Wesley Snipes tax protest case heads to court
Actor Snipes is on trial for not filing returns for five years. What do you think of the case?
From Anonymous What's tax (control) governments so called
legal policing they need us to pay their debts think of it as ants in a colony without us they have nothing, reserve banks are privately owned they lend money to governmets and then need it repaid with interest who pays YOU AND ME TAX payers so in the end they do not want you to pay your loan off 30 yrs 40 yrs and I believe now a 50 yr loans always paying. Take a look at a movie called Zeitgeist it will explain how it works.
From bob, Fort Polk, LA Wow, you really called it right! Opinion of the SCOTUS is just an opinion, not law.
From Justin, Las Vegas NV Glf from Plano, TX is RIGHT!!! Our money is not back by anything, NOt gold….Nothing. People, start looking up the info to Reclaiming your State-Citizenship and tell them we are done with the LIES!!!!!!
From glf plano tx Wake up! The fed prints "money" (iou's) with obscene abandon. Fed income taxes are unnecessary, except to control the unruly mob! That's you and me…morons!
From Justin, Las Vegas, NV. ROFLOL….Wesley Snips is NOT in jail and will never go because he reclaimed his "State Citizenship" or became a "Dejure Citizen"…don't know what that is, then figure it out. There is law libray's everywhere. People just need to shut the damn TV and internet off for one day and go look it up.
Oh ya, and CNN, if your going to OMIT this comment because you will get in trouble for posting this, then I understand….I mean the only News web site out there back when the court case first ended that mentioned: "Wesley Snipes was Aquitted of the charges claiming he was a Non-Resident Alien" and then turned around 3 days later and OMITTED that important info was probably because the news web site got into some serious trouble by Congress themselves for posting the TRUTH!!!!!!!!
From Johnny, Dallas Texas I'm 53 and I barely make enough money to pay my bills and eat, but I "BY GOD" have to pay my taxes! Snipes makes 38 million and can't pay his fair share. Don't put him in prison amd waste my tax dollars feeding him.
Make him work and pay every cent he owes!
From Jo Plum-bear, Lihue Hawaii Stupid. Throwing more money at schools will not magically make them better. Obviously … look what it's done to your unreasoning mind.
From Lenard Here's my issue:
The IRS defines business profit as revenue – expenses. A business gets to subtract the cost of doing business BEFORE paying taxes on the profit. There is an inherent "understanding" or "agreement" that the costs of doing business, labor, advertising, equipment, supplies, etc… are NOT subject to income tax – ONLY THE PROFIT, after expenses is.
For an individual, the "assumption" is that all of OUR expense – our labor, energy, supplies, etc… begins as pure profit and is taxable. There is no accommodation for or recognition of the value of our labor and what it costs us to provide a service. Business gets to value it's labor costs. The individual does not. I'm not a constitutional expert, but that does not seem to be equal treatment under the law. AND, the SCOTUS has ruled that a person's labor is NOT taxable.
It's time we stopped focusing money and started putting people first. The majority of time, money and energy we spend in this country goes towards the accumulation of …you guessed it – MORE MONEY. If we got rid of money as the focal point of our existence, and put the health, education and welfare of PEOPLE first, we'd reduce energy dependence, reduce stress, improve health, reduce crime, reduce pollution, etc…
Wake up people! This country was born out of a protest. Protesters are not the problem. Living in a system that does not allow one to fully enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is. I know, "if you don't like it, go somewhere else". Unfortunately, most other places have adopted our "limited" thinking and policies.
Everything in the world is made up. Surely, we can make up something better. We have to. Otherwise, we're all doomed.
From JD, Beverly Hills, CA The Federal Income tax is unconstitutional. However, that never stopped the government from implementing it into law through legislation. After all, as the 2nd Bush administration pointed out regarding the Torture issue : an act is only unlawful if the government rules it to be. Tax protestors are foolish. Give unto Cesar that which is Cesar's…or he'll carve it from your hide. I'm sure even after paying taxes, Mr. Snipes could've lived a fine, wealthy lifestyle. The tax code is so riddled with loop-holes that there is no excuse for refusing to file to reduce one's burden. C'est L'vie…now we'll have to wait 3 years for more of Mr. Snipes' fine entertainment…:)
From Gordon This is a reply to Nicole from Dallas(Apr.29'08)…you call it "kooky" to want my tax-money to actually go towards Education,Health Care,Alternative Energy & other infrastructure? Did you see the 2008 Federal Budget? $481 Billion for the Dept.of Defense? $145 Billion for the so-called "Global War on Terror"? No,thank you! They actually increased funding to those 2 categories(+12.1% & +45.8%,respectively) while NOT increasing Education funding! How will America ever emerge from its backwards momentum when (literally) 1/2 our kids don't even graduate from high school? Oh,right..they're fodder for the War Machine! "Taxation without Representation." It's as simple as that. Spend my money on something REAL,and I will gladly give it up.
From Melissa, Austin,Tx Has anyone seen the movie "Freedom to Facism in America?" Watch the movie, it talks about the "law" that doesn't exist on being taxed on labor. When you work for someone(ie.labor) they pay you. It's a barter. Incomes is defined as "profits". ie. retail, selling, stocks.
From stephanie houston,tx. MY HUSBAND WAS BORN AND RAISED IN THE GOOD OLD U.S.A. he can't read or write.
He filed his taxes and paid them with the use of an accountant.The I.R.S. prosecuted him for tax fraud for the very first return that he ever filed. When he refused to plead guilty, they prosecuted me too!OH, by the way i'm a housewife.They threw my husband in jail and refused him bail until we both plead guilty.What happened to our do process????Why don't accountants have any accountability?
From Anonymous I think it's great that wesly got out of jail
just as long as he pays his tax then everybody is happy and he learnt his lessons!
I just hope he will be acting again
Im still waiting on a blade 4!!! =]
welcome back snipes xx
From Ron, Baltimore, MD "None are so difficult to free as those who revere their chains." -Voltaire
Keep paying those taxes with a smile.
From Melissa, Washington D.C. What do I think? I find it hilarious that the U. S. government wants to use Snipes as an example. I understand the thought behind it, but here's a better thought. Why are we making a big deal out of this when actors and actresses are routinely pulled over driving drunk, or posessing cocaine, things that can actually hurt some one else, and they get a slap on the wrist. If I got caught with a bag of dope in my Gucci bag I'd get locked up, no questions asked. The point is if you are going to use a celeb as an example, do it across the board, in all cases. They are only pushing this case because they want "they're" money. It makes me sick!
From Anonymous income tax does not pay for anything we use in this country. It pays the interest on the nation debt. We have drivers license fees to pay for roads. We have property tax to pay for street lights, etc;
If you make 30k a year do you really think you should give 10k to the government.-it pays part of a senator's 200k a year salary?
The government is F***ing the poor and the middle class is on it's way out-
-
From Jerry, Shakopee MN The only thing that works is fear itself, as FDR tried to deny. Real criminals have less to fear from Uncle Sam every year. If someone refuses to dance for the IRS, then the punishment gets more severe and arbitrary every year. Solzhenitzen thought people who get pleasure from hurting other people were treated as class allies (co-conspirators) of the collectivists. Both are engaged in eliminating that scourge of the human race called private property.
From sandra james Why did he get the max time, when he made an attempt to payback
the taxes. There are people tht are convicted of manslatter and
don't get that kind of time. Make an example of him, why??
From Jerry, Shakopee MN For latest on Wesley go to http://www.ocala.com/article/20080508/news/846137152
Dr. Sam at republic broadcasting talked about this latest move in his Sunday evening program on 05/11/08.
From Nygel, South Lake Tahoe, Cailf. WOW, please do not call us "Tax Protestors" We are Patriots fighting for your dwindling freedom. Sure there are people going to jail for this. They (The Powers that Be) have created booby traps at every turn in this game. Some fall prey to them. At least they are working towards something real.
So step 1. is educate. Educate yourself about the system (commerce) that they do not teach you about in school. Educate yourself about the history that they want buried. And the biggest thing is to educate yourself about is our spiritual and God given birth right of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And what ever knee-jerk reaction you have to this post, ask yourself, "Is this what I think? Or what they want me to think?"
From I can't hear you, Florida Not too many touched Nicole's (of Dallas, posted on April 29th) comments.
From K.R., Springfield, Mass Give Caesar what is due Caesar. Paying taxes have been around since the biblical days. Unfortunate we have to pay taxes, because it is the law. Should Snipes do time for not paying his? The answer is clearly NO!!!. Like the other writer stated, their are pedophiles out here that rape and molest women and children and get no jail time at all. This is ridiculous. Tell him to pay his fine/back taxes and call it a day.
From Michael, Dallas,TX I work hard for my family and earn a modest income in the Telecom business. I never get a refund. I owe every year.
Good riddance Snipes.
From lee – round rock tecas SkyT is right. Taxes should be a formula that gives the SAME aswer no matter who does it. When two different CPA's give two different tax totals we have a problem with the code itself. Those very CPA's are the reason the flat tax is not getting the exposure it should.
From Shakopee, MN In THE DIVERSIFIED METALS CASE U.S. Attorneys BETTY H. RICHARDSON AND RICHARD R. WARD at point 4. –"Denies that the IRS is an agency of the United States Government…." This can be found at http://www.statusisfreedom.com – click on resourses.
When a private person is hauled into court by the IRS they should subpoena one of these U.S. Attorneys.
From Caoimhín, Jacksonville, FL How can income tax offenders receive more time in jail then pedophiles? I guess money is more important then children.
From DK, IN Wow the comments here really amaze me. So I guess that most of you posting on here don't care when the government is stealing our money and wasting it? To the people that claim this country can't run without an income tax how did we exist before 1913? Or do you think that the income tax has existed here since the revolution? Pretty much you sheep need to WAKE UP. If the crooks in Washington wouldn't waste billions of dollars this country could survive and prosper without an income tax. Its sad that you are all trained to not only willingly pay whatever they decide you should, but you talk trash about people who are trying to bring change that would benefit us all. It really sickens me to see the direction this country is headed and how many people not only don't care that we're being screwed but they vehemently defend the actions of the government. Just remember you reap what you sow, its just unfortunate that those of us who don't blindly agree with everything we are told must reap it with you.
From IRS, UNITED STATES, AMERICA I once met a fellow who bragged about never paying taxes for 40 YEARS. "Yes, this is the problem, once you file youre on record and if you miss filing you're caught. I've never filed and never been bothered by the IRS."
Do you think he's still bragging?
From Pete Houston, TX I am surprised that he was actually given jail time, and I think it is funny that our government seeks to make examples of folks like Snipes and Stewart when GWB is such a crook and actually gets rewarded for his gaul. Pete
From SONNY GROTTANELLI you play, you pay….grab the bull by the horns you mjfgt get stuck !!!
i DON'T LIKE PAYING TAXES BUT, i HATE GOING TO JAIL MORE.
HE LIKES TO DRIVE ON ROADS THAT ARE NOT MADE OF DIRT. HOW
DID THEY GETR THERE…TAXES. ALSO, FIRE STATIONS, POLICE,
\
ECT, ECT…. NOT TO FORGET THE I.R.S. YHEY HAVE TO GET $$$ T0
From Fl If a rich indidual like Wesley Snipe has refused to pay income tax, what are poor people supposed to do?
From David (New York) Regarding this comment by David (California), yes, we need to pay taxes but regarding the assertion about uneducated work force–that's our country. People graduate here from a post-secondary institution who can't read, write, or spell.
I personally hire foreign workers since Americans demand higher wages for less output.
Tax protesters are crazy. The government provides an infrastructure so that you can MAKE money in the first place. Patent and copyright laws, airports, highways, street cleaning, public safety, education. You are out of your mind if you think that YOU shouldn’t have to pay your share. Don’t want a functioning government? Move to the third world, where companies have to deal with lack of law, bad infrastructure, uneducated work force.
Posted By David, California : April 24, 2008 8:48 pm
From Educated, Houston, Tx Biose Idaho posted this:
Americans’need to wake up and smell the coffee.You cannot see the forest for the trees.If one does not like the way the government is spending their hard earned money (taxes),quite giving them your money.That is one reason why we had a revolution with England not so long ago.Taxation without representation.
Boise, you need to get out more. We are a representative republic here in the US. You are comparing taxation without representation to taxation with representation. To the same note, the ENGLISH CITIZENS who were living here were being taxed by Enland for their income. The US today does not tax earnings made out of the country. We learned from the mistakes of old Enland. But you would have to truly understand old England to know the difference between them and our contry today. You have access to the internet. Do better research. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt…
From Mike Cleveland Maybe more people should do that. Think about it, where will they find
the room in jail for them all. I think that is what they are afraid of.
Maybe then they will quit wasting are tax money.
From Austin, TX There is no law stating you have to pay taxes. It is voluntary. Look what this IRS agent has to say: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2005/04/01/8256489/index.htm
From Nicole, Dallas Tx Tax Honosty, You hit this one out of the park. You seperate the smart people who enjoy the goods and services we take for granted, from those who live in their parents basements wearing Tin Foil hats.
I’ve read all the tax cases so you can’t fool me.
The record is clear that the SCOTUS settled the matter on all your frivolous arguments decades ago.
I know that tax protestor/denier/evaders like you are hard-core criminal element extremists that refuse to face reality.
But the courts are not extremist kooks like you. They can read the same cases and apply the correct construction on the law, which they have done.
You are wasting good comment space here with all your bloviating text on Brushaber.
If you had done proper research, you would know that in Pollock, the SCOTUS clearly defined income from wages as constitutional, but then erred on investment income.
When you understand that correct context, then Brushaber makes perfect sense since the purpose of the 16th amendment was to make moot the SCOTUS error on investment income in Pollock.
You kooks seek to appear credible by bloviating with wrongheaded constructions on out-of-context half-truths.
But if a person actually does a good faith research of the law, they’ll see through the frivolous assertions of anti-tax kooks.
The IRS even went to the trouble of putting out a web page of information to help people not fall for all the kooky misinterpretations of law put out by the anti-tax crowd to help people not fall victim.
The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html
And of course, there is the Dan Evans webpage that goes into depth to explain the foundations in the tax law.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Evans went off on his own to do actual good faith research because he saw all of these kooky arguments flooding the internet.
The internet is flooded with tax evasion kook websites.
So it’s nice to see that the IRS finally responded to protect people.
Wages are ascessions to wealth, fully realized, so they are clearly taxable income.
Posted By Tax Honesty, Ocala FL : January 22, 2008 3:01 pm
From BKH San Antonio, TX Well, Mr. Snipes is an idiot, no question.
What I take issue with is the new language – yes the language that says you paying 3% and me paying 40% of my income in Federal taxation (and more in payroll taxes) is "fair,"…that paying it is part of paying "my fair share," and similar such language.
10% flat tax on income and capital appreciation (targeted per year)coupled with a 2% transaction tax will solve this problem for good and all.
40% of the citizenry pays NEGATIVE taxes – that is, gets more money back than they ever paid in.
70% of the taxes are paid by the top 40%.
40% of the taxes are paid by the top 1%.
Yeah, that's "fair…"
From Joe It's funny, we'd still be under English rule if the founders felt "we must pay taxes." But they again, 200 years later, we are under King George's (Bush) rule.
From Tony, San Jose, Ca OMG – Josh and David you guys are the stereotypical tax ignoramus. (reader – lookup his post – Posted By Josh-IL : April 25, 2008 5:03 pm and Posted By David, California : April 24, 2008 8:48 pm )
Listing all those services that would supposedly be cut off if the income tax were to go away – shows how uninformed you are. Problem is – there are many out there just like you.
Do us all a favor and educate yourself …. Please.
It is people like you who allow this fraud (yes Fraud) to continue.
From Ben, Melbourne, Victoria, AU what do you seppos not understand about paying tax? No tax = no government services = each for themselves = anarchy.
From Paul South Florida More bullying on the part of the Federal Government,in my opinion.
http://www.sellmyinventory.com
From Patrick, Bellevue, WA I just read nearly every comment here and it blows my mind!…wait a sec, no it doesn't: I have seen all types of info-mercials peddaling all types of crap on pseudo-science. So never mind, I can understand why the "tax protesters" comment as they do.
From Tony, San Jose, Ca Some of the people making comments here vividly display not only their ignorance of the statute law but also the fundumental constitutional law not to mention what it means to be American.
The income tax as it is being fraudulently inforced by the IRS and DOJ is as antithetical to the constitution and the intent of the founders as can possibly be.
Never in any Tax trial is the law aloud to be discussed. The Jury is barred from reading the actual text of the law but instead is told they must accept what the judge says. In those cases which have a jury member who has some critical thinking skills ( Like Marcy Brooks – in the Whitey Harold case) will recognize that the Judge is a co-conspiritor with the prosecution.
The income tax is in fact not necessary … the common wisdom of the people who think so are simply in error.
Tax Honesty….. that is what we need …transparity on the part of the IRS and DOJ. For years they have avoided answering questions because they can not afford for the issues to be exposed in the clear light of day in front of the cameras (remember 3 times the IRS renegged on promisses to appear before our lawyers to answer questions at the National Press Club)
Only criminals act as they do.
When asked to discuss the matter they do not pull up a chair but pull out a club instead.
IRS – answer the damned questions!
Each tax terrist season they parade out a show case like Mr. Snipes to keep all the usefull idiots (like a lot of the one commenting here) in line and brain washed.
From John Cincinnati, OH Love the illegality of income tax prattle. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (2 of the world's wealthiest men)pay income taxes. But you out there, sitting in front of your computer, you know much more than either of them with their battery of attorneys and accountants. Looks like that kind of arrogance is a life sentence.
From silvina calgary alberta canada its ridiculous
From Jim Palm Bay FL Any reasonably intelligent person knows about the IRS. If you work for a company they take taxes from your pay, PERIOD; That means it is a requirement within this country to pay taxes. Forget the law aspect of it. Someone, must pay for our government. Like it, hate it, it's just the way it is. What makes Snipes or anyone else think they are so special as to not pay taxes on money they have earned. If you don't like the system propose something better!
From Francis Keating, Houston, Texas To say that Mr. Snipes got what he deserves because the Internal Revenue Code defines his actions or inactions purnishable as a matter of law is a bit short sided.
Willful Intent is a pre requisite of the law. One does not have willful intent to break the law when acting on the advise of an accountant or other professional that a certain action taken should be taken. Mr. Snipes took advise from parties he believed were experts thus negating any hint of willful intent.
It should be remembered from some very old cases "Yarborough vs The United States, Fahea vs. The United States", and a host of cases since those that when one fails to file a tax return while believing that no taxes are owed, failure to file standing alone, even though defined as a crime by the Internal Revenue Code, is not a crime because willful intent can not be established from such facts.
Mr. Snipes failed to file because he believed from the professional advise given that he owed no taxes.
From j, stockton california Grace Commission Report (PPSS)1982 "100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."
