for your labor you earned 100% profit. Since it's impossible to pay for your labor, it is impossible to avoid earning a profit (using their illogic) and therefore it is an unavoidable tax that directly reduces your ability to survive, the ultimate unapportioned direct tax. But, since their logic is flawed and against their own best interests as humans, it's just an example of the inescapable conclusion that your labor is your property and property has value. Bosses are not in the habit of giving you money for nothing!

The apologists will distract, with claims that Eisner v Macomber is only about dividends, or similar complaints. Who cares? The definition of income is independantly determined, regardless of the subject matter of the case. Don't let them distract you!

They'll try, but you'll notice, the one thing they can not answer with a yes:

Are we serfs to our government? Leave the income tax to those who make profits.




Cheers

Answer 10

You heard wrong. Here you go: