Is their a LAW on the books that states that the average working class American MUST pay an INCOME tax to the?

Question

Aaron Russo's America Freedom to Fascism shows that in 1913 the bankers screwed us over and that when asked by several groups that there is NO law. The 16'th ammendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... and the constitution/bill of rights states that taxes cannot be leveid upon a working man based on his wages. I know corporations and certain other groups or companie smust pay... but not the average private sector working man/woman.

What do you all think? Show me a law that states we HAVE to pay income taxes in America. :)

Answer 1

Ah, another person who has been duped by Aaron Russo's 'documentary'.



While I have not watched all of his film, I do know a lot about the pertinent issues.



The 16th amendment was properly ratified. While there have been many court cases since 1913 refuting this very matter, U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986) probably says it best:



“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.



“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.



“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”





In reality though, the 16th amendment being ratified or not is really almost irrelevant because Congress ALWAYS had the power to lay an income tax. Why? Because an income tax is NOT a direct tax in the Constitutional sense, but is a duty or excise tax which is indirect. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that

“by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation....”



In that ruling, the court says that income taxes were always to be considered indirect and therefore constitutional under Article 1, Section 8.



Title 26 of the U.S. Code is a codification of the Internal Revenue Code and is therefore prima facie law. The actual Internal Revenue Code can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large and is the "positive law". The Internal Revenue Code has been passed by Congress and signed by a sitting President. Title 26 is a direct interpretation of the IRC. Courts will refer to Title 26 first, but if any argument occurs saying the IRC differs, they will refer back to the IRC.



Title 26 definitely says that individuals and corporations have to pay income taxes on their income. Any arguments to the contrary are false.

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html



I strongly suggest you read the Tax Protestor's FAQ at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and this other site debunking many if not all tax protestor arguments. http://www.quatloos.com



BTW, if anybody references a Circuit or Supreme Court case, I highly recommend you read them for yourself. However, be careful not to take sentences out of context. Many tax protestors take something the Supreme Court says out of context. They do this so they can twist it so it appears to support their view. However, a careful reading by any reasonable person will see they are wrong. You can read Supreme Court and Circuit Court opinions at http://www.findlaw.com You'll have to register, but it's free. I have to warn you though, Supreme Court opinions are EXTREMELY LONG. Basically, a majority opinion is many times 40 to 50 pages or longer and dissenting opinions (if any) may add another 10 to 20.

Answer 2

What you're saying ought to be technically genuine yet legally and just about irrleavant. There are legal precidents out the ying yang and in case you study regulation you will understand that legal precedents sometimes carry extra stress than the regulation itself. Taxation of the standard public with the help of the legislature is the two legal and proper and constitutional. the actuality that there's no particular federal regulation that proscribes punishment is irrelavant, different than as an psychological interest. do no longer take this to advise that the government is appearing illegally in requring you to pay taxes, it incredibly is in basic terms a loopy person's argument.

Answer 3

Ohio was formally made a state retroactively to cover the argument that it was not technically a state when the 16th amendment was ratified.



http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

>>>But Ohio congressman George Bender thought it was no laughing matter. He introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington on horseback. Congress subsequently passed a joint resolution, and President Eisenhower, after a few more jokes, signed it on August 7, 1953.

<<<

Answer 4

Please don't fall for this nonsense. The 16th amendment has been repeatedly upheld, is valid, and is constitutional. The constitution does not state that taxes cannot be levied upon a working man based on his wages and I ask you to show us where it does.



All of the arguments you have included here are old, old, old and wrong, wrong, wrong. The people who continue to put them out there do it to sell books and make themselves rich at the expense of others. But if you follow their teachings and fail to pay your income taxes, you will be fined and possibly jailed.



Don't be fooled.

Answer 5

There's an old argument that if you work for a paycheck, you are not receiving an income, but compensation. Many people have tried to argue that compensation is not subject to taxes. NONE of them was successful in proving this to the courts.

You can try yourself, maybe you'll win and become a hero.

Answer 6

Glad to oblige.



You can find the income tax laws at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006012----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000003----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006651----000-.html





Russo is part of a movement often called "tax protestors" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester ) A more accurate term would be "tax law deniers". They surround themselves in dubious legal claims that thrive within their community, but fall short in the courts.



I watched the movie "Freedom to Fascism" and found it to be incredibly misinformative. But don't take my word for it. From the NY Times:



"Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in ‘America’"



"...examination of the assertions in Mr. Russo’s documentary.. shows... they ... collapse under the weight of fact."



"Many of the reviews in major newspapers have accepted as having some factual basis the film’s main contention, ... even though every court that has ever ruled on these issues has upheld the constitutionality of the income tax.



"... Mr. Russo says ...that the Internal Revenue Service has refused every request to show any law making Americans liable for an income tax on their wages. ... Yet among those thanked in the credits for their help in making the film is Anthony Burke, an I.R.S. spokesman. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Russo called him asking what law required the payment of income taxes on wages, he sent Mr. Russo a link to documents, including Title 26 of the United States Code, citing the specific sections that require income taxes be paid on wages. Title 26 says on its face that it is law enacted by Congress."



"..Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them..."



"... Mr. Russo says in the film that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and thus a tax on wages is unconstitutional. This claim has been made in various forms by thousands of tax protesters since 1913, and so far their batting average with the courts is .000.

To buttress the claim that the 16th Amendment is invalid, the film displays a quotation from a federal district judge, James C. Fox. But the transcript from which the judge’s words were taken shows that while he spoke those words, they were in the context of laying out issues and that the conclusion he reached was the opposite of the words quoted."



(ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?ei=5088&en=05c0d0988f58fc50&ex=1311998400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs )



For more detail on some of the income tax arguments, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments

Answer 7

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf



Read it.



Page 31:



Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823 (2005), aff’d, 436 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2006) – the court imposed sanctions totaling $25,000 against the taxpayer for advancing arguments characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by the courts, including arguments regarding the Sixteenth Amendment.



In affirming the Tax Court’s holding, the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s request for further sanctions of $6,000 against the taxpayer for maintaining frivolous arguments on appeal, and the Fifth Circuit imposed an additional $6,000 sanctions on its own, for total additional sanctions of $12,000.