Ed Brown Raid - Tax Evasion

[DrDeth]

Actually, there is no law saying that everyone has to pay Income taxes, or even File. And that is becuase if your income is low enough you don’t have to file or pay. IF they worded the law that everyone had to file, then babies would be forced to file.

Here is *the *link:
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

And here is the section that refutes that the IRS is not a Gov’t agency:
IRS was not a proper govt agency: (because created by Sec of Treasury): Young v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 141 (because the Sec. of the Treasury renamed the Bureau of Internal Revenue as the IRS in 1953, pursuant to the 1949 Reorganization Act but without a statute specifically changing the name - which would really have been unnecessary for such a cosmetic change - but in the next year’s appropriation for the Dept of the Treasury, Congress used the name IRS [5/11/54, 68 Stat 86] thereby ratifying this change); similarly Snyder v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 240; (similarly because IRS not mentioned in Constitution) US v. Zuger (D Conn 1984) 602 F.Supp 889 aff’d 755 F2d 915 cert.den 474 US 805; similarly J.B. Smith v. US, IRS, et al. (D. Ida unpub 7/30/93); similarly (tried to argue that “there is no such thing as the Internal Revenue Service, for whatever help such an argument would give the plaintiffs… We bear in mind that the IRS is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury … for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. By whatever name, the Secretary of the Treasury functions to enforce the tax laws.”) Axmann v. Ponte (D Neb unpub 1/4/89) 89 USTC para 9306, 63 AFTR2d 966 aff’d 892 F2d 761; similarly (that IRS agent is not “an officer of the US nor that the IRS is an agency of the US”) Onkka v. Herman (D Neb unpub 9/19/97 & 10/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6860 - previously in the same case (D Neb unpub 6/5/97) 80 AFTR2d 5024 (the argument that the defendant IRS agent “has not proven himself to be an officer of the IRS is disingenuous to say the least. Finally, the court is willing to take judicial notice of the fact that the IRS is an agency of the USA.” and noted that the defendant was represented by a Dept of Justice lawyer who had filed pleadings that he was an officer of the IRS which is an agency of the US govt, “these are fairly good indications”); similarly D.L. Young v. Boeing Co. (D.Kan unpub 4/12/95) 75 AFTR2d 2408 (“According to the plaintiffs, the IRS is a private enterprise operation and not an agency of the US govt. This argument is, of course, patently absurd.”); that IRS is a foreign or subversive organization. Ric. Davis v. CIR (WD Okl unpub 4/13/78) 41 AFTR2d 1376, 78 USTC para 9478; similarly Bell v. Agents for IMF (ED Cal unpub 11/7/95) 76 AFTR2d 7543; similarly Morgan v. IMF, IRS, et al. (D Ida unpub 10/6/95) 76 AFTR2d 7040; similarly Vaillancourt [& the People of the Republic Union State named Arizona] v. Bentsen (D.Ariz unpub 2/25/94) 73 AFTR2d 1423; similarly Ayres v. Agents for IMF IRS (D Colo unpub 7/24/98) 98 USTC para 50637, 82 AFTR2d 5688; similarly Steinman v. IRS (D Ariz 6/5/96) 78 AFTR2d 5380; similarly US v. Higgins (8th Cir 1993) 987 F2d 543; similarly Alexander v. Agents for IMF (NDNY unpub 12/31/96) 79 AFTR2d 658; Lorre v. Alexander (WD Tex unpub 8/8/77) 40 AFTR2d 5677, 77 USTC para 9672; similarly Green v. Winkler (SD Fla unpub 12/5/96) 78 AFTR2d 7630; (that IRS works for Interpol) In re Busby (MD Fla unpub 10/2/98) 82 AFTR2d 6924; (tax protester in Virginia tried to sue naming as defendant “Internal Revenue Service of Puerto Rico, Trust #62” on

Now there is no real use in debating with the OP. But I post because the link I gave is just about the very best “refute the tax protestor” sites available.

[bobsled]

@Fear Itself

This is absurd. Do you seriously believe my elected represetative must split his time between voting on the floor of Congress, and personally striking coins down at the Mint? Of course they can designate another entity to print money.

Not absurd at all, because the Constitution has always been interpreted, I’m simply providing one possible interpretation. I did not mean to imply that Ted Kennedy is actually running the printing press, I simply meant to say that in my interpretation the Congress would have control of interest rates, and control of the amount of money printed.

@Ravenman

Art I Sec 8 also says that Congress shall not only define, but also punish, piracy and felonies on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.

By the OP’s reasoning, it must be unconstitutional to allow the Executive and Judicial branches the ability to punish those accused of terrorism. Apparently there has to be trials conducted by Congress so that bad guys may be sentenced to prison terms in institutions run by the legislative branch. Someone get on the horn to Guantanamo, quickly, and have the Navy deliver the accused terrorists to Capitol Hill, post haste!!

