Talk:Tax lien

message: The section I have added on the difference between a tax "lien" and a "levy" for U.S. Federal tax purposes is added because I have found in my practice a lot of confusion in the public, and even among some IRS employees, on these terms. Eventually the section on "levy" could be expanded and possibly made into a separate article. Yours, Famspear 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lien versus levy

message: Would it be inappropriate to link to http://www.lienexchange.com? Although this is a commercial website they provide completely free access to a comprehensive database on tax liens by state and county... I couldn't find any other site providing that type and quality of information.
Tax liens are a matter of public record.  There is no need to include commercial sites into this mess.  I have removed this link, if anyone else cares to argue for commercial sites, please discuss here; otherwise, I will consider it as spam. --71.49.111.83 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking to a commercial site 

message: The following garbled material (complete with the fragment "You"), which had been inserted at the end of the article by an anonymous user, has been moved to this discussion page, for what should be obvious reasons:
::I have no idea what you guys are taolking abpit. Why are we suppose ro pay taxes? I mean we have som mnay poaces where we have to pay and now property taxes? You
Yours, Famspear 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enigmatic material moved from article

message: An anonymous editor has repeatedly added the following nonsense:
::The failure of the Federal Government to ratify the 16th Amendment   raises legal question as to any tax lean. Prior to the 1930’s Americans owned their land under Allodial Title  and there was no tax on land or property. Allodial Title formed a core concept to the formation of the U.S.A. in that people were secure on their land from government intrusion and tax.
::When the Federal Reserve Bank artificially induced the Great Depression, they placed in government agents of that privately held bank who implemented Socialism, FCC, SEC and the IRS which created an induced cash and interest flow for the privately held Federal Reserve Bank’s Notes. Secretary of State Philander Knox simply announced the 16th Amendment was ratified when it was not . It has been well established up to the Supreme Court level  that the 16th Amendment was not ratified and added no new taxing authority. The IRS, Federal Government and local County Tax collectors assume authority that is not theirs and operate a criminal enterprise collecting taxes under the color of law. Nevada is one of the States who still offers their citizens a means of perfecting Allodial Title on their property , eliminating all future tax on the land.
The above material is almost completely incorrect.
The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified, as every federal court considering this issue has ruled. The web site, "the law that never was", which is cited (including the preposterous argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified) has been ruled in federal court to be part of a fraudulent scheme.
The statement that it "has been well established up to the Supreme Court level that the 16th Amendment was not ratified" is a blatant lie. Every single federal court -- without a single exception -- that has considered this has rejected the laughable argument that the Amendment was not properly ratified. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ever ruled that the Amendment was not properly ratified. (See below.)
As noted in one or more Wikipedia articles, it is however correct to say that the Amendment added no NEW powers of taxation. The problem is that the tax protester who spread this kind of garbage on the internet want to argue that this statement means something else (see articles referenced below). For example, even if there were no Sixteenth Amendment, income taxes on compensation earned by individuals would still be taxable.
The statement that there was no tax on land or property prior to the 1930s is laughable, blatantly false, and is indeed completely delusional. State and local property taxes on land and other property have existed since the founding of the nation. (Note: There is essentially no federal property tax.)
The term "allodial title" is a technical legal term. Neither Nevada nor any other state offers a way to eliminate future tax on land in the way described in the material quoted above. Of course, a particular state might have a constitutional provision that negates the possibility of a property tax, or an income tax, or a sales tax, etc. (for example, the Texas Constitution prohibits a personal income tax), but that is a separate issue.
For background, see:
*Tax protester (United States)
*Tax protester arguments
*Tax protester constitutional arguments
*The Law that Never Was
Per the consensus at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tax_protester/Request_for_comment
this kind of tax protester rhetoric should be removed on sight. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the "libertyforlife" web site that was cited appears to be completely unreliable for purposes of Wikipedia. It appears to be copying copyrighted material from what is found (or was formerly found) at the fraudulent "thelawthatneverwas" web site. So, the material is also apparently objectionable on copyright and reliability grounds as well. Famspear (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax protester gibberish regarding allodial title, etc.

message: The article correctly states that under U.S. tax law, the power of levy (which is different from the concept of a tax lien) includes the power of seizure and distraint.
A new editor changed the article to contradict that, and incorrectly cited verbiage from the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) ("Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint...").
That language does not contradict or any way modify the exact language of the statute itself. The statute clearly states that the power of administrative levy includes the power of seizure and "distraint" -- by "any means". The Supreme Court in Flora was referring to the federal income tax system -- which is based on voluntary filing of income tax returns and voluntary payment of tax. The word "voluntary" in the Flora case does NOT mean that the filing of returns itself is not required by law. The word "voluntary" in the Flora case does NOT mean that the payment of tax is not required by law. The fact that the SYSTEM is not based on "distraint" does not change the point that the law also gives the government the legal power of distraint.
Similarly, the income tax law is not "based on" seizure of assets to satisfy a tax debt -- but that does not mean that the law does not give the government the legal power to do just that if you don't voluntarily pay your tax.
This is called voluntary compliance.
Similarly, vehicle traffic laws in this country are based on voluntary compliance. The fact that you are required to voluntarily drive no faster than the speed limit even when there is no policeman around does not mean that there is no law prohibiting you from driving over the speed limit.
What the new editor did was to take a quote from a court case out of context. The edit seemed to imply that the Supreme Court decision in the Flora case stands for the proposition that the government does not have the power of "distraint." That is not what the Supreme Court said and, more importantly, that is not what the Court DECIDED.
The Flora case is a famous federal tax case. The case stands for the general rule (subject to some exceptions) that if you want to contest a federal tax in court, you must FIRST pay the tax that the Internal Revenue Service claims you owe, and then sue for a refund. Nowhere did the court ever rule that the government does not have the general legal power of distraint with respect to federal taxes.
This is why Wikipedia has a rule called No Original Research: WP:NOR. Famspear (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The power of distraint

message: Substituted at 07:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment