Letter To The Editor
SENT TO THE EDITOR TODAY
Ronnied said...
Everyone should send a letter to the editor of the Concord Monitor.
I did, simple and to the point.
Dear Editor,
I have been following the Ed Brown case since the beginning and have just one thing to say to RICHARD W. MANN. If he is so hot as to tell Ed and Elaine they are WRONG, then have Dick show US, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE the law that REQUIRES US to pay an income tax on our WAGES AND LABOR.
Enough said,
++
From the reader comments here.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
12:31 PM
9 Comments:
Why waste the editor's time since the law requiring a person to report and pay taxes can be found at http://hereisthelaw.blogspot.com
The IRS goes way out of its way to make sure that the law is well known to all who want to know it, at http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765504
Merely repeating over and over the LIE that "there is no law" will not make that LIE come true.
The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.)
Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983).
In United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2003), Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. According to newspaper accounts of the trial, jurors found persuasive the defendant’s argument that she attempted to obtain an explanation of the Service’s authority to collect taxes from her but her correspondence went unanswered. Government officials issued press releases making it clear that the outcome in Kuglin should be treated as an “aberration” and noting that persons acquitted of criminal tax violations are not relieved of their obligation to pay taxes due. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn. March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison. See 2004 TNT 51-33 (March 12, 2004).
There have been no civil cases where the Service’s lack of response to a taxpayer’s inquiry has relieved the taxpayer of the duty to pay tax due under the law. Courts have in rare instances waived civil penalties because they have found that a taxpayer relied on a Service misstatement or wrongful misleading silence with respect to a factual matter. Such an estoppel argument does not, however, apply to a legal matter such as whether there is legal authority to collect taxes. See, e.g., McKay v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465 (1994), rev’d as to other issues, 84 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 1996). Kuglin’s case, discussed above, did not prove to be the exception. Despite her acquittal of criminal charges, on September 12, 2004, Kuglin entered a settlement with the IRS in the Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21743-03; see 2004 TNT 177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004).
In August 2004, an appellate court affirmed a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N. Cohen from selling a tax scheme that fraudulently claimed that payment of federal income tax is voluntary. United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004); see http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04551.htm. Also, in October 2005, the trio was convicted by a Las Vegas jury for various criminal charges relating to the federal income tax laws. See 2005 TNT 205-4 (Oct. 25, 2005). Schiff received a sentence of more than 12 years in prison and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution to the IRS; Neun received a sentence of nearly 6 years and was ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution to the IRS; and, Cohen received a sentence of nearly 3 years and was ordered to pay $480,000 in restitution to the IRS. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/February/06_tax_098.html; 2006 TNT 38-67 (Feb. 24, 2006); 2006 TNT 24-62 (Feb. 3, 2006).
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 291 (7th Cir. 1985) – the court upheld Bressler’s conviction for tax evasion, noting, “[he] has refused to file income tax returns and pay the amounts due not because he misunderstands the law, but because he disagrees with it . . . . [O]ne who refuses to file income tax returns and pay the tax owing is subject to prosecution, even though the tax protester believes the laws requiring the filing of income tax returns and the payment of income tax are unconstitutional.”
Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) – the court rejected Wilcox’s argument that payment of taxes is voluntary for American citizens, stating that “paying taxes is not voluntary” and imposing a $1,500 penalty against Wilcox for raising frivolous claims.
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991) – the court rejected Schiff’s arguments as meritless and upheld imposition of the civil fraud penalty, stating “[t]he frivolous nature of this appeal is perhaps best illustrated by our conclusion that Schiff is precisely the sort of taxpayer upon whom a fraud penalty for failure to pay income taxes should be imposed.”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court stated that “[taxpayers’] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance” and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments.”
Packard v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 143, 145 (D. Conn. 1998) – the court dismissed Packard’s refund suit for recovery of penalties for failure to pay income tax and failure to pay estimated taxes where the taxpayer contested the obligation to pay taxes on religious grounds, noting that “the ability of the Government to function could be impaired if persons could refuse to pay taxes because they disagreed with the Government’s use of tax revenues.”
Horowitz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-91, 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1120 – the court imposed sanctions in the amount of $10,000 in rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments, including the frivolous claim that he could find no statute or regulation making him liable for an income tax.
Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554 (2005) – the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making frivolous arguments.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=80350f77d9922b1b40fc695021881d3d&rgn=div5&view=text&node=26:17.0.1.1.5&idno=26#26:17.0.1.1.5.3.1.1
§ 55.6001-1 Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns.
(a) In general. Any person subject to tax under Chapter 44 of the Code shall keep such complete and detailed records as are sufficient to enable the district director to determine accurately the amount of liability under Chapter 44.
(b) Notice by district director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records. The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under Chapter 44.