From Jim Johns, Hoouston, TX Three years in prison for misdemeanor first offense crime… Kill a man and get 0 to 3 years, dont pay taxes you believe to be unconstitutional, same thing…
From Seattle, WA Wesley Snipes is a Patriot in my mind. The sheeple out there stating "he isn't above the law" are the same people who rightfully glamorize the Boston Tea Party. There is no law requiring a person to pay income tax.
From Boise,Idaho Americans'need to wake up and smell the coffee.You cannot see the forest for the trees.If one does not like the way the government is spending their hard earned money (taxes),quite giving them your money.That is one reason why we had a revolution with England not so long ago.Taxation without representation.That is precisely what we are presently living in today.Most people don't even know who the king of England was at that time?(King George III).Our founding fathers would probably turn over thinking about how what they laboured so long and hard for and what they so longed for.What it has actually become.Very sad the way people are so disconnected from one another.Let alone the government,which consists of each and everyone of us.Wake up and stand up for your Liberty and quit rolling over,our founding fathers never.So get a backbone America,it is your hard earned money not the governments.If you don't like the way they are mis-spending your money,hold them accountable,can't you see it for what it truly is?
From Dr. Kerry Downs ,St. Loouis,MO. He'll be out in 6 months tops but death or taxes
From SkyT, Homer, AK It's the unfairness of the tax system that gets me. I have a doctoral level education and still struggle to do my taxes. I resent being forced to hire a CPA to help me figure out what I owe. Even then if I hired three different 'pros' I would get three different answers. We are at the whim of the IRS as to enforcement. There is no way to accurately figure one's taxes.
From Michael,Oakwood Hills,IL Its sad that someone like this thinks he's above the law. We may not like having to have to pay taxes but that's life here wesley. I guess 3 years is long enough to plan making a movie like ******PRISONER 57******PRISONER 57 2*****PRISONER 57 TRINITY*****
From Bob Shelby Twp. Mi. Enforcement by intimidation will always be controversial: When the Military was notified of the "EXECUTION OF PRIVATE SLOVIK" in WWII, the point was made; stay the course, or else!!
From George, Tampa Florida David and Josh,
Though I don’t subscribe to the tactics of cursing and name calling, the essence of both of your arguments is spot on. However, you must realize that much of the U.S. is in a self-hate and self sabotage mindset. Be it an unpopular war or president, America seems to hate it’s self. Many Americans hate the very underpinnings of this great society. It is vogue to be anti-establishment/government; even when the structure of this government/society has been the conduit to allow you to become (through hard work) a multi-million/billionaire. One of the mantras of their school of thought is that “the world hates us because of X, Y, Z”. Why wouldn’t they? We hate us. It’s not only because of our foreign policy, our speaker of the house, the majority party of congress or the president for that matter. If a bad person says he/she is a bad person, most tend to believe him/her. After all, who would know better than they? Many Americans tell the world we are bad and or evil, so why would they think otherwise? Further, accepting responsibility is not as much of a prevailing character trait as it once was. Something is always someone else’s fault. If not, many claim some type of “ism” for their situation rather than accept responsibility. With that being said I do think the system is unfair and should be changed. I personally prefer the flat tax idea similar to the Steve Forbes plan. However, the current law is the law. We must work through the channels provided by the founding fathers of this great nation. Just my two cents….
From K.Y., Houston, TX I believe that those in the entertainment business should not be above the law. If we as common citizens have to pay, they should have to pay. ( And since they're dealing with much more money, keep track of it. Don't rely on "others").
From Brian, Phoenix Arizona the true wake up call is that we are being convicted of a crime that does not exist. there is NO (ZERO) law, saying that we have to pay a federal income tax. it is against the constitution. it is against the american people. there is no difference between the IRS and a bully who takes your lunch money.
we need more examples of people willing to stand up against the IRS, whose main weapon against us is fear and terror. google " America: Freedom to Fascism"
From Kirby, FlowerMound, TX Totally agree with Josh and David below, in that we all benefit from the taxes we pay. Public goods like schools, roads, the military are there for us because of the taxes we pay.
As to Snipes, what a greedy fool. He makes $38mil, and he doesn't want to pay for his share of the public goods. Even if he had to pay half in taxes, that would have left him $19 million…how much does he need? Keep in mind that with the current tax structure, and moderately decent CPA, his tax burden would have been closer to a third at most.
Hope he likes his cell mate!
From Eric, Pflugerville Texas After researching the "allegations" from these so called "Tax Protestors" I can't find the law that requires you to pay income tax and I have repeatedly asked the IRS and various Federal Agencies to please show me the law and put my mind at ease… I still just keep getting the same rhetoric about how they don’t need to show me the law because “Everyone knows you have to pay”… I still pay because “Might makes right” and they can and will destroy you if you do not pay. Just look at this case.
From PaleoCon, Los Angeles, Ca There is no law making most Americans and legal resident aliens liable for subtitle A income or subtitle C employment TAX and
THERE IS NO LAW.
The 16th Amendment even if ratified legally did NOT change a thing
From Anonymous Snipes could afford to pay his taxes but didn't, so he should pay them. What about the low income earners who can't afford it? Whatever happened to the 10% flat tax idea? Let everyone except those who can't afford it pay 10% of everything they make. If you make less than $30,000 a year you don't pay taxes. If you make over $30,000 a year you pay 10% of eveything you make, no deductions.
From Ron, Bainbridge, Ga. Too much power is sometimes given to judges who are imperfect people and can abuse power….need checks and balances….we all know what the scriptures say what power will do to us….appeal to a jury and let the system work….if confirmed Snipes willfully did something wrong, he should serve the time, but if there is a small amount of doubt and he followed bad tax advice from others doing his taxes, he should simply pay what he owes and not serve time for a mistake because we all are imperfect in the eyes of God….judges should always do what they believe Jesus would do….if judges get personal, go over the line, show no mercy, and violate James 4:11 & 12, the scriptures say those judges will see this again and reap what they sow sooner than they think. Judges should do what we all should do….imagine God not showing mercy for our mistakes….we would all be in a world of hurt….we all should read Matthew 18:21-35….these scriptures could help resolve Snipes' case.
From lisa, jacksonville, florida Im sorry, but is anyone else bothered by the fact that now-a-days, a young female teacher can have sex with a minor and not even do any real "Jail Time". Snipes gets sentenced 3yrs for not paying taxes on income that HE earned; he didnt steal anyone else's money (now that would be something that would warrant some jail time),no, he tried to keep money that HE earned. I understand that we need to follow guidelines when it comes to our government; what bothers me is the fact that our moral responsibilities matter so much less than how much money our government takes back from us. I bet if Debra Lafave would have put off paying her taxes; she would have most definitely been put in jail…oh, wait, no, she really doesnt make that much so it wouldnt really matter to the government :) This gives true meaning to the "i am proud to be an american where atleast i know i am free….." Yup, free to sexually abuse children…..and get away with it. Should Snipes get away with what he did? No, i dont think so, but there are drunk drivers, child abusers and far worse people out there that wont even do 3 years. I believe there is a better way to handle a situation like this. Its a power trip and it sucks.
From melbourne australia. Robbie its a bit harsh me thinks
From Al W. Harrison, MI No one is above the law. Three years is not enough! He's in the same company as drug dealers and other criminals who don't pay taxes. The stupidity of Snipes openly defying the law typifies his arrogant self image.
Where do we get the money to pay for national defense, the water he drinks, police, fire, schools, and the roads that we all drive on everyday? Not from him. The one guy that can afford it more than one thousand of us.
If he wants to go to a night club, can he use our roads? No! If his house catches fire, will no one come? I hope not. If his child is kidnapped, will no one come? I hope not.
Pay for schools or pay for prisons. Your choice!
From Tom, Houston, TX People, get a grip. The revenue taxes go towards paying what the US government owes to the federal bank, the so called national debt. The Federal reserve bank is in fact a private entity, not a public one ! The debt is in trillions.
Roads, defence, education, etc … are all paid by regular corporate taxes. Not one of the revenue taxes dollars go towards building America.
The IRS and federal Reserve System are a scheme that was put in place by the bank industry to steal the wealth of the American people. Guess what is the collateral for the federal debt ? The people of the USA's gold !
Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid.
70 million American don't pay revenues taxes to the IRS after they sued and won.
Check the documentary: "America, from freedom to fascism." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism)
From steve decter when was anyone sentenced to 3 years on a misdemeanor conviction? steve,florica
From Gerri, Las Vegas, NV Too much time considering he coughed up $5 million toward the debt. He sure can't pay the rest if he's in jail. The court is just making an example of him as they are of many black entertainers.
If it were Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears and they paid nothing towrd their taxes they would get a slap on the wrist, no jail time and years to pay off the debt.
From Ntellect, Atlanta, Georgia I have one statement that EVERYONE needs to investigate. SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND WHO'S INCOME IS NOT DERIVED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAXES?
I'm not asking you to show me IRS code. The IRS is not a Federal entity nor do they make laws. WEHRE IS THE LAW?
From James Marsden, Los Angeles, CA Black and rich? recipe for a jail sentence. If that were Brad Pitt, he would of not received the maximum sentence, proud to be american.
From Sue, Los Angeles CA I agree completely with KJeroH! It's the courts and prosecutors who committed the greatest crime. It just goes to show that our "Justice" system is only just to the government, not it's people.
From Paul, Eureka ,Ca Taxes pay the interest on money borrowed from the Fed. The Fed is a PRIVATE BANK. This is what a person with a brain likes to call Economic Fascism. Economic fascist everywhere would like to thank those of you defending the IRS. Without your lack of insight none of this could not be possible. Snipes may be going to jail but that is small considering what the founders did to fight against these same policies. "You have nothing to fear but fear itself."
From George Bush It seems to me that Mr. Snipes would be more productive in paying the irs their blood money if he remained out of jail and could continue to earn a living as opposed to sitting in jail costing tax payers more money. Boy I thought you had to be intelligent to be judge or a prosecuter,maybe theres hope for me.
From Jared, Laurel, MD I am sure he did his part but the problem I have is that –too many stars are doing it and why send a black male to jail they have recent activities of white stars doing the same—the other side is why send people to jail who owe money–you would think working would be better. Also, dont we have real issues in America to deal with besides sports and actor drama–I guess distracting America with human rich faults is better than getting rid of inequities and country debt…no one is sending Chaney to jail for his actions or those people giving contractors deals who did not pay taxes?
From Travis Its a JOKE. They want YOUR money, and they want TOO MUCH of it………and if you dont give it to them……..THEY PUT YOU IN JAIL. that is america.
BULLSHIT…….
From Jack M. Hoff Its ironic,that when the "mafia"takes money from hard working citizens for providing services like protection etc. its a crime, punishable by prison
but when the federal goverment does the same its perfectly legal.I think the scumbags themselves (federal prosecutors,judges)should spend more time trying important cases like,the curruption in our own government After all, the money they take from wesley will just be enough to buy another tank or maybe some missles, or more guns for the military to "protect" us from ? I cant remember who were fighting again, oh yeah "terrorists" or maybe enough money to help hurricane Katrina victims.Oh I almost forgot the elderly who cant afford the medicine they need to survive. but then again they probably dont want them around so they can use that social security money to to invade the next country.
From Anonymous Good, serves him right. If he didn't get it for beat women at least he got it for not paying his taxes. Enjoy your time Wes!
From Pete Sagi St. Louis, MO To quote another poster here:
According to the Congressional Research Service and the 1943 Report, the federal income tax is not a tax on income. It is a privilege tax that is measured by the income the privilege produces. Income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. In other words, according to these Reports, Congress is taxing a privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege.
So the 64,000 dollar question is…what is the privilege and where is the Internal Revenue Code section that makes the American people liable for this privilege tax?
Posted By Slade, Alamo, CA : January 17, 2008 11:24 pm
Slade is EXACTLY 100% CORRECT. Now, on to answer his question: The PRIVILEGE that most people who pay/file income taxes is the privilege of EMPLOYMENT. Someone can receive remuneration for services rendered without incurring any income tax liability, regardless of the amount of remuneration. HOWEVER, if you receive "wages", "salary", or "commission" for "employment" you have incurred a liability and are subject to/liable for the "income" tax. WHY?? ALL OF THOSE WORDS HAVE SPECIFIC LEGAL MEANING DEFINED WITHIN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODES, and apply to only a small handful of situations, one of which is participating in a 100% voluntary social welfare program that is not required to live or work in the United States, known as "social security".
The real enforcer of the income tax is NOT the IRS, but rather corporate Amerika. In a comparison to "The Matrix" the IRS is merely the squiddies or sentinels whereas corporate Amerika is the Agent Smith character. Corporate Amerika is gatekeeper to the income tax system, because anyone who would prefer to work without a socialist slavestate number is generally refused hire, regardless of the lack of any law preventing a corporation from hiring someone without the use of those infernal nine digits.
Since usage of that number is considered by govt. to be voluntary, if you "choose" to use the number you have just volunteered to be a "taxpayer" (also specifically defined by the codes). Using the number and then refusing to file/pay is akin to enlisting in the Marines, swearing the oath, taking the step forward, and then refusing to report for boot camp because "it's an all volunteer military". (Sorry pal, but didn't you already volunteer when you swore the oath and stepped forward?)
For the IRS to go after someone like Snipes, rest assured, there was specific evidence that he had incurred a tax liability/made himself subject to/liable for the so-called "income tax", meaning that he used a socialist slavestate number or other PERSONAL taxpayer ID number.
Mr. Snipes should have used a corporate entity that he controlled at arms length (his only relationship to the corp would be that of client) to handle his accounts receivable. This billing corp. could have then provided all the people/entites that he does business with a corporate taxpayer ID number, while expensing out the cost of his remuneration against corporate gross receipts WITHOUT the use of a personal taxpayer ID number, WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL REGARDLESS OF THE SUM IN QUESTION. Then all Mr. Snipes would have had to do is maintain the integrity of the corporate veil.
Regardless of fouling that up, I wish Mr. Snipes God-speed and good luck with his stay in Club Fed. I have personally met several people who have done time in Club Fed (minimum security, and for the same charge that Mr. Snipes was found guilty of) and while it is still degrading and dehumanizing it is generally not all that bad as far as prisons go and generally survivable WITHOUT paying protection or being violated by other inmates. Mainly, Mr. Snipes will have to do menial chores, work out with weights as much as he can, and either learn more about law than he ever imagined or become very good at chess or poker. To Mr. Snipes, I say this … Hang in there, my friend. As for me, I want to meet up with you your first day out to have the privilege of handing you that first cold beer after you've served your time. For all you do, this Bud's for you.
Sincerely,
Pete Sagi
From Paul, Seattle WA I like Snipes, but honestly he got exactly what he deserved. If nobody paid taxes then the government would collapse and we would just have anarchy. Maybe that's what a small minority of people want but imagine a country with no schools, no police, no fire departments, no public health system, no military, no roads, and no access to all the other stuff I can't think of that taxes pay for. We'd be back in the stone age in no time. I don't like paying taxes anymore than the next guy and the government does plenty of things I disagree with, but I'm still obligated to pay taxes and I freely acknowledge that despite the negative aspects of our government, it DOES provide vital services that EVERYONE uses. If you don't want to pay taxes you basically have 3 choices, quit your job and live in a tent somewhere with no income so you don't have to pay taxes, go to jail, or leave the country.
From KJeroH, Staten Island, NY Three years? Along with the massive penalties and interest that will wipe him out? That's justice? The greater crime was conducted by the courts and the prosecutors.
From Chris, SLC, UT Man up and take your time! Not only should Snipes accept responsibility, he should TAKE accountability for is actions (or lack thereof). He offered 5 million in checks prior to being sentenced, this just once again proves that you can’t buy character or integrity!
From Josh – IL One more thing. For all of you who are citing Supreme Court cases that have yet to be overturned has evidence of the unjust nature of our current tax laws, keep in mind that you need a test case to overturn these cases. There are plenty of crazy rulings still on the books. According to the Supreme Court, it is still constitutional to intern Japanese Americans.
From Jim Sutherland, United Kingdom The man gives $5 million over and still gets maximum. It is cheap publicity for the IRS. That is not justice.
From Josh-IL David, I can't agree more. You guys can quote all the old supreme court cases you want, but I'm sure if I wanted to waste a few days, I can quote my own fair share of supreme court rulings and congressional legislations that legitimize the income tax. You know what, fuck it. Lets all just abolish taxes. Old people will die because they won't have medicare. Car accidents will rise significantly because potholes won't be fixed. Our military will cease to function causing a global power struggle. And for all you small business owners, when someone steals from your store or doesn't honor a contract, the only refuge you will have is to hunt him down yourself. But hey, at least we'll be able to keep that 20% of our paychecks that our government "steals". You all are a bunch of idiots. Pay your taxes and don't be a bunch of freeloaders.
From American Patriot Jupiter fl If you notice, these prosecutors have obviuslu been told to send a message to Americans, WE WANT YOUR MONEY OR ELSE.
Obviously they are very worried about people saying the hell with the IRS.
The money is used to police the planet and fund the corrupt forieng [policy.
Without our money the government can't keep doing illeagal activity.
These prosecutors obviously have a hidden agenda, that is why they came out and threatened the American Public.
To bad Ron Paul can not become president, he was going to abolish the IRS.
I wonder what the Prosecutors thaught about Mr Paul's statements on that.
Obviously they have been told by hire up's to set an example and intimidate the Public.
They should be fired and investigated.
From David, California Tax protesters are crazy. The government provides an infrastructure so that you can MAKE money in the first place. Patent and copyright laws, airports, highways, street cleaning, public safety, education. You are out of your mind if you think that YOU shouldn't have to pay your share. Don't want a functioning government? Move to the third world, where companies have to deal with lack of law, bad infrastructure, uneducated work force.
From Q Morgan, Richmond, CA With corrupt judges and prosecutetors all things are possible. Look at 1930 Germany. An unjust Tax system will cause all govenments to fail eventually.
From mack los angeles, ca Because we should all check out the people that or doing our taxes we need to follow up on what we are paying people to do, because we all make mistake, it would help to have somebody check his or her work.
From Jeff, Waukesha, WI "Fear is the key element for the IRS in achieving its mission. Without fear, the IRS would have a difficult time maintaining our so-called system of voluntary compliance …". "Given the opportunity, the IRS will take the easy way out and grab whatever it can… the IRS does not really care about you and what your future……. may be".
-Santo Presti, former IRS Criminal Investigation Agent and author of "IRS In Action"
From Waukesha, wi Hey Ian from New Gloucester, Maine,
You're absolutely right….and that should bother you immensly.
From Jeff, Waukesha, WI "In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that 'If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the entire system will collapse' ".
- Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)
"… the key question is: can we define 'income' in a fair and reasonably straightforward manner? Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in doing so".
-Shirley Peterson, former IRS Commissioner, April 1993
"I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs'. That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him".
-T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, May 25, 1956 in US. News & World Report
"Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it's time we rebelled".
-President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, VA
"If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you".
- Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in US. v. Lloyd
"Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint".
- United States Supreme Court, in Flora v. United States
"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance".
-Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual (1975)
"The United States has a system of taxation by confession".
-Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice, in U.S.A. Kahriger
"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS agents… Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights".
-Judge Cummings, U.S. Federal Judge, in US. v. Dickerson (7th Circuit 1969)
"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply…".
-Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953
"The purpose of the IRS is to collect the proper amount of tax revenues at the least cost to the public, and in a manner that warrants the highest degree of public confidence in our integrity, efficiency and fairness. To achieve that purpose, we will encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance in accordance with the tax laws and regulations…".
-Internal Revenue Manual, Chapter 1100, section 1111.1
"Fear is the key element for the IRS in achieving its mission. Without fear, the IRS would have a difficult time maintaining our so-called system of voluntary compliance …". "Given the opportunity, the IRS will take the easy way out and grab whatever it can… the IRS does not really care about you and what your future……. may be".
-Santo Presti, former IRS Criminal Investigation Agent and author of "IRS In Action"
"The IRS is an extraordinary example of the end justifying the means. The means of this agency is growth. It is interesting that the revenue officers within the IRS refer to taxpayers as 'inventory'. The IRS embodies the political realities of the selfish human desire to dominate others. Thus the end of this gigantic pretense of officialdom is power, pure and simple. The meek may inherit the earth, but they will never receive a promotion in an agency where efficiency is measured by the number of seizures of taxpayers' property and by the number of citizens and businesses driven into bankruptcy".
- George Hansen, Congressman and author of "To Harass Our People"
"I have sat on many a promotion panel where the first question of panel members was 'How many seizures have you made?"'.
-Joseph R. Smith, eighteen-year IRS agent, testifying before Congress
"The agency that is so strict on the way Americans keep their books cannot even pass a financial audit".
-Ted Stevens, Republican Senator from Alaska
"Eight decades of amendments… to [the] code have produced a virtually impenetrable maze… The rules are unintelligible to most citizens… The rules are equally mysterious to many government employees who are charged with administering and enforcing the law".
– Shirley Peterson, Former IRS Commissioner, April14, 1993 at Southern Methodist University
"some techniques can be used only in connection with a full-scale program due to the nature of the tax situation and the need to avoid unnecessary taxpayer reaction. An example would be income tax returns compliance efforts aimed at the non-business taxpayer".
-Internal Revenue Service Manual, section 5221 "Returns Compliance Programs"
"This [audit] was made extremely difficult because [IRS] existing Systems were not designed to provide reliable financial information… on their operations".
-Comptroller Bowsher, Government Accounting Office, on the first-ever audit of the IRS in 1993.
"The wages of the average American worker, after inflation and taxes, have decreased 17% since 1973, the only Western industrial nation to so suffer".
-Martin Gross, author of "The Tax Racket: Government Extortion From A to Z"
From Joe Momma, Chicago, IL. The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification. Look for yourself.
From j Wesley,
You rock!!! No way do you owe a dime to the IRS they are an illegal organization and aMerica will soon know all of the facts! Thanks for being part of the movement!
From Ian, New Gloucester, Maine I appreciate the scholarly arguments very eloquently layed out by those who oppose the federal income tax. I encourage them to stop paying income tax and return to this forum with the results of that experiment. My guess is that they will invariable be faced with reality and be forced to pay said taxes or serve jail time. Good Luck!!
From JerryShakopee Minnesota According to Barton Buhtz the IRS was identified by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1993 not to be an "agency" of the U.S. Government. See DIVERSIFIED METAL PRODUCTS vs T-BOW COMPANY TRUST, IRS et al.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Below is a sampling of what I submit is the sophistry of the public (whomever wrote the piece below for wikipedia) as well as the modern judicial opinions of the courts as it relates to the meaning of income.
Notice how the writer attempts to make the case for something other than what was intended and ruled by the Supreme Court to be with respect to the 16th Amendment, the Constitution and the historical decision of the that time. A time when they had a full and complete understanding of the meaning and limitations of the 16th Amendment, as well as the intent of the Congress with the respect to the tax powers and limitations enumerated within the Constitution.
Granted the writing immediately below is someones perspective which has been intertwined with dicta from U.S. Supreme Court cases which admittedly, is not unlike what I myself have done here.
"In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party, gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances,and certain scholarships.
The courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment as standing for the rule that the Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."
So I ask you now….does it not appear that by the above understanding would one not be led to believe that all those earlier and historical cases which have not been overturned are now somehow mute and have no bearing on current tax cases?
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan With respect to statements (A) and (B) below…please ask yourself the following.
Do statements (A) and (B) have equal meaning in substance, without regard to form?
Do statements (A) and (B) equate capital and labor for purposes of determining what income is?
Do statements (A) and (B) have as a prerequisite for income to be manifest: (1) the realization of gain and/or profit which is derived from the following sources: either capital, labor or both capital and labor combined, including profit or gain through sale or conversion of capital?
Statement (A)
"Income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital".
Statement (B)
"Capital, Labor or both combined, are sources from which income may be derived, including income that may be derived as a result of a profit gained through sale or conversion of capital".
The definition of Income in Statement (A) is often quoted by the U.S Supreme Court and is attributed to:
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285)
Statement (B) is my paraphrasing of statement (A).
In a basic sense, I guess I'm trying to demonstrate by logic, words and law, that capital, labor and/or both combined are what the U.S. Supreme Court describes as sources from which income may be derived.
I believe it is well understood that capital is not the equivalent of income when used in the tax laws.
Likewise, labor given its position along side capital in the definition of income as provided by the U.S. Supreme Court would logically mean that it also is not the object nor the subject of an "income" tax.
Besides as has been pointed out previously, "the income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” 89 Congressional Record 2579-80 (1943).
Hope those of you out there who are capable of critical thinking, can see through the smoke and mirrors which in many cases has been deliberately put in front of you, whether it be by federal court decisons or legislative fiat. I would just like you to see things from a different vantage point.
Good Luck!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan "Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves."
– Thomas Jefferson (letter to Edward Carrington, 16 January 1787)
From Jerry,Shakopee In Robert Beale's appearance he testified that the United States is a corporate fiction with no registered geographic borders. As such it only has a contract with other corporate fictions(public persons) and has nothing to do with private persons.
If a private person were to pay taxes it would be in lawful money (gold or silver) not in promisary notes.
From Ed What do I think of the case? I think its awesome….thank you Wesley! It is time for a change, I am not a slave. We get taxed enough on everything else. If you want me to give you a portion of my hard earned money for general "good" of everyone….You better belive I'm gonna want you to show me exactly what it was spent on. If you can't give me an itemized acct for every one of my dollars, why should I play your game?
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Such substantive contributions…
calling people morons, tax protesters (wasn't that what many of the founding fathers were called?), arrogant jerks (maybe it does take one to know one), are you speaking from personal experience?
When do you plan on using the "Liar liar, pants on fire" argument?
Let's just take a look at some of the arguments the writer below makes.
"Taxes are legal…" I wonder how long it took him to come with that profound and original thought. Nothing like putting up a universally accepted truth to win the day.
Next…"The sixteenth amendment makes the income tax legal."
The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating: "…by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…"
The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS.
So, if it is not a direct tax, then it is still an indirect tax, but, possibly, no longer a duty. Then; "What kind of tax is the income tax now?" In the "previous ruling" referenced above, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 US 1 (1916), the court stated:"…taxation on income was in its nature an excise …" , and "…taxes on such income had been sustained as excises in the past…". specifically, "Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such 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,…"
The Court ruled that the 16th Amendment effectively transformed the income tax from an indirect duty to an indirect excise. It is not a direct tax without apportionment. And, if we examine the law closely, that is exactly what we find; that the income tax is imposed and applied under the law, as an indirect excise, ONLY imposed on specific entities (Federal), and sources of "taxable income" (privileged).
So, what is an excise tax? Fortunately, the Supreme Court used to know what it was doing, and both of these decisions, Brushaber and Stanton, refer you to another case handed down five years earlier, Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911), in which the Supreme Court ruled that excise taxes are:"…taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."
The Supreme Court effectively establishes with this ruling that excise taxes are manufacturing taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on privileges. Privileges in the form of either licenses to pursue certain occupations, corporate privileges, and any other privileges granted to the individual by the government as well. One of these other privileges, is the privilege of being protected by the United States government in a foreign country under a tax treaty. The government normally would have no jurisdiction or ability to protect you or your business interests in a foreign country, but because of the existence of the tax treaty with that foreign government, your business is protected by the U.S. government outside their jurisdictional boundaries (the United States).
Next we come to his comments, to wit:
" The only debate is how to define income. Congress has answered that, by defining in various places what is NOT income. Just about everything else is taxable."
Here he makes the claim that "income" is defined by other definitions of what is NOT income. Interesting!
So if congress has not said that bubble gum (that has stuck to the under side of my shoe as a result of walking down the sidewalk) is not income then it must be an "ascension to wealth" or in other words has enriched me to the point that it now qualifies as taxable income then I must admit that I may owe more than I originally thought.
Next he states that "Tax protestors (here's that name calling again) are just arrogant jerks who don't want to obey the law".
I have to admint that he appears to come from a long line of people with the same type of mindset.
I have to look no futher than those people prosecuted those who helped free slaves when it was illegal to do so, or maybe the people who repeatedly put Quakers in jail for believing differently than the government sanctioned version of religion, or maybe to ancient times when Jesus was going against what government thought was right at the time. Of course there are plenty others, just ask all those souls who's lives were lost in the battle for freedom from oppression, freedom of religion, etc. I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you!
From David D. Apparently some of the people on this forum are morons. I'm speaking to the ones who can't phrase a complete sentence when making their anti-tax arguments. Taxes are legal – just for those of you who think they aren't. The sixteenth amendment makes the income tax legal. End of question. The only debate is how to define income. Congress has answered that, by defining in various places what is NOT income. Just about everything else is taxable. Tax protestors are just arrogant jerks who don't want to obey the law.
From maddawg, DC. TO ANYONE THAT DOUBTS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN INCOME TAX IS ILLEGAL…ONE REQUEST….
FIND ANY ACTUAL LAW OR CONSTITUTIONAL ENTRY/AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES CITIZENS TO PAY TAXES ON WAGES…
(it should be pretty easy for you to find since right?)
waaay to many R-tard imbeciles posting here that know NOTHING about the actual Federal Reserve or IRS or how they are in fact unconstitutional.
to many comments like this from 'USam, Barnsdale, OK." ….Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it…He can play ignorant just as well behind bars."
although i admit this statement to be true, the true ignorance is believing in something just because you heard somebody say it….
if you R-tards don't know, understand, believe or comprehend the facts about the IRS and FedReserve, then do the research yourself….they ARE owned by a couple of private families, and are absolutely unconstitutional and absolutely stealing your money because you let them.
many, many sites exist pointing to exact sources of law, constitution, amendments, etc. that prove the IRS and FedReserve are illegal.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Well Ed,
That sounds like a generous gesture.
I'm willing to bet he has an affinity or appreciation for fiction given the number of movies he's starred in that are just that.
If nothing else, he can use it as a joke book to derive levity from.
I'm sure it is going to be somewhat ironic or surreal to him to see the the writings of the supposedly intellectual contributors who continue to propagate or possibly plagiarize the govco lie in such a "prestigious publication" as compared to the actual and factual writings and opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court which have not been overturned. He might also use it after govco stops the modern day "witch trials" excuse me tax trials as he stands over the IRC and pretends to offer up a eulogy. ROTFLMAO
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Well Joe,
I have already bought another copy of "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution"…I have it bundled up and partially addressed to Mr. Wesley Snipes…I just need to know which Federal Correctional Institution he is heading to….I found another good book for him to read called "Money Laundering" by John Madinger…I am sure he will make very good use of that book…when he gets out.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan In response to what Mark from PA has posted"
"U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment
The 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." (emphasis mine)
I'm sure it must appear on the face of things to the average man on the street that the 16th Amendment trumps any arguments about the power of the Federal Government to tax incomes as it see's fit.
Unfortunately, most people don't read court cases very often and I wouldn't be suprised to learn that even when shown a Supreme Court Case contradicting the idea that the Federal Government can tax anything it declares to be income, people will believe what they want to believe and not be concerned with knowing the actual truth!
It's unfortunate for them that they will likely remain ignorant of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing power to the Federal Government. An Example of such a case is provided below. Mindful that this case has not been overturned by subsequent opinions of the Supreme Court).
"…the confusion …arises from the conclusion that the sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it,… …it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions made under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one
State or States than was levied in another State or States. This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1, 11, 12 (1915).
From Tom Winston Salem, NC He made $38 million and doesn't want to pay taxes? Give me a break! He should get a real job and know what tax pain really is.
From Mark, PA U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment
The 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.
From keith miles, phoenix, az In case someone reading this thinks Snypes is wrong, just read the instruction pamphlet the IRS produces for the 1040 form. The instructions for line 7 where you put your income is entitled in bold print: "FOREIGN EARNED INCOME". The IRS and its lawyers full well know that the 1040 form does not apply to domestic inccome.
From Jo, Waterford, Michigan Mr. Justice William R. Day, delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, explained what an excise tax is:
Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680 …the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges,…
Stella P. Flint v Stone Tracy Company 220 US 107, 151, 152 (1911)
James Madison’s notes of the Federal Convention of delegates from the several States which formed the Constitution of the United States show that the subject of direct taxation was discussed on the date 13 July 1787, a Friday, during convention. On the proposal for imposition of direct taxation, Mr. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate at the convention from Massachusetts, moved to add an amendment that the direct taxes "be assessed on the inhabitants of the several States according to the number of their Representatives respectively in the 1st branch".
This Amendment failed to pass.
Mr Gerry finding that the loss of the question had proceeded from an objection with some, to the proposed assessment of direct taxes on the
inhabitants of the States, which might restrain the Legislature to a poll tax, moved his proposition again, but so varied as to authorise the assessment on the States,…
Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States Sixty-ninth Congress First Session House Document No. 398 pg 370
This proposition passed. The Congress was denied the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. It has never been granted this power, nor can this power be delegated to any agency of government, nor to any corporation or other business. What cannot be done directly by the Congress, cannot be done indirectly. The direct taxes must be apportioned to the States to pay. Mr. Crumpacker, Congressman from Indiana, reiterated this in a speech on the floor of the Congress concerning the income tax, stating:
The framers of the Constitution had in mind the fact that the States would largely raise local revenues from a direct tax upon personal and real property.
It was believed that this would be the chief source of local taxation, and the power granted to the federal Government to impose a direct tax
was granted upon condition that the Government should estimate the amount of revenue it might require from that source and apportion the sum among the States on the basis of population as shown by the preceding census. This plan was intended to give the States the right to contribute their pro rata share from their own revenues without complicating their local systems of taxation. This was regarded as a matter of much importance to the States. A direct tax imposed upon the same property by two different governments might involve embarrassment and unnecessary expense in enforcement. It was believed that the General Government would secure adequate revenues for ordinary purposes from customs and excise taxes, and would only have occasion to levy direct taxes in great national exigencies. With the power to levy and collect direct taxes vested in the Federal Government it was thought that the States would increase their local levies and pay their respective shares, and to enable them to do so the per capita basis of apportionment was fixed.
Congressional Record House of Representatives 18 March 1912 pg 3574
Chief Justice Edward D. White, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Brushaber case, and quoting from a previous case, stated:
In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which
their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and
excises. Pollock v Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company 157 US 429, 557 (1895)
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan As stated in the Congressional Record, and the Supreme Court records, the income tax is not a tax upon "income" per se, but upon the act of doing business, the income being the measurement used to determine the amount of the tax to be assessed, with various exemptions and deductions granted by the Congress. If the tax was upon the income itself, then all of the deductions and exemptions that the corporations enjoy to reduce taxation to a nullity would not exist, and the income would be taxed as a whole.
Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is being misconstrued to include the value of the sources, or property, in which the value of income, then used as the measurement for the tax. This is done by many individuals, and declared to be so under penalty of perjury. This is not surprising, since section 61(a) of the present code is misleading in that the sources, as listed in the Revenue Acts of 1926, shown in the Internal Revenue Laws, 1927, Sec. 213, pg 550, 551, Gross Income Defined, being listed as sources, are now listed as items of income and employers are coerced into believing that they are liable for the debts of their employees. Businesses are responsible for funds that are withheld from people who volunteer them to be turned over to the United States Treasury Department; but to say that business is responsible for funds not volunteered, and that the business will have to pay what was not collected, is a step outside the law.
Congress has not the power of jurisdictional authority over the private affairs of the people; and lacking this, have not the power to delegate this authority to any other entity by legislation, unless a privilege granted by government
is being exercised by the individual. There is a distinct difference
between a right and a privilege, as there is between an individual and a
corporation. This is not legal advice unless you've paid for it.
Black's Law Dictionary, second edition, exposes the difference between the economic term "income", and the term "income" as used in the
"income tax" acts, the economic term meaning the same as revenue, or that which comes in, while the term used in the "income tax" acts means yearly profits.
The current code is a restatement of earlier codifications.
The first appearance of section 61 in the 1939 codification (it was
numbered section 22(a) at the time and contains the following wording:
Gross Income (a) General Definition -Gross income includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service, of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades,
businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, …"
From Luke, Chicago, Illinois Hey if anyone's interested in a form of currency that actually has value (opposed to these federal reserve notes that has no value) check out the silver liberty dollar. Recently the feds raided em because they're afraid they that might offer actual competition. In addition, the creation of this currency doesn't put the nation in to more debt, again opposed to the federal reserve note that put the US in debt the moment it was created; the US pays more for the note than it's worth because of interest. It's 100% backed by gold ans silver and trades dollar for dollar with the fed reserve note. The private bankers really hate it, because it can mean the end of the strangle-hold that they've had this nation since 1913.
From Luke, Chicago, Illinois Hopefully this will lead the way for more and more people to protest this egregious crime. Income tax is unconstitutional; it is a an unapportioned tax. Federal income tax goes into the pocket of private bankers thanks to the PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve.It does not go towards roads, fire fighters, police, etc. that all those opponents of Snipes like to imply. He was not attempting to cheat the American people, but I believe he attempting to express his right to property. There's no way any American citizen should pay that crap. Thank you Mr. Snipes, and hopefully others will succeed in his wake.
From R. Rischardeu, D.C. For those of you who believe your income taxes go to supporting the federal government, WRONG!!!! It goes directly to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK that is owned by INTERNATIONAL BANKERS. Check the record, U.S. declared bankruptcy in 1933(HJR 192). Your America was used as collateral, it's land, it's resources the people and the future labor earnings of the people. The taxes we want, pay the creditor Fed Reserve with the notes of debt we began printing in '33 called Federal Reserve Notes. You have been brought up to believe it was money. HA HA HA. Read what it says on your dollar in your pocket. It says NOTE, meaning a note of debt. Now you can go to bed tonight knowing that your former president and congress in 1933 sold you to the Federal Reserve. You silly little inconsequential beings. We own you. Now get out there and pay us fat bankers your taxes cause you owe your sole to the company store. If you don't we will sick the IRS on you. Get IT!!!!!
From Paul, Sacramento, California The 16th amendment conferred no new powes of taxation to congress. Look it up…there have been several supreme court cases about this. Also, "wages" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code Sec. 3401 is "remuneration" paid to "employess"….the defintion for "employee" is clearly given as a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WORKER. Go to http://www.losthorizons.com where this is all spelled out. Mr. Snipes did indeed break the law by not filing…but that doesn't mean that his private sector compensation is lawfully classified as "taxable income". And that's why he wasn't found guilty of any other charges. The movie studios probably sent in information returns to the IRS that Snipes didn't challenge…by not challenging them they become the only evidence on record.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca According to the prosecutors, Snipes now faces up to 3 years in prison…let's all hope the judge gives this ignorant criminal the MAX…maybe he can be bunkmates with Richard Hatch from Survivor.
Prosecutor Robert O'Neill said the actor could still face jail time, however.
"Filing tax returns is not optional. It is a legal requirement," O'Neill said in a statement. "Mr. Snipes now faces up to three years in a federal prison for his willful failure to comply with the law," he said.
From Jerry, Shakopee CA There seems to be a consensus that the 16th Amendment granted no new taxing powers . Do you accept that view?
The main steam media (MSM – according to Ann Coulter) is saying that the IRS did not get everything they wanted from Wesley. The IRS is only engaged in enforcing contracts – (commercial law) and has nothing to do with taxes. It looks to me like they had a runaway slave (and extreemly valuable one) and did not entirely succeed in getting him to do their song and dance. I think that is a positive trend.
From May Hemm Thank you Mr. Snipes. You have made an incredible contribution to the beginning of the end of illegal taxation and tyranny in this country. I hope now we might all wake up and save it from the monster our collective ignorance has created.
Bless!
From Kent Ninomiya, SF,CA Considering Snipes could have faced 16 years in prison, this has to be called a major legal victory. This is also a victory for those who object to our tax system. Snipes certainly isn't the only one who refuses to submit to our tax system, though he is perhaps the most prominent. Regardless of whether you agree with his views, you have to respect his courage. Snipes could go to prison for his beliefs, yet he is fighting the system anyway. His legal victory will embolden others to follow his example. This could be the beginning of a tax revolution. Kent Ninomiya
http://kent-ninomiya-movies.blogspot.com/
http://www.kentninomiya.com
http://www.kentninomiya.org/
http://www.kentninomiya.info/
http://www.flixster.com/user/kentninomiya
http://www.hollywood.com/MyHollywood/UserProfile/kent_ninomiya
http://kentninomiya.myblogsite.com
http://www.zimbio.com/Kent+Ninomiya+TV
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Can you say TEA PARTY?
"According to IRS estimates, as many as 10 million people nationwide fail to file their required annual tax returns. Lost revenue from these unfiled returns amounts to over $7 billion each year. Additionally, back taxes resulting from returns that are filed without the required tax payments are about $110 billion. Of these amounts, the IRS estimates that approximately $29 billion is uncollectible. Clearly, the problem is immense."
"How many nonfilers are there today? The IRS doesn't have a clue. In part, that's because Congress has slashed the agency's budget, halting the kind of audits that would make even crude projections possible. Informally, government tax authorities say there are 10 million nonfilers. In truth, there are many more, and here's why:
The IRS identifies a nonfiler as a person who fails to submit a tax return even though a third party has filed an earnings statement (W-2) or information return reporting interest or dividends (Form 1099) that shows the person received income during the year. This narrow definition ignores all those who leave no paper trail. These are the people for whom there are no W-2s or 1099s, no record of wages, annuities, gambling winnings, pensions, interest, dividends, or money flowing in from foreign trusts and bank accounts.
In addition to these people who deal only in cash, there is another larger group whose numbers have soared. They are wealthy Americans and foreign citizens who live and work in the United States and in other countries–multinational wheeler-dealers, independent businesspeople, entertainers, fashion moguls and models. They have multiple passports or global residences and therefore insist they are exempt from the U.S. income tax."
Will the last one holding the bag please turn out the lights?
From Joe Well, at least we didn't have a jury that was totally devoid of brains. Handing the prosecution another huge defeat by not convicting on any felony counts is WONDERFUL! Congratulations Wesley! I would expect that this type of high profile prosecution that rely on the jealousness of jurors to convict is something the justice department is going to have to rethink as more and more people find for the defendants.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca SNIPES WAS FOUND GUILTY ON 3 OF THE 8 COUNTS AGAINST HIM. THE 3 COUNTS WERE ALL MISDEMEANORS…SO LOOKS LIKE HE SKATED…BUT HE WILL HAVE TO PAY ALL THE TAXES,PENALTIES, AND INTEREST.
From a. drummond, largo, maryland i believe he knew what he was doing and though he could get away with it. If everyone else has to pay taxes why does he think he doesn't. I think he is a jerk and should pay back all the money he owes the IRS plus interest as well as any penalties and fines just for being so smart.
From CA Everyone read this, and make up your own mind :
http://www.salestax.org/library/skousen_16history.html
From MF Cummings, Tucson AZ I applaud Wesley Snipes for having the courage to refuse the IRS. We are not slaves! We do not work for the benefit of another for any reason other than at the point of a gun. Our country survived without the fraudulent "income tax" for nearly 200 years. Dr. Ron Paul suggests that we rid ourselves of the "income tax" and replace it with nothing. By doing so, not only do we reduce the governments power to tyrannize, but we also reduce the government to the same income level that it had in the year 2000. I can live with that!
Are we a nation of Free men and women? or are we sheep, happily led to the slaughterhouse at the pleasure of the Federal Government?
Refuse to file and giving up your 5th amendment rights! Stop voting for incumbents who ignore the Constitution! Make your representatives obey the highest law of the land or throw them out! My God Americans, Educate yourself and stop relying on the mainstream media to form your paradigm!
From Jerry,Shakopee Did Lincoln free the slaves or did he make all U.S. Citizens slaves? I am inclinded to think that any citizens who falls under the maritime jurisdiction (the District of Columbia) have only rights that his master (Uncle Sam) decides to give him. I think Wesley has filed some commercial papers to get out of the law of the sea and into a common law jurisdiction and I hope that they hold up for him.
The Admiralty courts operated by Uncle Sam are an entirely private plantation system that have a security interest in all public persons, but have nothing to do with private persons (for example someone who gets their mail general delivery)
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca This PERSISTENT argument by tax protesters, that wages(as opposed to income) are not taxable, is completely impractical. Our government's tax revenues would decline by 80% and yet none of these "tax protesters" will EVER make a reasonable arguement as to what the government should do to make up for the loss…Invariably they say "it's not our problem"…but it is THEIR problem because they CHOOSE to live in our REPUBLIC.
If you don't like our tax system…take your case to the U.S. Supreme Court…and for god's sake STOP COMPLAINING!!!
From jason pheonix Everything is already taxed. Wages and labor is essentialy not taxable. Income is defined as CORPORATE GAINS ans PROFITS, not WAGES AND LABOR. Wages and labor are free trade between you and your employer. Essentailly the tax on your paycheck is a tax before you can pay tax on EVERYTHING you buy.
If my wages are taxable, Why work? To support global empire to police the world? Taxes on comsumer products pay for everything, such as roads n what not.
Salute, Mr. Snipes, Salute
Get your copy of the IRS codebook today, and tell me your TRUELY FREE?????
From john r walden dear sir;
it is to mmy undersatnding that the irs was ordered by hte plainitff prosee
to take $50,000,000.00 out of escrow account(trust) 26-0046439 and pay thr
irs what is owed by mr snipes. Or face criminal charges themselves for
criminal contempt of the out of court agreement of 2004 in which thys are
defendants themselves involved with murder one to class b misdeamenor.
Mr snipes is an idot, but compared to wwhat the feds got caught doing, he
is an angel. At least hed id not use tax payer dollars to hire hitmen from
the mob to kill a persons family.
the us atrtorney needs to chill out an find that the days of the IRS and
personnel income tax is at an end. 140 trillion in taxes from esrow account
26-0046439 speaks for itself and the irs and the us attorney are relics of a
by gone era of gestapo antics.
From joyce doss max meadows Va I have to say We have loved every movie Wesley has been in.Great Actor But Get real! An 11 million $ refund.Sorry!The avg. family wouldnt even come close to that one in a lifetime and that would be about 5 generations making fair wages.Pay up!Hey "Wes" sorry Bite Me! hehe P.S. still love you!
From pilgrim 1776, novi, mich Title 26, the infernal revenue code does not include a private market-place entity nor does it contain any words allowing the labor earnings of any entity to be taxed by either the income tax, the additional tax, or the normal tax; Period!
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Wesley Snipes has an interesting defense to his federal tax charges — none!
Today in a Florida federal court, Snipes and his attorneys rested their case — without calling a single witness. His attorney, Daniel Meachum, said, "We chose not to call witnesses because there was no need to. The government prosecutors have put on a case that simply does not come close to meeting the standard of its burden of proof." Always bet on black!
Snipes and two co-defendants are currently on trial in for allegedly failing to file his 2000 federal taxes, for demanding $11 million in tax refunds on taxes he'd already paid, and bouncing checks to the U.S. Treasury. Snipes' attorneys say the "Passenger 57" star is the victim of unscrupulous accountants and sincerely believed he didn't have to pay taxes.
The trial, which started January 14, was expected to last a month. The prosecution rested its case on Friday.
From Jerry, Shakopee Nothing in the constitution is to impair the right to contract. The IRS is engaged in the enforcement of a contract. The signature on a birth certificate or occupational license (driver's license) ect. gives the irs a veneer of legality as they collect on the contract. Essentially the commercial law being enforced is the " fugitive slave law," and has nothing to do with taxation.
From Tony, Surprise, AZ Kare 11 in Minnesota has interviewed Robert Beale a millionaire turned pauper due to his convictions and not paying taxes -
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=269181
From Jerry, Shakopee Were direct taxes ever apportioned. Bob Shulz talked how about one of researchers discovered that the Director of the IRS wrote about this problem around 1918. This apparently appeared in the Instruction for tax preparation in one of the years prior to 1920. I will have to do some digging to find more details.
The problem is complicated by the fact that someone at the IRS was trying to destroy these early archives.
From LA90056 Los Angeles California Mr. Snipes knows that he had to pay income taxes on monies he has earned for his work.
They should throw the book at him for acting like he is stupid, and also for allowing two thugs to steer him into doing himself harm.
Sorry, this man intended fraud and thought he could get away with it.
He should have to pay what is owed to the IRS.
From Joseph DeGennaro I guess next year I will do the same. He pays it with interest and penalties, just like us or jail!
From Jerry, Shakopee It is the season for Joe Stalin style "show trials." Here in Minnesota Robert Beale is scheduled to be a victim. Bob has testified that he seeks to peacefully co-exist with a private corperation called the United States while living in the remnant of a republic called the U.S.A.
I hope Bob's testimony does not disappear down the Owellian memery whole.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca go to utube.com
type in
Wesley Snipes trial for updates
From Mark Issaquah WA Hey folks, I paid my taxes and I make a lot less than Wesley, He broke the law and will be spending time in the slammer. Too Bad I like his movies!
Anyone ever been some where they do not pay taxes? I have and you would not want to live there.
From August Spokane WA I can say this video says it all. What do you think?
From bartlett ,billings mt You should pay your taxes and that is the question? In cfr 6201 (b) it says the secritary of treasure will do a 1040 return for you .So wait for him to do it that way you didn't willfully fail to file .
If you recieve an advers determination 23c assessment (tax bill) write and ask for the original 23c that an IRS agent filled out and you will never get one that way you chase the IRS away.God bless
WILLIAM BARTLETT
BILLBART777@HOTMAIL.COM
406 252 7524
From MI He (Wesley Snipes) and EVERY American should refuse to file income tax form , which according to the IRS is VOLUNTARY, Second there is NO LAW requiring ANYONE to pay an income tax on earnings. PERIOD everyone has their head up there a@@. And Americans are brainwashed into thinking "this is the way it is cause the governemnt says so" omg wake up people…..time for Boston Tea party
From Skully The IRS code is for alcohol Tobacco and Firearms those are the only taxes they are allowed to go after wesley does not manufacture or own any of those three commodities and this is what his attorney should be arguing in court.
skully
From Bob Lyons The article might have noted that although the question whether a person had a good faith belief is determined under a subjective standard, not an
objective standard, a jury may consider the objective unreasonableness of a position in determining whether the defendant had a subjective good faith belief. The article might also have noted that Mr. Cheek was retried and convicted again under the standard announced in the Supreme Court case. See United States v. Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993).
From UK Snipes is just the start of a ripple of a revolution. The federal Tax is still Unconstitutional, and there still remains NO LAW in existence to pay this tax PERIOD! The so called "federal" tax literally goes straight into the pockets of the Central bankers ! As it stands at the moment its simply down to the "argument" in court as to why one didnt pay this tax. thats down to the effectiveness of the argument or Lawyer!
L
From Ed Belsinger Tax 101, I don't think so, this is more like "Fraud for Dummies". I find it hard to believe that an intelligent man such as Mr. Snipes could be
unwittingly drawn into such a fantasy (861). Mr. Snipes surly must believe that wage taxes are a legitimate under the law as he was apparently willing
to and in colusion with the two other defendants file a false tax refund clame that would have netted him eleven million dollars. I absoultely wish
Mr. Snipes luck, and hope after paying his attorneys he has enough money to pay Uncle Sam. I hope Mr. Snipes does not go to prison, but he does need
thearopy if he actually believed he could have taken on the IRS with the 861 issue.
From gregg howell more power to mr. snipes…it's time to free the people..the tax code and it's sudo power is killing america…just look where are all the factories in tax friendly countries.
From Pete S As I see it we are all over taxed. Property taxes continue to rise. Payroll taxes, sales tax, and the highest corporate tax rate in the world. It's no wonder employers are sending jobs overseas. It's no wonder a company such as haliburton moved its corporate headquarters out of the country. America is no longer the land of the free, if it were we would not have such ridiculous taxes. America, the land of the taxed to death. On a finishing note, I wonder how our fore fathers would have re-acted to the current state of affairs? I think we all know the answer, It was called the Boston Tea Party.
Regards
From tjones I hope he gets a spanking by the irs, with interest and penalty the brother from another mother is up the creek without a paddle
T "alley cat" jones
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Time for a little humor…given the deafening silence of "Tax Honesty" to my basic questions.
Albert Einstein
The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.
Albert Einstein
[on filing for tax returns] This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher.
Winston Churchill
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Mark Twain
The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
Will Rogers
It is a good thing that we do not get as much government as we pay for.
James Madison
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…
Will Rogers
Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even.
Robert A. Heinlein
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
Arthur Godfrey
I am proud to be paying taxes in the United States. The only thing is I could be just as proud for half of the money.
H. L. Mencken
Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.
John S. Coleman
The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away.
Herman Wouk
Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today.
Dr. Laurence J. Peter
America is a land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation.
Milton Friedman
Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay.
John Maynard Keynes
The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward.
Winston Churchill
There is no such thing as a good tax.
Will Rogers
The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has.
Plato
When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.
Benjamin Tucker
To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.
Will Rogers
The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.
Ronald Reagan
The taxpayer: that's someone who works for the federal government, but doesn't have to take a civil service examination.
Robert A. Heinlein
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors… and miss.
Winston Churchill
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
G. Gordon Liddy
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
Barry Goldwater
The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.
Calvin Coolidge
Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.
Dan Bennett
There's nothing wrong with the younger generation that becoming taxpayers won't cure.
Martin A. Sullivan
There may be liberty and justice for all, but there are tax breaks only for some.
Jewish Proverb
Taxes grow without rain.
Thomas Jefferson
The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public monies.
Robert Dole
The principle involved here is time-honored and true: and that is it's your money.
Robert Dole
The purpose of a tax cut is to leave more money where it belongs: in the hands of the working men and working women who earned it in the first place.
G. Gordon Liddy
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
Rob Knauerhase
Isn't it appropriate that the month of the tax begins with April Fool's Day and ends with cries of 'May Day!'?
Roger Jones
I guess I think of lotteries as a tax on the mathematically challenged.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing.
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac
It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Ed,
I don't recall seeing any links put up by "Tax Honesty" for "videos". Could you post them if you have them?
Thanks!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan I appreciate the invitation. Will need to give it some thought. Frankly, I like what little privacy I try and convince myself I have and don't care to have my mug up somewhere as the poster child for those people who would like to silence me. I already suspect that that my IP address and email address has or will be inquired about by those who don't particularly like what I've had to say here. And, if that sounds a little paranoid. Let's just say I've seen enough to know that the truth of my criticism is borne out by the reality of the situation.
BTW – I spoke briefly to Dan Evans some years ago while he was participating on a radio Talk Show in the Detroit area. I wasn't impressed then and nothing has happened since that time to change my opinion.
Let's face it, when it comes to courts shooting people down, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these judges have a dog in the fight.
Take a look at the website below.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Hart/phil.htm
Even when you have a case like that of Marrita Murphy where the appellate court justices had taken an unindoctrinated and unpolluted view of things, the powers that be managed to put them back in their place.
In the article at the link above, the author trys to explain how it was that an appeals court could have ruled the way they did. His article was prior to the reversal that came about later after the court received a visit from the Justice Department and the IRS. If these guys who are presumed to be learned jurists can look at things the way they did and rule the way the did in the first instance, why is it unfathomable to think the average person on the street might see things the way they do in other areas of tax law?
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Joe,
I am in the process of going through those two websites that Tax Honesty has suggested…it is an enormous amount of information.
The truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/O,,id=159932,00.html
Dan Evans Webpage
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
From scowley hi from the mod/FSB Web editor. if you do a YouTube debate, I'll totally link it :)
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Joe,
here is a great idea…why don't you arrange to have a videotaped debate with Tax Honesty and the post the video up on Utube.com
I think it would be very interesting.
I have been watching some of those videos on Utube
or are you aware of any debates that have been videotaped before regarding this whole tax issue?
Joe have you had a chance yet to watch some of those videos that Tax Honesty has recommended?
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Well now…will you "looky there". My questions to "Tax Honesty" are back up.
BTW – Does anyone know if there is currently any direct taxes that are being apportioned to the states based on the clause in the constitution that authorizes it? Thanks in advance!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Well now…it looks like they've decided to censor my questions to "Tax Honesty". Does that tell you anything? Not surprising…people get similar responses when asking Govco questions about tax liability, etc. I guess it's just easier to stonewall than to be honest with people. Who knows, maybe they truly don't know the answers just like the majority of people. I guess I should be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you think they would do the same?
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Ed,
Thought you might find this funny although I presume not so much so for Wesley Snipes and the myriad of others who have faced the wrath of Govco.
In 1913 during the debate on the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment, Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law:
"I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."
Apparently, nothing has changed.
