Do we have to pay income tax?

Tom Cryer was found not guilty on two counts of tax fraud. Here are the details of the trial:

http://edbrownextendedentries.blogspot.com/2007/07/tom-cryers-trial-summary.html


Here is his 4-part video on youtube explaining the law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KjBy_qp4Zc&mode=related&search=

 

She was on the jury of another tax evasion case:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l_sZj8dZnJI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l_sZj8dZnJI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


Part 2: Must watch!


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hRwkyqycgU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hRwkyqycgU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

Ex IRS Agent


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s1UT2Ms5E2k"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s1UT2Ms5E2k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>



Part 2:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F9PSYkWIuIs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F9PSYkWIuIs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

This explains it all:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7521758492370018023&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

 

i posted these videos a few weeks ago and few seemed interested... odd isn't it?

 

Paranoid (and Other) Delusions

Certain arguments of tax protesters transcend legal fallacies, and can only be described as neurotic or psychotic delusions.

"There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as John Cheek, Lloyd Long, and Vernice Kuglin."

No. There are a handful of people who have avoided criminal (but not civil) penalties by convincing a jury that they were too stupid or delusional to understand the tax laws and their violations were not “willful,” but no one has ever won against the IRS in a tax collection case using one of the frivolous arguments described in this FAQ. Some of the more notorious losers are described below.

 

Why do tax protesters keep violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
If the assertions addressed in this FAQ are so ridiculous, why do people believe them?

One answer, and simplest answer, is greed. People would rather have more money than less, and the appeal of not paying income taxes is enough to make at least some people believe almost anything.

The Seventh Circuit made the following observation in one case:

“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).

Pure self-centered avarice can explain the initial appeal of tax protester arguments, but why do tax protesters become so mindlessly devoted to their beliefs? In many cases, judges have taken the time in pre-trial conferences to explain to tax protesters that they are totally wrong, and that if they persist with their arguments, the judge will not only rule against them but will sanction them (i.e., impose a fine) for wasting court time with their nonsense. And yet the tax protesters persist. Why?

 

My own observations of tax protesters lead me to believe that the actions of tax protesters are driven by emotional or psychological needs that are more complicated than simple greed, and that the “arguments” they present to the IRS and the courts are really nothing but elaborate rationalizations (or delusions) that they have constructed in order to avoid a reality that they are unable to accept. Sometimes the unacceptable reality is a sense of personal financial failure. Unable to accept the idea that their own incomes (or the lack thereof) might be the result of their own lack of skill or effort, or a matter of impersonal economics, tax protesters instead decide that the income tax system is the problem and begin finding reasons why it should not exist. In other cases, the unacceptable reality may be a moral or legal failure. An unhappy encounter with the government, such as a bad result in a divorce or a child custody dispute, or even something as minor as a speeding ticket, can lead to a belief that the government is broken, corrupt, or otherwise dysfunctional, which can then lead to a fixation on the federal tax system as symbolic of that dysfunction. In the case of almost every persistent tax protester, there is some personal, financial, or legal trauma or crisis that precedes the tax protester’s obsession with the tax system.

My belief is very well illustrated by the case of Irwin Schiff. Schiff originally sold investments and insurance and became unwittingly involved in a Ponzi scheme which resulted large financial losses for himself and his clients. He became depressed by his business failure and was diagnosed and treated for bipolar disorder. It was only following his business failure that Schiff began developing his theories about the tax laws and began writing his first book about taxes and the government. Schiff has faced the government in court many times, both in criminal prosecutions for his failure to file income tax returns and in civil actions to assess and collect taxes, and Schiff has lost every time. In pleadings filed in federal court, Schiff himself cited this history of failure, as well as the opinions of a lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a psychologist, as evidence that his actions were irrational and the result of a “mental disease or defect,” so that he is unable to act “willfully” within the meaning of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to tax fraud.

 

Funny, but this section seems to be quite similar to the problems of people who follow things like Fib, Gann & EW have...

In spite of the evidence, they still believe...

 

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html

The above states that in 1913 (same year that the Federal Reserve was created) "The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax.