Do we have to pay income tax?

Care to hear a little debunking on your videos?

take your pick on where you want to start. I believe Russo, Schiff, etc use these to avoid paying taxes. Again, none have ever won a civil case, but they have won the criminal case.

Shoot, even Cryer seems to be having emotional issues, and apparently used them in his criminal defense - Like many others who have joined the tax protester cult, Cryer seems to have a history of emotional and financial problems. In defending himself against a disciplinary complaint that he had neglected a legal matter (for which he received a public reprimand), Cryer claimed to have suffered from depression. The commissioner of the Louisiana State Bar Association concluded during the period in question he had been “on the brink of an emotional breakdown and also in severe financial straits,” and the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed that his “inexplicable behavior” were due to “emotional problems.” Louisiana State Bar Association v. Cryer, 441 S.2d 734, 1983 La. LEXIS 12346 (11/29/1983). Cryer’s financial situation apparently did not improve, because he filed for bankruptcy in 1998. And a web site apparently run by Cryer himself describes his wife, Carolyn, as “severely disabled” (“Welcome to the Lie-Free Zone”). He is therefore someone who has been under a lot of emotional and financial pressures over the years, and seems to have “snapped” and found his refuge in delusions.



Tax Protestor Myths

-There's just no law requiring you to pay federal income taxes.

-The IRS refuses to show anyone the law that requires people to pay income taxes.

-The Internal Revenue Code is not law.

-The income tax is voluntary.

-You don’t have to pay because the laws do not make you “liable” for income taxes.

-You don’t have to pay income taxes unless they are assessed.
Wages are not income.

-The income tax laws are ineffective because they don't define the term "income."

-The income tax laws apply only in the District of Columbia or a federal territory.

-The federal government can’t tax “free sovereign citizens.”

-The income tax is unconstitutional because the 16th Amendment, which authorizies it, was never ratified.

-The income tax is unconstitutional because the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.

-Income tax is slavery.

-Section 861 shows that the domestic income of U.S. citizens is not taxable.

-It’s not a crime not to pay income taxes, so long as you believe you don't have to.

-Government officials, judges, lawyers, and professors can't be trusted to tell the truth about tax law.

-Nothing bad ever happens to tax protestors.

 

The video cited a definition of "whatever source derived" from the cfrs or the statutes.

I have not done the work. But if the video is correct and "source" is defined they may have a credible argument.

Prior to seeing that video I always stopped my research at the "whatever source derived" point as well.

 

"All evidence to the contrary" ?? lol, go read your previous post again. What argument? Your post wasn't even worth responding to. You obviously didn't watch the videos, otherwise you would come up with a better argument. Until then, shut the fuck up.

And if anyone is making ad hominem attacks, it's you, with your "simple denial" theories.

 

I watched Cryer's video. And Marcy's video. And Russo's video. They're all just a rehash of the same thing, and all full of inaccuracies.

Tell you what, instead of me responding directly to each wrong statement in any of these, pick the one that you believe makes the strongest argument and we can start there.

I'm not saying that you're engaging in ad hom, but it will degenerate into that if a certain someone else starts posting here.

 

Russo demonstrated that the courts that upheld the income tax were lower courts and the court that did not uphold it was the Supreme Court. That was the message in the video of his that I saw. Maybe one of these cases is going to get to the supreme court and the law will be tossed out?

 

Let me ask, do you or I get to decide what 'from whatever source derived' means or does the court decide what that means?

And if there has never been a sucessful challenge to the law as a defense, what are your conclusions?

Remember, NO defendant has ever won the criminal case on the basis of challenging the law, but rather by cnvincing that they TRULY believed that they didn't need to pay taxes.

-----Income Tax Myths-----

"It’s not a crime not to pay income taxes, so long as you truly believe you don't have to."

Well, actually, this one turns out to be true. In the aptly-named case of Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), the Supreme Court noted that the statute making it a crime to fail to pay federal income taxes provides that the crime is committed only by someone who “willfully” fails to pay. The Supreme Court held that someone who truly believes that the law does not require him to pay taxes has not committed the crime of willfully failing to pay, even though his belief is wrong.

So you might think that the whole thing is simple—just believe that you don’t have to pay any taxes, and—voila!—you don’t. But be warned! Here are some details:

First of all, the belief that you don’t have to pay taxes does not relieve you of your obligation to pay. At most, it means that failure to pay will not be a crime. If you owe taxes, you owe them, regardless of any erroneous beliefs you may have. So if you truly believe that you don’t owe taxes, you might not end up in jail, but the IRS will still be able to come after you for the amounts you owe, and they can add on interest and civil penalties, which can add a considerable sum to your tax bill. There is, for example, a penalty of 20% for substantially understating the tax that you owe—and it can be 75% if the understatement is due to fraud. (See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6662(a), 6663.) Moreover, lately, the courts have started tacking on their own penalties for making “frivolous” arguments about not owing taxes. Some courts routinely sock tax protestors for an extra $2000 or more for taking a frivolous appeal from IRS rulings. So your beliefs can end up being very expensive.

