Show me the Law? Here you go!

[TylerM]

Just a question. A blog post of mine was taken to a anti-tax resistor site (a location of a bunch of militant IRS and H&R Block employees, I think) and I went on there to ask it be removed (as I had removed it from my site) and they all were glad to "show me the law". Well, they are making arguments that seem valid, except the IRS hasn't even gotten as deep as them.

   

Vinny:Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right?
    [puts his hand on the wall]
    Bill: Right.
    Vinny: Let me show you something.
    [he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
    Vinny: He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.
    [turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
    Vinny: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick.

So, what do you think? I'm thinking they are making a wall of playing cards, I just need to be seen the bricks edge on. This is sort of the highlights, they made other points as well.

Here's the arguments:

"Show me the law?

In Holywell Corp. v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court (in a unanimous case) stated the legal significance of 26 USC 6151:

The Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay federal income taxes to the duty to make an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. 6151(a) ('when a return of a tax is required . . . the person required to make such return shall . . . pay such tax'). 503 U.S. 47 (1992) (statutory citation, parenthetical phrase, ellipses, and quoted language in the original).

Regarding civil monetary penalties for failure to timely pay taxes, 26 USC 6651(a)(2) states (in part):

-----"In case of failure—

-----"[ . . . ]

-----"(2) to pay the amount shown on tax on any return specified in paragraph (1) on or before the date prescribed for payment of such tax (determined with regard to any extension of time for payment), unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, there shall be added to the amount shown as tax on such return 0.5 percent of the amount of such tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an additional 0.5 percent for each additional month or fraction thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the aggregate [ . . . ]"

Regarding Federal income tax returns for single (unmarried) individuals, 26 USC 6012 provides (in part):

-----"Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: [ . . . ]

-----"(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—

-----"(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual [ . . . ]"

Further provisions of section 6012 refer to tax return filings for other individual taxpayers (e.g., married persons filing joint returns, surviving spouses, heads of household, married persons filing separate returns) as well as for other entities such as corporations, estates, and trusts. See also 26 USC 6011.

Civil monetary penalties for failure to timely file tax returns (denominated as "additions" to tax) are mentioned at 26 USC 6651(a)(1). Under 26 USC 6061, with specified, limited exceptions, "any return [ . . .] required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed ''in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary''" (emphasis added). The Treasury Regulations indicate that the individual's Federal income tax return must be filed on "Form 1040," "Form 1040A," etc. See 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6).

Criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes are mentioned at 26 USC 7203:

-----"Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution [ . . . ]"

Under 26 USC 7206:

-----"Any person who—

-----"(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury

-----"Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; or

-----"(2) Aid or assistance

-----"Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document; or [ . . . ]

-----"(A) Concealment of property

-----"Conceals from any officer or employee of the United States any property belonging to the estate of a taxpayer or other person liable in respect of the tax, or

-----"(B) Withholding, falsifying, and destroying rec­ords

-----"Receives, withholds, destroys, mutilates, or falsifies any book, document, or record, or makes any false statement, relating to the estate or financial condition of the taxpayer or other person liable in respect of the tax;

-----"shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

See also 26 USC 7207 and 18 USC 1001.

The Federal tax evasion tracks the language of statutory provisions such as Code section 1 (the imposition statute for the individual income tax), with both statutes using the word "imposed". To "impose" means "to lay as a burden, tax, duty or charge"; Black's Law Dictionary, p. 680 (5th ed. 1979); "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy; impose a tax"; American Heritage Dictionary, p. 646 (2d Coll. Ed. 1985):

-----"Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution." 26 USC 7201.

See 26 USC sections 1, 61, 62, 63. In fact, see the entire Internal Revenue Code. A link to the entire Code is found on the IRS web site. And citations to some of the Code provisions are found in the IRS instructions for Form 1040. Ed Brown says no one has shown him the law. I guess that means he's never looked at the IRS instructions, right? No, what tax protesters mean is that they contend the law doesn't really mean what it says. Show me where "I" have to pay. That sort of nonsense.

Ed had his day in court. He decided not to attend. Too bad. That was his choice. One way or another, he is facing the consequences."


"Why not start with Section 1?

§ 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with the following table

TITLE 26 § 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction)."