Logical fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

I never made that logical leap, that was your doing. Judicial branch interprets the law that the legislative makes, executive oversees the execution of those laws. Surely you remember Civics 101.

[Ravenman]

@bobsled

Logical fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

I never made that logical leap, that was your doing. Judicial branch interprets the law that the legislative makes, executive oversees the execution of those laws. Surely you remember Civics 101.

Thanks for knocking down a ridiculous proposition. But you haven’t actually defended your idea that Congress can delegate all these powers for national defense, but it cannot create an agency to carry out domestic powers, whether it is the Fed, the International Trade Commission, or probably dozens of other agencies I don’t care to name at the moment. Why don’t you explain why Congress cannot delegate certain functions? I mean, there’s been court cases on this going all the way back to the early days of our history.

And by the way, I think the fallacy you’re looking for is reductio ad absurdum. I’m getting the feeling that you picked out two random fallacies that don’t really apply all that well.

[bobsled]

@Ravenman

Thanks for knocking down a ridiculous proposition. But you haven’t actually defended your idea that Congress can delegate all these powers for national defense, but it cannot create an agency to carry out domestic powers, whether it is the Fed, the International Trade Commission, or probably dozens of other agencies I don’t care to name at the moment. Why don’t you explain why Congress cannot delegate certain functions? I mean, there’s been court cases on this going all the way back to the early days of our history.

And by the way, I think the fallacy you’re looking for is reductio ad absurdum. I’m getting the feeling that you picked out two random fallacies that don’t really apply all that well.

I don’t have to defend my idea anymore than to say that’s how I interpret the Constitution, and that I’m following a historical tradition of this interpretation. I’m a Jeffersonian strict constructionist, not a federalist Hamilitonian. This was an debate even in the earliest days of the Republic. From the Wikipedia article on Necessary-and-proper clause:

The chartering of the Bank of the United States led to a defining legal interpretation of the clause. Although the Constitution does not explicitly give Congress the authority to establish a national bank, the move was justified by proponents as a “necessary and proper” exercise of Congress’ authority to make laws regulating interstate commerce under the commerce clause. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced a classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton, a Federalist, argued that the necessary and proper clause granted Congress the power to charter a bank, while Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, interpreted the Constitution more strictly, believing Congress’ power limited to the enumerated powers. The Federalists, as the majority party, were able to pass legislation establishing the national bank.

[Ravenman]

Appeal to tradition!!!

But seriously, the question of enumerated powers is kind of beside the point here. We aren’t talking about Congress grabbing more power than what the Constitution gives to it, the point we’re raising is that Congress is routinely allowed to delegate the powers given to it within certain parameters established by the Supreme Court 180-plus years ago. I think you’re confusing the issue of enumerated powers with the nondelegation doctrine.

I realize we’ve gotten off on a hijack, but it sure would be interesting to get back to the topic in the OP, that is, whether the tax protesters are being treated fairly. Or, barring that, a coherent explanation of what the existence of the Federal Reserve has to do with the income tax being illegal.

[Lemur866]

Except it’s been 200 years since then. And no possible supreme court would agree with you that the Federal Reserve is unconsitutional, because justices are appointed by the president, and the president would never consider appointing a justice that thought the Federal Reserve was unconstitutional, and presidents are elected by the people, and the people would never elect a president that thought the Federal Reserve was unconstitutional.

See, this is the problem I was trying to point out earlier. You keep saying that certain well established government functions are unconstitutional, yet they have never in the history of our nation been ruled unconstitutional, nor have the citizenry thought them to be unconstitutional. Now I know your argument is that the lawyers and illuminati have tricked us into believing the incorrect interpretation of the constitution. Except this argument isn’t going to work.

As you said, the people 200 years ago who argued against the creation of a national bank lost. Now, perhaps they should have won. Perhaps we should get rid of the Federal Reserve bank. But Congress has the power to print money. They have passed an act of congress establishing the US Mint, and the Bureau of Engraving. Now, you may believe that they were unwise to do so, but clearly they have the power to do so, because they are doing it, and the Federal Reserve has existed since 1907 and has withstood every constitutional challenge.

So the only way to get rid of the Federal Reserve is to convince us, not that the Federal Reserve cannot exist, but rather that the Federal Reserve should not exist. I know, I know, we’ve all been tricked by the bankers and the financiers and the rootless cosmopolitans. Except, since we have a democratic system of government, we’re going to get the government the people want. If the people want tyranny, if they want rule by the bankers, then no piece of paper like the Constitution will prevent it. Only a firm resolve by the citizenry to prevent it can prevent it. Since no such resolve exists, your mission should not be to tell people that the Federal Reserve and income tax is unconstitutional, your mission should be to tell people that the Federal reserve and income tax is unwise.

And your contention that we have no legal obligation to pay income taxes on Federal Reserve notes is ludicrous. You have a legal obligation to pay income taxes on all income, even barter. Even supposing that Federal Reserve notes are not legally money under the constitution, you’d still have to pay income taxes whenever someone paid you with Federal Reserve notes, just like you’d have to pay income taxes if they paid you with Japanese yen or homemade hand-printed Lemurbucks. If I grow wheat and you grow soybeans, and we exchange goods by barter, we both still have to pay income tax on that transaction.

And your argument that we don’t have to pay income taxes on Federal Reserve notes fails on another level, because if you don’t pay those taxes the cops will come around and seize your property and take you to jail, and your neighbors will shrug indifferently. You DO have to pay taxes simply because you live in a country where, as a matter of fact, if you don’t pay taxes the state will punish you. The problem is that your argument WON’T WORK to keep you out of jail, even if it were true.

[Giles]

If I’m working in the US near the border, and every week my employer pays me in Canadian dollars or Mexican pesos, and I take off each weekend to buy my groceries across the border, and live in my house across the border, so that I never touch US Federal Reserve notes – I would still have to pay income tax to the US Federal government.

[Little_Nemo]

Bob, you need to wake up and smell the reality here. Who writes the laws? Congress. Who interprets the laws? The courts. So if Congress says something is a law and the court agrees with them, your opinion on the subject means nothing.

You can sit there and say, “well, according to my interpretation of the Constitution, that should be unconstitutional.” But until they give you the black robe, your interpretations of the Constitution have no legal weight whatsoever.

[bobsled]

@Ravenman

Appeal to tradition!!!

But seriously, the question of enumerated powers is kind of beside the point here. We aren’t talking about Congress grabbing more power than what the Constitution gives to it, the point we’re raising is that Congress is routinely allowed to delegate the powers given to it within certain parameters established by the Supreme Court 180-plus years ago. I think you’re confusing the issue of enumerated powers with the nondelegation doctrine.

I realize we’ve gotten off on a hijack, but it sure would be interesting to get back to the topic in the OP, that is, whether the tax protesters are being treated fairly. Or, barring that, a coherent explanation of what the existence of the Federal Reserve has to do with the income tax being illegal.

Not really, my strict constructionist interpretation just leads me to believe that the Constitution is perfectly clear as to who should coin and regulate the value of currency, and it’s not a private bank.

We could debate this ad nauseum, but suffice it to say, that I simply follow the advice of Jefferson and Jackson, and find inspiration in this quote:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” - Thomas Jefferson

[DSYoungEsq]

@bobsled

Not really, my strict constructionist interpretation just leads me to believe that the Constitution is perfectly clear as to who should coin and regulate the value of currency, and it’s not a private bank.

We could debate this ad nauseum, but suffice it to say, that I simply follow the advice of Jefferson and Jackson, and find inspiration in this quote:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” - Thomas Jefferson

I will jump in here to simply ask:

What does any of this have to do with income tax?

Don’t answer ANY other question until you answer this one.

Then, if you would please, explain specifically why you think that the 16th Amendment did not validly empower Congress to establish an income tax?
To everyone else: Don’t add in hijacks, don’t add in irrelevant discussions; make the OP stick to the point. Else debating the issue becomes literally pointless.

[Captain_Amazing]

@bobsled

Not really, my strict constructionist interpretation just leads me to believe that the Constitution is perfectly clear as to who should coin and regulate the value of currency, and it’s not a private bank.

Except, again,

1. Money is coined by the US Mint, and printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and they’re both part of the US Treasury Department

2. The Federal Reserve isn’t a private bank. It’s an independent federal agency, created by congressional legislation and controled by a Board of Governors who are appointed by the President, approved by Congress, and have to make an annual report to Congress.

[Fear_Itself]

@bobsled

Not really, my strict constructionist interpretation just leads me to believe that the Constitution is perfectly clear as to who should coin and regulate the value of currency, and it’s not a private bank.

At the risk be sounding rude-- So What??

If neither Congress, SCOTUS or a majority of voters agrees with you, your point is moot. Right?

[Ravenman]

@DSYoungEsq

Then, if you would please, explain specifically why you think that the 16th Amendment did not validly empower Congress to establish an income tax?

An excellent question that deserves an answer.

[Lemur866]

Wait, then why are they called banknotes?

Banknote

Banknotes are notes issued by a bank. That bank could be a government controlled bank, or a private bank. Or by the Lemurbank. In the early days of our country all sorts of institutions issued private scrips of various sorts…cities, stores, companies, whatever.

