Do we have to pay income tax?

I must admit, my respect for Mr. Siegel
dropped a few notches when his otherwise civil comments ended with
a reference to a completely substance-free attempt by Irwin Schiff
to discredit the 861 evidence. Mr. Siegel mentions Mr. Schiff's
comments, and adds that "When even the tax protestors reject your
tax protestor argument, you know it's got problems." Aside from the
fact that he uses the ever-popular spin
of mischaracterizing the
issue as being about "protesting" a tax (when anyone with basic
reading comprehension can see that it's not), his little dig is
intellectually dishonest, if not borderline schizophrenic. I'm sure
Mr. Siegel's deferring to Mr. Schiff as some sort of authority
would not apply when Mr. Schiff is disagreeing with conventional
wisdom--only when he's disagreeing with me. Furthermore, a
professor of law should certainly be able to recognize that Mr.
Schiff's comments about Section 861 and its regulations--which Mr.
Schiff ADMITS to not understanding--are not a substantive rebuttal
at all, but merely a complaint that I don't argue what Mr. Schiff
wants people to argue (that wages aren't income). What kind of
rebuttal is that?

I've long since lost track of how many supposed
experts have ASSERTED that we shouldn't be looking at 861 at all,
but I know exactly how many actual citations of law I've seen
supporting that claim: ZERO. If you ask me, lots of evidence and no
credentials is more compelling than lots of credentials and no
evidence. (I'm funny that way.) I should add, however, that there
ARE some people who have credentials AND cite evidence. For an
excellent example, put on a pot of coffee, make a sandwich, and dig
into THIS:

MotiontoDismiss.pdf>

(I haven't yet read the entire motion, but I
agree wholeheartedly with the parts I've reviewed so far.)

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com

http://www.quatloos.com/qforum/viewtopic.php?p=294&sid=b3c03abf89bfb89886fbfb916e49d697

 

This is from Irwin Schiff's own website -

http://www.paynoincometax.com/861.htm

The Fallacy of Larkin Rose’s 861 Argument

The 861 argument is totally erroneous on a variety of grounds, and Larkin Rose has probably set the truth in taxation movement back about 10 years by promoting it as successfully as he has done. What is amazing is the lengths to which he and his advocates have gone in order to unravel what is essentially an irrelevant,[1] ninety-three page regulation that would have to be declared “void for vagueness” if it were “law” – when an understanding as why no one has to pay income taxes is really quite simple: there is simply no law (in my view) that makes anyone “liable” for the payment of income taxes. What can be simpler than that?

But that’s not all. In relying on the 861 argument - its advocates apparently ignore, or know nothing about numerous other aspects related to income taxes. Their whole approach is based solely on a tunnel vision understanding that the only thing you have to know about the federal income tax is that only “foreign source income” is subject to the tax. Therefore, according to 861 advocates, if one has foreign source “income” one is: (1) “liable” for income taxes on such “income”; (2) required to pay taxes on that “income;” (3) required to file a return with respect to that “income”; (4) required to keep books and records with respect to that “income”; (5) required to submit to IRS audits with respect to that “income” – and, in addition, (6) since the income tax is based on “self-assessment,” those who have “foreign source income” are required, by law, to “self-assess” themselves for the taxes allegedly due on such “income.” It has always been my belief and claim that no law requires any one to do any of those things - but 861 advocates obviously believe that there are laws requiring recipients of “foreign source income” to do all of the above. I’m from Missouri – show me the law that provides for, or requires anyone to do any of the above.

 

And in case you missed this -

Readers might also be interested to know that Mr. Rose served a substantial jail term following his conviction on tax charges. One might wish to consider this in deciding whether he is a trustworthy source of tax information.

Rose says that he doesn't cite the law. How some court cases ? Are they admissable?

Like other tax protestor arguments, the 861 argument has been to court many times and has a batting average of zero. Every court to consider the argument has rejected it. A representative sampling (from among dozens of cases that have considered the argument):

"Bell's main rationale for avoiding the income tax is known as the 'U.S. Sources argument' or the 'Section 861 argument.' This method has been universally discredited." United States v. Bell, 414 F.3d 474 (3d Cir. 2005).

"Carmichael asserts that, under I.R.C. § 861, only the domestic income of those engaged in certain activities relating to foreign commerce are taxable . . . . This argument has been uniformly rejected by courts that have considered it, . . . and we reject it as well." Carmichael v. United States, 128 Fed. Appx. 109 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

"Rayner insists that he owed no tax in 1998 because all his income that year . . . derived from sources within the United States and therefore (so he says) is not taxable income under 26 U.S.C. § 861 and the regulations construing that statute. This absurd argument is patently frivolous." Rayner v. Commissioner, 70 Fed. Appx. 739 (5th Cir. 2003).

"While the plaintiffs have attached a 12-page supplement to their 1040X, explaining that they did not have to pay income taxes as wage earners in the United States pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 861, this argument is simply frivolous and has been uniformly rejected by other courts." Deyo v. I.R.S., 2004 WL 2051217 (D. Conn. 2004).