Second, the Supreme Court placed some limits on the sources of permissible good faith beliefs that one doesn’t owe taxes. The Court held that it is not a defense to a charge of willfully failing to file that one believed the income tax laws were unconstitutional. So if the reason you think you don’t owe taxes is that you believe the tax laws are unconstitutional, that’s not a defense.

Finally, and perhaps most important, if you get criminally prosecuted, your mere statement that you truly believed that you didn’t owe any taxes is not automatically believed. It will be up to you to convince the jury of what your beliefs were, and it will be up to the jury to make the ultimate determination of whether you did or did not truly believe that you didn’t owe any taxes. After all, you could be lying. You might know very well that you owe taxes, but be lying strategically in an effort to avoid prison. Since your inner beliefs are not subject to conclusive demonstration, it will be up to the jury to figure out what you really believed.

So a lot will depend on what type of jury you get. Perhaps you’re hoping that you’ll get a jury of tax skeptics, or just a foolish jury that you can try to persuade. Well, you might. Every now and then a tax protestor type manages to convince a jury that he really believed all this guff about not owing taxes, and the jury acquits. But you could also end up with a sensible jury, which can see through self-interested lies about a person’s beliefs. You might also get an angry jury, made up of citizens who pay their taxes regularly and responsibly, and who don’t have any patience with absurd arguments about how no one owes taxes.

Also, the judge will be giving the jury some instructions about how it should determine what your beliefs really are. One instruction that some judges give is that the more farfetched an alleged belief is, the less likely it is that someone really believes it. So if the jury recognizes that the claim that no one owes taxes is absurd, which it is, the jury may be more ready to infer that the defendant is lying when he claims to believe it. The jury may be more ready to conclude that the defendant knew perfectly well that he owed taxes, and was only adopting a pretense of believing that he didn’t, in an effort to avoid paying.

Another instruction that some judges give is that the requirement of willfulness exists to protect taxpayers who make innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the tax code. This instruction, which has been upheld by the federal courts of appeals, might suggest to the jury that it is inappropriate to find a lack of willfulness for a defendant who holds typical tax protestor beliefs.

So while it is true that a genuine belief that you don’t owe taxes means that failure to pay is not a crime, and while it is true that a tax protestor gets acquitted on this ground every now and again, if you adopt this strategy, you’re putting your freedom at considerable risk. You’re banking on what some jury is likely to conclude about your beliefs. If the jury finds that you believed you owed taxes and deliberately did not pay, you’ll be heading for jail.

 

I believe this is the old case that Russo was talking about and that the lawyer says deosn't apply. It doesn't apply cuz the 16th A overrode the prior decision.

Income Tax Myths

"Income tax is unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation."

The income tax is authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides:

U.S. Constitution, amendment XVI
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.

Tax protestors love to quote some old Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Because an income tax was declared unconstitutional before the adoption of the 16th Amendment in a case called Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’g 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and because the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, protestors conclude that the income tax must still be unconstitutional.

This conclusion is false. The short answer is that, while the Supreme Court did hold that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, the amendment relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the previous problem with the income tax was removed and the income tax is now constitutional.

Here's some more detail:

Congress's power to "law and collect taxes" is given in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. This power, given in the original Constitution, included the power to lay and collect income taxes. In Brushaber, one of the very cases the protestors love to quote, the Supreme Court said that the power to impose income taxes was "an authority already possessed and never questioned." Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 (1916).

But, according to the Pollock case, certain income taxes were subject to another provision of the original Constitution that required "direct taxes" to be apportioned among the states according to the census.

The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the Pollock case. As the Supreme Court said in Brushaber, "the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided". The Amendment, the Court said, "provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."

Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment gives no new power to tax incomes, because that power always existed, but it relieves the pre-existing power from the requirement of apportionment. Income taxes are now constitutional because they are no longer subject to the apportionment requirement.

That is the true meaning of the statement that the Sixteenth Amendment gives "no new power of taxation." That statement does not show the income tax to be unconstitutional.

 

Nice hack job. At least post a link to give credit where it's due.

Now I know for sure you haven't watched the Theft by Deception video.

Jem, I wouldn't bother responding to teriyaki.

 

No, I watched that one too.

So where do you want me to start the debunking? You can decide.....

Why do you need a link? Debunk what is stated there with facts, not opinion and I'll listen.....

Btw - shut the fuck up and name calling are prime examples of this:

"Affect Storm" or Exaggerated Emotional Responses

This is a hyperemotional response to anything that threatens the veneer of denial or that questions the motivations of the denier.

 

LOL start debunking? You mean copying/pasting shit hoping no one will notice? You wouldn't be posting drivel that the videos already address if you had seen them. On ignore you go.