See The United States Tax Court: An Historical Analysis, page 12, by Harold Dubroff. Published by CCH.
BTW – If you want to see some documented evidence of how much confusion their has been and continues to be about this subject in the Federal and States courts, try reading what's up at:
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/uncertain.htm
I'm sure the pro plantation guys will have their say about Attorney Larry Becraft. Hopefully you'll consider the substance of what he's offered up there before being blinded by the onslaught of criticisms that are sure to come. Good Luck!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan OK… Let's see if we can get strictly "Yes" or "No" answers out of "Tax Honesty" to some very basic questions without her going off the deep end. We should be able to discern by the substance of the answers whether or not there is any real interest in her wanting the rest of you here, learning the truth. Frankly I don't expect the questions to be answered as asked but rather the continued ranting and raving and the posing of their own questions. Let's see if I'm right.
Please….Yes or No ONLY!
Is there currently in place, a tax by law on the wages of ordinary working Americans in the form and substance of an un-apportioned direct tax?
Is there currently in place, a tax by law on the wages of ordinary working Americans in the form and substance of an excise tax?
Is there currently in place, a tax on the wages of ordinary working Americans in the form and substance of a tax that is neither an un-apportioned direct tax nor an excise tax?
Is it true, that generically speaking, taxes on “income” have been classified as excise taxes by the Supreme Court in Brushaber v Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)?
Is it true that the Supreme Court, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), ruled that 16th Amendment did not confer any new power of taxation, (as would be a power to impose an un-apportioned direct tax on the wages of ordinary Americans,) but merely prohibited the complete and plenary power to tax income derived from labor or capital from being taken out of the category of un-apportioned indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged?
Is it true that the United States Supreme Court defined "income" to mean the following:
“…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.”
“This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation…” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 55 L.Ed. 389, 31 Sup.Ct.Rep. 342, Ann. Cas.”?
Is it true that the sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes and can be relied upon to tax the wages of average working Americans?
From Deb Toledo Ohio he might be a good actor, but he's an idiot if he thinks he shouldn't pay taxes. I also think the Govt we have is screwed up however, the next time you drive on a road, a friend needs an ambulance, or your brother loses his job, keep in mind we pay taxes for other things other then for our badly elected officials to waste half of it. Some of it does get spent on things we would not do well without. Dont believe me? I would bet then you haven't traveled to many third world countries then.
From Jerry, Shakopee According to Charles Adams the important concepts about taxes were plagiarized from the Confederation of the Netherland and Swizerland. That "direct taxes be apportioned and indirect taxes be uniformed" is the rule of thumb that has been hammered out by civilized people who want to live under a limited government.
That these concepts seem to set off an allergic reaction in the herds of empty suits trying to be something they are not, is irrelevant to a civilized discussion of taxation.
From Jim, Yuba City, CA I was a tax agent for many years and it always amazed me why business persons thought they should not pay taxes or evade taxes by under reporting yet when it came to their employees they always made sure they withheld income taxes. Then it got even better, they then took that money and used for their own personal gain or to pay the business expenses. Some went as far as not to even report employees wages resulting in much hardship for them.
The national sales tax would also be a farce with who is going to enforce against barter, "alleged personal transactional sales", underreporting the value of the sale, etc. If the tax laws were enforced equitable against all income levels and we close all the loop holes for corporations, etc (like the PGA pension plan allows a PGA professional to exclude over $200K each year for their penison) then we would have no deficeit and the coffers would overflow. The purposefull under staffing of tax agencies creates the boy with finger in the dike except it has a thousand holes.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Hi Joe,
here is a very scary statistic for you…one I am sure you are well aware of;
When Carter left office in Jan.1981…the National Debt(which had accumulated since 1789) was 1 Trillion. It is now 9.2 Trillion and growing.
Well, nature has a way of correcting imbalances.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Ed,
To be truthful…I don't believe in a total funds replacement for govco. They don't deserve it and neither do the people.
I think you could do away with 80% of the functions of the federal government and the world wouldn't come to an end. Sure it would be tough for a while until older and more traditional safety nets (churches, families, free enterprise, etc.) filled the void .
If it's not specifically authorized in the constitution then it is reserved to the states and/or the people. The fact that society has an addiction to benefits from govco doesn't mean me we shouldn't go cold turkey when we see it's going to kill us if we continue the way we are anyway.
Why not let this and the next generation or two take a hit so that future generations will not. I'm willing and believe me I'm not in a healthy financial position by any stretch of the imagination. I would much rather live in a tent with freedom versus a palace with tyranny.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Ed,
I believe you have a point about the regressive nature of a national sales tax.
I think the answers to that problem which seem gaining traction are found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Instead of reinventing the wheel…
and despite my liking the idea of a National Sales Tax, the arguments against are pretty compelling.
Excerpts from:
http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com/pr01.htm
"Those promoting a National Sales Tax boldly proclaim that the tax is constitutional, and could be constitutionally administered, but they wholly fail to explain how. Now maybe it’s just me, but unless the National Sales Tax is going to operate as an excise tax on products, and not sales transactions, I can’t find any constitutional authority for it. If this type of tax did not have constitutional problems, don’t you think the government would have implemented it long ago? After all, which of its taxing powers hasn’t it already abused?
The National Sales Tax is a classic example of how the people keep giving, and the government keeps taking."
See also the 3rd post by "Thirdeyex" at:
http://www.armslocker.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32630
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Welcome Richard from Glasgow to our discussion.
Isn't a sales tax "regressive"…meaning it hurts poor people more than the rich. For example, if I make 200,000 per year and I pay 10% sales tax on a 25000 car(2500)…but what if I only make 20,000 per year. In the U.S.A. we have something called a "progressive " tax as far as income tax is concerned. Generally, a sales tax is considered "regressive" not "progressive"…it hurts poor people…and also discourages consumption and since 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending…it can be counter productive.
From Richard Watson Glasgow,Ky Nobody likes paying taxes, but it sure beets using an outhouse in the back yard.
The best solution to the program is the fair sales tax. No muss-no fuss. You buy something, you pay the taxes then. Now granted the tax on a new car might be hypothetically $5000, in addition to state and local taxes on say a $50,000 vehicle. Don't want to pay that much tax, buy a Chevy Impala.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Ed,
As much as I'd like to expound on how I'd like to see things get better I think it wiser to not pretend that I have all (or any) of the correct answers with respect to all the problems and dilemmas the nation faces. I do know that the long road we've travelled that has brought us to where we are now is not one I think is wise to stay on. Trying to fix things in one fell swoop isn't likely to make for a good solution either.
My interest in how things should be fixed are more along the lines of staying within the bounds of the Constitution and putting a stop to extra-constitutional usurpations by the powers that be.
The more power we restore to the people and the more restraints we put back on government, the more peace, freedom and prosperity we are likely to have. JMHO
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Well, Joe,
I am still digesting your review of the book…obviously you have studied this a long time. I believe that law has a whole sub-category for constitutional law…like Family Law,Corporate Law, International law,etc…Surely these issues have been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The people at Tax Honesty are going to debate the details with you I am sure. I think we would all AGREE that in any healthy democracy open debate on all issues is important!!
Still looking for your answer, Joe, on the Revenue…you know what they say…you can't tear down one system without having a plan on what comes after it.
From Kip (Chattanooga, TN) TAX HONESTY from Ocala, Fl is a microcosm of the main problem with America. Baseless attacks towards Ron Paul supporters? How many pointed accusations can one person make towards a group of people they don't even know…and just one day after the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr, who spoke on behalf of freedom and equality. Simpletons like Tax Honesty (or whatever it's name is) love to divide and subdivide us all up into little factions — by the time they've whittled you down to a Right Wing, Neo Conservative, Baptist, Tennessee Vol fan, Abortion hating, pro-NAU clown… YOU TOO WILL BE A "FRINGE" ELEMENT RIPE FOR RIDICULE AND EXTERMINATION. Personally, I think it's WRONG to be taxed on one's personal labor — it should be totally different from taxes on assets, real estate, stocks & bonds, etc…
But here's the flip-side of your argument…if Wesley can't get charged a tax on his labor, then you can't either…then the (privately owned) Fed can't collect it's interest — interest being charged for issuing currency (as crazy as that sounds)…they charge us $1.54 billion PER DAY in interest on money they've made from the American people simply by controlling the issuance of it's currency. So, if YOU don't have to pay (and I don't have to pay) then the Fed can't receive it's $1 trillion dollar yearly cut…what's wrong with telling the Fed AND this bogus income tax to get the flock outta here? They've preyed on America enough…besides, none of that income tax money went to support your roads, schools or infrastructure…it's just gravy for the crooked Fedsters.
But most importantly, avoid people like TaxHonesty…they are the dividers of men & true paradise will not dawn in America until we focus on our similarities and not our differences. It's bad enough that FoxNews wont inform us…who else noticed that B Bhutto said O$AMA B1N L4DEN was murdered by Omar $heikh. Whether it's true or not, why haven't they told us what she said 55 days BEFORE her assassination! Sorry I strayed from the point there…the points are 1) GO WESLEY!!! and 2) GROW UP TaxHonesty!!!
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Hi Joe,
can you do us laymen a huge favor and addresse the "tax revenue" problem and how you would make up for the defiency. Who and how would you do it? Surely you would not get rid of Social Security, Medicare,headstart for kids, Welfare for the poor, aircraft carriers, tanks, flamethrowers,landmines,jets,war on terror, Iraq war, space program,highway building, subway building, SEC regulations enforcement, DEA, Coastguard,Agriculture subsidies,..did I forget something?
Really Joe, we want to know how you would do it?
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Ed,
Interesting article regarding non-filers, zero filers, etc. A little date but who knows…maybe this guy you referenced earlier is in no danger at all.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/206.html
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Thanks Ed,
I just typed up a bunch and accidently deleted it. Starting over. I now empathize with your fingers hurting.
Having read it, I think I can point out at least in one instance where there is a disagreement between the writers and many others of the same opinion and those of us who see it differently.
Please see if you can follow my explanation. Please pay careful consideration to the bold text on both sides of the issue.
The Heritage Book states the following:
By 1909 it had become apparent there would be no income tax until the apportionment issue had been resolved.
The Sixteenth Amendment did that for “taxes on incomes.” By its terms, it exempted only such taxes from apportionment, leaving apportionment to apply to other direct taxes
…The sponsor, Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska, said he intended to limit the amendment’s application in this way, to make an unapportioned income tax possible, and he rejected changes that would have eliminated the direct-tax clauses.
So as you can see ED, it was the intent of the sponsors and supporters of the amendment to come up with a way to allow for a income tax that was a direct tax but would not have to be apportioned. And it is that the mindset of many that it is indeed what was accomplished.
Now we must try and square that understanding with what the Supreme Court said In Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 60 L. Ed. 493, 496 (1915)
Chief Justice White, recognizing the confusion that existed concerning these taxes, stated, in the opinion of the Court:
…the confusion …arises from the conclusion that the sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it,… …it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions made under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement
that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one
State or States than was levied in another State or States. This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1, 11, 12 (1915)
From Tax Honesty, Ocala FL joe of Waterford:
I've read all the tax cases so you can't fool me.
The record is clear that the SCOTUS settled the matter on all your frivolous arguments decades ago.
I know that tax protestor/denier/evaders like you are hard-core criminal element extremists that refuse to face reality.
But the courts are not extremist kooks like you. They can read the same cases and apply the correct construction on the law, which they have done.
You are wasting good comment space here with all your bloviating text on Brushaber.
If you had done proper research, you would know that in Pollock, the SCOTUS clearly defined income from wages as constitutional, but then erred on investment income.
When you understand that correct context, then Brushaber makes perfect sense since the purpose of the 16th amendment was to make moot the SCOTUS error on investment income in Pollock.
You kooks seek to appear credible by bloviating with wrongheaded constructions on out-of-context half-truths.
But if a person actually does a good faith research of the law, they'll see through the frivolous assertions of anti-tax kooks.
The IRS even went to the trouble of putting out a web page of information to help people not fall for all the kooky misinterpretations of law put out by the anti-tax crowd to help people not fall victim.
The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html
And of course, there is the Dan Evans webpage that goes into depth to explain the foundations in the tax law.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Evans went off on his own to do actual good faith research because he saw all of these kooky arguments flooding the internet.
The internet is flooded with tax evasion kook websites.
So it's nice to see that the IRS finally responded to protect people.
Wages are ascessions to wealth, fully realized, so they are clearly taxable income.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Sorry Joe,
I can't help myself from pumping the book again "The Heritage guide to the Constitution"…but here is WHY they wanted the 16th Amendment. Here is the whole article from the book…I hope I am not guilty of copyright infringement.
Congress wanted to be able to "enact an income tax without having to worry about whether, under the rules applicable to DIRECT taxes, the tax had to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population."
"DIRECT taxes MUST be apportioned, a difficult requiremtn to satisfy. If an income tax is subject to apportionment, a state with one-tenth the national population, for example, has to bear one-tenth the aggregate tax liability, REGARDLESS of the state's financial condition. Suppose the populations of Iowa and Maine were equal, but Iowa's per capita income were TWICE Maine's. The RATE'S for an apportioned income tax would have to be TWICE as high in Maine, the poorer state, as in Iowa. Such geographic variability makes it difficult, if not impossible, for anyone in Congress to support that kind of tax.
National real estate taxes were enacted in antebellem America, with complex rules for apportionment–the founders intended direct taxes to be difficult not impossible–but, at the founding, no one was thinking about an income tax. When this idea emerged and became politically possible, an income tax was assumed to be indirect, largely because Justices in Hylton vs. United States(1796) had intimated, in dicta, that the term direct taxes was limited to capitation and real-estate taxes. Congress accordinly enacted an unapportioned income tax during the Civil War, and the Court, citing Hylton, upheld the tax in 1881. Springer vs. United States(1881).
In 1894 with little attention to constitutional issues, Congress again enacted an unapportioned income tax with the clear goal of shifting the tax burden from regressive tariffs and excises to a levy based on the individual to pay. Congressional debates were full of statements about how the well-to-do had not been paying their fair share. The authors of the income tax intended to accomplish what consumption taxes had not, and, to that end, the 1894 tax only reached the wealthiest one percent of the population.
This time the Supreme Court refused to approve the idea. In Pollock vs. Farmers Loan and Trust Co.(1895), a closely divided court reinvigorated the direct-tax clauses, holding that the 1894 tax was direct and, because not apportioned,unconstitutional. With Pollock on the books, something had to be done if there was to be an unapportioned income tax.
Not every income-tax proponent thought a constitutional amendment was necessary after Pollock. Many believed the decision was so clearly wrong that the Court would decide differently if given another chance. In addition, supporters feared that if a campaign to amend the Constitution failed, the income tax would be doomed for years. In fact, some Congressmen backed the amendment precisely because they expected it to die in the state legislatures.
Whether Pollock was wrongly decided was, however, almost beside the point. Enacting a new tax to challenge a recent Supreme Court decision was politically risky. Even if wrong, the Court might not change its mind, particularly if Congress seemed to be questioning judicial authority. By 1909 it had become apparent there would be no income tax until the apportionment issue had been resolved.
The Sixteenth Amendment did that for "taxes on incomes." By its terms, it exempted only such taxes from apportionment,leaving apportionment to apply to other direct taxes(including capitation and real-estate taxes, and, given Pollock's expanded conception of direct taxation,maybe more, like a direct-consumption tax). The sponsor, Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska, said he intended to limit the amendment's application in this way,to make an unapportioned income tax possible, and he rejected changes that would have eliminated the direct-tax clauses.
Despite heated opposition, the amendment passed Congress with huge majorities. During ratification, Governor Charles Evan Hughes of New York raised a concern that the phrase "from whatever source derived" could be interpreted to permit national taxation of state and local bond interest, something the Pollock Court had said was inconsistent with intergovernmental immunity. Assured the amendment was not intended to overturn that doctrine, New York signed on and ratification proceeded swiftly.
Facilitating an unapportioned income tax was hardly trivial, but some say the amendment did even more. Bruce Ackerman, for example, argues it was intended to repudiate all of Pollock, to contract the notion of "direct taxes", and to revive the plenary taxing power. That interpretation gives more weight to the amendment than the "taxes on incomes" language comfortable bears,however, and it relies on the questionable assumption, derived from Hylton dicta, that modern forms of taxation are immune from limitation simply because the court did not mention them in 1796.
Except in tax protester cases, where ineffectual arguments about the amendment's legitimacy are made, the amendment is not involved in litigation today. The Supreme Court has had no recent occasion to articulate the meaning of the amendment or to consider whether the amendment, which broadened congressional power, also contains restrictions on that power.
The general understanding among contemporary scholars is that the taxing power is so broad that Congress alone determines what can be reached by an income tax. This view of unbounded Congressional power conflicts with the original,limited role of the amendment,however, and it requires rejecting several old Supreme Court that took the language of the amendment seriously:for an unapportioned to be authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, it must be on "incomes."
In Eisner vs. Macomber(1920),for example, the Court struck down an income tax as it applied to a stock dividend(a distribution not of money but of additional shares), the receipt of which,said the Court, was not income. Even if the court misunderstood stock dividends, as some have argued, the case remains significant for what it says about how the amendment should be interpreted. Throughout the 1920s, the court assumed the term "incomes" had content, stressing that Congress could not circumvent apportionment by simply labeling a levy an income tax. These cases have not been overruled, and the Court has cited Macomber favoribly, on unconstitutional matters, as recently as 1991.
In one respect the Court has revised the understanding of 1913. Interest on state and local bonds is no longer constitutionally exempt from income taxation;the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity advanced by Governor Hughes has been discarded in this context(although not as a result of the Sixteenth Amendment). See South Carolina vs. Baker(1988)
My fingers are hurting from typing!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Well Ed,
You should know that I'm not one who doesn't believe you shouldn't pay taxes. On the contrary, I believe everyone should pay the taxes they legitimately owe.
I pay taxes pretty much daily whether it be gasoline taxes, sales taxes, etc. and do not complain about it because it is done in a way that is above board and not by means of strong arm tactics and deception. I also don't buy into the argument that everyone should pay their fair share as in "from each according to their means to each according to their needs" just as I don't expect people to go to a restaurant and pay more for their meal because they have more.
As for the 40 year old son of an elderly lady friend…I'm confident he knows or should know that taking such a position is risky proposition because as we all know, you can be 'right as rain' and it won't matter when it comes to those who have the power and wish to bury you with it. It is a dangerous position to be in when you are right and the government is in the wrong. Might very often wins out over right. Even if you win a battle against government, you more often than not wind up losing the war as you are forced to expend all your time, resources, and substance of your being in the fight while they continue to draw from the almost indefinite supply of the public purse (i.e. the taxpayers) in order to bury you in the name of justice. JMHO
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan "Tax Honesty" in Ocala…ROTFLMAO
How refreshing it is to read such an enlightened and thoughtful response:
"lunatic fringe"
"kook tax protestor crowd"
"anti-tax kooks"
"charlatans"
"criminal element"
"tax protestor kooks"
"boneheaded"
"criminal element tax evaders"
"criminal element tax protestors"
Schoolyard bully tactics. Did you come up with all that on your own or did your parents help you? Shouldn't you be in school?
Considering you're the one who brought up Jesus….
"While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Luke 20 Verse 45
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Thought it might be interesting to point out what some of the leading supporters of the Sixteenth Amendment had to say, in 1909, about the income tax while it was being debated in Congress.
Senator Bailey of Texas said,
“I believe that in earning an income by personal service every man consumes a part of his principal, and that fact ought always to be taken in to consideration. The man who has his fortune invested in securities may find in a hundred years, if he spent his income, that fortune still intact, but the lawyer or the physician or the man engaged in other personal employment is spending his principal in earning his income. That fact ought under every just system of income taxation to be recognized and provided against.” 44 Congressional Record, 4007 (1909).
Senator Bailey also said,
“I have no hesitation in declaring that a tax on any useful occupation can not be defended in any forum of conscience or of common sense. To tax a man for trying to make a living for his family is such a patent and gross injustice that it should deter any legislature from perpetrating it.” 44 Congressional Record, 1702 (1909).
The author of the Sixteenth Amendment, Senator Brown from Nebraska, had this to say about the object of the income tax: “It is the theory of the friends of the income-tax proposition that [income from] property should be taxed and not individuals.” 44 Congressional Record 1570 (1909).
In the first modern tax case to be litigated after the Sixteenth Amendment was purportedly ratified, the Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) that the income tax was an excise tax even though both the government and Burshaber argued that it was a direct tax exempted from apportionment.
In Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., Mr. Chief Justice White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is indirect, rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Income Tax and the Sixteenth Amendment, 29 Harvard Law Review 536 (1915-6).
Cornell Law Quarterly also weighed in on the Brushaber Case.
The contention of the appellant was as follows:
(1) The Sixteenth Amendment provided for a new kind of a direct tax, a tax on incomes from whatever source derived.
The court, through Chief Justice White, held that the tax [in Brushaber] was constitutional. The major proposition of the appellant's argument is not true. Hence, the conclusion does not follow. The sixteenth amendment [sic] does not permit a direct tax, (in fact as it will later be shown, the court does not think that the amendment treated the tax as a direct tax at all), carrying with it the distinguishing characteristic of a hitherto unrecognized uniformity.
The amendment, the court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong. Ramon Siaca, The Federal Income Tax Law of 1913: Construction of the Sixteenth Amendment, 1 Cornell Law Quarterly 298, 299 and 301 (1916).
Years later we have Congress reaffirming in a couple of reports that the income tax is an excise tax. Reporting on "The Revenue Bill of 1941," the House's Committee on Ways and Means prepared House Report No. 1040 dated July 24, 1941. On page 17 of this report, in the section called Constitutionality of Proposal, the Committee on Ways and Means stated:
It seems clear that Congress has the constitutional power to enact this proposed amendment. Generically an income tax is classed as an excise (Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1). The only express constitutional limitation upon such taxes is that they be geographically uniform. H. Rep. No. 1040, at 17 (1941).
And finally, appearing in the Congressional Record in 1943 we find a reprinting of a report by,
“Mr. F. Morse Hubberd, formerly of the legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University, and a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department.
…The sixteenth amendment authorizes the taxation of income ‘from whatever source derived’…. So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” 89 Congressional Record 2579-80 (1943).
From rgb If the little guy does this, it ruins his life, and costs him a bundle in fines and late fees. We'll have to see if Mr. Snipes is treated equally. I seriously doubt it.
From Tax Honesty, Ocala FL The big story here is that a sane person, Edward Lovette of Anaheim, CA discovers the lunatic fringe, otherwise known as tax protestors/deniers/evaders, such as joe of Waterford.
The kook tax protestor crowd is out in force in this comment section. There are several others here putting out tax protestor drivel.
These anti-tax kooks are also the heart of the Ron Paul supporters.
Now you know why Ron Paul has no chance of being president.
The drivel they put out here is the same drivel they have burdened the court system for decades.
These charlatans wraps themselves in the Constitution and Jesus to try to hide the fact that they know exactly that they are seeking to evade paying taxes and thus are criminal element.
The tax "honesty" "movement" is full of phony tax evasion "ministries" and "sovereign citizens" claiming tyranny.
All their anti-tax arguements are frivolous as matters of law.
The Heritage foundation book on the Constitution is totally right about the taxing power of Congress.
The issue of wages being taxable income was settled by the SCOTUS in the Pollock decision 20 years before the 16th Amendment.
The SCOTUS gave clear indication of that in its opinion in that case.
The SCOTUS made error on interpreting
income from property-related sources which prompted the 16th Amendment to fix that.
The jurisprudence record is full of comical text in judicial opinions as Judges try to avoid laughing out loud when explaining the lunacy of the arguments made by these tax protestor kooks.
So sll of these kooky arguments have been made and lost, thus establishing judicial precedent on them.
The American public has rejected this lunatic fringe.
The 861 argument is not a sophitisticated tax shelter that you might find in a good faith tax dispute.
It is a deliberately wrongheaded misreading of the tax code that someone with moderate intelligence would never make such a boneheaded mistake.
The 861 argument is absurd on its face: that US citizens and residents are not liable for taxes on their US based income.
Only criminal element tax evaders would make it.
Snipes must have been hurting for money since he stopped paying the $700K mortgage on his-next-door-to-Tiger-Woods mansion in Windermere, FL and lost it to foreclosure to Chase Bank in 2003/2004. The bank sold it to a real estate investor in 2004 for $640K. The investor flipped it for $2.4M in 2006.
Snipes then could not pay property taxes on a much more modest house in Orlando in 2005. Orange County put it up for tax lien foreclosure.
That indicates that Snipes was financially irresponsible and needed money and resorted to tax fraud to keep money instead of paying his tax bill.
The underlying story is that Snipes was under financial duress due to financial irresponsibilty and resorted to tax fraud.
Snipes is trying the Vernice Kuglin defense: if only the IRS had provided tax advice to him, he would have paid his taxes.
The SCOTUS has clearly ruled that the Internal Revenue Code places the burden on the individual to be proactive to pay the tax imposed by the law.
I don't think Snipes' Kuglin defense will work unless the jury is very dumb.
It is illuminating that, Bernhoft, Snipes' lead attorney, defends these criminal element tax protestors.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Well, Joe,
Here's the story of why I bought "the Heritage Guide to the Constitution"(you know I had to pump it one more time)…I went to dinner with an older lady friend of mine. She has a 40 year old son who owns his own business and does not "believe in paying taxes"…he may differ from you. He does not even file a return(how can you pay taxes on income if you don't file a return…forget about wages…what about the income part.)
So I bought this book and photocopied the pages on the 16th Amendment and gave them to her so she would give them to him(I don't think she bothered)
It is a very good book…I think everybody should have a copy because it covers everything…not just the 16th Amendment. Of course you are right about the Supreme Court being wrong at times…but a bad umpire is better than no umpire.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan I guess they removed the post which had the story on Marrita Murphy.
Here are the links in order of how they should be read.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BruceBartlett/2006/08/29/court_ruling_shakes_ground_under_irs
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-5139a.pdf
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-5139b.pdf
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Hi Ed,
Just so you know that I like to play fair and don't want to conceal the truth.
Since the post, I've learned that case referenced in my last post has since had a reversal after the Appellate court had a meeting with the Justice Department and the IRS.
Original Appellate Decision.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-5139a.pdf
Decision after a little visit from govco.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-5139b.pdf (Reversing themselves)
I still think some of the reasoning in the dictum of the first appellate decision is quite on point and true. The way they wiggled out of it in the second decision is quite revealing as well.
Yes, google is a nice "tool".
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Well, Joe;
here is my analysis of the tax consequences to the govt…I am sure you can see why they would not like your theory; here are the two version with the current system and with your system; Nurse making 40,000 per year…assuming she makes 10% return in stock market(that is the long term return over the years) and assuming she has 100K in stock fund.
Paying taxes on wages and income;
wages 40,000
stock fund 10,000
total gross 50,000
tax of 25% 12,500
Paying tax on just income
stock fund 10,000
tax of 25% 2500
So, Joe…the govt's tax receipts have just gone down from 12500 to just 2500…you better forget about most Defense spending…and forget about most social programs…and most Americans like their social programs and a lot of people like aircraft carriers and tanks and jets…I don't think so!!!
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Oh, I think I am beginning to understand Joe in Waterford, Michigan's theory on this matter. You are saying that the govt. can only tax income that is generated from how you invest your wages. So if you make $40,000 as a nurse…the govt. should not tax that. But if the nurse invests the 40,000 and increases it to 90,000…the govt. can tax the profit(income) of 50,000. just leave the orginal 40,000 wages alone.
Well, interesting theory. I believe that could have very serious impact to the Federal govt's budget. Could possibly cause gigantic budget deficits don't you think? You must have googled my name to find out about the option trading. Pretty crafty!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan I find it interesting that The Heritage Guide to the Constitution which was put together under the leadership of (Edwin Meese) and
"Stressing the original intent of the Framers as the authoritative standard of constitutional interpretation, and never straying from the Constitution and the definitive writings of the Framers—especially the invaluable notes taken at the Constitutional Convention by James Madison, the widely-recognized analysis in The Federalist Papers"
would have glossed over such an important issue as that addressed by James Madison himself in Federalist Paper #45 wherein he states
"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Agree to disagree.
Also, sorry for some of my spelling errors "there" should have been "their" and "acist" should have read "racist". I'm confident you'll get the gist. Keep pumping that book. Maybe someone will read buy it. Who knows, maybe even I will. Never stop learning.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan For those who opine that govco and the supreme court can do no wrong…I invite you to look at some of their historical decsions i.e. Dred Scott (1857) often cited as “the most frequently overturned decision in history.”, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Everson v. Board of Education (1947),
Roe v. Wade (1973), Kelo v. City of New London (2005).
For a look at the what are considered the most acist opinions handed down see:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/tp/supreme_racism.htm
I find it interesting that these presumed geniuses on the law can oftentimes be diametrically opposite each other in their final opinions. When decisions come down 5-4 etc. can it be assumed that occasionally the minority opinions were right but didn't have the might?
Don't bet too much that that there decisions aren't politically motivated.
Just ask anyone who is concerned about who will be the next US President who will have the power to choose who'll be the future members of the court with the advice and consent of the Senate (wink, wink). Maybe they'll clue you in.
From Lloyd, Honolulu Hawaii Calling it the "Wesley Snipes Tax Protest" is a bit generous. It is a tax avoidance, not a tax "protest". If it was a protest, I'd have more respect for the guy. Since he admits through his lawyer that he made a mistake, he is establishing that it is not a protest.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca I guess we will have to agree to disagree…and leave the decision, atleast on this Snipes case, to the Federal Court that is hearing it. He can appeal any conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court…but your buddy Richard from the "Survivor" show is still in prison. His appeals sure have not worked out. I think I will mail a copy of "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" to Mr. Snipes when I find out which Federal Correctional Institution he is going to for the next Five years.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Please forgive me…I failed to put all the links in my last message or in the right order.
Attorney Tom Cryer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ
Joe Banister Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKePl2gW_3M
Juror Marcy Brooks:
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Mr Lovette,
What research, may I ask, have you done to come to your opinions regarding income taxes, the taxing powers and limitations of the federal government, etc.?
I don't recall you citing anything of substance. Why not spend some time in the law library instead of all those Options Trading Books and maybe you'll come up with some original thoughts.
I invite you to hear a testimonial or two from some who've done their homework and researched the law (or lack thereof) with regard to the "income tax".
Attorney Tom Cryer and others like Joe Banister former CPA and former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Supervisory Special Agent who also did his own research and was drummed out of the Service.
These people aren't the knuckledragging neanderthals that some would have you believe but rather concientious, respected and learned individuals who dared to look for and find the truth rather than parrot govco propoganda. These people risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. I dare say, I doubt you will ever have anything close to that kind of character. I'm not even sure I will. They are modern day Patriots in the best and truest sense and deserving of our utmost respect and admiration. They've been forced to defend themselves and fight these battles against the hired guns of government who have the ability to indict a ham sandwich and with the help of ill informed juries, get convictions. I don't think I need to tell you that innocent people are released regularly for crime never committed. Who knows, maybe one day the people will awaken from their ignorance (I'm not holding my breath) and start finding for more defendants in these kinds of prosecutions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_sZj8dZnJI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKePl2gW_3M
See also what an informed juror who sat in on a another loss by a state government prosecution for supposed tax crimes had to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_sZj8dZnJI&feature=related
Good Luck!
From Mark, from Austin, TX As a tax accountant, i have to say that from the beginning there is no way that this code section is a legitimate defense.
It (as the article says) has been shot down again and again, and no amount of wishing for a conspiracy gets you out of paying your taxes. Those taxes pay for things you use and the protection you have.
If you don't like it there are many other places in the world to live and work.
Don't try to take advantage of the freedoms you enjoy and assume those freedoms are free. They cost blood and money to set up and they take blood and money to maintain. Such is life. The only sure things are death and taxes.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Dear Mr. Lovette,,
I guess you've failed to read the Supreme Court cases I have previously cited which have not been overturned and which support my positions. When defendants are allowed to present a defense and not be stymied by the judge, lucid and informed juries will sometimes find for the defendant. Just ask Attorney Tom Cryer. NOT GUILTY!
From Sui, Las Vegas, Nevada Ed, you'd best follow your own advise and do your own research. You have a "slave mentallity", having been brain-washed into the belief that, a) you have a master, and b) you have to do what he says. You have a God-given, unalienable right, to be free, so start acting like it. My research has shown me in a nutshell that:
1) 16th Amendment was NEVER properly radified. Reach the Law That Never Was by Benson and Beckman, who went to each State archive to see the vote for themselves, and found that NOT ONE STATE PROPERLY RATIFIED the 16th. Amendment.
2) Nothing in the wording of the 16th Amendment gave any NEW tax authority to government.
3) Paying income taxes is VOLUNTARY, and the tax guide used to say so in print, right up front, then moved to the middle section, then at the end, and now I don't know if it's even there at all….it's been 29 years since I've seen a 1040 or a tax guide.
4) You volunteer when you fill out that 1040, which isn't a ligitamate form, as it has no omb number at all.
5) Any tax you think you owe is arived at under false pretense, impressed upon you by IRS and Judicial lies (sheeple mentallity), without any force of law.
6) THERE IS NO LAW, and IRS and Courts will not and cannot show you a LAW, and the point of a gun does not make it any more lawful. Their game would be over if they admitted such.
But you donate willingly, so don't complain that others, more informed, don't want to volunteer.
7) Your hard-earned money does NOT go to support lawful legitimate American De Jur government, bound by the Constitution, but is collected by henchmen (IRS), for benefit of the Federal Reserve and World Bank, (through the Bank of England), and from which this counterfeit un-Constitutional (incorporated) U.S. De Facto government, bound only by the its corporate bylaws, borrows money to do their dirty little deeds around the globe, and here at home. YOU have a right to the fruits of your labor, NOT THEM.
8) Because you demand privileges and benefits from government, which are rights you already have as a free man,
contracts are created with government , and they step up to enforce these contracts (licenses, birth certificates, SS#, etc.), backed by the corrupt courts. They "own" you and your children because of these contracts, in their opinion, and go about telling you how to live and raise your kids, and will use guns to convince you to comply. Remember, they are NOT bound by the Constitution, so Courts will deny invoking the Constitution in your defense, when it doesn't fit their need, especially in tax cases.
9) You can terminate these contracts, as you were NOT properly informed of the consequences when you entered into them. Once contracts are terminated you have regained your rights as a sovereign citizen of your State. More research in that direction will show you the way, and stay out of such contracts.
10) Learn about and use the Non-Statutory Abatement process to terminate baseless control over yourself and your family by these perverts of justice, called public servants. It is your Common Law Right.
Freedom is not free, but slavery is even more costly. Sui
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca I think Joe in Waterford, Michigan, actually thinks that he and people like him KNOW MORE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION THAN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND ITS JUSTICES. THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF ARROGANCE. COMPARED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S OPINION ON THE MATTER…YOUR OPINION IS NOTHING!!
YOU JUST DON'T LIKE PAYING TAXES…LIKE WESLEY SNIPES…38 MILLION AFTER TAXES IS NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON…I NEED THE TOTAL 38 MILLION…GIVE ME A BREAK!!!YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!!!
From Dave, Charlotte, NC I support what Snipes is doing, taxpayers pay taxes on everything we own to the air we breath. It is time people stood up against wrong doing by the government. Remeber, for the people, by the people.
From Jerry Some people think they were put in Uncle Sam's warehouse with the filing of such commercial papers as birth certificates, diver's license, marraige certificate, ect – anything with an unrevoked signature on it. It seems to help remove "notice of liens" and such to file ucc documents to revoke these commercial documents. There is really on one commercial law called the "fugitive slave law."
I have even heard of people doing a quite title on themselves.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan I find it almost pitiful that those who clamour for Snipes to go to jail offer little in the way of substance to their positions. Like an ignorant angry mob who have been incited by insecurity and jealousy…they remind me of the kind of persons who when sitting on a plane next to me, get upset when they learn that I have gotten my ticket for half of what they paid and instead of trying to learn how they too could obtain tickets in the future for half price, they would rather complain and see to it that I pay as much as they do. The old "misery loves company" mentality. I imagine they are also the ones who continually fall for the "tax the rich" positions which politicians use to sway the uneducated masses. JMHO
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca For Jarrod in North Carolina,
I have news for you, the Sixteenth Amendment was approved by Congress in 1909(required passage by 2/3 of BOTH the house of representatives and 2/3 of the Sentate) and was ratified by the required 3/4 of the state legislatures..so Jarrod…yes it was approved…otherwise it would be like the ERA(Equal Rights Amendment)..the one for women's rights that was approved by Congress but not ratified by the 3/4 of the state legislatures that it needed…so it was only a "proposed amendment". Getting an amendment proposed is hard…getting it ALSO ratified by the 3/4 of the states is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE..THIS IS WHY SINCE 1789 WE HAVE ONLY RATIFIED 27 AMENDMENTS…
Again, I suggest everybody buy "the Heritage Guide to the Constitution"(2005) available used at Amazon.com for $18.00 or probably for free at your local library…It is 434 pages long and explains the constitution in detail.
So Jarrod please GET AN EDUCATION AND PAY YOUR DAMN TAXES!!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan To the person who wrote
“From whatever source derived” is STILL talking about INCOME which is a GAIN or PROFIT. Exchanging my labor for wages is NEITHER gain nor profit. In fact, I am at a loss, because that time spent can never be recovered."
What I'm saying is that: Wages are the source for income for most people, I'm not saying wages are the income, just the source or "capital" for the obtainment of income.
