where is law

[fofgrel]

What is the name of your state? OK

Where can I find the law that states that paying/filing federal and/or state income tax is mandatory?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by fofgrel

What is the name of your state? OK

Where can I find the law that states that paying/filing federal and/or state income tax is mandatory?

[url]http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=98137,00.html[/url]

[zvarela]

Originally Posted by fofgrel

What is the name of your state? OK

Where can I find the law that states that paying/filing federal and/or state income tax is mandatory?

It depends on what you perceive yourself to be...Are you a "Taxpayer" or "Non-Taxpayer?

[fofgrel]

Let me rephrase my question. Does anyone know where in the IRS code or law it makes anyperson liable for income tax?

[tranquility]

You can rephrase the question as many times as you want.

YOU MUST PAY YOUR INCOME TAXES.

There are many tax protester arguments about problems about the constitutional amendment allowing such things, about the code describing income, about...whatever. However, the courts have repeatedly held you must pay them. In fact, making a frivilous argument like it sounds you want to make can cost you a penalty of $5,000 over and above the taxes and penalties and interest you would otherwise owe due to non-compliance with the tax law.

So rather than playing little games, why don't you make the statement you want to make--something like "taxes are illegal" or describe the scam-promoter you heard this from. At least we'd have something worth our time.

Info edit:
For further information, see:
[url]http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot2.htm[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester[/url]
[url]http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html[/url]

[fofgrel]

First off, tranquility, I would like to clarify that I am not attemting to make any statements here. I am new to the study of this issue, and looking for information.

I have viewed the websites that you have provided. And agreeing with most of it's points. Though I am still in search for the answer to my original question of "where does the law state who, if anyone, is liable for income tax?"

the website "evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html" that you provided cites section 1 of the IRC on this issue, but section 1 never set's up liability for the tax it only imposes it. Example: section 4371 imposes a tax on foriegn insurers and tobacco products, section 5703 determines liablility for that tax. section 1 imposes an income tax, what I am searching for is the section that determines liablity for income tax

In response to where I was indroduced to this subject, my introduction the this subject has come from [url]www.paynoincometax.com[/url] and from Irwin Shiff's book: Federal Mafia.

[tranquility]

Even though Schiff is 78, he was just sentenced to prison for 13 years. He has been in and out of prison and in civil problems because of his tax positions for decades. Even if everything he says is 100% logically correct, the courts have stomped him down repeatedly.

What is it you want to do exactly? Are your sure?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by fofgrel

First off, tranquility, I would like to clarify that I am not attemting to make any statements here. I am new to the study of this issue, and looking for information.

I have viewed the websites that you have provided. And agreeing with most of it's points. Though I am still in search for the answer to my original question of "where does the law state who, if anyone, is liable for income tax?"

the website "evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html" that you provided cites section 1 of the IRC on this issue, but section 1 never set's up liability for the tax it only imposes it. Example: section 4371 imposes a tax on foriegn insurers and tobacco products, section 5703 determines liablility for that tax. section 1 imposes an income tax, what I am searching for is the section that determines liablity for income tax

In response to where I was indroduced to this subject, my introduction the this subject has come from [url]www.paynoincometax.com[/url] and from Irwin Shiff's book: Federal Mafia.

US laws cover US citizens and residents. Therefore a law IMPOSING an income tax, imposes that liability on the citizens and residents of the US.

There are laws that say that murder is a crime. Do you think that there should also be a law stating who is covered by that law in order for it to be valid?

What Tranq has been trying to tell you that every single argument that you might hear or read that states that people are not subject to income tax, has already been thoroughly struck down by the courts. Therefore studying the issue is pointless....and could potentially get you in trouble.

[fofgrel]

studying the issue is pointless...and could get me in trouble? If you truelly believe that the study of the laws that govern you, than you believe that we should all blindly follow "big brother"; that belief is dangerous to the whole nation. And as far as getting me into trouble: if the goveernment is going put people who study the law "into trouble," than that should be your first indication that something wrong with the law.

As far as the courts they have ruled that: ""liability for taxation must clearly apear": Seagraves v. Wallace, 69 F.2d 163; quoting Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine, 284 U.S. 498, 508; U.S. v. Updike, 281 U.S. 489; and U.S. v. Merriam 263 U.S. 179, 187, 188. And I know that the courts have also ruled otherwise in other cases. So clearly the courts are in disagreement and we must go directly to the law to know the law. Which brings me to my original question; Where is the law? And based on those court desisions, Tax laws are clearly different from murder laws. And in response to: "US laws cover US citizens and residents", are you liable for wagering tax if you not a bookmaker?

[LdiJ]

Look, we are all tax professionals who HAVE studied the law. Based on the case law that you just quoted, its clear that you don't understand what you are reading.

