IRS FRAUD EXPOSED!

The IRS Code, Title 26, Section 6654, (e) (2) (c). gives ABSOLUTE and UNDENIABLE PROOF that UNITED STATES CITIZENS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY INCOME TAX!

IRS Code, Title 26. Sec.6654. Failure by Individuals to pay Estimated Income Tax. (e) Exceptions. (2) Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year. No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if------ (c) The individual was a CITIZEN or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year. THIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT AMERICANS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY INCOME TAX!

WHY DO YOU PAY INCOME TAX, WHEN IN FACT YOU ARE NOT REQUIRE TO PAY IT?

DO YOU PAY BECAUSE YOU LOVE THE IRS?

OR DO YOU PAY BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID OF THE IRS?

Go to your local Library and check out Title 26 yourself. It is written plain as day!

-- ... (...@...com), July 16, 2000

Answers

Is Paul Milne now known as ...

-- .... Nugget (cats....@umailme....), July 16, 2000.

(...@...com),

Postcards from Leavenworth

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 16, 2000.

Does a full moon bring these guys back?

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), July 16, 2000.

From the quoted section, the assertion is absolutely true. If you didn't make any taxable income, you don't have to pay any taxes on it. Doh!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 16, 2000.

Oh, Flint, you cruel man! Putting the kibosh on such a beautiful dream.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 16, 2000.

Flint:

"If you didn't make any taxable income, you don't have to pay any taxes on it."

Good analysis so far. Now just find the section where it defines "income", and you're all set.

-- abc (a@b.c), July 16, 2000.

over and over again this shit gets posted. over and over again it gets debunked. Over and over again links are posted showing who is in jail as a result of challenging the income tax.

To whoever posts this shit: Why do you not come out and just say what you mean-short of an armed insurrection and overthrow of the government, you will go to jail if you do not pay your taxes.

So instead of pussy-footing around about the same shit over and over again, say what you really mean: That you advocate the armed overthrow of the United States Government.

Go ahead. You will feel better that you are being honest.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 16, 2000.

You guys could at least admit that it's fear that keeps you in line, rather than knowing you are right. One thing I think you are afraid of, is what you may find out. And then when you do; you may find that your conscience will bother you.

We've been brainwashed, and defrauded, lied to, and stolen from. A socialist plan has been put into place in a free republic. It has crept in little by little. Ask anyone over 80 what the tax situation was like before WW2.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 16, 2000.

And I don't advocate the overthrow of the government. FS, you just posted that to dodge the issue.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 16, 2000.

Ah, KoFE, you lovable old tax nut, you. Of course it's fear that keeps us in line. I certainly wouldn't pay my taxes if I thought it was voluntary. I'd contribute directly to whatever causes I thought appropriate.

I pay my taxes because I am afraid they'll put me in jail and/or do other bad things to me if they don't.

This is the same reason I don't drive 100 miles an hour in residential areas and don't help my self without paying at my local retail establishments.

My understanding is that is why they make certain things (like, say, murder) illegal -- so that hopefully most people will be afraid to do them.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), July 17, 2000.

KoFE:

For the sake of discussion, let's say you're right. Let's assume the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says, and that the tax laws are so complicated that the lawyers who wrote them don't understand what they say (and don't say), that the courts are all wrong, and that even those who administer the laws and regulations are all stupid.

Now, what corrective action do you recommend? Are you simply asking for *current* amendments and laws to rewritten to be so clear and unambiguous that even you can understand them, or are you suggesting wholesale changes to the actual practice of taxation? If so, what changes would you like to see?

I've never figured out whether tax protesters want pure magic (government services *nobody* pays for), or are just selfish (government services *everyone else* pays for but *not me!*) Can you clarify this?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 17, 2000.

Flint:

"I've never figured out whether tax protesters want pure magic (government services *nobody* pays for), or are just selfish (government services *everyone else* pays for but *not me!*) Can you clarify this?"

Of course, I can't answer for anyone else, but as a person who pays taxes only because the government will use force against me if I don't, my answer is simple: I don't want any government services, whether paid for by me or paid for by everyone else. All I want from the government is the one thing that I can't have: for them to leave me alone. I hope this answers your question.

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 17, 2000.

E.H.Porter: "This is the same reason I don't drive 100 miles an hour in residential areas and don't help my self without paying at my local retail establishments. "

That's very interesting. Most people who claim that we need a myriad of laws say it is because "other people" would commit immoral actions if they weren't illegal. It's actually sort of refreshing to have someone admit that he or she himself is at heart a criminal who must be restrained by the law in order not to commit immoral actions against other people.

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 17, 2000.

>> All I want from the government is the one thing that I can't have: for them to leave me alone. <<

As for me, I rather prefer to have the US Armed Forces preventing foreign nations from establishing their government over me, and the US Mint to print money, and the Bureau of Standards, Weights and Measures setting uniform standards, a local County bureau to register deeds, and, well, the list goes on and on, really. From water pipes. sewers, police and fire protection to schools and roads, I think government provides some service I use almost every 5 minutes of my day.

But, here's a hint. You could be left alone to your heart's content on almost any one of the Aleutian Islands. There are at least 50 islands there that are not only US territory, but also totally free from active government influence. Settle in on one of them and you won't have a single government service to aid you, or a single government agent to tell you how to live your life.

GO FOR IT!!! If being left alone is all that important to you it is a guaranteed method! WHAT MORE COULD YOU ASK FOR???

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 17, 2000.

I guess I should say fear and misunderstanding are the main reasons, Porter, because you know your case is based on bullshit and invective, and not law.

Mostly what you guys put out here is regurgitation of the brainwashing you have been subjected to all of your life. Let me know when you want to get real.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 17, 2000.

KoFe:

Okay. So you do not want to overthrow the government. I am with Flint, thought, in asking you what exactly is the next step. You cannot and will not win in the U.S. courts. This has been proven ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Would you be willing to put together the form letter so we can all start writing or U.S. Representatives to work at writing legislation which clearly states the tax is voluntary? Without new legislation, you are going to jail if you do not pay taxes, no matter how noble or idealistic your argument.

So instead of ranting about the injustice, please tell how you plan to lead the revolution to a new tax structure.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 17, 2000.

You guys keep on saying that somebody has to pay for government services. Well nobody does, even if you pay income tax.

President Reagan's Grace Commission determined that not one penny of your income tax payments goes to run our government. All income tax payments go directly to the federal reserve to pay the interest o the phony federal debt.

Check your IRS payment and look how the IRS has endorsed your tax payment. They send it straight to the federal reserve INCLUDING YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- ... (...@...com), July 17, 2000.

>> President Reagan's Grace Commission determined that not one penny of your income tax payments goes to run our government. <<

So you say. But when someone makes an assertion that goes against all common sense, I find it helpful and comforting to have some facts to cuddle up with.

Can you quote any part of the Grace Commission report that says this? I mean, if they said it, then you should be able to show somewhere they said it. Or are your just foisting rumors on us?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 18, 2000.

Brian said:

"But, here's a hint. You could be left alone to your heart's content on almost any one of the Aleutian Islands. There are at least 50 islands there that are not only US territory, but also totally free from active government influence. Settle in on one of them and you won't have a single government service to aid you, or a single government agent to tell you how to live your life. "

Really? No taxes and no regulations? Great! I think I'll check that out right away! Thanks for the tip!

-- abc (a@b.c), July 18, 2000.

I'm only interested in what the law actually says. Without that, you have no case.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 18, 2000.

KoFE:

The law says what the courts say it says. It's not ambiguous - the courts have been very consistent.

Now, what changes do you suggest?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 18, 2000.

Once again, either the tax protesters misquote or misunderstand.

Full text of IRS Code, Title 26, Section 6654, (e)...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-F-68-A-I-6654.html

(e)Exceptions (1)Where tax is small amount No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable year (or, if no return is filed, the tax), reduced by the credit allowable under section 31, is less than $500. (2)Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if - (A)the preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months, (B)the individual did not have any liability for tax for the preceding taxable year, and (C)the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year. (3)Waiver in certain cases (A)In general No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any underpayment to the extent the Secretary determines that by reason of casualty, disaster, or other unusual circumstances the imposition of such addition to tax would be against equity and good conscience. (B)Newly retired or disabled individuals No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any underpayment if the Secretary determines that - (i)the taxpayer - (I)retired after having attained age 62, or (II)became disabled, in the taxable year for which estimated payments were required to be made or in the taxable year preceding such taxable year, and (ii)such underpayment was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

====================================================

Try reading Sec. 1 too:

http://www.tns.lcs.mit.edu/uscode/TIT LE_26/Subtitle_A/CHAPTER_1/Subchapter_A/PART_I/Sec._1.html

Sec. 1. Tax imposed

STATUTE

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $32,450 15% of taxable income. Over $32,450 but not over $78,400 $4,867.50, plus 28% of the excess over $32,450. Over $78,400 $17,733.50, plus 31% of the excess over $78,400.

