# Personal Income Tax - Law or Fraud?



## Makalakumu (Oct 9, 2006)

I watched a bootleg on google video today of Aaron Russo's "America: From Freedom to Fascism," today.  This movie was very provacative and disturbing.  

The main theme of the movie was that income taxes were unconstitutional and that there actually was no law that required you to pay them.  This would mean that the IRS is illegal and that all of their past actions, including throwing people in prison and confiscating everything this person owns, is also illegal.

The video was removed due to copywrite enfringement, unfortunately.  However, here are some officially sanctioned clips...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=America+From+Freedom+to+Fascism

What do you think about this?  Are income taxes legal or illegal?  Can anyone actually find a law that states that we must pay a personal income tax?  

upnorthkyosa

ps - the movie also connected this to the Federal Reserve Act.  They state that the funds levied by the Federal Income Tax go to pay the interest to the central bank that makes our money.  Is there anything to this contention?  If so, this would make the frauds perpetrated by Worldcom and Enron look like liquor store robberies.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 9, 2006)

I'v followed this thought process from a far, on both accounts, and admit that I find some of it pretty compelling


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 9, 2006)

I think you might be able to present a compelling argument for between 7 to 12 years. After that, I think the IRS might get a little testy. Your new accomodations will be less than welcoming.


----------



## bydand (Oct 9, 2006)

What I think people fail to remember is that though the original income tax was overturned as unconstitutional. the 16th Admendment was ratified by the States.  Of course some will arguee that because the punctuation is different in some of the States papers, or that because Congress didn't recognize Ohio's ratification until the 1950's, it isn't valid.  If one were to apply this reasoning to everything that passed into Federal law during the same time frame, where would we be?  Some common sense has to prevail in the argument and individual laws or taxes we may not like have to be looked at in context, not just held to a shakey double standard.  IMO


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I think you might be able to present a compelling argument for between 7 to 12 years. After that, I think the IRS might get a little testy. Your new accomodations will be less than welcoming.


 
ie...mother****ing gitmo.  Geez, man...this is heavy...I mean, if the government can defraud millions of Americans, falsly imprison hundreds of thousands more, and basically confiscate billions in assets, what else couldn't they do?

BTW - did ya'll know that the pentagon lost 2.3 trillion dollars?  Apparently, the fed was looking for it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 9, 2006)

bydand said:


> What I think people fail to remember is that though the original income tax was overturned as unconstitutional. the 16th Admendment was ratified by the States. Of course some will arguee that because the punctuation is different in some of the States papers, or that because Congress didn't recognize Ohio's ratification until the 1950's, it isn't valid. If one were to apply this reasoning to everything that passed into Federal law during the same time frame, where would we be? Some common sense has to prevail in the argument and individual laws or taxes we may not like have to be looked at in context, not just held to a shakey double standard. IMO


 
Do you have a citation for this?  And can you use this like an arrow and point to a federal law that justifies personal income tax?


----------



## Carol (Oct 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> ie...mother****ing gitmo. Geez, man...this is heavy...I mean, if the government can defraud millions of Americans, falsly imprison hundreds of thousands more, and basically confiscate billions in assets, what else couldn't they do?
> 
> BTW - did ya'll know that the pentagon lost 2.3 trillion dollars? Apparently, the fed was looking for it.


 

2.3 trillion? Must be lying around somewhere. Bet it's next to the set of keys that I lost not long back. Or...not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 9, 2006)

Al Capone was imprisoned onFederal Tax Evasion charges.  If there are no laws against tax evasion at the federal level, then he was falsely imprisoned.

Sorry, maybe that was a bad example...


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 9, 2006)

read, absorb, pay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7151524/


----------



## still learning (Oct 10, 2006)

Hello, If the above videos and comments were true.....How come no one took it to the supreme court to decide if is a LAW or FRAUD?

In the past most of the people who paid no taxes..now have a free home with bars included. .........Aloha


----------



## bydand (Oct 10, 2006)

For some information about the legality, look up "*US -vs- Pollack*"(can be found in *Blacks Law*) for the case that determined that the 1894 fed Income Tax was unconstitutional.  Then in 1913 the *16th Admendment* was ratified giving the fed gov. the power to tax peoples income.  That one is easy to find, just check any copy of the Constitution of the United States.  In 1939  the tax laws were codified into the *U.S. Code*, which manily is the Federal laws, it was IRC1939.  Even if the nay-sayers could prove the 16th Admendment wasn't ratified properly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is now part of the US Code.  It has been from 1939 to the present and if in the past 67 years nobody has been able to prove beyond doubt that it is unlawful well....   Look at the bold for the reference documents.  They are avaliable in any public library