Is your objection just to Federal Reserve Notes, or to United States Notes as well?

Federal Reserve Note

United States Note

And regardless of whether we SHOULD have a national banking system, the fact is that we do, and our current system was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Federal Reserve Act - Wikipedia

Why hasn’t the Federal Reserve Act been declared unconstitutional?

[bobsled]

@Lemur866

Since no such resolve exists, your mission should not be to tell people that the Federal Reserve and income tax is unconstitutional, your mission should be to tell people that the Federal reserve and income tax is unwise.

I do this nearly every day, I just happen to believe it’s unwise and unconstitutional, both of which are good reasons for getting rid of it.

@Lemur866

And your contention that we have no legal obligation to pay income taxes on Federal Reserve notes is ludicrous. You have a legal obligation to pay income taxes on all income, even barter.

Very true, and I will continue to pay income taxes, I have no intention of being tried under federal law.

@Lemur866

If I grow wheat and you grow soybeans, and we exchange goods by barter, we both still have to pay income tax on that transaction.

This is also true, http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html
The only issue I have with this is how and who determines the ’fair-market value’ of the goods, and the ability of the gov’t to even prove that a barter transaction took place. Although I also think a legitimate argument could be made that requiring people to list the details of a barter transaction is in violation of the 4th amendment.

[Lemur866]

Except that contradicts what you said here:

@bobsled

Article 1, Section 8 says Congress shall have the power: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;”. Since this power is only given to the Congress, they were never explicitly given the ability to designate this responsibility to another entity. Thus, any fiat currency printed by the federal reserve is neither legal tender for debts, nor can be considered income as defined by the 16th amendment. Therefore since we neither owe or possess any legal currency, we have no taxable income as defined by the 16th amendment.

It doesn’t matter if Federal Reserve Notes are “real” money or not. They could have the exact same legal status as notes I scrawl on a napkin. But if you accept payment in those notes, you still have to pay taxes on any income you recieve even if denominated in Lemur Reserve Notes.

A little consistency would be nice.

And by the way, can you explain specifically why you think that the 16th Amendment did not validly empower Congress to establish an income tax?

[Lemur866]

And besides, the text of the 16th Amendment doesn’t define income:

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.

So how exactly does the 16th amendment not apply to income denominated in Federal Reserve Notes?

[bobsled]

@DSYoungEsq

I will jump in here to simply ask:

What does any of this have to do with income tax?

Don’t answer ANY other question until you answer this one.

Then, if you would please, explain specifically why you think that the 16th Amendment did not validly empower Congress to establish an income tax?
To everyone else: Don’t add in hijacks, don’t add in irrelevant discussions; make the OP stick to the point. Else debating the issue becomes literally pointless.

The last part of the clause is open to interpretation, “without regard to any census or enumeration.” I could argue that since the tax is graduated based on income, it is indeed enumerated based on income.

@Fear Itself

If neither Congress, SCOTUS or a majority of voters agrees with you, your point is moot. Right?

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. - Mohandas Gandhi

One man with courage makes a majority. - Andrew Jackson

I think a majority of voters would vote to abolish the income tax, if given the opportunity. I don’t enjoy splitting legal hairs, but I can always find multiple ways to interpret the law. I personally believe the income tax is immoral, and my conception of morality is not open to debate.

@Captain Amazing

It’s an independent federal agency, created by congressional legislation and controled by a Board of Governors who are appointed by the President, approved by Congress, and have to make an annual report to Congress.

Lol, that’s a funny oxymoron… Like ’defense intelligence’.

[Ludovic]

@bobsled

One man with courage makes a majority. - Andrew Jackson

I think a majority of voters would vote to abolish the income tax, if given the opportunity.

Even if that is so, does it make them right?

[bobsled]

@Lemur866

And besides, the text of the 16th Amendment doesn’t define income:
So how exactly does the 16th amendment not apply to income denominated in Federal Reserve Notes?

You didn’t read what I said. The income tax could be interpreted to be violating the 16th. The last part of the clause is open to interpretation, “without regard to any census or enumeration.” I could argue that since the tax is graduated based on income, it is indeed enumerated based on income.

@Lemur866

It doesn’t matter if Federal Reserve Notes are “real” money or not. They could have the exact same legal status as notes I scrawl on a napkin. But if you accept payment in those notes, you still have to pay taxes on any income you recieve even if denominated in Lemur Reserve Notes.

But who decides the value of Lemur currency? If you define the value to be 1/1000th of the value of the dollar, your taxable income could be much less, which is why the gov’t doesn’t allow people to create their own currencies. But that is totally irrelevant to my argument. The issue that I have with the taxation of bartering is how and who determines the fair market value of the goods being trading. That certainly seems open to interpretation and abuse.