 youtube: freedom to fascism, a much better video than loose change |
 |
Replies
 Dec 23, 2007 - 4:57 PM
|
 
|
|
Enthusiast  Joined Jan 17, '04 From Illinois Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%)  |
Here is some reading from the IRS for you on frivolous tax arguments:
Read this before you cheat on your taxes While the issue of the 16th amendment not authorizing a tax on labor without apportionment is interesting from an intellectual point of view, the fact of the matter is that there have been recent court decisions that have addressed this precise argument and indicated that it was without merit. Those court opinions are interpretations of the Constitution which form the basis of the "law" when a person tries to make these arguments after being indicted for tax evasion. The 16th Amendment provides that income taxes do not have to be apportioned - directly (look it up if you need to). The primary constitutional argument these people are making is that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions (circa 1913 - 1925) addressing the 16th Amendment provided that the Amendment only applied to indirect taxes and not direct taxes like a federal income tax on wages. Intellectually, they have a point. But, practically, they have no point and no prayer of ever establishing this proposition as a reliable precedent (some have actually been tried and been successful in individual cases, e.g. google "Tommy Cryer") because the more recent cases addressing this issue directly address the issue of wages. Trial courts will look to these recent "lower court" decisions to determine whether the tax is constitutional. The only way that will ever change is if the Supreme Court itself decided to review and overturn one of these tax objector cases. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one as practically speaking the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to say that the government doesn't have the authority to collect 40% of its current income or that the past 93 years of income tax collection has been unlawful. If you are passionate about these issues, the best approach would be to get active at the legislative level or support candidates for election that want to significantly reduce your tax obligation. That would be a more productive outlet and would not subject you to prison time. This post has been edited by jgreening: Dec 23, 2007 - 7:38 PM -------------------- QUOTE(lagos @ Jul 10, 2006 - 1:55 PM) [snapback]454118[/snapback] i know your trying to do the right thing for your motor, but this is one of those times where you should just trust the guys who have had their swaps for a while and have done a ton of research into this. |
Posts in this topic
celicaST youtube: freedom to fascism Dec 19, 2007 - 7:21 PM
94CelicaDragon Pretty spooky, the last two, talking about the ... Dec 22, 2007 - 1:24 PM
jgreening QUOTE(94CelicaDragon @ Dec 22, 2007 - 12... Dec 22, 2007 - 3:03 PM celicaST QUOTE(jgreening @ Dec 22, 2007 - 1:0... Dec 23, 2007 - 4:35 AM 94CelicaDragon QUOTE(jgreening @ Dec 22, 2007 - 3:0... Dec 23, 2007 - 11:21 PM jgreening QUOTE(94CelicaDragon @ Dec 23, 2007 - 10... Dec 24, 2007 - 5:53 AM lagos Go read George Orwell's 1984 book. If your laz... Dec 22, 2007 - 1:49 PM massbrandon I don't mean to be a jerk or whatever, but wha... Dec 22, 2007 - 1:57 PM jgreening Also, Section 61 defines income, contrary to episo... Dec 22, 2007 - 3:22 PM Jeunesse Now I wonder if we really have to pay income tax i... Dec 23, 2007 - 12:11 AM |
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: November 27th, 2024 - 7:41 PM |