"It appears in Section 63, which uses "gross income" from Section 61, which uses "income" from the 16th Amendment, which is defined by USSC in:
- Stratton's Independence v Howbert, 231 US 399 (re 1909 tax)
- Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1
- Stanton v Baltic, 240 US 103
- Towne v Eisner, 245 US 418
- Peck v Lowe, 247 US 165
- Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189
- Merchants v Smietanka, 255 US 509
- CIR v Glenshaw, 348 US 426
Very generally, it means anything which the US executive branch can reasonably demonstrate to be (a) measurable gain or profit and (b) subject to Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost.

You provided no fact basis to demonstrate that "you" have to pay. However, the federal government has provided innumerable ways to complete such a demonstration. Most commonly, you might have received a W-2 filed with the SSA, which evidences that you received certain amounts of statutory "wages" as defined in 26 USC Sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) (and relying on terms that appear in 3121(b), (e), (h), 3401(c), 7651(1), (4), and 7701(c), among others). If correct, W-2 is evidence that your receipts were "wages" as defined and thereby "income", invoking the string of 26 USC sections which Famspear references relatively accurately.

In short, the recipient of a correct W-2 has to pay the tax, which is generally nonzero. The duty rests with you, as a W-2 recipient, to determine whether the amount of statutory "wages" was reported correctly, in conjunction with the facts of your case and the laws defining wages. Of course, the law also provides a method for correcting an erroneous W-2, such as by the payor filing W-2c or the payee filing 4852, completely, truthfully, and correctly.

In general, statutory "wages" are not necessarily the same as pay for work. "Wages" are payments for activity within Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost. But being paid for work in itself (i.e., unattached to any activities within this power of taxation) is inalienable, as evidenced by:
- Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36
- Butchers' Union v Crescent City, 111 US 746
- Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356
- Minnesota v Barber, 136 US 313
- Allgeyer v Louisiana, 165 US 578
- Lochner v New York, 198 US 45
- Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78
- Chicago Burlington v McGuire, 219 US 549
- Smith v Texas, 233 US 630
- Truax v Raich, 239 US 33
- Adams v Tanner, 244 US 590
- New York Life v Dodge, 246 US 357
- Truax v Corrigan, 257 US 312
- Adkins v Children's Hospital, 261 US 525
- Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390
- Pierce v Society of Sisters, 268 US 510
- Farrington v Tokushige, 273 US 284
- Massachusetts Board v Murgia, 427 US 307 "

"In general, statutory "wages" are not necessarily the same as pay for work. "Wages" are payments for activity within Congressional power to tax by excise, duty, or impost.


And since an excise may be based upon the mere receipt of property, the receipt of pay for work may be taxed by an excise, regardless of the type of activity that generated the payment.

The argument that the federal income tax is limited to income arising from "excisable activities" has no support in any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (or any other federal court) and has been rejected in 100% of the cases in which it has been raised.

For example:

Quote:
"[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed 'tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish', and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion."
Heisey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-41 (tax deficiencies affirmed, along with penalties for failure to file and failure to pay estimated taxes, and an additional penalty of $2,000 was imposed for filing a frivolous petition), aff'd 2003 TNT 66-47, No. 02-72675 (9th Cir. 3/20/2003), ($1,500 penalty imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

Quote:
"Petitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that he did not engage in excise taxable activities in 1996. [Note 3: "Petitioner testified: 'The income tax is an excise tax. Congress, who sets the laws, even says so in the Congressional Record. The income tax is therefore not a tax on income.'"] We shall not painstakingly address petitioner's assertions 'with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.' [Citation omitted.] Accordingly, we sustain respondent's deficiency determination."
Sawukaytis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-156 (sanctions of $12,500 imposed), aff'd 2004-1 USTC ¶50,283, KTC 2004-186, Docket No. 02-2431 (6th Cir. 6/16/2004), (additional sanctions of $4,000 imposed for filing a frivolous appeal; the original tax in controversy was $13,976, plus a failure to file penalty of $726, so the total of the sanctions imposed by the Tax Court and Circuit Court exceeded the original amount in controversy), rehearing den. 8/6/2004, cert. den. No. 04-587 (12/6/2004)."

"John J. Bulten wrote:
Cpt Banjo wrote:
And since an excise may be based upon the mere receipt of property, the receipt of pay for work may be taxed by an excise, regardless of the type of activity that generated the payment.

Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1, 17, wrote:
Unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.


The two most recent Supreme Court discussions of the nature of an excise under the Constitution (which are, not surprisingly, never referred to by the TP crowd) state as follows:

Quote:
"Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned..." Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) (emphasis added)

"Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property." Fernandez v. Weiner, 326 U.S. 340 (1945)"

[Spencer]

They are right; there are actual laws that require a person (including a citizen of a State, not just people in D.C. and Puerto Rico) to file tax returns and pay taxes on income (which includes money earned for labor).

There are two types of people who don't pay their taxes: (1) people like the Browns who don't like the idea of paying taxes and claim that there is no law; and (2) people like Russell who know that there is a law but don't believe in the government's authority to steal money from people at gunpoint.

However, even assuming that there is no law requiring one to file / pay income tax, then the people who keep saying, "Show me the law and I'll pay," will have no choice but to pay (because they're not contesting the morality of taxation) if Congress walks into session tomorrow and passes a law, which is signed by the President, that clearly says, "Super Duper Law No. 1 for Taking Your Money: you must file a return and pay taxes on all income derived from any source, including labor, if you reside in the United States of America (and, yes, that includes individual States, not just federal districts and territories like D.C. and Puerto Rico) -- Method of enforcement: we'll come and shoot you if you don't file or pay."

People like Russell -- doing the *right* thing regardless of the legal consequences -- are going to continue to resist what they see as an immoral, illegitimate government in collecting what they see as an immoral, illegitimite tax that funds the immoral, illegitimite government.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Is there a law, the result of a Bill proposed, passed in both houses, signed by the Prez, requiring one pay income taxes, or, a rule made by a bureaucracy?

[EthanAllen]

There are two types of people who don't pay their taxes: (1) people like the Browns who don't like the idea of paying taxes and claim that there is no law; and (2) people like Russell who know that there is a law but don't believe in the government's authority to steal money from people at gunpoint.

(1) are tax deniers

(2) are tax protestors

[Spencer]

Is there a law, the result of a Bill proposed, passed in both houses, signed by the Prez, requiring one pay income taxes, or, a rule made by a bureaucracy?

Good point, Lloyd.  It looks like there are actual federal laws (passed by Congress and signed by the President) requiring the filing of income tax returns and payment of income taxes (Tyler's quoted language cites to Title 26 of the United States Code).

Most of the federal "laws" that exist are in the form of regulations (rules created by the federal agencies who are supposed to be enforcing them as well as enacting them); Dave Ridley was charged with violating obscure and unconstitutional federal regulations governing handbill distribution (I know that Jefferson is rolling over in his grave) at a totally unnecessary and awful federal agency. 

I think that administrative regulations are unconstitutional because they delegate the Congress' power to draft legislation to unelected members of the executive branch; the growth of the federal government has been helped in large part by the use of rulemaking "authority," and we're all worse off for it.

[EthanAllen]

Most of the federal "laws" that exist are in the form of regulations (rules created by the federal agencies who are supposed to be enforcing them as well as enacting them); Dave Ridley was charged with violating obscure and unconstitutional federal regulations governing handbill distribution (I know that Jefferson is rolling over in his grave) at a totally unnecessary and awful federal agency.

I think that administrative regulations are unconstitutional because they delegate the Congress' power to draft legislation to unelected members of the executive branch; the growth of the federal government has been helped in large part by the use of rulemaking "authority," and we're all worse off for it.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR ACTIONS AT FEDERAL BUILDINGS OR PROPERTY UNDER CONTROL OF THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

The following are the likely federal charges when engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience in the office of a Representative or Senator which is housed in a federal building or on another form of federal property under control of the General Services Administration.

The maximum penalty for a violation of these rules and regulations is 30 days in jail or a $5000 fine or both.


Title 41: Public Contracts and Property Management

PART 102–74—FACILITY MANAGEMENT 

Subpart C—Conduct on Federal Property

Applicability

§ 102-74.365   To whom does this subpart apply?

The rules in this subpart apply to all property under the authority of GSA and to all persons entering in or on such property. Each occupant agency shall be responsible for the observance of these rules and regulations. Federal agencies must post the notice in the Appendix to this part at each public entrance to each Federal facility.

Conformity With Signs and Directions

§ 102-74.385   What is the policy concerning conformity with official signs and directions?

Persons in and on property must at all times comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory or directory nature and with the lawful direction of Federal police officers and other authorized individuals.

Disturbances

§ 102-74.390   What is the policy concerning disturbances?

All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct on property that—

(a) Creates loud or unusual noise or a nuisance;

(b) Unreasonably obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots;

(c) Otherwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government employees; or

(d) Prevents the general public from obtaining the administrative services provided on the property in a timely manner.

§ 102-74.415   What is the policy for posting and distributing materials?

All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from—

(a) Distributing free samples of tobacco products in or around Federal buildings, as mandated by Section 636 of Public Law 104–52;

(b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property, except as authorized in §102–74.410, or when these displays are conducted as part of authorized Government activities; and

(c) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in §102–71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section must first obtain a permit from the building manager as specified in subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these regulations.

§ 102-74.420   What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?

Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of—

(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;

(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and

(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.

Penalties

§ 102-74.450   What are the penalties for violating any rule or regulation in this subpart?

A person found guilty of violating any rule or regulation in this subpart while on any property under the charge and control of GSA shall be fined under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both.

Impact on Other Laws or Regulations

§ 102-74.455   What impact do the rules and regulations in this subpart have on other laws or regulations?

No rule or regulation in this subpart may be construed to nullify any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated (40 U.S.C. 121 (c)).

[error]

Disturbances

§ 102-74.390   What is the policy concerning disturbances?

All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from loitering, exhibiting disorderly conduct or exhibiting other conduct on property that—

(a) Creates loud or unusual noise or a nuisance;

(b) Unreasonably obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, or parking lots;

(c) Otherwise impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government employees; or

(d) Prevents the general public from obtaining the administrative services provided on the property in a timely manner.

This sounds like a good one.

[J’raxis 270145]

There are two types of people who don't pay their taxes: (1) people like the Browns who don't like the idea of paying taxes and claim that there is no law; and (2) people like Russell who know that there is a law but don't believe in the government's authority to steal money from people at gunpoint.

(1) are tax deniers

(2) are tax protestors

(1) are tax protesters
(2) are tax resisters

...at least that's how I've usually heard the distinction described.

[Seamas]

This is an excellent post.  There is no future in legalistically insisting that well established law does not exist based on one's own specious interpretation.   On the other hand, explaining a moral argument far and wide and counting on a jury to nullify bad laws might work. 

They are right; there are actual laws that require a person (including a citizen of a State, not just people in D.C. and Puerto Rico) to file tax returns and pay taxes on income (which includes money earned for labor).

There are two types of people who don't pay their taxes: (1) people like the Browns who don't like the idea of paying taxes and claim that there is no law; and (2) people like Russell who know that there is a law but don't believe in the government's authority to steal money from people at gunpoint.

However, even assuming that there is no law requiring one to file / pay income tax, then the people who keep saying, "Show me the law and I'll pay," will have no choice but to pay (because they're not contesting the morality of taxation) if Congress walks into session tomorrow and passes a law, which is signed by the President, that clearly says, "Super Duper Law No. 1 for Taking Your Money: you must file a return and pay taxes on all income derived from any source, including labor, if you reside in the United States of America (and, yes, that includes individual States, not just federal districts and territories like D.C. and Puerto Rico) -- Method of enforcement: we'll come and shoot you if you don't file or pay."

People like Russell -- doing the *right* thing regardless of the legal consequences -- are going to continue to resist what they see as an immoral, illegitimate government in collecting what they see as an immoral, illegitimite tax that funds the immoral, illegitimite government.

[grasshopper]

   I see a LOT of Thios personm VS. that person.  I see not enough of accuale law as the law was written in the time of the Constitution.  If I HAVE to pay taxes, that makes me a slave.  If I have to pay lawfull taxes regulated by the federal govt. to help that fed. govt police the law, those are legal taxes.  If you look at the tax cases, you see a LOT of them are from the middle of the last century and into this one.  Income, the true meaning of income has been changed by borocrats over the last 100 years or so.
  look at it this way.  If it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, no matter what judge says or how it is "Interpeted" by any socialist judge or lawyer.  Never forget the the BAR exam is the British Admeralty Review.  British Marintime Law.  We fought a little war a few years back about this called the American Revolution.
  (sorry for the spelling, I have no time to really say what I want to.)

[Spencer]

   I see a LOT of Thios personm VS. that person.  I see not enough of accuale law as the law was written in the time of the Constitution.  If I HAVE to pay taxes, that makes me a slave.  If I have to pay lawfull taxes regulated by the federal govt. to help that fed. govt police the law, those are legal taxes.  If you look at the tax cases, you see a LOT of them are from the middle of the last century and into this one.  Income, the true meaning of income has been changed by borocrats over the last 100 years or so.
  look at it this way.  If it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, no matter what judge says or how it is "Interpeted" by any socialist judge or lawyer.  Never forget the the BAR exam is the British Admeralty Review.  British Marintime Law.  We fought a little war a few years back about this called the American Revolution.
  (sorry for the spelling, I have no time to really say what I want to.)

I'm not aware of a single bar exam in the United States that tests admiralty or maritime law, let alone British admiralty or maritime law.  Although, I think that the conspiracy in which all licensed attorneys / lawyers are British agents and not Americans claims that the "bar" is actually the "BAR," and stand for British Accredited Registry.  You can read all about it here.

My favorite part of the conspiracy is:

A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?  He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.

Regardless, the point here is that the courts all believe that the income tax exists, is legal, and is constitutional.  Attempting to argue the constitutionality of the income tax is futile (and I'm not just saying that to trick you and transfer what you have to the creator); I agree with you, grasshopper, that income taxation is a form of slavery, but arguing the legality of the income tax will get you nowhere.

[Caleb]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I think it's a much better idea to just say, "I don't care what the law says, I'm not paying for you to torture and kill other people."

[EthanAllen]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I think it's a much better idea to just say, "I don't care what the law says, I'm not paying for you to torture and kill other people."

And then willingly and lovingly accepting the punishment for breaking the law like Gandhi and King did so as to bring mental anguish upon your captors?

[CaveDog]

From my point of view government (as an agent of society) can tax income that society makes possible to the extent that it costs society to make that income possible. Paying one's fair share for the benefits which society makes possible is not unjust, but paying where no benefit is provided is unjust. In that context, "unearned" income could sometimes be taxable where it wouldn't exist if some form of broader society didn't exist.

Society does not make individual labor possible. A person could labor for their sustainance in the absence of society, therefore wages derived from labor cannot be taxed because by it's nature such a tax must be based on that fundamental labor for which there can be no proper exchange of benefit for cost. Labor may take place within a framework which society makes possible (i.e. infrastructure, protection of trade, etc.) and taxes may be levied to the extent that framework has a cost, but again only to the extent of the cost of maintaining that framework. The only appropriate form of taxation to that end is an excise because it does not tax labor, only the surrounding framework.

What laws exist contrary to those principles are, to my thinking, unjust by their nature.

[J’raxis 270145]

   I see a LOT of Thios personm VS. that person.  I see not enough of accuale law as the law was written in the time of the Constitution.  If I HAVE to pay taxes, that makes me a slave.  If I have to pay lawfull taxes regulated by the federal govt. to help that fed. govt police the law, those are legal taxes.  If you look at the tax cases, you see a LOT of them are from the middle of the last century and into this one.  Income, the true meaning of income has been changed by borocrats over the last 100 years or so.
  look at it this way.  If it is unconstitutional, it is illegal, no matter what judge says or how it is "Interpeted" by any socialist judge or lawyer.  Never forget the the BAR exam is the British Admeralty Review.  British Marintime Law.  We fought a little war a few years back about this called the American Revolution.
  (sorry for the spelling, I have no time to really say what I want to.)

I'm not aware of a single bar exam in the United States that tests admiralty or maritime law, let alone British admiralty or maritime law.  Although, I think that the conspiracy in which all licensed attorneys / lawyers are British agents and not Americans claims that the "bar" is actually the "BAR," and stand for British Accredited Registry.  You can read all about it here.

My favorite part of the conspiracy is:

A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?  He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.

Regardless, the point here is that the courts all believe that the income tax exists, is legal, and is constitutional.  Attempting to argue the constitutionality of the income tax is futile (and I'm not just saying that to trick you and transfer what you have to the creator); I agree with you, grasshopper, that income taxation is a form of slavery, but arguing the legality of the income tax will get you nowhere.

The bar exam, or rather the existence of bar organizations, is bad enough without having to resort to conspiracy theories to explain them. The state bar organizations are quasi-private entities that require people to join them, pay dues, and follow their rules, in order to become lawyers, and in many places now, judges. They've also been able to make attending a law school a requirement for becoming a practicing lawyer, thus assuring that the vast majority of lawyers all hail from the same well-to-do class of society.

This alone makes them in need of being eliminated.

And from a strategic point of view, such an argument has a lot greater chance of winning people over than outlandish-sounding conspiracy theories.