LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
Since he apparently can't read posts that don't have my name attached, I'm quoting this one for him.
The Freeman Movement and England
- Thread starter Especially
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fotl freeman on the land
- Status
Since he apparently can't read posts that don't have my name attached, I'm quoting this one for him.
Freeloaders, erm, sorry, Freemen don't accept any legislation printed in a Times New Roman Font. The constitution categorically states that it has to be helvetica, or maybe arial, 10 pt minimum with 1.5 line spacing and full use of the Oxford comma.
The Oxford bit is because it's English Common Law, obviously. If there was a Cambridge hyphen, you'd have to use that too...
The Oxford bit is because it's English Common Law, obviously. If there was a Cambridge hyphen, you'd have to use that too...
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments
"some argue that they are not required to pay federal taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of this position argue that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment. They frequently claim that there is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code or any other federal statute that requires them to pay or makes them liable for income taxes, and they demand that the IRS show them the law that imposes tax on their income. The stance that is taken is that until the IRS can prove to these taxpayers’ satisfaction, which is effectively impossible because they never will be satisfied, the existence and applicability of the income tax laws, they will not report or pay income taxes. These taxpayers reflexively dismiss any attempt by the IRS to identify the laws, thereby continuing the cycle. The IRS has issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, discussing this frivolous position at length and warning taxpayers of the consequences of asserting it.
The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.)
Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983).
In United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2003), Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. Kuglin argued that she attempted to determine whether the income was taxable but the Service did not respond to her letters. Government officials issued press releases making it clear that the outcome in Kuglin should be treated as an “aberration” and noting that persons acquitted of criminal tax violations are not relieved of their obligation to pay taxes due. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn. March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison. See 2004 TNT 51-33 (March 12, 2004).
There have been no civil cases where the Service’s lack of response to a taxpayer’s inquiry has relieved the taxpayer of the duty to pay tax due under the law. Courts have in rare instances waived civil penalties because they have found that a taxpayer relied on a Service misstatement or wrongful misleading silence with respect to a factual matter. Such an estoppel argument does not, however, apply to a legal matter such as whether there is legal authority to collect taxes. See, e.g., McKay v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465 (1994), rev’d as to other issues, 84 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 1996). Kuglin’s case, discussed above, did not prove to be the exception. Despite her acquittal of criminal charges, on September 12, 2004, Kuglin entered a settlement with the IRS in the Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21743-03; see 2004 TNT 177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004).
In August 2004, an appellate court affirmed a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N. Cohen from selling a tax scheme that fraudulently claimed that payment of federal income tax is voluntary. United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004); see http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04551.htm. Also, in October 2005, the trio was convicted by a Las Vegas jury for various criminal charges relating to the federal income tax laws. See 2005 TNT 205-4 (Oct. 25, 2005). Schiff received a sentence of more than 12 years in prison and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution to the IRS; Neun received a sentence of nearly 6 years and was ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution to the IRS; and Cohen received a sentence of nearly 3 years and was ordered to pay $480,000 in restitution to the IRS. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/February/06_tax_098.html; 2006 TNT 38-67 (Feb. 24, 2006); 2006 TNT 24-62 (Feb. 3, 2006). In September 2008, a federal district court in Nevada sentenced Irwin Schiff to 11 months in prison for criminal contempt. The court reinstated 15 criminal contempt convictions imposed during Schiff’s 2005 trial for promotion of tax defier schemes. The 11-month sentence is to be served consecutively to the 151-month sentence previously imposed for Schiff’s conspiracy and tax convictions. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv08789.htm.
In 2007, a dentist, Dr. Elaine Brown, and her husband, Ed Brown, were prosecuted in a federal district court in New Hampshire of conspiracy to defraud the federal government and, as to Dr. Brown, income tax evasion, among other charges. These taxpayers claimed that they were not subject to taxation and that the IRS never responded to their demands for a legal explanation. In an opening statement to the jury, Ed Brown proclaimed, “We will once and for all show beyond the shadow of a doubt . . . that the federal income tax system is a fraud.” They failed to do so, however, as the jury convicted the Browns on all charges. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2007/txdv07WEM_Browns.pdf. After being sentenced in April, they refused to surrender themselves to authorities and were arrested at their home on October 4, 2007, to begin serving their prison terms.
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 291 (7th Cir. 1985) – the court upheld Bressler’s conviction for tax evasion, noting, “[he] has refused to file income tax returns and pay the amounts due not because he misunderstands the law, but because he disagrees with it . . . . [O]ne who refuses to file income tax returns and pay the tax owing is subject to prosecution, even though the tax protester believes the laws requiring the filing of income tax returns and the payment of income tax are unconstitutional.”
Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) – the court rejected Wilcox’s argument that payment of taxes is voluntary for American citizens, stating that “paying taxes is not voluntary” and imposing a $1,500 penalty against Wilcox for raising frivolous claims.