(b) Heads of households

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $26,050 15% of taxable income. Over $26,050 but not over $67,200 $3,907.50, plus 28% of the excess over $26,500. Over $67,200 $15,429.50, plus 31% of the excess over $67,200.

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $19,450 15% of taxable income. Over $19,450 but not over $47,050 $2,917.50, plus 28% of the excess over $19,450. Over $47,050 $10,645.50, plus 31% of the excess over $47,050.

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $16,225 15% of taxable income. Over $16,225 but not over $39,200 $2,433.75, plus 28% of the excess over $16,225. Over $39,200 $8,866.75, plus 31% of the excess over $39,200.

(e) Estates and trusts

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every estate, and

(2) every trust,

taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $3,300 15% of taxable income. Over $3,300 but not over $9,900 $495, plus 28% of the excess over $3,300. Over $9,900 $2,343, plus 31% of the excess over $9,900.

======================================

Would you like to see the tax regulations in plain English?

http://www.irs.u streas.gov/tax_regs/index.html

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 18, 2000.

Good morning Brian,

Ah, the Aleutian Islands.the memories are flooding my mind. This chain runs for about 1000 miles and is comprised of around 200 islands. During my military days I had the pleasure of frequently flying into Adak which, by the 60s, had become the major refueling spot for transports flying the Oriental routes. The two major airfreight lines at that time were Zantop and Flying Tiger and they, along with our U.S.Navy had spartan facilities on the island. During WWII, Adak had developed into a major staging area and there were well over 20,000 abandoned Quonset huts scattered throughout the landscape.

Today, Adak Island has become a major commercial venture and you may see for yourself by visiting their web site: http://www.adakisland.com/

Unfortunately, I would suspect that the IRS could be found lurking somewhere as well.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 18, 2000.

Here's a link to the complete IRS Code, Title 26, Section 6654.

Title 26, Section 6654

There's a lot of wishful thinking going on.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

Flint:

Have you managed to find the definition of income in the IRS code yet? That shouldn't be too hard, as it is a very important term used in the code.

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 18, 2000.

>> Really? No taxes and no regulations? Great! <<

Here's the deal. The USA would still consider you to be under its jurisdiction. You would be nominally subject to both USA taxes and regulations. However, you can effectively disappear from view in the Aleutians just by living there.

Of course, the chances that you could earn any money while living in the Aleutians are pretty slim. No income = no income tax liability! Sure, there is a lucrative fishery in the surrounding ocean, but your island probably wouldn't have any safe harbor for a trawler, so you couldn't fish in commercial quantities from your kayak. There are also seals and sea birds to eat. (Just make sure your island isn't a wildlife sanctuary! That could attract unwanted attention.)

You would have no postal service to bother you. No services of any kind, really. Even if you break your leg, you might have to wait for weeks before an emergency crew could risk coming for you, due to the rough weather in the North Pacific. You could be on the radio begging and pleading for a government agent to come arrest you for tax evasion and grow a pretty good beard before one showed up.

Paradise, eh?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 18, 2000.

Brian:

"Here's the deal. The USA would still consider you to be under its jurisdiction. You would be nominally subject to both USA taxes and regulations."

So there is still just as much "nominal" (i.e., legal) regulation and taxation there as anywhere. If I wanted to break the law, I could do that here. In other words, you're full of crap. Thanks for playing, though!

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 18, 2000.

ABC:

You ask an interesting question, from a procedural standpoint. But first, we should recognize that finding a single, universal definition of "income" is like finding a single, universal definition of "good". This is a fool's errand, and if you don't understand that you're a fool. If you DO understand that and ask anyway, you're a charletan.

I'm not a tax lawyer, but it looks to me that the lawyers and bureaucrats have taken the only sensible option and attempted an exhaustive definition. They've attempted to list every possible means by which one might come into "possession" of an "asset", and case-by- case determined if this constitutes "income". Of course, this requires useful definitions of "possession" and "asset", so off we go into the labyrinth of complexity inherent in any real economic system.