(c) Retention of records. The records required by this section shall be kept at all times available for inspection by authorized internal revenue officers or employees, and shall be retained so long as the contents thereof may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law.
Hmmmmmmm
(a) In general. Any person subject
(b) Notice by district director requiring returns,
(c) Retention of records. The records required by this section
§ 55.6151-1 Time and place for paying of tax shown on returns.
The tax shown on any return which is imposed by Chapter 44 shall, without notice or assessment and demand, be paid to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the time and place for filing such return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return). For provisions relating to the time and place for filing such return, see §§55.6071–1 and 55.6091–1. For provisions relating to the extension of time for paying the tax see §55.6161–1.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART VII > § 6091
§ 6091. Place for filing returns or other documents
(a) General rule
When not otherwise provided for by this title, the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe the place for the filing of any return, declaration, statement, or other document, or copies thereof, required by this title or by regulations.
CFR parts for which 26 USC 6091 provides authority
This is a list of parts within the Code of Federal Regulations for which this US Code section provides rulemaking authority. It is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities provided by NARA at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/parallel/parallel_table.html. It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the NARA site.
26 CFR 156
26 CFR 40
26 CFR 44
26 CFR 46
26 CFR 55
27 CFR 17
27 CFR 194
27 CFR 24
27 CFR 25
27 CFR 53
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/usc_cfr.cgi?title=26§ion=6091
Oh oh joey
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
lies lies lies lies lies lies
joey go home. Straight to hell you devil
joey smith said,
The income tax is the best thing that ever happened to America.
There's nothing left for Joey to do except to Become Further Enslaved in Lies and Treachery, or to Believe in the Constitution and let it set Him Free.
People just like Ed and Elaine Brown Laid their Lives down long ago, in order to make the Constitution a Reality for YOU and ME.
Ed Brown is willing to Lay down his Life at this very moment, to ensure that We and Our Children, can continue to Live by the Constitution, and Prevent the Destruction of this Nations very Foundation.
There is only one Definition of a PATRIOT in my Book. "Any individual who is willing to lay down their Life in order to Preserve the Constitution of the United States of America in its entire, original, un-corrupted Language...
In other Words, to Die in order to Uphold the Constitution itself... Not the Internal Revenue Code!
A True Patriot's DUTY... Is to Uphold the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES...
Screw the Internal Revenue Code! I would not lay down My Life Defending such Slavery and Oppression. I would not DIE for the IRS or the IRC. I would not Die Defending an Organization of Thugs who steal from the People in the very NAME, of the Constitution… I will not stand and Defend those who steal Property from, and arrest decent Law Abiding Citizens without DUE PROCESS.
I would however, Lay down my Life Defending the Constitution Against it!
All you Joey Smiths out there, couldn't even carry a TRUE PATRIOT'S lunchbox!
JOEY... FOR THE LAST TIME... THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS NOT THE LAW! IT IS SIMPLY A CODE, PERTAINING TO LAW.
I KNOW YOU CAN READ JOEY... SO READ... AND STOP LOOKING IN THE SAME OLD PLACE THE IRS REFERS YOU TO!
IF I POINTED OFF THE EDGE OF A 300 FOOT CLIFF JOEY, SHOWED YOU A CODE THAT SAID THE LAWS OF PHYSICS WERE NULL AND VOID, THAT YOU COULD IN FACT FLY, AND THAT YOU HAD TO FLY ONCE A YEAR... DOES THAT MAKE IT SO?
Well... You're the kind of idiot who would try it... instead of listening to the "Newton's Law ADVOCATES" Who say that you will give up your Very Life if you try to FLY!
But wait... Everyone claims that NEWTON'S LAW ADVOCATES are Crazy, nutcases and wierdos who know nothing of physics...
None the less... These People tell you that you WILL DIE if you do what's being told of you, and try to fly once a year.
Now Joey... It's almost March... Go and Pay your Taxes! Now! Take that 300 foot leap into the abyss of Corruption and Slavery.
Feeling any better about taxes Joey. You love em don't you... If you are an IRS AGENT Joey... Just remember... I work for my money, and I Sweat while earning it.
You Theive for your Money, and Laugh while taking it.
At least I make mine Honestly... and I can take Pride when I watch my Son putting a spoon in his mouth.
Joey, repeat after me at least 65 times so it sinks into that half a brain you have.
"IRS CODE IS NOT LAW"
To my dearest "joey smith" define: taxpayer, income and wages. YOU most likely are a "taxpayer". Your "income" is from working so hard in your privileged government job. Most of us aren't as privilege as you! IF, in fact you have read the 300,000,000 words of the IRC, all of your "copy/paste" nonsense is worthless. Have a good day, your life must suck! Or do you believe ignorance is bliss.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home