oldschool CxC

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Attention any Tax Attorneys: Do you have an opinion on This Google video - America: Freedom to Fascism about the Income tax being illegal? I'm open to other folks chiming in as well...

Personally, it seems like quite a stretch to be real, but it was interesting when this guy interviewed a number of former IRS people who, after being offered $50k to find the law requiring privately employed individuals to file Federal Income Tax, claimed they personally ceased filing Fed Income Tax AND couldn't find any laws requiring 'privately employed' people to file Fed Income Tax.

Could there be ANY truth to this?!!?!?

3 Comments:

Blogger Erik said...

Wesley Snipes sez: It's a trap!

11:16 AM  
Blogger Sony said...

I've had clients under teh spell of these tax protestors and held conference calls with them where I point out all the legislative authority and they really don't dispute it.

Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the US Code) requires us all to file tax returns. Section 61 defines what income we pay tax on (everything). And sections 1-11 tell us what rate we pay. I may check out the cited site later, but I've probably seen the claim....

At some point, when you ponder this nation as a nation of laws that we have communally (if indirectly) agreed to impose on ourselves, you have to ask: "am I in? or am I out?"

5:57 PM  
Blogger REkz said...

Just to restate, the video makes a very strong point that the law doesn't require private individuals to pay federal income tax.

Their point is that the law is that if you file your return incorrectly you are committing a crime and can be audited. However, the verbage of the law, according to the video, is that we follow "voluntary compliance".

Then again, the guy that went to jail (for 13 yrs!!) got it pretty seriously.

I appreciate you citing the code & Section. I read this:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq/fs200106.html
which points out the 'tax objector' issue.

Whatever the case, what I learned from studying US legal history in undergrad was that much of law is not based on actual law, but on precedent and court interpretation.

The beauty of which is that a jury can choose not to honor laws or interpretation or precedent -- but courts try to knock out jurors that know this info, for clear reasons.

I also agree w/Sony's point of asking, "Am I in or am I out?". I also like looking at that question with other perspectives, ie "are these people (minority, gay, illegal aliens, etc) in or out of the system" and "are they treated in a way I find moral?"

Had to take it the next step, doncha know! :) --- thanks for the replies!

1:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home