If I earn wages and put those wages (i.e. capital) to work for me in a constitutionally taxable activity whereby I earn a "gain or profit", then the income tax would apply as was intended by those who drafted the 16th amendment and the Income Tax Laws. In essence it was the extension of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 to Individuals involved in revenue taxable activities where corporate gain or proft is involved that the income tax applies. Corparations are privileged entities which are unlike the natural rights of natural human beings who have the inherent and natural right to labor and to receive the unencumbered fruits (capital) of that labor. JMHO
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca I am a little shocked. The comments on this website are running about 80% in favor of snipes and his ilk. That explains how Hitler had the support of 90% of the German people behind him. The majority does not always to reason.
But thank god for U.S. Supreme Court. And when you get down to it. Their opinion is the only one that really counts. And they do approve of the Sixteenth Amendment and have CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED THE IRS IN ITS JUST EFFORTS TO COLLECT TAXES.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Dear Mr. Edward R. Lovette…For your information….
The highest law in the land is not the supreme court but rather the U.S. Constitution from which the Supreme Court get its authority and marching orders.
Now. the highest court in the land is the U.S. Supreme Court and it's interpretations and decisions within its sphere of influence regarding the highest law (U.S. Constitution) in the land is the supreme law of the land. JMHO
From john r walden marshall, mo snipes has been wasting his time protesting. his bill is being paid for him by a disabled veteran. a white guy.
The irs and personnel income tax is being demolished by the plainitff prosee. Mr snipes needs to get his head out of the clouds and back to reality. Say he is sorry for being a fool and let the plainitff prosee have his tax bill paid for as a gift.
From Tony, Surprise, AZ "From whatever source derived" is STILL talking about INCOME which is a GAIN or PROFIT. Exchanging my labor for wages is NEITHER gain nor profit. In fact, I am at a lose, because that time spent can never be recovered.
From John, NY, NY Americans need to read their history books, the war against England was sparked by a lousy 4% tax! Today, the government/s take around 50% and u guys just sit there and take it! BTW you should not be paying taxes from your labor, since your labor does not make a profit! You are merely EXCHANGING your labor (a form of capital, something you already own) and being compensated in return. Imagine u have an investment house u paid $200,000 for and then sell it later for $210,000, u only pay tax on the $10,000 since this is the PROFIT and it was DERIVED (please see 16th Amendment of the Constitution) from the real estate. However, let's say u only sold it for $200,000 then there would be NO tax to pay because there is NO profit! Thus, since you already OWN your labor, when u have a job, you are merely selling it in EXCHANGE for money, there is NO profit made here, so how can u pay tax on something where there is no net gain??? It's all a SCAM! SAVE AMERICA! VOTE RON PAUL 2008!
From Leawood, Kansas After reading some of these comments it scars me that these people have a right to vote and select our leaders. Does anyone really believe there is a loophole in the law that exempts wages? If so, they are bafoon's. Put the guy in jail and throw the key away. Bubba is waiting for him!
From Carrie Finneran The government was created to serve the people, but it is not so today. The people fear the government. My husband is in jail for tax evasion. He took a stand against the government. He does not object to paying taxes he legally owes. Ask the man on the street if they would take a stand and investigate the IRS code to see what it really says. Sadly, most men are afraid. I have many people tell me, "I'm on the same page as your husband, I just don't have the courage." The government rules with fear. They keep us working so hard and so long that we don't have time, energy, or nerve to study the code and take a stand. The income tax is illegal, it's the biggeset lie in America today.
The resentment that I sense from some of the comments here that "Wesley Snipes has tons of money, he should pay, because I pay", is an ignorant position. Study the code. Find out for yourself.
It will take thousands of people to wake up to the truth before a strong opposition to taxes comes from a throng of thousands in this country. What's it going to take? 50% of your money? 60%? Why do you work so hard and take so little home??
I am not happy my husband is in jail, but I'm proud of him for taking a stand for the truth. He has studied the code for 7 years. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a tyrannical government – one who rules by fear and control. Tell me, do we live in a free country?
From Reenie, Tucson, Az. You know the Federal Income Tax is a fraud. Every penny we pay in income tases goes to the international banksters who created this fraud. The Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air and maked this country slaves to the Banksters. The Federal Reserve is not part of the Government but a corporate cabal. Their collection agaency is another corporation who does their collection for them at the end of gunds. It it time to get rid of these criminals. The American people have been duped. Maybe it is time for another revolution to get these creeps out of our lives!
The court systems are corrupted also. They are nothing more than the NWO puppets!
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, contains a definition of "fundamental law" as follows:
"Fundamental law. The law which determines the constitution of government in a nation or state, and prescribes and regulates the manner of its exercise. The organic law of a
nation or state; its constitution."
One of the most precious of fundamental rights is the natural right to enjoy the fruits of our own labor, our own "industry". In the year 1919, the Secretary of the Treasury recognized as "fundamental" the right of Sovereign State Citizens to accept employment as laborers for hire, and to enjoy the fruits of their own labor:
"Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempt by … fundamental law free from such tax.
[Treasury Decisions under Internal Revenue Laws of the United States, Vol. 21, Article 71] [emphasis added]"
In the year 1921, the Secretary of the Treasury reiterated this statement concerning the fundamental law:
"Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by the statute and also certain other kinds of income by statute or fundamental law free from tax.
[Treasury Decision 3146, Vol. 23, page 376] [emphasis added]"
And again in the year 1924, the identical statement was published concerning the fundamental law:
"Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by the statute and also certain other kinds of income by statute or fundamental law free from tax. [Treasury Decision 3640, Vol. 26, page 769] [emphasis added]"
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan To the CPA's and other presumed experts out there…
what is meant by the phrase " income not taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution" ???
as cited in:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 4]
[Revised as of April 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 26 CFR 1.312-6]
"(b) Among the items entering into the computation of corporate
earnings and profits for a particular period are all income exempted by
statute, income not taxable by the Federal Government under the
Constitution, as well as all items includible in gross income under
section 61 or corresponding provisions of prior revenue acts."
Thanks in advance.
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca In the first season of that show on CBS called "Survivor", the guy that won 1 million dollars on the show…neglected to pay any taxes..he claimed that CBS had indicated they would pay the taxes. Well, the Jury wasn't stupid. He is currently serving 5 years in Federal Prison AND had to pay the back taxes AND penalties AND interest.
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution clearly states that "The general understanding among contemporary scholars is that the taxing power IS SO BROAD THAT CONGRESS ALONE DETERMINES WHAT CAN BE REACHED BY AN INCOME TAX."
These "ignorant people" like Joe in Waterford, Michigan are like Holocaust deniers…even though the vast weight of historical evidence is against them, they continue this endless ranting and raving.
JUST PAY YOUR DAMN TAXES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE AND SHUT UP!!
From Jarrod, Charlotte North Carolina After looking at it, if the 16th amendment was never ratified, then it has not been passed into law, and therefore we are all being extorted illegally by our own government.
I think Wesley Snipes and others are brave. It takes brave acts by the famous to incite the rest of us to follow. If he and others would take their case to the Supreme Court and challenge the legality of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court would be forced to rule against it, simply becuase not enough states ratified it to become an amendment! —- Ron Paul Revolution!!!!!—-
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Definition of "derive"
"to receive or obtain from a source or origin (usually followed by from).
"Wages are the source of income for most people."
"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another, than that of draining money from the pockets of the people." Adam Smith (1776), Wealth of Nations, pg. 532 (Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York 1991)
Good reading:
http://www.taxhistory.com/two/twoincome.html
http://www.constitutionalincome.com/
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Apparently, there are some who have difficulty understanding what is meant by the phrase "FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED" in the 16th Amendment.
Source defined: any thing or place from which something comes, derives, arises, or is obtained; origin: Which foods are sources of calcium?
to receive or obtain from a source or origin (usually followed by from).
i.e. income derived from wages
“The 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”
See below for a list of items (e.g. sources) from wich income (a derivative in a legal sense) can be derived.
§ 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
From Jerry, Shakopee Minnesota The empty suits at the IRS had no problem getting rid of Abe Fortas when he crossed them. How many more Supremes have been theatened with loss of their feedbag??
Not a cent of the funds sent to the IRS has ever gone to the treasury of the U.S.A. A friend of mine (Barton Buhtz) wrote payable to "Treasury of the U.S.A." on a payment demanded by the IRS. This payment was never cashed.
Barton also asked an IRS CID agent why people who work for the IRS are not paid by the federal government. He was told the department they are paid by keeps better records.
The IRS has become a golden calf for those who have allowed themselves to be victimized by it. I hope Wesley can come down from the mountian and shatter this false idol.
From Mike, Lake Elsinore, Ca Hey, YOU THINK you live in a "democracy"? Something Bush believes he has to export around the world at gunpoint? Okay, all you folks that think whatever the government says IS law… let's put it to a vote WITHOUT Diebold's rigged election machines. Let's SEE A REAL DEMOCRACY. Here's your single question ballot: Do you want the United States Government to tax your labor, tax your sweat, tax your wages? YES or No. Kids, you'll NEVER see that kind of national referendum because you are NOT free, you ONLY THINK you're free!! But, go ahead. Let's see IF you can reap the fruits of a true democracy! I'm sure you'll excuse me IF I don't hold my breathe! :)
From Mike, Lake Elsinore, Ca The Supreme Court ruled in 1916 that the 1913 adoption of the 16th Amendment DOES NOT give the US government ANY NEW taxing authority, that was the Brushaber case. And it has never been overturned. The government and the IRS like to play a game of semantics, morphing "wages" into "income". They are NOT the same. IF THEY WERE, then why can a wage earner NOT gain the SAME tax write-off of a corporation… ALL essential expenses are deductible in the corporate world, BUT a wage earner CAN NOT deduct the REAL costs of the basic essentials of food, clothing, shelter or fuel. THAT IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION under the law!!!! Additionally, the IRS' scam of morphing civil procedures into criminal procedures IS unconstitutional, BUT because the IRS engages in seizing assets/money without due process of law, it makes it almost impossible to fight them. THIS IS TYRANNY!! You may not know your history or WHY the 16th Amendment came about, but it had NOTHING to do with wage earners. That was a trick the government pulled with the VOLUNTARY "Victory Tax" during World War II…. where do you think these fascists came up with the cute saying "voluntary compliance"? The 16th Amendment NEVER supplanted Article 1 of the Constitution!!! "There shall be NO capitation." Period. The US government 's willful and deliberate misapplication of law is criminal. Any impartial court, after examining the Constitution, the ratification of the 16th Amendment, and the trickery used to push that amend through in 1913, could ONLY conclude that "income tax" on wager earners is illegal. But, then again, the American government really isn't interested in following the Constitution…. which by definition places the Federal government OUTSIDE of its Constitutional mandate, and thus its authority. By that definition, America has an "outlaw" regime! Now, Frank Baum KNEW that when he wrote "The Wizard of Oz". That story is a political allegory!! It was written as an allegory then because he feared for his life to tell the truth! Much the same as the Mother Goose stories were allegories about the Royal Families! Wake up folks! You are simply chain-less slaves! The 16th Amendment was to allow the taxation of corporations NOT involved in the revenue businesses of alcohol or tobacco… that's WHY the amendment specifically removes the distinction of WHERE the "income" comes from!!!!
Our government is corrupt and our elections are rigged, AND IF you STILL believe this is the greatest country on earth, then you need to get out more!!!! And, I DON'T mean England!!
Or maybe just read Naomi Wolf's "Ten Steps to Fascism". History really bites when you don't know it!! I gave up praying for honest government years ago! This country needs an enema!!!
From J. Duke Liberty Hill Texas It is my opinion that we will pay like it or not. I admire his backbone, and his right to free speech. Taxes and Tax law are complicated I don't think most people can truly understand them. The government will win no doubt. He should talk to Will Smith about his ordeal. He went through it also. Death and Taxes can't be avoided.
From pilgrim 1776 novi, michigan What happened to my first article? Was it too informative or was it too controversial. The government is required to be explicitly definitive so that when they utilize words they must provide a specific application. Somewhere is every code is a specific and definitive explanation and application for each word that is used. However, the irs, especially, does not tell anyone how, why or where you can find the explicit usage of most words that they apply to their regulations, that must, by the way, adhere and obey the law itself, the Statutes that create the ability for the irs to initiate a regulation!
From pilgrim1776 novi, michigan A slight correction. The misstated house bill H.R. 416 should have been House Report H.R. 416. Further down I mistyped the acronym for the Corporation Tax Act as CPA. Other than that all stated information is factual and recorded in any lawlibray that contains the congressional record. Have a better day!
From pilgrim1776, novi, michigan A slight correction. The misstated house bill H.R. 416, was House Report 416. Everything else that has been stated is documented in any thorough law library!
From pilgrim1776 novi, mich There are some good comments made and there are definitely some ignorant comments made.
First, in order to fully understand how the income tax ever got on the so-called board, a thorough research of the Congressional Record must be undertaken to fully grasp what the Congress intended.
In each and every instance where the income tax was debated, it was always described and intended to be the extension of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 to individuals and copartnerships (all other entities) that were "doing business", in the act of "doing business" or involved in the carrying on of "doing business".
The congressional House prepared a House Bill, H.R. 416 that was four (4) pages in length and it noted the above intention twelve (12) times.
The Congressional House prepared a House Bill, H.R. 21214 that was twelve (12) pages in length and it noted the above intention fifty-two (52) times. Therefore it stands to reason that the intent of the lawmaker was to extend the CPA of 1909 to all entities, other than corporations, that were "doing business" for a 'gain or profit'.
Without going into a lengthy analysis to prove that there were 'other' intentions, let's move forward to the Evans v. Gore supreme court case whereby judges demanded that they not be taxed via the income tax since the Constitution clearly mandates that their salary "shall not be diminished" – they lost. A discerner can readily realize that if the judges can be forced to acquiesce to a tax that even the Constitution forbids, where do the laboring persons have a chance?
In 1935, the social security act was enacted and withholding was established upon "employers": Did you see that word "employers"? There is no other indication or intention.
In 1942 the congress enacted the Victory tax act and since they had already established withholding – did they? – they coerced the general population to allow a voluntary withholding upon their salaries and wages.
In 1943 the Congress changed the name of the Victory tax to the extended income tax and we have been duped every since.
Simply put, the income tax is compulsory upon those entities that realize, accrue or acquire a 'gain or profit' for a "doing business" venture but is licentiously applied to everyone else by playing word games with voluntary, voluntary-compliance, person, individual, employer/employee relationships and a myriad of other deliberately misused words.
If anyone took the time, as I did, to download or read the entire irs code, Title 26, and start deleting every section that does not pertain to them, and they are not "doing business" for a 'gain or profit', they will have deleted the entire Title 26! Have a nice day!
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca Referring again to the "Heritage Guide to the Constitution" on page 412 it says "Except in tax protester cases, where INEFFECTUAL ARGUMENTS are made, the amendment is NOT involved in litigation today…
The book further states that "The general understanding among contemporary scholars is that the taxing power IS SO BROAD THAT CONGRESS ALONE DETERMINES WHAT CAN BE REACHED BY AN INCOME TAX."
The highest law in the land is the U.S. Supreme Court. They have repeatedly upheld the 16th Amendment's constitutionality and fully supported the IRS is most instances. So these people like Wesley Snipes have more money than brains.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan Senator Chilton from West Virginia, speaking before the Senate on 28 August 1913 concerning the income tax, stated:
It is provided that the ‘income derived from salaries, wages,’ and so forth, shall be included. It has to be income before it can be taxed, no matter how it is derived. We could say that only income from salaries or income from property or income from interest should be taxed. We have simply mentioned certain things; but they must be income before they can be taxed. We use the very language of the Constitution.
The Senator was explaining that the tax is not on the property, the interest, the salaries, nor the wages. These items broadly defined in the income tax amendment as sources. The Internal Revenue Service explained quite succinctly, in their Internal Revenue Service Publication #525 (Rev. Nov. 81):
Wages and salaries are the main source of income for most people.
Mr. David E. Dickinson., a Graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, and a Director of the Legislation and Regulation Division in the Office of the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service, and being involved in drafting legislation and preparation of regulations, stated on the witness stand, under oath, concerning the Sixteenth Amendment;
A…It says lay and collect taxes on income.
Q…Okay. Does it say, in there, lay — excuse me, to lay and collect tax on sources, at all?
A….Well no. You don’t tax a source, you tax income. Mr. Krzyske.
Q…Okay. So sources are not taxable; is that correct? They may possibly be an avenue to obtain income; is that correct?
A…That’s correct.
Q…But the sources, themselves, are not income; is that correct?
A…No, of course they’re not.
United States v Kevin Krzyske U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Southern Division 84-CR-90010-AA Trial Transcript pg 19 20 June 1985
While an "Income Tax" has been judicially determined to be legal by those who benefit by its existence, namely the federal judges whose salaries and pensions are dependent on it. I don't believe it is being properly (and dare I say legally) implemented and enforced. Govco's reliance on the populace filling out the forms under threat and coercion in compelling people into swearing under penalty of perjury that they owe the Govco something is not a very strong position for Govco to continue on with the sham. BTW – What ever happened to the old rule that a judge would recuse himself when a conflict of interest arises? What a way to go into court, with both or sometime all three parties Judge, Prosecutor, and Public defender all feeding from the same trough. The income tax trough. Yeah…that's seems fair and just. N OT!
In Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 60 L. Ed. 493, 496 (1915)
Chief Justice White, recognizing the confusion that existed concerning these taxes, stated, in the opinion of the Court:
…the confusion …arises from the conclusion that the sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it,… …it clearly results
that the proposition and the contentions made under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement
that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the
Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity
applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one
State or States than was levied in another State or States. This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1, 11, 12 (1915)
It is later stated in this case:
…the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax
although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been
recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without
foundation…Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1, 18 (1915)
The Chief Justice reiterated this in another case:
…by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 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 and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment..Stanton v Baltic Mining Company 240 US 103, 112 (1915)
Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, stated:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.
This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual
depreciation of the rights, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis." Edward A. George H. Boyd v United States 116 US 616, 635 (1886)
From Edward Lovette, Anaheim, Ca I recommend everybody to buy a book called "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution"(2005). On page 411 it says of the Sixteenth Amendment, "The 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"…if you embezzle 13 million dollars from a bank or employer and are convicted you get many years in prison. Let's hope these "ignorant tax cheaters" go to the slammer for a long time.
From Joe, Waterford, Michigan "…an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States. [Great applause] pg 57"
The excerpt above which was part of the Congressional Record (broader excerpt below) and was spoken into the record by a lawmaker who was arguing in FAVOR of the federal Income Tax. So much for congressional intent.