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 10, 2006)

bydand said:


> For some information about the legality, look up "*US -vs- Pollack*"(can be found in *Blacks Law*) for the case that determined that the 1894 fed Income Tax was unconstitutional. Then in 1913 the *16th Admendment* was ratified giving the fed gov. the power to tax peoples income. That one is easy to find, just check any copy of the Constitution of the United States. In 1939 the tax laws were codified into the *U.S. Code*, which manily is the Federal laws, it was IRC1939. Even if the nay-sayers could prove the 16th Admendment wasn't ratified properly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is now part of the US Code. It has been from 1939 to the present and if in the past 67 years nobody has been able to prove beyond doubt that it is unlawful well.... Look at the bold for the reference documents. They are avaliable in any public library


 
The videos cite eight supreme court cases that ruled that the 16th amendment gave the federal government *no new power to tax*.  This is interesting in and of itself because it specifically addresses the powers of the 16th amendment.

And then the video presents the contention that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified.  According to the specific rules laid down by the constitution, this amendment was not ratified...thus the federal reserve act is unconstitutional and so is income tax.

The video also presents numerous court cases in which people have been brought to court or have brought the IRS to court.  In all of them, people either demanded to see the law that they had broken or they wanted to see the law that gave the federal government the power to tax them.  In all cases they were denied this.  The movie also cites a recent court case, in which a federal judge ruled that the federal government did not have to show this law.

Anyway, despite repeated attempts, the IRS has never been forced to reveal the laws that give it the power to do what it does...and according to a lower federal court, it never has to.


----------



## bydand (Oct 10, 2006)

Oh well it appears to be one of those topics that several are going to dis-agree about.  No matter really, I intend to continue paying my taxes because I am a bigger benefit to my family at home and work than in jail. Guess that is what it really comes down to.  Plus I look at how screwed up the Country is WITH the income, I can just imagine how totally screwed we would be if they were broke on top of being stupid.


----------



## TonyMac (Oct 10, 2006)

Most law schools have you run a kangaroo court in your first year where you are required to defend a defendant whom has chosen not to pay thier income taxes. You are expected to win. Reality is different.


----------



## fireman00 (Oct 10, 2006)

Law - period.    The 16th amendment which enpowers Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived...." was passed in 1913.

Here's the amendment verbatim;
*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.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 10, 2006)

fireman00 said:


> Law - period. The 16th amendment which enpowers Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived...." was passed in 1913.
> 
> Here's the amendment verbatim;
> *Amendment XVI*
> ...


 
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.htm



> WASHINGTON -- Evidence strongly suggests that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.


 
Here are some specifics...



> All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.
> 
> The ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.
> 
> ...


 
Here is what the US federal government did to Benson...



> Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Suppress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."
> 
> Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.
> "Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."
> ...


----------



## JBrainard (Oct 10, 2006)

Everything I've heard and read suggests that it's a fraud. Not that I could get away with not paying it... :shooter: <- that's the feds.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 10, 2006)

Does anyone feel uncomfortable?  What else might the fed do, if they can do this?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 11, 2006)

still learning said:


> Hello, If the above videos and comments were true.....How come no one took it to the supreme court to decide if is a LAW or FRAUD?
> 
> In the past most of the people who paid no taxes..now have a free home with bars included. .........Aloha



That is what gets me. After all the increadible rulings various courts have made over the years, why has not even one case been argued to conclusion about the matter?

It would be nice if there was no invcome tax. But I trust the lack of legal challenges more than I do a bunch of sites on the internet. If there was no legal standing for the income tax, you could bet that the various states and such that depend on it would make sure to put it into place ASAP.

Of course, for about a hundred years the constituion clearly said that *all men* are created equal- but those with a dark skin were still slaves. But it seems to me that people would be covering their butts legally if they needed to by making the income tax legal. The goverment could not work as is without it, and people would vote for it if faced with the alternative.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 11, 2006)

People who believe all the various conspiracy theories out there -no moon landing, 9/11 demolition teory, illumanati, x-file stuff-are also the same people who buy into this tax protest stuff. They sit next to each other at the Hatters Tea Party playing tug-o-war with the same teapot.

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax_Protestors_Page.htm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 11, 2006)

Addressing some points made here.....

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot2.htm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2006)

While I don't have a strong position on this issue one way or the other, I think I should say something here.



Blotan Hunka said:


> People who believe all the various conspiracy theories out there -no moon landing, 9/11 demolition teory, illumanati, x-file stuff-are also the same people who buy into this tax protest stuff. They sit next to each other at the Hatters Tea Party playing tug-o-war with the same teapot.


 
This line of reasoning is one of the best examples of the logical fallacy Guilt By Association that I have ever seen. It is also a common ploy in politics.