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991) – the court rejected Schiff’s arguments as meritless and upheld imposition of the civil fraud penalty, stating “[t]he frivolous nature of this appeal is perhaps best illustrated by our conclusion that Schiff is precisely the sort of taxpayer upon whom a fraud penalty for failure to pay income taxes should be imposed.”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court stated that the “[taxpayers’] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance” and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments.”
Packard v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 143, 145 (D. Conn. 1998) – the court dismissed Packard’s refund suit for recovery of penalties for failure to pay income tax and failure to pay estimated taxes where the taxpayer contested the obligation to pay taxes on religious grounds, noting that “the ability of the Government to function could be impaired if persons could refuse to pay taxes because they disagreed with the Government’s use of tax revenues.”
Horowitz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-91, 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1120 – the court imposed sanctions in the amount of $10,000 in rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments, including the frivolous claim that he could find no statute or regulation making him liable for an income tax.
Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554 (2005) – the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making frivolous arguments."
"some argue that they are not required to pay federal taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of this position argue that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment. They frequently claim that there is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code or any other federal statute that requires them to pay or makes them liable for income taxes, and they demand that the IRS show them the law that imposes tax on their income. The stance that is taken is that until the IRS can prove to these taxpayers’ satisfaction, which is effectively impossible because they never will be satisfied, the existence and applicability of the income tax laws, they will not report or pay income taxes. These taxpayers reflexively dismiss any attempt by the IRS to identify the laws, thereby continuing the cycle. The IRS has issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, discussing this frivolous position at length and warning taxpayers of the consequences of asserting it.
The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.)
Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983).
In United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2003), Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but was acquitted by a federal jury. Kuglin argued that she attempted to determine whether the income was taxable but the Service did not respond to her letters. Government officials issued press releases making it clear that the outcome in Kuglin should be treated as an “aberration” and noting that persons acquitted of criminal tax violations are not relieved of their obligation to pay taxes due. See 2003 TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn. March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison. See 2004 TNT 51-33 (March 12, 2004).
There have been no civil cases where the Service’s lack of response to a taxpayer’s inquiry has relieved the taxpayer of the duty to pay tax due under the law. Courts have in rare instances waived civil penalties because they have found that a taxpayer relied on a Service misstatement or wrongful misleading silence with respect to a factual matter. Such an estoppel argument does not, however, apply to a legal matter such as whether there is legal authority to collect taxes. See, e.g., McKay v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465 (1994), rev’d as to other issues, 84 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 1996). Kuglin’s case, discussed above, did not prove to be the exception. Despite her acquittal of criminal charges, on September 12, 2004, Kuglin entered a settlement with the IRS in the Tax Court in which she agreed to pay more than half a million dollars in back taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 21743-03; see 2004 TNT 177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004).
In August 2004, an appellate court affirmed a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin Schiff, Cynthia Neun, and Lawrence N. Cohen from selling a tax scheme that fraudulently claimed that payment of federal income tax is voluntary. United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004); see http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04551.htm. Also, in October 2005, the trio was convicted by a Las Vegas jury for various criminal charges relating to the federal income tax laws. See 2005 TNT 205-4 (Oct. 25, 2005). Schiff received a sentence of more than 12 years in prison and was ordered to pay more than $4.2 million in restitution to the IRS; Neun received a sentence of nearly 6 years and was ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution to the IRS; and Cohen received a sentence of nearly 3 years and was ordered to pay $480,000 in restitution to the IRS. See http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/February/06_tax_098.html; 2006 TNT 38-67 (Feb. 24, 2006); 2006 TNT 24-62 (Feb. 3, 2006). In September 2008, a federal district court in Nevada sentenced Irwin Schiff to 11 months in prison for criminal contempt. The court reinstated 15 criminal contempt convictions imposed during Schiff’s 2005 trial for promotion of tax defier schemes. The 11-month sentence is to be served consecutively to the 151-month sentence previously imposed for Schiff’s conspiracy and tax convictions. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv08789.htm.
In 2007, a dentist, Dr. Elaine Brown, and her husband, Ed Brown, were prosecuted in a federal district court in New Hampshire of conspiracy to defraud the federal government and, as to Dr. Brown, income tax evasion, among other charges. These taxpayers claimed that they were not subject to taxation and that the IRS never responded to their demands for a legal explanation. In an opening statement to the jury, Ed Brown proclaimed, “We will once and for all show beyond the shadow of a doubt . . . that the federal income tax system is a fraud.” They failed to do so, however, as the jury convicted the Browns on all charges. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2007/txdv07WEM_Browns.pdf. After being sentenced in April, they refused to surrender themselves to authorities and were arrested at their home on October 4, 2007, to begin serving their prison terms.
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 291 (7th Cir. 1985) – the court upheld Bressler’s conviction for tax evasion, noting, “[he] has refused to file income tax returns and pay the amounts due not because he misunderstands the law, but because he disagrees with it . . . . [O]ne who refuses to file income tax returns and pay the tax owing is subject to prosecution, even though the tax protester believes the laws requiring the filing of income tax returns and the payment of income tax are unconstitutional.”
Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988) – the court rejected Wilcox’s argument that payment of taxes is voluntary for American citizens, stating that “paying taxes is not voluntary” and imposing a $1,500 penalty against Wilcox for raising frivolous claims.
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991) – the court rejected Schiff’s arguments as meritless and upheld imposition of the civil fraud penalty, stating “[t]he frivolous nature of this appeal is perhaps best illustrated by our conclusion that Schiff is precisely the sort of taxpayer upon whom a fraud penalty for failure to pay income taxes should be imposed.”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court stated that the “[taxpayers’] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance” and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments.”
Packard v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 143, 145 (D. Conn. 1998) – the court dismissed Packard’s refund suit for recovery of penalties for failure to pay income tax and failure to pay estimated taxes where the taxpayer contested the obligation to pay taxes on religious grounds, noting that “the ability of the Government to function could be impaired if persons could refuse to pay taxes because they disagreed with the Government’s use of tax revenues.”
Horowitz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-91, 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1120 – the court imposed sanctions in the amount of $10,000 in rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments, including the frivolous claim that he could find no statute or regulation making him liable for an income tax.
Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554 (2005) – the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held that the taxpayer’s argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making frivolous arguments."
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
Bluffs called? Your bluff was called yesterday when I asked for a single case supporting your position form the 1000's of examples you said you had. You have not been able to provide any evidence supporting your position and ignoring the question undermines your position (if possible).
You have been given the law. That you refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not the truth.
Becontree? I am running out options.
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
REQUEST NUMBER 19
So, show us the actual legislation which IMPOSES a Federal Income Tax. There is NO such legislation because it is NOT in the Constitution and is not lawful.
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/06/19/income_tax_illegal_fraud_how.htm
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
Give me one example of someone who 'Knows the Law" who has demonstrated it by winning a case.
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
The law quoted IS a Federal law. Try reading classes. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes. Congress levied that tax. Done deal.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
So. Especially.
Even if you're right - hey, let's say you are, if it helps this discussion along - the evil judges (as I suspected) are just ignoring the Law and locking people up anyway.
So, we're back to my question:
What do you suggest is the best course of action should a judge gaol a Freeman? If and when it is transgressed, how is the Common Law enforced, and by whom? What can be done about these corrupt judges?
In essence, it doesn't matter or make any practical difference what the Law says if the judges and the evil Jesuit-neo-Papal NWO are just ignoring it, does it? So what do we do about it?
Even if you're right - hey, let's say you are, if it helps this discussion along - the evil judges (as I suspected) are just ignoring the Law and locking people up anyway.
So, we're back to my question:
What do you suggest is the best course of action should a judge gaol a Freeman? If and when it is transgressed, how is the Common Law enforced, and by whom? What can be done about these corrupt judges?
In essence, it doesn't matter or make any practical difference what the Law says if the judges and the evil Jesuit-neo-Papal NWO are just ignoring it, does it? So what do we do about it?
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Congress has no power to legislate outside of the US Constitution.
http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/06/19/income_tax_illegal_fraud_how.htm
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Revenue Act, 1913.
Especially, at the risk of an imminent yellow card, I have to tell you that you're talking absolute pish. You're deliberately misconstruing very clear legislation on - as we predicted - the basis that you don't believe that the legislation is valid anyway.
But what I find humorous is that a man complaining about duplicity, fraud, and idiocy has come here under false pretences - talking about the English position, suggesting that he is English - and has now been caught out. It can't be very nice for you, I have to say.
But what I find humorous is that a man complaining about duplicity, fraud, and idiocy has come here under false pretences - talking about the English position, suggesting that he is English - and has now been caught out. It can't be very nice for you, I have to say.
Lothian
should be banned
Are you embarrassed that you are unable to find a single case supporting your position. I realise that I have asked for it 23 times and you have yet to reply. I am wondering if your ego is suffering and you are feeling impotent. I am happy to drop the subject if your ineptitude makes you feel uncomfortable.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Didn't someone here just tell us all that "The Constitution is not legislation"?
That means - there is no legislation, right?What are you proposing? Anarchy?
And Lothian, I think that you could add the number of times I have asked where a person has successfully used this as a defence against charges of tax evasion.
Hey UI'll be generous and allow this defence to be used in those countries under the common law which so far includes the UK the US Australia , and I think (somehow) most of Europe...
Especially
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Didn't someone here just tell us all that "The Constitution is not legislation"?
What are you proposing? Anarchy?
The Constitution is not legislation. It is the source of legislation. Any any legislation which does not conform to it is unlawful. By definition. The Federal Income Tax is VOLUNTARY. Get it yet ?
Shall I teach you how to suck eggs ?
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
How does the Revenue Act 1913 not conform to the constitution?
Where in the Revenue Act 1913 does it say that?
Lothian
should be banned
One step at a time. Teach him how to suck at the law first.
Pantaz
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 982
Especially, you really should head over to the Quatloos forum. They have a section dedicated to the "Sovereign Citizen" (aka FOTL) scam movement. You should find it quite interesting.
http://www.quatloos.com
http://www.quatloos.com
- Status