Chosen by Asker

First, Freedom to Fascism and Money Matters are inaccurate conspiracy theory nonsense. I do not have the space available here to completely explain all of the inaccuracies in those two films. However, I will address some misconceptions that you appear to have. As you have mentioned, the Constitution states that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. There are two limitations to this power: direct taxes must be apportioned; indirect taxes must be geographically uniform. Income taxes are classified as INDIRECT taxes in a Constitutional sense. The following is an explanation as to why. In 1861, Congress passed the first income tax law in the United States. In 1880, the Supreme Court ruled in Springer v. U.S. that the income tax for 1865 was a duty or excise tax and therefore indirect. In 1894 and 1895, in two separate hearings, the Supreme Court ruled that a tax on income from personal property (i.e. rental income) was the same as a tax on the property itself. Since a tax on property is a direct tax and is listed in the Constitution as such, the court ruled that a tax on rental income was a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional. The court also stated that the tax on income from labor had previously been declared as indirect and constitutional and agreed. However, the court decided that if a tax on rental income was removed from the law, that the entire burden of the tax would fall on wage earners and that was not the intent of Congress. Therefore, the entire law was ruled unconstitutional. This means that Congress could have enacted a law taxing income derived from labor without the 16th amendment, but they decided not to at the time. In the early 20th century, people were complaining about the heavy excise taxes on consumer goods. Because of this, the 16th amendment was proposed, passed and ratified. Many tax protesters claim that the Supreme Court has stated that the 16th amendment granted no new power to tax. This is correct, but it is taken out of context. Here is a complete quote from Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)...bulk ... "...by the previous ruling, 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..." All that means is that Congress has ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes and that the 16th amendment simply overturns the two Pollack decisions in that a tax on income, regardless of the source, is to be classified as an indirect tax and therefore Constitutional. Using that power, Congress has enacted several income tax laws over the years. Currently, the income tax laws are contained in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. www4 ... As for people who have been in charged in criminal court for tax related crimes, there is an important concept of the criminal court system that you need to understand...in order to be CHARGED with breaking a law, THERE MUST BE A LAW TO BE BROKEN. That does not necessarily mean the person who is charged is guilty, only that there must be a law to be accused of breaking a law. A second issue is that some people charged with a crime in relation to the tax laws are charged with "Willful failure to file income tax returns". The key part of this charge is the element of willfulness. If a person truly believes that they did not have an obligation to file tax returns and can successfully convince a jury of this, then they may get acquitted. However, an acquittal of a criminal tax charge does not eliminate their tax obligation. In fact, they STILL MUST PAY THE TAXES. No one, repeat, no one has ever gotten out of paying taxes using the "there is no law" argument. EDIT: BTW, the government does tell us what they do with income tax revenues. Individual income taxes go into the general fund and are used to fund what is on the budget. It is a MYTH that all income taxes go to the Federal Reserve or only go to pay interest on the debt. This can clearly be seen by looking up the total income tax revenues, which can be found on many places on the Internet, and comparing that to the total interest on the debt, which can be found on the U.S. Treasury's website.

by NGC6205

5 months ago

Asker's Rating: 

Yes it is illegal by the constitution, but when was the last time the government followed the Constitution.

by Kenneth- 5 months ago

The constitution doesn't say that the government can't tax you on your income. Just pay them and you won't get arrested.

by Josh- 5 months ago

What's the point of telling you that you need to find more accurate sources of information since you already believe the idiots who tell you that taxes aren't legal. "multiple supreme court rulings" oh, right, how about the ones that do uphold it: 6. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens. Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non‑apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws. The Law: The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. And numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non‑apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the “sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.” Relevant Case Law: In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989) – the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer’s frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) – the court found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly to be “devoid of any arguable basis in law.” Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7th Cir. 1984) – the court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district court’s frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneys’ fees to the government “because [the taxpayers’] legal position was patently frivolous.” The appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing “frivolous arguments in bad faith.” Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980) – the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states. 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.

by v b- 5 months ago

You said: "The first line says it all to me. 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes'. Now that sounds like the Congress has the authority to tax pretty much as they see fit." That sounds like to me that the Congress has the authroity to tax pretty much as they see fit as well, which counters your point in the question saying "There is NO law supporting it". You've argued against yourself.

by Riferous- 5 months ago

The law supporting income tax is Title 26, also known as the tax code. Whatever constitutional or procedural arguments you may come up with, the courts have heard them all, and rejected them. Of course, you can believe what you like. If you act on these particular beliefs, however, be prepared to pay additional penalties and/or go to jail. If you want to read about the "other side" of the arguments, see www ... and visit some of the links. Of particular interest might be www ...

by Chuckie O- 5 months ago

I can't believe how many anti-tax nuts are out today. It may be hard, but try to use logic. Of course income tax is legal. Don't take my word for it, check with the Supreme Court and nearly a century of history. Occasionally crackpots get acquitted in criminal cases because the prosecution screws up but the percentage of wins in Tax Court is zero. They all end up owing. The chance of losing in Tax Court is better than 100% because the court will add an extra penalty for wasting their time.

by Max Hoopla- 5 months ago

I believe vb has shown you enough cases and answered your question clearly. Or you can find out the hard way, stop paying income tax or any taxes for that matter and see what happens.

by yourtabo- 5 months ago