It would be nice if we maintain a little intellectual honesty here.

Laterz.


----------



## TonyMac (Oct 11, 2006)

What they did not officially establish was the internal revenue service.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 11, 2006)

I dont know. A simple google of "tax protest conspiracy theory" comes up with interesting associations pretty quick.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/15/153033.shtml



> "The *tax protest movement is a right-wing extremist movement*," said Mark Pitcavage, director of "fact finding" for ADL. "You're not talking about tax reformers here. *You're talking about people who have incredible conspiracy theories about the government."*
> ADL considers those who organized and attended the anti-tax rally to be such a serious threat that it included the group on its monthly calendar of "extremist events." Pitcavage said that the event's organizer, a group called "We The People Congress," advocated an agenda that is "so far out of the mainstream" that the group has disenfranchised itself from the rest of American society.
> 
> "These are people who do not think simply that taxes are too high or want tax reform," Pitcavage said. *"They have convinced themselves they do not have to pay taxes and that there's a major government conspiracy designed to cover up that fact."*
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Patriot


> Some views commonly associated with The Christian Patriot movement, sometimes considered synonymous with the Militia Movement, are *generally organized around a belief that world events are secretly controlled by some group such as the Illuminati, the Council of Foreign Relations, international banking families, Communists, Jews, the United Nations, or some combination of the above, and that conspiracy will culminate in a new world order conspiracy, which is either present or impending.*
> 
> Christian Patriots hold to a strict constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and are *closely associated with the tax revolt movement*.



http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/preview/articles/1006america1006.html


> This "documentary" is a heartfelt polemic by Aaron Russo, an entertainment-industry veteran turned celebrity tax protester. The film's faults are many, but first among them is that it's deadly dry.
> 
> Aside from the obligatory parade of talking heads, it's packed with enough quotes to make you suspect Russo was captain of his high-school debate team, with index-card arguments ever at the ready. The quotes linger on the screen long after you've finished reading them, leaving you itching for a remote control (Fast Forward - or Stop?). advertisement
> 
> ...



Add in "crazies, loonies and tin hat" to your search to find even more.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 11, 2006)

*Woman finds way to avoid paying taxes: Just ask* 
_Associated Press_

Aug. 12, 2003

*Also on this page:* *Interview with tax protester who beat IRS in court* MEMPHIS, Tenn. &#8212; A woman who said she refused to pay federal income taxes because the IRS didn't respond to her inquiries about tax law has been acquitted of tax evasion.

Vernice Kuglin, a 58-year-old FedEx pilot, had been charged with six counts of tax evasion. Had she been convicted by the federal court jury, she would have faced up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

"I feel justified," she said after Friday's verdict.

Kuglin said she began to question the federal tax system about 10 years ago and wrote the Internal Revenue Service twice in 1995 with questions about what law required her to pay taxes. She said she didn't get a response. On Dec. 30, 1995, she filed a withholding statement directing that no taxes be withheld from her pay.

The government accused Kuglin of filing false W-4 forms from 1996 to 2001, during which time she earned $920,000 in income. Normal withholding would have been about $250,000.

Federal prosecutor Joe Murphy said during closing arguments that Kuglin did have an opportunity to sit down and discuss her situation with the IRS, "and she didn't."

The five-day trial did not resolve whether she must make the tax payment.

"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft.

Another defense attorney, Larry Becraft, who helped win acquittals for 17 defendants in another Memphis tax trial 12 years ago, said the letters from his client to the IRS showed a lack of criminal intent to evade tax laws and that she sincerely believed her conduct was proper.

"The whole thing could have been resolved if the government had simply answered her questions," Becraft said. "It didn't happen. I made an argument to the jury that an American has a right to ask the government for answers."

IRS spokeswoman Nancy Mathis said in a statement Tuesday that would-be tax evaders "should not take solace in this jury decision." She noted that last year more than 1,000 taxpayers were convicted of federal tax crimes.


================

I'e read the letters she wrote to the IRS.  the gist of them was - please show me where in the Law or Codes where it says that I must pay taxes on my wages earned within the US borders.  and if you go read the relevant sections of the ISC etc it pretty much says that taxable sources of income are overseas commerce.  So earning wages inside the US is not explicitly decribed as a taxable income source.  the theory was, if the agents enforcing the law couldn't demonstate that there was in fact a law at all... then they couldn't enforce it.

However, notice this case is from 2003.  She got these letters and the idea to do what she did form a guy named Larkin Rose.  He made a DVD and had  website spreading this tax protest theory.  I was almost ready to try this same letter writing tactic myself but I had some other nefarious things going on and didn't want any IRS scrutiny LOL.  Well, in 2005 Larkin Rose was convicted of tax evasion and is probably in jail right now.

I still believe that the personal income tax shoud be eliminated and that it probaly isn't wholly legal.  but, the people who could chang it have their salaries paid by it, so why would they ever do so?

if the income tax doesn't piss you off enough, check into these facts:  what percentage of the federal revenues does it comprise?  How many years ago was the federal spending equal to today's revenue MINUS the income tax?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2006)

More food for thought...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/haven/2000/1118dcj.htm




> Al Thompson squeezed most of his manufacturing company's 28 employees into a conference room here in October to say he had good news: Income taxes must be paid by only a few Americans, mostly those working for foreign-owned companies. So, he told the workers, they would not have to pay income taxes ever again. His business is exempt, too, he said. No Social Security or Medicare taxes, either. The company was no longer withholding taxes from their paychecks, he said, or telling the Internal Revenue Service how much they made.
> 
> Mr. Thompson is part of a tiny but increasingly flamboyant fringe of American business. Arguing that the federal tax laws do not apply to them, these small companies are thumbing their noses at the I.R.S. in a very public way: they have not only stopped withholding taxes and turning them over to the government, they are also bragging about it on Web sites and radio talk shows, and organizing seminars to promote the gospel of defiance. And they are boasting that they must be right because the I.R.S. has not come after them, even though it knows what they are doing. Mr. Thompson noted that he had not sent a weekly tax payment to the I.R.S. since July, yet "I have not been drug off to jail."
> *Indeed, the I.R.S. has not only failed to pursue these businesses, it has in some cases given refunds after they claimed they did not owe taxes paid earlier. In at least two cases, the businesses say they even received apologetic letters from the I.R.S. for not rescinding penalties and issuing the refunds sooner*. Many tax experts express astonishment at the idea that the I.R.S. is aware that legitimate businesses are cheating yet has not even written to ask why their tax payments stopped, let alone begun action to make them pay. This undermines the principle on which the American tax system is based, they say: people who do not pay their taxes will pay the consequences.


 
What in the heck is going on here?  Especially the part where the IRS is issuing apology letters and refunds!


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 11, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> if the income tax doesn't piss you off enough, check into these facts: what percentage of the federal revenues does it comprise? How many years ago was the federal spending equal to today's revenue MINUS the income tax?


 
Here is the weird thing that I am discovering as I attempt to do some fact checking on Aaron Russo's film.  Things like education and emergency services are almost totally covered at the local level.  Funds for roads and transportation come from gas taxes.  Funds the military are almost totally covered by the corporate income tax...which is perfectly constitutional btw.  And other social programs have other funding streams.

So what does the federal income tax really pay for?  The movie claims that it pays for the interest the Federal Reserve charges in order to print our money.  If this is the case, then that would make the federal income tax one of the biggest schemes to redistribute (from the bottom up) the wealth ever designed!

As of yet, I have not been able to confirm whether this is true, however, it seems plausible via the process of elimination.

btw - I pay my taxes and will continue to the pay them.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I dont know. A simple google of "tax protest conspiracy theory" comes up with interesting associations pretty quick.


 
Which is completely irrelevant, as it does not change the fallaciousness of this line of argumentation.

The heart of logical discourse is a direct and honest appraisal of both sides, hearing out the arguments and evidence they have (or do not have) to offer for their respective position. That is intellectual honesty.

Stating that because X person believes Y, therefore Y is wrong is not intellectually honest in even the slightest sense. In essence, as with all other logical fallacies, it involves dismissing the opposing position without bothering to do the work of wading through any arguments of evidence they have to offer. It is nothing short of a cheap trick.

Once again, I really don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other. Regardless, I just can't stand it when such dishonest methods are used in place of genuine debate.

Laterz.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> More food for thought...
> 
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/haven/2000/1118dcj.htm
> 
> ...


 

that article was from 2000. in the 6 years since it appears the IRS ahs decided to fight back.  I would be curious to see where these guys are now.  hopefully not sharing a cell block with Larkin Rose.


----------



## jazkiljok (Oct 17, 2006)

wesley snipes- action star and martial artist seems to think the irs doesn't have a right to his money as well.

not a good idea.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/17/wesleysnipes.indicted.ap/index.html


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 17, 2006)

I heard that today.  it's funny because Snipes was also on board with Larkin rose, I rember reading on Rose's site about Snipes.  YIKES  glad I kept paying my taxes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2006)

This is the video that sparked the debate.  Somehow, I found it on Google Video again.  I would watch it soon, because the last time it was up, it was removed for whatever reason.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3562833209373997429&sourceid=zeitgeist

Anyway, I thought it was interesting...


----------

