Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taxes are a wise investment in infrastructure of benefit to us all

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Taxes are a wise investment in infrastructure of benefit to us all

    "Dale Eastman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected] ink.net...
    Replacing the context of the prior posts ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eastman: What law makes me liable for the income tax?
    Argument: Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen
    liable for the income tax.
    More semantic games from people desperate to evade taxes. [Thanks to Dan
    Evans]

    Facts: Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax,
    there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for
    the tax (and must use the word "liable"). However, that is not what the law
    requires.

    In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that
    "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual,
    surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married
    individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the
    following table.. .."

    As explained in the regulations:
    "Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every
    individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas.
    Reg. ยง 1.1-1(a)(1).

    The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how
    can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that
    it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is
    liable for the tax as a matter of law.

    In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on upaid taxes as a
    claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the
    self-evident proposition that "The imposition of a tax is certainly a
    function of government and creates an obligation...." U.S. v. Childs, 266
    U.S. 304 (1924).

    Also, section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return "shall,
    without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to
    the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay
    such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return." The Supreme
    Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit
    to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax,
    even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax,
    stating: "When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it
    obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay..." U.S. v. Chamberlin,
    219 US 250 (1910).

    As explained below, the obligation to file a return is established by
    section 6012. A person having more than a stated minimum of income is
    required to file a return and, according to section 6151, is required to pay
    the tax shown on the return.

    So what have the courts said about the claim that there is no one liable for
    the tax imposed on their incomes?

    "The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen
    knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United
    States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).

    "Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along
    with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC
    establishes an income tax 'liability.' The plain language of the IRC,
    however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is 'hereby
    IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual' (emphasis added).
    Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between 'imposing' a tax and
    creating a 'liability' for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual
    has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 609,
    611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No.
    99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).

    "Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision
    in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on
    'income.' Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C.
    section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on 'income.' See
    generally United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153, 1996 WL 271468 *2-3 (4th
    Cir. May 22, 1996) (unpublished opinion)." United States v. Sasscer, 86
    AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000).

    "Plaintiff's arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.]
    First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax "liability". The
    plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is "imposed". See 96
    [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between "imposing" a tax
    and creating a "liability" for tax. The Court fails to see a difference.
    Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner
    of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Tornichio v. United
    States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund
    of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a
    frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas.
    (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999),
    (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

    See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979);


    United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).

    "As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the
    following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in
    legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists
    for imposing an income tax on individuals...." Lonsdale v. United States,
    919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

    An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that "[n]owhere in any of the
    Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any
    individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'" The Second
    Circuit responded that "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26
    U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language
    that '[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a
    tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute. ...
    Despite the appellant's attempted contorted construction of the statutory
    scheme, we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the
    appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980." Ficalora v. Commissioner
    of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct.
    1869 (1985).

    Oddly enough, the same attorney raised nearly the identical argument before
    the Eighth Circuit, arguing that there was "no law imposing an income tax"
    on his clients. The Eighth Circuit held that the appeal was "frivolous" and
    imposed a penalty on the appellants of double the Commissioner's costs of
    the appeal. Lively v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018
    (8th Cir. 1983).

    Even more incredibly, only a year after losing the Lively appeal, and six
    month after losing the Ficalora appeal, the same attorney, Thomas J. Carley,
    raises the same idiot issue with the 10th Circuit, questioning "Whether
    there is any law or statute imposing an income tax on appellants for the
    year 1977 and, if such a law or statute is claimed to exist, what is the
    precise citation of such law or statute?" The 10th Circuit quoted from both
    the Ficalora and Lively opinions, and then spent the rest of the opinion
    explaining why it was going to impose sanctions on Mr. Carley personally
    (not his clients). "It is obvious that despite having full knowledge of the
    learned opinions of two different Article III courts and the accurate
    reasoning of the Tax Court in Manley [v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
    46 T.C.M. 1359 (1983), another case lost by Mr. Carley)] concerning his
    arguments, Carley has failed to learn that he has no right to occupy the
    time of such courts with frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious proceedings,
    and that if he does so, he exposes not only his clients but also himself
    personally to sanctions." Charczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 771
    F.2d 471, 474 (10th Cir. 1985). The court also referred to Mr. Carley's
    arguments as "meritless," "preposterous," "nearly silly," and "that
    thoroughly defy common sense."


    Comment


    • #17
      Taxes are a wise investment in infrastructure of benefit to usall



      Richard Macdonald wrote:
      "Dale Eastman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ink.net...
      Replacing the context of the prior posts~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eastman:What law makes me liable for the income tax?
      <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/4a83ee69b5f5fc18?safe=images&as_umsgid=oxbme.2919% 24MI4.1865%40newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net&lr=& hl=en>

      --
      LEGAL DISCLAIMER
      I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
      I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on
      the internet.
      I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the
      internet.
      DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING IN THIS POST.
      Go look it up for yourself. That is the only way to know you have
      found the truth.

      I may be contacted off group via this page:
      http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/Contact.html

      Examine what the government doesn't want you to see, here:
      http://www.861.info/

      Comment


      • #18
        Taxes are a wise investment in infrastructure of benefit to us all

        Notice the failure of the freeloader to deal with this:

        On Sat, 28 May 2005 16:03:42 GMT, Dale Eastman <[email protected]> wrote:
        I take SPECIFIC issue to
        You want to take without paying.
        ...education "services" ...
        Go hire a home-schooled doctor
        the next time you need surgery.
        VRWC3 wrote:
        ... the very LOCAL issue of educating our kids.
        Yet your offspring aren't educated.

        People who object to paying taxes ignore the fact that they
        fund universally-beneficial services such as education.

        The tax-miser should simply quit working.

        Problem solved.

        Comment


        • #19
          Taxes are a wise investment in infrastructure of benefit to us all

          On Sun, 29 May 2005 16:45:59 GMT, Dale Eastman <[email protected]> wrote:
          What law makes me liable for the income tax?
          Do you accept the rule of law at all?

          On Sat, 28 May 2005 16:12:53 GMT, Dale Eastman <[email protected]> wrote:
          ... I don't have to pay...
          So your big ambition is to be a freeloader.

          On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:52:20 GMT, Dale Eastman <[email protected]> wrote:
          Another ankle biter pops up and doesn't answer the question.
          Why do you want to be given services and infrastructure
          for which you are unwilling to pay?

          People who object to paying taxes ignore the fact that they
          fund universally-beneficial services such as education.

          The tax-miser should simply quit working.

          Problem solved.

          Comment

          The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
          Working...
          X