Do we have to pay income tax?

Copying/pasting is a good thing. It relieves me from having to type all the time.

PS - I type like shit....

Ok, tell you what, I'll rewatch the Cryer video and debunk his points one by one.

Oh, but I'm on iggy now. Forget it then.

 

Watch Theft by Deception then come back with your own arguments instead of copying/pasting opinions from other people's blogs. Now that I look back, almost every time you post on ET you have copied and pasted without ever citing the source.

 

Ok, so let me get this straight. YOU copy/paste a video where the speaker never gives sources to form his/her opinion and that's ok with you.

But I copy/paste without giving the link and you judge it to be unreliable, even though it gives fairly thorough rundowns on the case that the author's statements are made on.

Do you see the hypocrisy with that?

And why would it matter if I DID give the source? You'd never agree anyways with what it says.

Believe me, I'm not here to try and convince you to change your mind. I'm here to show fenceriders an alternative view, based on past case history.....

 

Ok, first fallacy by Cryer says that there is no law.

here it is....

If handed the IRC, start with line item number 5.

Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, provides that Congress has the power to tax.

Congress makes laws, and ultimately delegates the enforcement of those laws, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Internal Revenue Service -- that being the executive office agency that employs IRS agents.

The laws of the United States, as enacted by Congress, are published in a series of volumes, normally referred to as "Titles," collectively called the United States Code.

Title 26 of the United States Code is the Internal Revenue Code

Title 26, Subtitle A is entitled, "Income Taxes."

Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 is entitled, "Normal Taxes and Surtaxes."

Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1 is entitled, "Determination of Tax Liability."

Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Part 1, is entitled, "Tax on Individuals." Depending upon whether the individual is Single, Married, Head of Household, . . . you will find the imposition of their tax obligation right there.

 

2nd fallacy is that the IRS can't tell anyone where the law is.

Here it is-

Many tax protestors claim that they have sent the IRS letters or petitions demanding to be shown the laws that require them to pay taxes. They say that they've asked the IRS what law requires people to pay taxes and the IRS refuses to answer. Here's an example.

Actually, the IRS answers this question on its website. The IRS has developed a document called "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments," which is posted on the IRS website and which explains which laws require people to pay taxes.

here's the link so that you can see for yourself.

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

 

follow the previous link i posted. it is a similar thread where heroki avoided the questions continuously and just copied and pasted what his boiler room boss instructed him to do. LMAO

he will never show you the law. do a search on pancake theories... he was the first to come out in favor of the pancake theory.... he was adamant about it.. anyone that disagreed was a conspiracy whacko. then he realized he was wrong... but that didnt stop him for a second.

teriaky's job is just to come on here and diffuse any serious debate and interject his anti-freedom propaganda. he claims he is a russian survivor of the bolsheviks... talk about BS.

he even had the nerve to claim to be an Iron worker, therefore he knew best about the collapses... turns out he had once worked on his chopper!!!! how pitiful is that? haroki is worse than zzzZZenu... at least zenu believes his garbage... sheroku just comes on here for kicks...

bottomline... he is a waste of time.

 

from whatever source... so you go to sources... and it turns out.. they are referring to non resident aliens doing business domestically... or legal citizens doing business with foreign businesses or us possesions like puerto rico.

so... when the browns say they aren't taxable... this explains why. they are none of the above... if ed brown was doing business with a foreign corporation.. then he would oblige the irs and pay taxes.

nice try commie.

 

Sec 2 of Cryer's deals wholly with who is liable to pay

Anti-tax zealots sometimes lay great stress on the fact that the income tax laws don’t expressly state who is “liable” for the payment of income taxes. The tax protestor will point out that with regard to certain other taxes—the excise tax imposed on liquor, for example—the tax code has a section headed “Persons Liable for Tax,” which expressly states who is “liable” for the tax imposed. (You can see this particular example at 26 U.S.C. § 5005.) There is, tax protestors say, no comparable section stating who is “liable” for income taxes.

Well, there’s a grain of truth to this point: it’s true that the income tax portion of the tax code doesn’t happen to use the word “liable” in describing who is required to pay income taxes. But there’s nothing magic about the word “liable.” The income tax portion of the code requires you to pay income tax by stating that every person who is required to file an income tax return “shall pay” the income tax. That’s in 26 U.S.C. § 6151, described in detail here. When the law says that you “shall pay” the tax, you have to pay the tax. There’s no rule that says that Congress has to use a particular word, such as the word “liable,” to tell you to pay income taxes. Congress can use any words that adequately express what it’s trying to say. The statutory statement that you “shall pay” the tax is a perfectly adequate way of saying that you have to pay the tax; Congress doesn’t have to use the word “liable” any more than it has to use the word “abracadabra.”

 

LOGICAL FALLACIES

Substantive fallacies are fallacies that rely on an implied but not expressed general premise, but which are false when scrutinized. They include:

Ad hominem is responding to an argument by attacking your opponent rather than addressing the argument itself.

 

"The Office of Management and Budget does not require any form for the income tax imposed by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, or identifies section 1 of the Code as applying only to nonresident aliens."

More nonsense.

The actual facts are these:

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to number each form required by an agency of the federal government for the collection of information and identify the law or regulation that requires that the form be filed.

Treas. Reg. § 602.101(c) lists various regulations that require returns and the OMB control numbers for the IRS forms required by those regulations.

Form 1040, which is the income tax return for individuals, was assigned OMB Control No. 1545-0074, and is listed as a form required by a number of different regulations, including regulations under section 61 (“Gross Income Defined”), section 63 (“Taxable Income Defined”), and section 6012 (“Persons Required to Make Returns of Income”), but not section 1 (“Tax Imposed”).

Initially, the information schedule for foreign earned income, Form 2555 (OMB Control No. 1545-0067), was listed as a form required by a number of different regulations, including Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1 (“Tax Imposed”), and Form 2555 was the only form listed for that regulation. However, that listing was deleted in 1994, and Form 2555 is now listed as a form required by section 6012, just like Form 1040.

Because Form 1040 is not listed as a tax form for section 1, but Form 2555 once was, tax protesters concluded that section 1 applies only to foreign income, and so only foreign income is taxable, which is completely wrong.

The cross-reference between Form 2555 and section 1 was wrong from the start, because the Paperwork Reduction Act relates to forms for the collection of information and section 1 is not the section that requires income tax returns. Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (and Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1) imposes a tax on taxable income and provides the rates for calculating the tax but does not actually require the collection of any information. The obligation to file a tax return is imposed by section 6012.

The IRS eventually realized that the reference to Form 2555 was inconsistent with other cross-references and in 1994 the listing of OMB numbers for IRS forms was amended by deleting the reference to Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1 and adding OMB Control No. 1545-0067 (Form 2555) to the forms required by Treas. Reg. § 1.6012-1. (Document 94-1253, filed May 24, 1994.)

Of course, the inferences drawn by tax protesters only flow in one direction. To a tax protester, the publication of a cross-reference between section 1 and foreign income is proof that the tax protester is right, but the removal of the cross-reference is not proof that the tax protester is wrong.

So there was once a regulation that stated that a form used to report foreign income was a form required by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. Which is meaningless at best.

Only a few court opinions have been found with this argument: