Did you know that there is no law that makes you pay your federal income tax?

Did you know that there is no law that makes you pay your federal income tax? Topic: The persons case significance of names
June 25, 2019 / By Bindy
Question: The 16th amendment did not allow any new forms of taxation. The Constitution states that a tax must be indirect (tax on cigarettes) or direct tax which must be apportioned-it is not. The tax code is not the law and does not overide the Constitution or the the many Supreme Court cases that came before it. There is much more to state, but willing to debate this fact with anyone out there. Angie- you are incorrect. First of all the government does not have a right to collect the tax from people who do not want to pay it and secondly there have been many cases of people who were found not guilty. The tax code even reads that there is "voluntary compliance" You simply have to do the research By the way the Constitution defines income as profit or gains. The tax code does not define income and this is why corporations have to pay income tax and not the average citizen. Frank- those are good points. I suggest protesting and informing as many people as you can. Hey NGC, you still cannot show me a law that makes anyone pay their federal income tax. If you can, you can make alot of money because not one person ( not even the IRS can show it to you) I was incorrect on my position on income, I meant to say a supreme court case, not the constitiution. I suggest you watch America: Freedom to Facism and get back to me. I would be glad to explain any further concerns you have. And the income tax in no way is a direct tax because it is not apportioned as the consititution demands- again you can not show me an amendment that overides this. I forget the rest of your claims, but just watch the video.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Did you know that there is no law that makes you pay your federal income tax?

Ailse Ailse | 7 days ago
Did you know that you are wrong? Since you obviously don't know that, I'll let you know, YOU ARE WRONG. Title 26 of the UNITED STATES CODE is a codification of the actual tax laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a President. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode... Here are a couple of court cases about it. In United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990) and United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986), the court stated, "Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable." In Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985), the court stated, "Congress’s failure to enact a title [of the United States Code] into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan’s rights by enforcing it." Re: 16th amendment You are somewhat correct in that the 16th amendment granted "no new power of taxation" which is actually a quote from a Supreme Court case. However, the tax protester literature you have been reading did not include what the Supreme Court said in the EXACT SAME SENTENCE. The following is a more complete quote from STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916). "...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th 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..." As anyone can plainly see, the Supreme Court declares that income taxes are INDIRECT taxes and are therefore PERMITTED by the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8. BTW, the Supreme Court UPHELD an income tax levied on an individual's earnings in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). In that decision, the court stated that "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains [an income tax] is within the category of an excise or duty." So, the tax code or Internal Revenue Code do not override the Constitution because the power to tax incomes is given to Congress in the Constitution. BTW, name ONE Supreme Court case that said an income tax on wages was unconstitutional. Hint: there isn't one. There was one case where the Supreme Court stated that a tax on income from property, i.e. rental income, was the same as a tax on the property itself and hence was a direct tax and was therefore unconstitutional, but that case specifically avoided calling a tax on income from wages a direct tax. Re: Your claim that income taxes are voluntary is also wrong. Effective tax administration relies on taxpayers willingly complying with the tax laws, but taxpayers do not have the right to choose whether the laws apply to them. References to a “voluntary” tax system in Flora, supra, and in Service publications, mean a system that allows taxpayers to determine, in the first instance, the correct amount of their tax and to report their liability on appropriate returns, rather than having the government make the determinations for them. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 100 n.3 (2004) (“[T]he taxpayer, not the taxing authority, is the first party to make the relevant calculation of income taxes owed.”) (Emphasis added). “Voluntary” in this context does not mean that taxpayers may opt out of the system. As stated in United States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272, 275 (2d Cir. 1989): "To the extent that income taxes are said to be “voluntary,” . . . they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, . . . and the average citizen knows that the payment of income taxes is legally required." BTW, if you don't pay your income taxes and make the claim that income taxes are voluntary, the IRS will levy a $5,000 frivolous filing penalty. Re: Constitution defines income as profits or gains. First, the Constitution does no such thing. You should actually read it. http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitutio... Second, wages you earn on a job is a GAIN to you. A gain is calculated as the difference between the amount you SELL something and the amount for which you PAY FOR IT. For example, if you find a diamond ring that is worth $4,000 in your backyard and they you sell it to your neighbor for $3,000, you have a $3,000 gain. Your gain is the difference between the amount for which you sold the ring ($3,000) and the amount you paid for it ($0). If your neighbor then sells the ring to somebody else for $3,500, your neighbor has a $500 gain. When you work, your entire wage is a gain. You have paid nothing for your labor, yet you sell it for the amount of your wage. One last point. An acquittal in a tax evasion criminal case does not mean that there isn't a law concerning income taxes anymore than O.J. Simpson's acquittal means that there isn't a law concerning murdering your ex-wife. EDIT: I DID SHOW YOU THE LAW. TITLE 26 is the law whether you like it or not. You can read it at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode... or at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.html or at http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml The courts, lawyers, accountants, and people with more than half a brain agree with me that Title 26 is the law. People who offer rewards for showing them the law have rigged the offer so that no one could ever collect. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#rewards For example, I'll give you $20,000 if you can prove to me all of the following three statements are false. 1. At the time of this writing, there is a law concerning income taxes. 2. Humans live on Earth. 3. You are a tax protester. You can't win because all three are true. As I said earlier in this post, there has NEVER been a Supreme Court case that said a tax on income from wages was unconstitutional. There has also never been a Supreme Court case that said the income tax laws enacted after 1913 only applies only to corporate profits. I have seen Freedom to Fascism and it is full of conspiracy theory nonsense. Many of the facts are wrong and many of the quotes are taken completely out of context or are even made up. For example, the Woodrow Wilson quote that begins with "I am a most unhappy man" is actually part made-up and part a compilation of out-of-context quotes taken from campaign speeches he made in 1912. You can read them for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811 Yes, the Constitution demands that direct taxes be apportioned. Congress is free to levy INDIRECT taxes as long as they are uniform. As I have shown, income taxes are INDIRECT taxes and do not have to be apportioned. In either case, even if income taxes are declared to be direct taxes, the 16th amendment removes the apportionment requirement. That is the purpose of amendments, to change the Constitution when needed. The founding fathers knew the Constitution would have to change, but they made the process difficult in order to prevent it being changed at the whim of a few politicians. BTW, the 16th amendment was properly ratified and every court since has said so. Bill Benson's book is also full of errors.
👍 142 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Did you know that there is no law that makes you pay your federal income tax? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: The persons case significance of names

Ailse Originally Answered: What is the best way to pay the least federal and state income taxes while earning an income?
Hello there, The best advice I can give you is to talk with a tax adviser in your area. He or she can gather all the necessary facts regarding your situation and can go into detail as to what sort of options you could consider. Such is not possible here and my words are not intended as a substitute for advice from a tax professional in your area. I will try to give you some guidance as to what you can discuss. 1. Any sort of business venture to reduce your tax liability. I frequently hear folks talk about various businesses as a way to reduce your taxes. That strategy will work to reduce your taxes if the business loses money. Period end of discussion. Most people do not want to lose money to reduce their taxes. A equivalent way to reduce your taxes would be to give more money to your church. That reduces taxes (up to a point) and you do not have the stress of running some sort of business. 2. What you can realistically expect: Deferral and conversion. 2A. Deferral of income does not reduce the over all tax liability; merely postpones a portion of the tax liability. Due to the time value of money, this is of benefit. Depending on your exact situation, there may be some options available to you to defer income. For instance, this could be a deferred compensation plan for your company. Deferred compensation plans can be tricky and there are pitfalls. I do not recommend you tackle such without some guidance. 2B. Conversion is simply changing the character of the income from ordinary income to capital gains. As long as there is some differential between ordinary income tax rates and capital gains tax rates conversion has benefit. A common example of conversion is rental property. During the time that you hold rental property, you may recognize a loss for tax purposes. That is generally due to interest and depreciation and not necessarily a cash loss. When you sell the property, you expect to have a gain sufficient to offset all your accumulated losses. You reduced ordinary income during the years you held the property and had a capital gain when you sold it. Looking at the overall transaction , you converted ordinary income to capital gain. 3. Nontaxable income. Perhaps you are maxed out on options for deferral and conversion. There is still the possibility to receive income that is not taxed. An example would be municipal bonds. The interest received from the bond would be exempt from income taxes at the federal and state level (and possibly the city/county level). Of course the rate of return is somewhat reduced to reflect the tax savings effect. Nevertheless, tax exempts can be a worthwhile consideration. While I used a single example in each category for illustration. I do not imply that such example is the only example. It is not the examples you should discuss with your tax adviser, but rather it is the categories that you should explore I hope this gives you some guidance. Good luck