"Loofbourow . . . [argues] that his compensation does not constitute gross income because it is not an item of income listed in 26 C.F.R. § 1.861- 8(f). Loofbourrow's argument, however, is misplaced and takes the regulations out of context." Loofbourrow v. Commissioner, 208 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D. Tex. 2002).

 

More -

Rose says that siegel doesn't adderss the law. He does here. You would have seen this if you would have read your own source. In quatloos, a Rose defender admits that Siegel DOES cite the laws.....

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/861det.htm

 

thanks for the cites good work. I have not yet read them but I will.

I sure hope someone appeals to the Supreme Court and they decide to take the case up.

 

i found this.. i have to admit, it is extremely odd. why would a George Wash. Univ law prof make such absurd statements? the sheer ignorance here actually has me baffled:


And now for something completely different . . . let's bash the Federal Reserve!

After almost an hour of absurdly incorrect arguments about the income tax, Mr. Russo switches to arguments about the Federal Reserve system. Thank goodness, it's not my job to address those (dealing with one set of ridiculous arguments is enough work), but I will just mention a couple of Mr. Russo's more outlandish points.

First, his opening shot. Russo asks "Why in the world would the American Government borrow money and pay fees on it, when it has the authority to make the money itself, interest free?"

This question demonstrates that Mr. Russo's ignorance of the monetary system matches his ignorance of income tax law. If the government met its needs for money by just printing more, the result would be massive inflation. Yes, the government could pay off the entire $8 trillion federal debt by just printing more money. But the resulting inflation would be enormous. Money is like anything else: if a lot more of it becomes available, its value goes down.

Ironically, Mr. Russo complains bitterly about inflation a little later in the film. If you don't like inflation, you should want the government to meet its financial needs by borrowing rather than by printing arbitrary amounts of money. (Of course, better still would be for the government to spend less so that it doesn't have to borrow, but that's another story.)

Russo also spends a lot of time complaining that paper currency is devalued or valueless. He says that our paper currency is "no different than Monopoly money." He shows a real $20 bill and a $20 Monopoly bill on the screen and says that these are just "pieces of paper" with "the same amount of backing . . . none."

If Mr. Russo really thinks a U.S. $20 bill is worth the same as $20 in Monopoly money, the solution is simple: send all those real twenties to me. I promise to replace any number of real, United States $20 bills with an equal number of Monopoly twenties. And that offer goes for anyone else, too.

What's that, Mr. Russo? You're not going to send me your real twenties? Hmm, I guess you must think they're worth more than Monopoly twenties.

Immediately after that, Russo says "the dollar today is actually worth about four cents." That's a direct quote. That's his voice speaking in the film, and he puts a picture of four pennies up on the screen.

Again, if he really believes that, I firmly promise to give him four pennies for every real, U.S. paper dollar he cares to give me. Heck, I'll give him five pennies, so he'll turn a profit. And that offer goes for anyone else too. Please take me up on it, preferably in large quantities.

Jonathan R. Siegel
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/default.htm

Who am I and how do I know this stuff?

I’m a law professor, so researching the law is my trade. The income tax is not my primary field of expertise...

*********************************

YOU AIN'T KIDDING THERE BUB!!! DON'T EVEN ATTEMPT THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

 

What I don't understand is how the income tax reporting requirement invades our personal info area so much. We have to give up info about who we are, where we work, what we spend money on, our medical expenses, car licenses, sources of other income.. It's bullshit. I want a consumption tax, that is what the founding fathers instituted, a tariff on imports, I believe it was. A consumption tax can be written right into the point of sale registers and computer transactions, it already is in form of State and local sales taxes, and nobody has to give up much personal info, how is it the Fed's business what we are doing if they don't see us breaking a law?

 

Because those of us with a small business can write off some of those expenses, such as car licenses, mileage, etc, so it gives business owners a break.

Homeowners also get a break for reporting their interest expenses also etc.

What you're talking about would be the same as a flat tax and would prolly be argued against as being unfair to lower earnerz.

Not an agrument whether you're right or wrong, just discussion.

 

Haroki,
Tommy Cryer would run circles around you about the income tax . Care to see if that is true know it all? Tommy will be a guest on truthnet radio on tuesday night.Why don't you call in on tuesday and you and Tommy will get a chance to go at it.What do you say Haroki ?

 

A few things to keep in mind-

1- he was acquitted because he made the jury believe that he TRULY didn't believe that he had to pay a tax, this is not news
2- NOBODY has ever shown the tax laws to be unconstitutional
3- constitutionality issues aren't discussed in a jury trial, so when he complains about it in his blogs, he shows how dishonest he is, cuz as a lawyer, he should know better
4-constitutionality issues are handled at the Supreme Court level
5- The SC has NEVER overturned a criminal conviction - well they did once, but the guy was retried and reconvicted and his 2nd conviction wasn't overturned
6- NONE of the so-called tax gurus has ever won in the civil case and were forced to pay back taxes, penalties, interest, etc. None of their clients have ever escaped paying either.
7- Tommy Cryer is no different, he will lose the civil case and will be forced to pay back taxes, fines, interest, etc.

Why would you believe the whole group of these guys when NONE has ever proved to be correct on their "tax advice"?