Tax liability is basically an accounting term that relates to the amount of tax due once taxable income has been calculated.

Tax court cases basically decide (simplistic but true) whether or not someone's tax liability has been calculated correctly by either the taxpayer or the IRS. The court uses the tax code and case law to make that determination.

I think that you are either a tax protester, or are contemplating becoming a tax protester, and all that is going to do is cause havoc in your life.

[tranquility]

No one likes paying taxes. "Here, Mr. Government man take the money I've earned and use it for something I don't want to use it for." is a statment no one happilly makes. From our earliest writings, the tax collectors are portrayed as scoundrels who took for their own purposes with the point of a sword.

This holds true today.

The only way so many can make such tax protesting arguments is because the government is limited. However, once a person gets on their radar, the game is over. The IRS will get what they think they deserve from your wealth and will put you in jail if you try too hard to stop them. (In any way but the clearly defined procedure and court process.)

Once on the radar, word games are irrelevant and serve only to increase the amount owed. Clever "logic" which shows a misunderstanding of clearly settled principals is irrelevant and will only serve to prevent you from making reasoned arguments which may lower your tax liability. If you think, in the back of your mind, for a moment, when you are hiding in your closet at home with a shotgun on your lap that you don't have to pay taxes because of some basic flaw in the law, you are wrong. Say it however you want, argue however you want, believe it however you want, but it is a wrong statement. Period.

Might I suggest a better use of your time would be to study the actual tax law and arrainge your life to minimize the amount owed. As judge Learned Hand once wrote: There are two systems of taxation in this country, one for the informed and one for the uninformed. Choose to be the informed taxpayer. It will pay more dividends than studying your way down a well lit alley that dead ends as soon as the tax man notices you.

[fofgrel]

I have been told many times, and our own president said, that we are a nation of laws. All I want to know is, where is the law? Where is the law that the IRS is enforcing when they imprison people, sieze money and property, and destroy peoples lives. Where is the law?

[Some Random Guy]

Yes, we are a nation of laws. However, if you know anything about our court system, you will know that laws are written by legislators and interpreted by judges. The judges' interpretations can invalidate laws or create new rules. This is called precedent. Our whole situation is based on it and it helps clarify situations that the legislators did not write down in exact detail.

Nothing to do with tax law yet, just they way our system is set up.

Now, if you read the web sites that tranquility first posted, you will see many court cases that have a legal holding that the federal income tax laws do apply to all income, including wages, of all US citizens. You will also see cases that refute specific arguments like "I'm a state citizen and not a US citizen". These cases have already decided what the law is and how it is to be applied.

So if you want to argue that you do not have to pay taxes, all the prosecution has to do is reference the other cases:

United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 291 (7 th Cir. 1985) - the court upheld Bressler's conviction for tax evasion, noting, "[he] has refused to file income tax returns and pay the amounts due not because he misunderstands the law, but because he disagrees with it . . . . [O]ne who refuses to file income tax returns and pay the tax owing is subject to prosecution, even though the tax protester believes the laws requiring the filing of income tax returns and the payment of income tax are unconstitutional.

Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991) - the court rejected Schiff's arguments as meritless and upheld imposition of the civil fraud penalty, stating "[t]he frivolous nature of this appeal is perhaps best illustrated by our conclusion that Schiff is precisely the sort of taxpayer upon whom a fraud penalty for failure to pay income taxes should be imposed.

(copied from [url]http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/federal_income_tax_system.htm#paymentVoluntary[/url])

Unless you can show that that situation does not apply to you, or that a higher court has overturned that holding, then YOU LOSE. That's because the most recent authoratative court runling on the subject IS THE LAW.

After your conviction, you can appeal to a higher court to get the law overturned. But you must realize that your appeal is trying to overturn the existing law as established by court precedents.

[fofgrel]

My question was not about the court's. Specifically for two reasons:
one, the courts have ruled on both sides of the subject and therefore are at a conflict;
Two, the courts are not authorized to "write the rules", that's Congress's job.
If a court attempts to write a law, they are doing so illegal.

But that's off of the issue. The issue is: Where is the law that establish's liablity for income tax? Does anybody know where it is?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by fofgrel

My question was not about the court's. Specifically for two reasons:
one, the courts have ruled on both sides of the subject and therefore are at a conflict;
Two, the courts are not authorized to "write the rules", that's Congress's job.
If a court attempts to write a law, they are doing so illegal.

But that's off of the issue. The issue is: Where is the law that establish's liablity for income tax? Does anybody know where it is?

Those statements indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of law in general on your part..as well as being completely wrong. I suggest that you start your education with a good civics course so that you have a basic understanding of how law works, before you study this issue any further.

Otherwise I am done with this debate.