Tommi Tommi
Yep, you are correct about this. Wesley Snipes is a big advocate of this right now as we all know he is infamous for not filing or paying taxes on the millions of dollars he made. Do we really want to challenge the IRS as they are the "legal" gangster backed by our government. I sure don't want to be thrown in jail or have my properties taken away. It sucks that we have to pay taxes but if you pay taxes, that means you are making money. If you are paying a lot of taxes, that means you are making a lot of money. What's to complain? I rather live in this country or any developed countries than countries with significant amount of poverty and government corruption. You need money to run a country so even if we need to pay taxes, then so be it. My only problem is that government should be held with greater accountability on the money being spent with our tax dollars. Companies are audited and given opinions to protect shareholders. What about government audit to protect the taxpayer's interest? I know we have GAO but so far they haven't been doing a great job at what they are suppose to be doing!
👍 50 | 👎 5

Ray Ray
It's talk like that, that is going to put Wesley Snipes in jail. The courts have always upheld the country's right to collect taxes. Nice try.
👍 44 | 👎 3

Matania Matania
Perhaps, but try not paying (or just filing) and see what happens. Seems the Feds don't really care what the Constitution says anymore and not enough people are willing to stand up and fight them over it.
👍 38 | 👎 1

Jimmie Jimmie
I agree w/ you.... But.... The constitution also says congress must vote in favor of going to war, Nothing but gold and silver can be used for money. And many other things we do are not proper, so what can a person do?
👍 32 | 👎 -1

Gomer Gomer
while i agree with your position it is not winnable. the government has the courts in their pocket and no court will rule against them on the subject.
👍 26 | 👎 -3

Gomer Originally Answered: Is it really against the law to not pay Federal Income Tax?
Yes it is. "spending several days searching for a law that says we have to pay Federal Income Tax... I have come up empty handed." Then you haven't been looking very hard. The law is found at 26USC, Section 1:- "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . a tax determined in accordance with the following table:" 26USC was enacted by Congress on October 22, 1986, as Public Law 99-514 "A bill to reform the internal revenue laws of the United States" and signed by the President, making it the law of the land. It has been amended every year since, and 26USC always contains its current "as amended" form. "In fact, I've found 73 documented cases where people have actually WON against the IRS!" Correct. Usually on the same basis that Mr Snipes won his partial acquital, namely "I'm so stupid I really believed this rubbish." Snipes - as many people before him - was acquitted of charges that he "willfully" evaded his tax responsibilities because the jury believed his claim that he had believed the "you don't have to pay taxes" guff that Kahn and Rosile were feeding him, and that his failure to pay was thus not "wilfull". He was still convicted of failing to file tax returns, and faces 3 years in prison. Kahn and Rosile face ten years each. In addition, Snipes now owes the IRS millions in back taxes, interest, penalties and fees. When he gets out of prison he'll be completely broke. Richard

If you have your own answer to the question the persons case significance of names, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.