• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Tax Code

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

O

Ohio1977

Guest
What is the name of your state? Texas
What website can I go to that will specifically spell out what the privacy laws are re: federal tax returns and w2's? I want to know what the law is as well as if a state can over ride that federal law and who can see those without my consent.
Thank you.
 


L

loku

Guest
The web sites suggested by taxinfoman are foolish. They are political in nature and do not give any idea of what the law really is. No serious lawyer would agree with anything they say on those sites. You could end up in a lot of trouble evading the law if you buy into that stuff.

The state has a right to see your federal returns and a copy of the W2 is sent to them by your employer. This relates to issues that have long been settled.
 
T

taxinfoman

Guest
Tax Web Sites

Dear loku,

Let's talk tax law.

PLEASE give me code section, law or regulation and NOT you own personal belief.
You say you have 30 years experience as a tax lawyer, then please give me the LEGAL definition of "state" - "United States" - and "includes." I wish to put you through a little test, since you can not come up with a single code section or law that makes one "liable" for individual income taxes or any section establishing a filing "requirement."

"Money with them [members of congress] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them SACRIFICE Honor, Integrity, and Justice to obtain it."

Colonel/Congressman David "Davy" Crockett - member of Congress 1827-31, 1832-35
 
Last edited:
R

roamer5

Guest
If you earn a paycheck, taxes are automatically withheld by your employer. Whether legal or not, that's what happens, and most people file simply to get some of it back.

What about people who owe? These are the ones that are vulnerable to web sites and books telling them not to file. Maybe they have a good cause, maybe there are no laws specifically requiring filing, or maybe they're just looking for an excuse. None of that helps them when they receive wage garnishments, liens, and rejected credit and loan applications.

Just thought I'd point that out while this debate continues.
 
Last edited:
L

loku

Guest
taxinfoman, I’ve been through this with others on this site. My experience with it is that people like you have a set argument and will not reasonably consider any evidence to the contrary, but for your info, see:

Article II, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Amendment XVII of the United States Constitution.

Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The last great challenge, other than from people who did not understand the law or legal research, came from the Federal Appelate Court Judges--they lost in the Supreme Court. That was years ago.
 
T

taxinfoman

Guest
Tax Test

Article II, Section 8 of the United States Constitution;

...power to lay and collect taxes...

This power MUST BE PURSUANT WITHIN the boundries and letter of the law.

...shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Since the "income" tax is neither apportioned nor a duty, impost or excise tax. The "income" tax falls into none of the taxing clauses of the Constitution, and because of this, it CAN NOT BE LEVIED AS A MANDITORY TAX.
 
T

taxinfoman

Guest
Tax Test

The 16th Amendment

Pollack v Farmer's Loan & Trust
Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1

Changed nothing in the amendment nor the the government any new taxing power. Merely established the income tax as an indirect excise tax.
The Supreme Court said that an "income" tax was an excise tax that could be levied on "income" separated from its "source." This occurs in connection with coporate income and cannot occur in connection with money received by individuals.
This comes directly from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Analysis & Interpretation of the 16th Amendment [Doc. Id. amdt 16-2]. There are over 50 court cases listed in this document alone that support the above. Not one of these cases support taxes on individual "income."

The 16th Amendment DOES NOT APPLY to individual "income."

:rolleyes:
 
T

taxinfoman

Guest
Tax Test

Section I, of the IRC [Internal Revenue Code]

My IRC book [Jan. 2002] has no such requirement listed. I even have the 157 page document [107th Congress Report - House of Representitives 2d session - 2002] for the proposed changes to next years code which has already passed the House. And, I can find no requirement in it either.

Could you please specify for me where this is. I would really love to know if it exists.

Internal Revenue investigation, House of Representitives sub-committee of the Committee on Ways and Means - Dwight E. Avis - then head of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division
"Let me point this out now; Your income tax is a 100% VOLUNTARY tax, and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. Now the difference is as different as day and night.
 
T

taxinfoman

Guest
Laws?

What laws are you talking about then? Are they in the Communist Manifesto?

You give absolutely no specifics to anything you post. Are we to just blindly believe anything you wish to say is the truth?

In 1634, an ecclesiastical court found Italian scientist Galileo guilty of teaching that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. He was put on house arrest for the last 7 years of his life and barred him from any further teaching.

Under your train of thought; we are still to believe that the sun revolves around the earth.
 
T

taxinfoman

Guest
roamer5

Sorry I didn't get right back to you, I had a meeting to attend.
Thank you for joining in. It's a pleasure having your voice here.

I got your questions and have narrowed the answers down to about 5 pages. A bit long but real good questions.

To understand how the IRC is written you need to forget about some of the meanings of words you've come to know. Legal definitions are a pain. So I'll give you some so you'll understand what is really being said. Please bear with me.
Shall - means may as in I may or may not [voluntary]

Wages - means all renumerations for EMPLOYMENT, including the cash value of all [incl. benefits] pais in any medium other than cash 3121 (a).

Employment - any srvice, of whatever nature, performed by an EMPLOYEE for the person employing him, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES or in connection with American vessel, aircraft, or under a contract of service,. [gov't worker, military personnel, contractors]
3121 (b).

Employee - Includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States or state or any political subdivision thereof, or District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality or corporate officer 3401 (c).

State - The District of Columbia and its trust territories 7701 (a) (10).

United States - When used in its geographical sense includes; Puerto Rico, Virgin Island, Guam, American Samoa 7701 (a)(9).

Includes - Word of limitation and confinement, expansion to comprise within, to hold, to shut up 7701 (c).

Will continue later with specifics. The numbers after each definition are the sections where they can be found if the IRC.
 
R

roamer5

Guest
taxinfoman,

Glad to contribute to this thread. The only sentence in my post with a question mark was rhetorical. But, that's ok.

By no means am I qualified to respond to any of the stuff you're talking about. I'm just trying to protect those taxpayers who get swayed by it and end up with a real mess. All I can ask is that you or anyone else who presents a case for not filing and/or paying federal
income taxes, put a warning label on it.
 
Last edited:

crager34

Member
What do you mean your not qualified?

Your a income tax prepareer, so shouldn't you know the regs inside and out?

All taxinfoman is asking for are specifics.

Stating:

Article II, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Amendment XVII of the United States Constitution.

Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

...is bunk because it doesn't stop there. Those are defining, but not difinitive. Just like the word "taxpayer". Every time I pump gas, I am a taxpayer. However, that doesn't mean I am liable for all taxes.
 
T

taxinfoman

Guest
crager34

Because of the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code, NO ONE person could ever claim to know it all, tax preparer, lawyer, CPA, judge...nobody. I only deal with what and how the law is applied to the codes when talking about individual income and will not post anything if I can not back the information up. But because of the decades of government lies, oppressions and intimidations, people have just simply become frightened to death of the IRS and this agency uses that in about 90% of their efforts to extort monies from the pockets of hard working, innocent Americans.
You can not fault any one single person.
It's very admirable of roamer5 to discuss issue here, it shows that roamer5 is interested in learning.
I am still learning. We all are.

roamer5's main concern is for the people, who may just throw up their hands and say that's it. Some have and spent time in jail because it was not done properly.

You have to KNOW HOW to properly bow out of the system, regardless of how wrong it may be, if you wish to no longer participate in it.

I give the law as it is written. I do not make up the law. I can't, I am not Congress.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top