Talk:Tax protester/Archive 3

message: Besides the Supreme court rulings I have posted on the 16th Amendment, it also includes the Constitution, which says : 
Constitution:
1. The powers of Congress, and the limitations set upon those powers, are set forth in Article I of the United States Constitution. Section 8 specifies both the power to collect, "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and the requirement that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." If the income tax is not uniform they are illegal.
2. However, the Constitution specifically limited Congress' ability to impose direct taxes, by requiring it to distribute direct taxes in proportion to each state's census population. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Again, it has to be in proportion to the Census or enumeration, or else it isn't legal, which the income tax is being taken as right now.
3.Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 states "...direct taxes shall be apportioned..." which they are not being apportioned right now, so it is unconsitutional.
4. The 16th Amendment did not give Congress any more taxing powers than it already had, which it could not tax directly, it was talkin about corporate profits and gains.
Also, in order for a tax to be paid, it must be a liability. 
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Codebook, (IRC) is the only part that refers to Income Taxes. There is no section that describes an income tax liability to pay or file unlike other sections of the IRC for Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms that give a penalty, say "liability" to file and pay if you sell these types of things.--206.111.181.109 19:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the 16th amendment addition.  It contains commentary and original work that is not appropriate for an article.  We should add a see also link to other articles such as the one on the 16th amendment. - Tεxτurε 19:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with adding a "see also link" for "Intent and purpose of 16th Amendment".  Can you do that? or how do I? Do I create a WP page and then supply link to it? Thanks --bb69 20:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is already about intent and controversy. You should update that one.  I'll add a link to the article. - Tεxτurε 22:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't about the same intents and controversy. It adds to what the article doesn't already have. --bb69 15:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws for Income Tax

message: Ok. That one works. - Tεxτurε 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "assertions" -> "sources" 

message: Stare recently wrote a comment on BB69's page, but Stare doesn't have a page to comment on. Since it was pertinent to this page, I will post it and comment on it. --bb69 16:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clear up one misconception, Stare does indeed have a talk page where you could respond to his comment. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stare comments

message: Some of the tax protester arguments (for instance the fringe-on-the-flag and missing-13th-Amendment arguments) aren't really tax-protester-specific and might be better if moved to the patriot mythology page with a link to there from here. -Moorlock 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion about moving some protester arguments elsewhere 

message: Regarding the following text from a prior version of the article:
::The Supreme Court held that "a good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable" (and not based on an argument about its constitutionality), that belief may be a defense with respect to the element of willfulness, even if the belief is unreasonable.
The quoted language is actually from the syllabus, not from the Court's opinion in the Cheek case. For editors not familiar with analysis of legal texts, this means that the quoted language is from secondary material printed as a headnote immediately above the actual text of the Court's opinion. The standard disclaimer issued by the Supreme Court states that a syllabus (or headnote) printed above the opinion of the Court "constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader." (emphasis added). Also, the anonymous insertion of this quote resulted in an awkward syntax construction. I therefore reverted the edit. Famspear 15:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting from the syllabus

message: From Famspear, to everyone: I copied the following from my own Talk page on 22 March 2006:
Often we are directly asked where in the law do we find the command that we pay income tax.  How do we handle such foolishness?  There is an income tax on the books.  Everyone knows that we must pay it.  Ignorance is no defense.  John wesley 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear John wesley: With respect to the Federal income tax on individuals, the basic tax is imposed by . Under that statute, the tax is imposed on a legal concept called "taxable income," which in turn is defined at . Taxable income basically means "gross income" less the allowable deductions. "Gross income" is defined at . Many tax protesters are well aware of these provisions, but for many of them it does not really matter how much law they read; they simply refuse to accept it. All tax protester arguments, by definition, are feeble. Not only are the arguments incorrect as a matter of law, they are so flaccid that they are legally frivolous. As fellow editor BD2412 has said, tax protester arguments are based on very fundamental misconceptions about how law and the legal system actually work -- not just Federal income tax law, but law in general. As a result, tax protester arguments are easy to refute. Tax protesters are also hampered by the fact that there are so many different tax protester arguments and theories -- and these theories have been rejected over and over by the courts for so many years. Tax protest theories were fatally hampered many years ago -- because of the foolish insistence by many tax protesters that the theories actually be litigated. To litigate a tax protester argument is to lose. And each time a tax protest argument loses in court, it hampers the efforts of later tax protesters. The tax protester is a real life equivalent of the poor "coyote" in the "Road Runner" cartoons that used to be popular on television in the United States. Tax protest arguments are, however, fun to study (if you're a tax geek like me)! Yours, Famspear 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post-script: For those who are not familiar with the old "Road Runner" cartoons on U.S. television (see Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner), the coyote character was a character who tried, over and over each week, to capture the road runner (a bird) with one elaborate but ridiculous scheme after another. Each contraption fabricated or acquired by the coyote to capture the road runner failed miserably -- with the virtually inevitable result that the coyote was horribly (but, to the television viewer, hilariously) smashed against some rock or cliff or otherwise crushed, burned, etc. Despite always losing, the coyote never learned his lesson -- always coming back with yet another ridiculous contraption to defeat the road runner -- and always failing in the most miserable and silly way. Yours, Famspear 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax protesters, the coyote, and the road runner