The result is a rather fascinating game. By implication, if the lawyers and bureaucrats left something off the list, it's not income. So private tax lawyers constantly search for some way to rearrange their clients' finances to take advantage of these omissions (loopholes). And the public tax lawyers keep modifying the list to include what the private lawyers discovered. The same game applies to omissions from the lists of meanings of "possessions" and "assets".

So every year we read about someone who concocts some fairly complex finances for a hypothetical individual and has 50 tax lawyers complete the tax forms. The result is always 50 different results, not one of which agrees with the IRS's results. Indeed, it seems likely that any single tax lawyer would get 50 results if he went through the process 50 times!

So by necessary practice, the many many functional definitions of "income" are complicated, messy, somewhat ambiguous, subject to often wide interpretations (case by case), and always changing. But the claim that *therefore* there is no definition at all, is like claiming that *because* no two snowflakes are alike, there's no such thing as a snowflake. It's just not true that something must be simple to be real.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 18, 2000.

>> If I wanted to break the law, I could do that here. <<

I believe the original formulation was that you wanted the government "to leave you alone".

The Aleutians are an excellent place to pursue this goal. You would be receiving the fewest possible government services and probably would be able to do as you please, provided this does not include setting off nuclear explosions.

>> In other words, you're full of crap. <<

OK. I am full of crap.

But this is coming from someone who said, "I don't want any government services, whether paid for by me or paid for by everyone else." What better place to avoid all government services than the Aleutians?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 18, 2000.

Brian:

"If being left alone is all that important to you it is a guaranteed method! WHAT MORE COULD YOU ASK FOR???"

"You would be receiving the fewest possible government services and probably would be able to do as you please, "

Well, which is it? "Probably" or "guaranteed"? I'll answer that for you: it's "guaranteed" only until and unless the government takes an interest in me; then I will be harassed and assaulted just like everyone else.

As for your "solution" of not having any income to tax: I can do that right now by quitting my job. However, that "solution" does not leave me free to do as I wish, so long as I am not attacking anyone else.

Finally, I'm sorry to see that your rationality is apparently confined to exposing CPR's foolishness. It would have been nice if you could have approached other issues in the same sensible way.

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 18, 2000.

>> Well, which is it? "Probably" or "guaranteed"? <<

Boy, I gotta hand it to you; you sure did catch me out there. When I said it was "guaranteed" you would be left alone, I hadn't remembered the bit about setting off nuclear explosions (my one qualification that you so rationally omitted).

So, clearly, I was wrong to say that you were "guaranteed" to be left alone. Just one, tiny, tactical nuclear device going off on US territory and you'd have the feds all over you like white on rice. Mea culpa.

>> ...it's "guaranteed" only until and unless the government takes an interest in me; then I will be harassed and assaulted just like everyone else. <<

Not true. Any farmer or rancher knows that contented livestock put on weight faster, give more milk (where applicable) and are generally more tractable than livestock that is harassed and assaulted. That is why the government does not harass and assault everyone they take an interest in.

Since you are being harassed and assaulted I can only guess it is because you are obstinately kicking over the milk pail, even though you are hoggishly drinking from the trough and eating the grain like all the rest of us.

Or, could it be that secret nuclear weapons program you are engaged in? That could make a difference, too.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@Ims.com), July 18, 2000.

Brian:

"probably would be able to do as you please, provided this does not include setting off nuclear explosions."

Okay, now I've included your "qualification". Of course, someone as smart as you should realize that this is even a WEAKER statement than the original, as it has TWO qualifications compounded, not one: "probably" and "provided". Therefore, I was trying to give you a break by leaving the second one off.

But now that you've "caught" me trying to make your statement LESS qualified, I'll restate my position even more clearly.

I am not going to assault anyone or to endanger anyone's life, as setting off nuclear explosions would do. Nevertheless, contrary to your original claim, the government is NOT GUARANTEED to leave me alone, whether in the Aleutians or elsewhere under their claimed jurisdiction, any more than they are guaranteed to leave anyone else alone who merely wants to be left alone and is not endangering anyone else.

I don't believe you want to understand me, and I'm sure you will be able to avoid doing so. If so, this is my last contribution to this discussion, as I don't enjoy talking to a wall.

-- ABC (a@b.c), July 18, 2000.