4487 Shares

If the IRS is a shame which contradicts the constitution why do people get audited and held liable?

If the IRS is a shame which contradicts the constitution why do people get audited and held liable? Topic: Mcdonald case supreme court
June 25, 2019 / By Timothy
Question: The constitution states that people can not be taxed on there labor. Only taxed on the profits of personal gain. please read the constitution before you answer my question. The constitution says clearly people cannot be taxed on labor only on profits of personal gain. Also i will give 10 dollars threw paypal to ANYONE who can show me the law and the statue that shows people can be taxed on there labor. http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/#LatestNews you have not showed ME anything from OFFICIAL LAW BOOKS you showed me a PDF of Trial cases HERES A PDF that cotridicts your PDF see i can do this as-well http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Court-Docs/6700-2ndCirc-Full-Appeal-Oct-2007.pdf Wayne z if this man has gotten out of paying his taxes to date is then he not showing you this law is not correct? whats this all about then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ueEfRXZCVA
Best Answer

Best Answers: If the IRS is a shame which contradicts the constitution why do people get audited and held liable?

Randal Randal | 8 days ago
First, the Constitution doesn't state anything about whether people can or cannot be taxed on the their labor. Second, taxes are on wages, which is what someone receives in exchange for their labor. Therefore, labor is not taxed, but wages are. BTW, wages you receive in exchange for your labor IS A GAIN. A gain is calculated as the difference between what YOU PAY for something and what you sell it for. If you find a diamond ring in your backyard that is worth $4,000. If you sell it to your neighbor for $3,000, do you have a $1,000 loss? No, you have a $3,000 gain because the gain is difference between what you sold the ring for, $3,000 and the amount you paid for the ring, $0. It is the same with your labor. If someone hires you for $50 for an hour, at the end of that hour, you have $50 more than what you had before. Therefore, that $50 is a gain to you and you will owe taxes on that $50. Here are some court cases for you. In Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), the court stated, "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions." In Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985), the court stated, "Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ ... illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous...." In LUKHARD v. REED, 481 U.S. 368 (1987). [QUOTE] "In common speech `income' generally is understood as gain or profit . . ." (footnote omitted)); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 [481 U.S. 368, 375] (1920) ("`Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets . . ." (quoting Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918))), respondents conclude that personal injury awards cannot fairly be characterized as income. But the premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. [END QUOTE] Exactly where in the Constitution does it state that people cannot be taxed on their labor? Name the article, section and paragraph or quote it. BTW, you can read the Constitution at http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitutio... Bob Schulz and We the People Foundation obviously haven't updated their latest news page or he doesn't want to update it. I'll provide you the latest news, the Supreme Court has issued an order on the two petitions. CERTIORARI DENIED which means the Supreme Court has refused to hear their case and the lower court ruling stands. Don't believe me? Go to the Supreme Court website and see for yourself. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/cou... Page 19 starts the list of cases where certiorari was denied. The Schulz case is on page 22. Wayne Z showed you the law. Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the codification of the various income tax laws passed by Congress. Title 26 is "prima facie" law or evidence of the positive law. You can read Title 26 at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/ or at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.html Here are a few of the many court cases where this has been discussed. In United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990); 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." Your second link is a link to a BRIEF submitted to the court. It is NOT A COURT OPINION. In briefs, the authors can make almost any claim they want and try to twist words to support their positions. Basically, the court will use a brief to investigate a parties claim of the facts and law. What matters in a case is the DECISION of the court. Since the appeal to the Supreme Court has been denied, the decision and order of the district court stands. http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Court-Docs/6700InjunctionAug2007.pdf Finally, a person not paying their taxes for several years does NOT prove they are right about the income tax laws. Think about it, if a person commits murder and doesn't get caught for several years or ever, does that mean there isn't a law against murder? No, it doesn't. Whether you like it or not, there is a law concerning income taxes and if you earn more than a certain amount in income, you are required to pay taxes and file returns. Do you have any other silly arguments? EDIT: The movie "America: Freedom to Fascism" is full of conspiracy theory nonsense. There is a law concerning income taxes and that is Title 26 U.S.C. as I pointed out earlier in this post. I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites. BTW, the book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated, [QUOTE] "Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders. “Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so." Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. [END QUOTE] A few sentences later in the same decision, the court continues, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review." [END QUOTE OF CASE] Judge Fox's statement was in the context of giving an example. He was not making a statement of fact. Here is a larger portion of the transcripts where that quote was made. [QUOTE] "I will say I think, you know, colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I'm correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment...And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever...set it aside." [END QUOTE] The comments made by Judge Fox were made in passing, without judicial review, and in a case that had nothing to do with the 16th amendment. In the end, the Judge also said that he didn't think any court would ever set it aside. The Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance. Finally, the quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811 Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it. To summarize, there is a law concerning income taxes. If you earn more than the standard deduction, you must file tax returns. Wages from a job are income. Income is NOT limited to corporate profits. The Federal Reserve is not some great conspiracy. BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in the film, was charged earlier this year with "willful failure to file" covering four years. Her trial lasted two days, Oct. 29th and 30th. The jury deliberated for 45 minutes. GUILTY on all counts. Do you have any additional tax protester arguments? I'll probably run out of space.
👍 284 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? If the IRS is a shame which contradicts the constitution why do people get audited and held liable? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Mcdonald case supreme court


Randal Originally Answered: If the IRS is a shame which contradicts the constitution why do people get audited and held liable?
First, the Constitution doesn't state anything about whether people can or cannot be taxed on the their labor. Second, taxes are on wages, which is what someone receives in exchange for their labor. Therefore, labor is not taxed, but wages are. BTW, wages you receive in exchange for your labor IS A GAIN. A gain is calculated as the difference between what YOU PAY for something and what you sell it for. If you find a diamond ring in your backyard that is worth $4,000. If you sell it to your neighbor for $3,000, do you have a $1,000 loss? No, you have a $3,000 gain because the gain is difference between what you sold the ring for, $3,000 and the amount you paid for the ring, $0. It is the same with your labor. If someone hires you for $50 for an hour, at the end of that hour, you have $50 more than what you had before. Therefore, that $50 is a gain to you and you will owe taxes on that $50. Here are some court cases for you. In Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), the court stated, "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions." In Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985), the court stated, "Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ ... illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous...." In LUKHARD v. REED, 481 U.S. 368 (1987). [QUOTE] "In common speech `income' generally is understood as gain or profit . . ." (footnote omitted)); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 [481 U.S. 368, 375] (1920) ("`Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets . . ." (quoting Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918))), respondents conclude that personal injury awards cannot fairly be characterized as income. But the premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. [END QUOTE] Exactly where in the Constitution does it state that people cannot be taxed on their labor? Name the article, section and paragraph or quote it. BTW, you can read the Constitution at http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitutio... Bob Schulz and We the People Foundation obviously haven't updated their latest news page or he doesn't want to update it. I'll provide you the latest news, the Supreme Court has issued an order on the two petitions. CERTIORARI DENIED which means the Supreme Court has refused to hear their case and the lower court ruling stands. Don't believe me? Go to the Supreme Court website and see for yourself. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/cou... Page 19 starts the list of cases where certiorari was denied. The Schulz case is on page 22. Wayne Z showed you the law. Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the codification of the various income tax laws passed by Congress. Title 26 is "prima facie" law or evidence of the positive law. You can read Title 26 at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/ or at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.html Here are a few of the many court cases where this has been discussed. In United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990); 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." Your second link is a link to a BRIEF submitted to the court. It is NOT A COURT OPINION. In briefs, the authors can make almost any claim they want and try to twist words to support their positions. Basically, the court will use a brief to investigate a parties claim of the facts and law. What matters in a case is the DECISION of the court. Since the appeal to the Supreme Court has been denied, the decision and order of the district court stands. http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Court-Docs/6700InjunctionAug2007.pdf Finally, a person not paying their taxes for several years does NOT prove they are right about the income tax laws. Think about it, if a person commits murder and doesn't get caught for several years or ever, does that mean there isn't a law against murder? No, it doesn't. Whether you like it or not, there is a law concerning income taxes and if you earn more than a certain amount in income, you are required to pay taxes and file returns. Do you have any other silly arguments? EDIT: The movie "America: Freedom to Fascism" is full of conspiracy theory nonsense. There is a law concerning income taxes and that is Title 26 U.S.C. as I pointed out earlier in this post. I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites. BTW, the book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated, [QUOTE] "Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders. “Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so." Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. [END QUOTE] A few sentences later in the same decision, the court continues, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review." [END QUOTE OF CASE] Judge Fox's statement was in the context of giving an example. He was not making a statement of fact. Here is a larger portion of the transcripts where that quote was made. [QUOTE] "I will say I think, you know, colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I'm correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment...And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever...set it aside." [END QUOTE] The comments made by Judge Fox were made in passing, without judicial review, and in a case that had nothing to do with the 16th amendment. In the end, the Judge also said that he didn't think any court would ever set it aside. The Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance. Finally, the quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811 Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it. To summarize, there is a law concerning income taxes. If you earn more than the standard deduction, you must file tax returns. Wages from a job are income. Income is NOT limited to corporate profits. The Federal Reserve is not some great conspiracy. BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in the film, was charged earlier this year with "willful failure to file" covering four years. Her trial lasted two days, Oct. 29th and 30th. The jury deliberated for 45 minutes. GUILTY on all counts. Do you have any additional tax protester arguments? I'll probably run out of space.

Marshal Marshal
Where exactly in the Constitution is this stated? As for the law, it can be summed up in two places. One is a link from the IRS that describes and explains frivolous tax arguments such as this one. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf The other is the law that allows Congress to collect taxes on all forms of income, look at the 16th 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." As for the $10, please send it to: Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to: Attn Dept G Bureau Of the Public Debt P. O. Box 2188 Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188 Thank you.
👍 120 | 👎 2

Jesaiah Jesaiah
If you are getting your intrepretation of the constitution from the "We the People Foundation", you are going to be in for a surprise. THEY ARE WRONG. They have always been wrong. "Labor" is not tax and it has never been. "Wages" (and salary, etc.) are taxed. Tax Protesters, like Bob Schultz from We the People, have a perfect record in court. They have never won a case and gotten out of paying their taxes. Here is the actual law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/ The 16th 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 whatever source derived...." pretty much sums it up.
👍 113 | 👎 -4

Gladwin Gladwin
·THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL I SAW THEM ON THE INTERNET: Nobody ever really landed on the moon - it was a giant hoax. What you saw on TV was filmed in Utah. Elvis is still alive, and performing marriage ceremonies in Las Vegas. It is unconstitutional for the government to tax your wages (income tax), and most of what we think of as income isn't really income anyway. Excuse me now....I just won 2 million pounds in the online UK lottery when my email was randomly selected, and I have to go answer the email..... ;-}
👍 106 | 👎 -10

Gladwin Originally Answered: Quit a job that held back first weeks pay, now can't get my last pay check?
they cannot withhold you r pay write a letter to the president or owner of the company, and tell them to mail you e pay asap. be prepared to go to the state labor dept.

If you have your own answer to the question mcdonald case supreme court, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.