"Before I conclude I want to say to the laboring men of this country if you want real protection, manhood and womanhood protection, stand up for that party which proposes to place you on an equal level before the law; that gives you the right to trade and labor with the world; that proposes to make the property of this country pay the burdens of keeping up the Government; that proposes to see to it that immense fortunes are not made to be expended abroad out of the results of your labor while you are starved at home; that proposes to place it within your power to buy the necessities of life without the burden of any tax or protection whatever; and let me call your attention, laboring men of the United States, to the fact that the men who are standing here and so eloquently and so earnestly defending protection are ridiculing and denouncing an income tax, when every one of them knows, as well as he knows who puts up his campaign funds for him, that an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States. [Great applause] pg 57
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed, if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration." Abraham Lincoln
If Labor is superior to capital and capital is the fruit of labor, how is it that capital is not taxed and labor can be?
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code reads:
§ 1. Tax imposed
Blacks Law Dictionary Defines the word "Impose" as:
"To Levy or Exact"
The definition for Exaction:
'The wrongful act of an officer or other person in compelling payment of a fee or reward for services, under color of his official authority, where no payment is due. See also Extortion'
From Gabe Providence RI It sounds like many people either love this guy or hate him for what he is doing. I have tried to do research both sides of this argument and to be honest don't really know the answer. In order for the 16th ammendment to have actually become a law or any other ammendment for that matter, they have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. I know that many people say that this was never ratified, but to be honest I have never seen the proof that it was never ratified. If I could see the proof I would be much more inclined to jump on the bandwagon. In the first amendment we have the right not only to free speech but to petition the government. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do this but would love it if one of the groups that says we don't have to pay taxes could get to the bottom of this.
For every person that says he is either a hero or a goat I also think that you should go to the US Treasury website. They have a great article on the "History of Taxation" I just find it amazing how in 1913 they were talking about taxing people between 1-7% and they thought that was communist and now they take bigger and bigger chunks and we don't bat an eye.
I don't know of Wesley is guilty or not, or if we have to pay anything or not. I don't know if the illuminati, or the Federal Reserve are what all the videos on Youtube say they are, but I do know one thing as an American Citizen.
We pay a lot of taxes and it is funny to me that we went from really paying no taxes in the late 1800's and even in early 1900 to paying what we pay now.
I don't know why we have income tax when we already pay so many others. Or could it be the other way around, maybe we shouldn't have the others. I wish people would just think about how many taxes we actually pay.
Excise tax
Gas tax
Property tax
Sales tax
Tax on Cell phone
Tax on Cable bill
Speeding tickets
Parking tickets
All fees for any Gov't service
Cigarette Tax
Tolls
Airline Ticket tax
Capital Gains tax
I don't know who is right in this case but what I do know is that it is hard to save money and get ahead with all the taxes that we have.
From New York I feel that a lot of people in this great country of ours named The United States of America are far to ignorant or lazy to even try and pick up a book and read.
No one is talking about conspiracy theories here, and no one is trying to cheat the government. Why is it that here in America the majority of us NEVER question authority, we never ask questions, and we never educate ourselves? We rather watch ESPN, read the sport sections of the cheap newspaper, and let the media and government think for us. Are you not an individual?
It makes me laugh how some people write stupidities about "just pay your taxes" or "stop breaking the law" these are usually the individuals that work 40 years paying excessive amounts of taxes, work for a meager pernsion, and are conformed just by receiving monthly crumbs disguised as their retirement and scream "God Bless America"
Wake up people, the biggest thieves are those with a suit and tie and not a gun!
From Mike from Alabama Snipes is not dumb and no rational citizen can believe his "story." In our family we pay our taxes "religously" and without cheating. We are OUTRAGED by people like Snipes who think they can get away with such flimsy excuses and think ordinary citizens are stupid enough to buy their "story." Especially because they have so much money they think they are above the Law. As a matter of personal protest, I'm never going to watch or go to a Snipes movie again. I hope he serves Real Time.
From Glenn, Alpharetta, GA Wesley Snipes cannot claim ignorance on this fraud because he knew what he was doing. He should be penalized to the full extent of the law, both criminally and punitively. He's just another shining case of the extreme arrogance and narcissism prevolent in Hollywood.
From Jennifer Hibbs Robbinsville, NJ Snipes is correct, Hope he gets a smart jury & wins.
From USam, Barnsdall, OK Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it…He can play ignorant just as well behind bars.
From Chris, Florida I find it humorous how many CPA’s have noted their comments here. Why would they agree with Mr. Snipes? After all they’re part of the problem as well. If the IRS was taken out of the picture than the CPA’s would be out of a job. My conclusion – “Figures never lie, but liars always figure. Are CPA’s any better or the tax attorneys than Mr. Snipes? They are part of the same system because they work in it. Get rid of the politicians who bring this cancer into our life. What service does the government provide for me? The worst services I am forced to pay for. Just stand in line or make a telephone call to a government agency? In my business if the consumer does not like my product they don’t buy it again. I am pleased that this is getting the attention and maybe it will force some of you to wake up and look hard at the system that brings on all this trouble. It is time for a revolution.
From M. Wilkinson, Los Angeles, CA It's called taxation without representation and is why our country was founded! Unfortunately, it lasted all of about 3 months before they began to tax us here in America just like we had left in England.
Yes, the IRS (and the Fed) are both privately held corporations. Both of which, along with the tax-attorneys and CPA's have propounded the greatest lie of all upon us. They force us to work, then steal the fruits of our labor and loan it back to us through a Central Bank. The debt upon those loans can NEVER be repaid as there simply isn't enough U.S. dollars in print to do that. Additionally, our money is now fiat (look it up) and is directly affecting its value on the global markets. The IRS, Federal Reserve, tax attorneys and CPA's have a lot to lose if we actually follow the Constitution and do not pay a labor tax to them.
Yes, the IRS has to give us a way out, so they put the section on our W-4 that allows us to file 'Exempt' and says "…I do not expect to owe any taxes this year." But everyone educated under our pathetic school system is an utter moron (as are the majority of our college grads) and doesn't take advantage of this legal out.
Furthermore, the only way, under the IRS code, that we actually have to pay a tax on our "income" is when the Head of the IRS personally computes our 'liability' and bills us. But instead the IRS continues to intimidate us and use THEIR justice system to 'prosecute' us for their made up crimes. And all the while, the IRS continues to argue that this is a 'voluntary system of taxation'. BS!
The IRS and the Fed need to be abolished and any polititian that doesn't support this position needs to be hung from the highest pole for treason. We need a 'Redress of Greivances' now.
Mr. Snipes is just calling us to get out there and be Americans and not lambs! For further depressing truths, look up "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars".
Another learning experience for the bold is, the next time you're audited, simply put all your records into a brown bag and staple it shut. When asked by the IRS "investigator" to give them your information, ask them if you are "REQUIRED by ANY law to provide them with this EVIDENCE against yourself." They will say, "Yes" and then ask them for the law IN WRITING. That will be the end of the audit. There is no law and we, as yet, still cannot be forced or coerced into testifying or providing any evidence against ourselves.
God Bless America and our sovereignty!
From Scott Miller, Auburndale, FL None of the rational arguments I have read suggest that there are no tax laws, or that no taxes must ever be paid by anyone in the US. The question is whether the INCOME tax applies to wages.
Put aside all the Federal Reserve and Bilderberg conspiracy theories, and a curious fact remains: Where is the law? I have witnessed IRS Commissioners and elected officials and enforcement agents and CPAs and attorneys all making reference to court decisions, rulings and such, and even ridiculing those who question it, but why doesn't anyone just flip open the book to the appropriate page and cite an actual law? Or why doesn't the Supreme Court address it – not a specific tax case, as has been done, but the validity (or existence of) a specific law requiring US citizens to pay an income tax on their wages and allowing enforcement thereof?
From Jerry The IRS is a private collection agency. They impersonate government officials the same way gangsters who dressed up as cops and conducted the Valenine's day massacre in Chicago back in the 1930s did. Most of them are too far down the food chain to understand what they are doing, but not all of them.
Wesley Snipes must do a "proof of claim" on the court record by using the notarial process and his administrative remedy.
From D. Hooker Holland, Mi The preamble of our Constitution reads "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Whom of you reading this blog believe that you have a right to the sweat of onther man? If a business can deduct expenses before paying taxes, pray tell what am I allowed to deduct in my daily endevours as an employee? Income is income and wages are not income. None of you may lay claim to my aches and pains and cuts and bruises. To think otherwise, shows that socialism has now ruled your thinking!
From Larry Weinstein CPA, Houston, TX As a tax professional spending much of my time solving IRS tax problems, http://www.SolveMyTaxProblems.com, I must say, the law is very clear and has been tested in court many times.
He will pay. The question really becomes, is he going to stay out of jail!!
From Los Angeles WTF? just pay taxes like everyone else.
From Dave, Los Angeles, CA Don't be lazy people. Don't parrot the "conventional wisdom" Open your eyes. Research for yourself. §861 isn't an argument, it's a section of code in the code of federal regulations. It is where the law (not some website), tells you to look " … to determine your taxable income"
Tax law requires explicit language as to whom it applies, under what circumstances, etc. Otherwise, anyone would be liable for US taxes, on every dollar they received, under any circumstances. §861 gives the specific application of the income tax.
http://www.3rdear.com/861info/
http://www.861.info
From Scott, Atlanta, GA I do not like the tax code. It makes us become cheaters as well as many of the other laws put on the books. I have not met one single citizen that has not fully disclosed his true liability to the government. In fact, lets get to the truth, in a private survey that verification would be proven, but verbally speak out in public you cheat the government and everyone here would shut up.
Here is the answer; until you fools stop electing the same old crony’s into the same old political system nothing in this county is ever going to change. Take a look around how your money is carelessly spent. My "poor” in-laws have no money and they think it's the rich who don't pay their taxes and it really isn't. Its middle class people like their son-in-law who uses the codes, and has the money to hire the CPA firms to basically screw the government in a legal means. Is that fair? Not really.
I just love the holy than thou comments made here. There is not one person I come across in my daily life who is above reproach. That's right, you can justify anything you want and we all do it. Next time your speeding down the highway just remember the law is the law. I live in Atlanta and there is not a single person who does the speed limit. Oh, I forgot, for some they can make up their own rules or not abide by them because you don't agree. So, you break the speed limit that's okay. No one here has any claim to being better than Mr. Snipes. It just depends what laws you agree with or not.
Taking Snipes to trial is spending your money wisely? If the government operated like a business they would have negotiated a deal and recovered the tax and the interest. It’s all about balance. Now, we have attorneys which include the Assistant U.S. Attorney wasting millions on a trial. All I see here is the government spending my money for the happiness of their pursuit. What about ours? Take a partial payment or give him a payment plan. Now if he’s convicted we will have the burden of housing and feeding him. Sounds like good business sense to me – I think not. No wonder way this county is going down the tubes. It will just take more money now in taxes to pay for all of this.
There needs to be a revolution and not an election because somehow I think that is not working. I do not need a bunch of Senators or Congressman in Washington voting for me and as far as that goes I have not had one of them ask me what I wanted, but I get enough phone calls to support political campaigns, etc. Times have changed and those were the days when we did not have technology and we needed someone to cast our vote.
Put it on the Internet and I’ll cast my own vote. In fact, if we can text message contestant off American Idol and some of you pay $0.95 to do that, than I think we should assign the Presidential candidates a number on their podium during the debates, text message their butts out of the contest and use the $0.95 and apply it to our government needs. How stupid are we today.
From jason, Cincinnati ohio Here's something to ponder. If the U.S. government has the right to tax a person based upon what service they provide, doesn't that technically take away the concept of a free market? For example, say I am a dentist who needs a concrete foundation poured, I approach a concrete guy and say, "Hey let's barter this deal. I will provide your child with braces if you pour my concrete." No money is ever exchanged. BUT according to the government, your services and the concrete guy's labor already have a determined amount of value to them. Thus both would owe taxes on a bartered deal of no realized value based on what the government said was fair market value. How is that a free market? And how is it fair the government can say you would owe taxes on exchanged services where both parties agreed that the net value was zero?
From Stevo, Cincinnati, Ohio IRS 1040 is a fraudulent form. It contains an invalid OMB number. It is merely a proposed form, never officially cited by statute. Paying Income Tax for most Americans is voluntary. Just read the statement from the commissioner on any 1040 pamphlet. Mr. Snipes needs to engage a person educated in U.S. Constitutional law-not IRS Code which is not law. The IRS (like the Federal Reserve)is not a governmental agency-hence the terms "codes", "regulations", etc.
There is no law that states most Americans have to pay taxes. When asked to quote a law, the IRS only sites court cases.
Mr. Snipes, please seek a Constitutional expert for defense rather than a Tax Attorney who is part of the corrupt system. The IRS Code is NOT Law.
From Slade, Alamo, CA In 1943, an analysis of the federal income tax was published in the Congressional Record. This compilation of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department (IRS) and entitled-“The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for Determining its Amount.” This commentary stated, in part:
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax."
In 1989 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report for Congress on the nature of the Federal Income Tax. This report addressed the nature of an excise tax:
"WHAT DOES THE (SUPREME)COURT MEAN WHEN IT STATES THAT
THE INCOME TAX IS IN THE NATURE OF AN EXCISE TAX?
An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.
When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself."
According to the Congressional Research Service and the 1943 Report, the federal income tax is not a tax on income. It is a privilege tax that is measured by the income the privilege produces. Income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. In other words, according to these Reports, Congress is taxing a privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege.
So the 64,000 dollar question is…what is the privilege and where is the Internal Revenue Code section that makes the American people liable for this privilege tax?
From Quatloos Although now he argues that he was hoodwinked, Snipes still hasn't paid any of his back taxes.
As for the tax liability, see http://www.hereisthelaw.com
From Patrick Riot, Sarasota, FL The Snipes issue is far more complicated than a small forum such as this will allow to be exposed.
It all stems from the planning of the US Federal Reserve System in the late 1800’s by two European families using two American families. The Rothschild and Warburgs were foreign and the Rockefeller and Morgans were the domestics.
The “Fed” was formed for the sole purpose of an intentional bankruptcy (now absolutely provable with historical records) and accordingly was bankrupted in 1928. From 1913 to 1925 Congress amended the original Fed Act to unConstitutionally create a cosigner: the federal corporation known then as the “United States”.
By 1933 when Congress finally fully alerted to their folly, and made aware of their undoing, the IRS was tacitly given its way to essentially apply a perfectly Constitutional “INCOME” tax in a perfectly unConstitutional manner.
The INCOME tax is for those US citizens of the federal States (government employees, military and those within the US possessions and territories) and cannot be Constitutionally applied to US Citizens within the several states. Section 861 kindof weasels this issue around and has, due to the Internet, been thoroughly outted by very focused researchers.
Contrary to what’s been routinely been said by courts, and those that mouth what’s been said by the courts, the 861 issue has never, as in NEVER been presented as an issue to an American jury. Hence, never been ruled on as such. In all actions against it, it’s always been denigrated by the courtroom retort of being “frivolous” without any substantive review lest it be shown beyond the shadow of a doubt to be exactly what it says. It excludes the income of certain US Citizens if their income is earned in certain PLACES. Quite simple.
Hence, the reason for the term “CODE” as it applies to Title 26, better known as the Internal Revenue CODE. (No other Title of US Law is described as a… CODE.) As you might suspect the story is much larger, but is being released later this year in a rather large way a few months before November. A very clear and easy to understand way I might add.
Just as an aside, possibly the frosting to the reason for this submissions rejection to this forum, (I dare you to leave it in ,) the Bush family made their stripes with the 2 foreign owners of the PRIVATELY owned Federal Reserve when granddad Bush (Prescott) facilitated the lending of money to Hitler in 1939 at the request of the Warburg side of the Fed ownership. (NY Times headlines in 1941 when charged by the DOJ with “Trading With the Enemy”) Warburg and Rothschild essentially caused and facilitated the Holocaust in order to create the sympathy to form the so called State of Israel. (Easily corroborated when required to do so.)
All of it, as in 100% of this, tracks back to the PRIVATE ownership of the US Federal Reserve, bankrupting the federal corporation known then as the “united States” forcing the collection of a TAX on the INCOMES of “every” American just to pay the INTEREST to themselves. Paid to themselves from your labor. AND statutorily tax free I might also add. (See Title 12, Section 531)
From Anonymous Every penny that goes to "pay taxes, for all the services people use" at the IRS goes towards the interest owed to the PRIVATE bank known as the Federal Reserve. Think I'm making that up? Look up the federal reserve in your phone book its in the white pages, the US government pays this corporation INTEREST on every single bill printed, thats where all the taxes are going. Keep thinking your a "good citizen" if you pay your taxes and remain an enslaved Sheeple.
From Kevin, Lancaster, California Mr. Snipes is a tax cheat, pure and simple. He has used government services all of his life, but doesn't want to pay for them. He deserves the maximum prison time possible.
From chuckgallagher Having served time for tax evasion and seen other in prison for Snipes like arguement, I predict he'll be convicted. As a former CPA and tax partner in a CPA firm, I can speak from experience – he's got no chance. Fortunately, he can recover as today I am a Senior Sales Executive in a public company and business ethics speaker – http://www.chuckgallagher.com Perhaps Snipes can regain his senses and direct his talent in a way that keeps him legal and free.
From William Nowack Agree with Mr. Bohannon from L.A. However, he did have a good faith belief that he could hoodwink the courts and get away with it. We all pay more because of thieves like this.
From spencer, spata mi He is a hero to stand up to the IRS. The income tax is un-apportioned, never ratified by the states to make it Constitional and they define income as a capital gain made by a corporation.
From Will Parkhurst, Hyattsville, MD Uncle Sam will get his due. Wesley Snipes is going to learn the hard way. Taxes are to paid; it's only a question of what percent!
From Timothy, Laguna Beach CA They Always have the same answer about the tax protester argument., "routinely shot down in the courts" But they can never produce the law that says a wage earner is required to pay taxes. Because it doesn't exist.
From dick bohanon,la,ca its not about his ignorance of the law.
its about arrogance
let him go to jail
From c334500 The old saying, the only sure thing are death and taxes. Mr. Snipes should plead guilty and pay his tax bill especially if he is short on money to pay. I would rather him go back to work and reduce the federal deficit by earing the money to pay back instead of going to jail and adding to it.
-
Wireless electricity and invisible speakers -- see what's coming from entrepreneurs in 2010. More -
These 6 businesses took advantage of crashed real estate prices to trade up. More -
These 7 entrepreneurs are bringing tech, medical research and design jobs to the Detroit metro area. More -
Arson. Scrappers. Blackouts. It's part of business for the last tenant in Detroit's Packard Plant. More -
Inventing is the easy part. Marketing? Trickier. Experts tell how they'd advertise 5 hard-to-tout products. More
Everyone should pay there fair share of taxes,It just shocks me that when it is an African American that suppose to have commited some crime,why do peoples makes statements like need to send a strong message,when it comes to the punishing stage?I also believe that you pay taxes to support our Country,and we do,so why do the credit Bureau's have so much influence on what capital you can gain? some Corporation gives you a bad rap,because they don't have an ear or heart to listen,and stuff is put on your credit report,that mess you around,but you still pay taxes,so I believe that all three credit Bureau's need to be eliminated,and a more fairer system establisted.