EPTUS federal income tax fraud - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
| ||
|
neVern
United States115 Posts
On June 24 2008 14:13 Mindcrime wrote: As I said before, the modern federal income tax was implemented in 1913 after the passage of the 16th amendment. Before that, there had not been a federal income tax since the 1895 when the manner in which that particular income tax was collected was struck down as unconstitutional. Here's a Supreme Court Case regarding the 16th Amendment: MILES, Chief Judge. Defendants were indicted on March 7, 1985 on seven counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7201, and seven counts of failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on April 12, 1985, claiming that the sixteenth amendment which grants Congress the power to lay taxes was never properly ratified, and that as a result, all laws that have been passed pursuant to the authority granted by the sixteenth amendment are null and void. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration…. As contemplated by the Founders, direct taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity. Thus, anytime Congress attempted to impose a direct tax; it was required to apportion the tax among the States according to the rule of apportionment. From the Independent Party's Website Taxes The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It is moreover established that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the imposition on each of us of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes. This is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority. The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government's present unjust tax system. Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency's tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve. We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax. Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.) To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of these United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation's citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit. The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well. To the extent permitted by the Constitution, we believe that the taxation of corporations is an appropriate source of government revenue. The Supreme Court has defined "income" as a "gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege." People are not corporations, and corporations need not be treated as "people" for the purposes of taxation. There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts." We support the use of motor fuel excise taxes, at rates not in excess of those currently imposed, to be used exclusively for the erection, maintenance, and administration of Federal highways. These taxes should never be used for "demonstration projects", mass transit, or for other non-highway purposes. We support the use of excise taxes to curb the use of tax dollars for media advertising, and to provide so-called "tax abatements," "tax incentives," and "economic development grants," which are pretexts to raid the public treasury and rob the workingman for the benefit of wealthy interests favored by the politicians. The Sixteenth Amendment "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." The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue. 6 During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of ''direct tax'' or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames, 7 Knowlton v. Moore, 8 and Patton v. Brady, 9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the ''incidents of ownership'' and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale. Because of such endeavors the Court thus found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise ''measured by income'' on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in the Pollock case. Indeed, in its initial appraisal of the Amendment it classified income taxes as being inherently ''indirect.'' ''[T]he command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.'' ''[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.'' There is no reason to regard the sixteenth amendment as law, nor is their a reason to believe the income tax is legal. Misunderstanding and unlawful actions by judges in lower courts, and the fact that judges in the lower courts declare Supreme Court cases as "Not Relevant" during IRS Cases against the public doesn't mean it is a law. It's a misconception/manipulation by lower courts that are putting people in jail. There have even been cases where judges have helped the IRS and stormed out of courtrooms after "Non Taxpayers" have been ruled innocent. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 06 2010 06:13 CharlieMurphy wrote: you wanna summarize that heaping wall of text? it's all nonsense | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
To believe that the 16th amendment isn't valid, you have to rely assumptions, innuendo, and wriggling your way through tiny loopholes. It's ridiculous | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 06 2010 06:13 MasterOfChaos wrote: Then take the case to the supreme court, and when they rule income tax unconstitutional we talk again. This is all you need and a little you know logic instead of blind iteration of what some guy who claims to know shit posts in an obscure place on the internet. The 16th amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913. You think in 97 years and 2 days we couldn't have already taken it to court and won if it was illegal. | ||
|
WhiteNights
United States252 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
This is called generating inflation and it's one of the worst economic problems plaguing developing economies as I write this post. You say this like a 10 trillion dollar bill is a bad thing. ![[image loading]](http://boberi.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/100-billion-zimbabwe-dollars.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.3833.com/files/images/miscellaneous/zimbabwe_10_TRILLION.jpg) Anyway: haven't read the thread, but related reading about inflation: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/01/16/zimbawe.currency/index.html http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=82500 | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17267 Posts
On February 06 2010 06:46 Craton wrote: You say this like a 10 trillion dollar bill is a bad thing. Anyway: haven't read the thread, but related reading about inflation: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/01/16/zimbawe.currency/index.html http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=82500 Well, they really should introduce denomination. It happened in Poland too and it was a welcome change. This ![[image loading]](http://3833.com/files/images/wbn/poland/poland_1989_20000_zlotych_f_mm.jpg) turned into this ![[image loading]](http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5189/2zlote.jpg) | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Wombatsavior
United States107 Posts
Please don't read into the title, its all about taxes (income namely) and I've posted it up for the main interview Aaron Russo does with the tax code author. Its in the latter half and wraps up in the first half of the next video Here Enjoy your Freedom! | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
| ||
|
WeakTuna
Canada71 Posts
| ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:37 Day[9] wrote: there absolutely is law requiring income tax payment i dunno how else to say this, but that documentary is just flat out wrong. i GUARANTEE if there was a way you could avoid paying income taxes on wages, people would do it. there are great ways to get tax breaks, and there is a ton of literature of ways to write off things related to your business/property expenses. but come on... no requirement to pay income taxes... i dunno where people get this stuff T.T income tax should be removed. It hurts the idea of a capitalist country. and in part is of the reasons why i believe we are in such trouble. We are not capitalist. The government intervenes way to much with business. the income tax is from the state, there are a few states like texas who do not have income tax. something needs to be done about this. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
Only in America ......do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters. Only in America ......do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage. Only in America ......do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight. Only in America ......do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering. Only in America ......do people trust psychotic nut cases spreading myths. + Show Spoiler + No offence intended. I like the US but you have too many wackos recieving popular support :s | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
On June 24 2008 09:45 tttt wrote: There is definitely a gray area. However, don't be fooled by these "documentaries" that are telling you it's a simple issue. The whole thing is somewhat shaky and the law isn't clear on it. Most of the people who bitch about it are the same ones who think the Jewish banking cartel runs the world. In other words, nut cases. they do, everyone knows it, just no one wants to admit it. | ||
|
StarsPride
United States364 Posts
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you. the state will. The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people | ||
| ||
