In reply to flountown:
Good grief. Don't follow the whole voluntary tax idea unless you like Federal "Don't Drop the Soap" Prison. That dead horse was pulverized years ago.
1
2
-
April 29, 2010 3:29 p.m. Otto_Maddox Reader
-
April 29, 2010 3:31 p.m. flountown New Reader
Also, someone mentioned a boxer having issues with the IRS. Look into Joe Louis' story. The Brown Bomber was one of the classiest champions ever and signed some of his winnings directly over to the US Military during WWII. He never realized he had to pay taxes on those donations before making them. The IRS destroyed his life over taxes owed on DONATIONS that he made to the US Services.
The IRS needs to seriously be looked at as a hindrance to our society. And if any of you actually believe that your income taxes go towards good noble things, you are kidding yourself. With all that being said, I am in favor of a FairTax system.
-
April 29, 2010 3:32 p.m. DILYSI Dave SuperDork
flountown wrote:
Income Taxes are voluntary. If you want to get some learning done on the IRS and tax code and challenges to the validity of an income tax please watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
It's called 'From Freedom to Fascism' and is quite an eye opener.
If you think they are voluntary, try not paying them. Big men with big guns will show up. Doesn't sound very voluntary to me.
-
April 29, 2010 3:35 p.m. flountown New Reader
DILYSI Dave wrote:
If you think they are voluntary, try not paying them. Big men with big guns will show up. Doesn't sound very voluntary to me.
The use of unlawful coercion does not make it a law. Now please know, I am simply stating that paying an Income Tax is voluntary. Anything like capital gains tax, sales tax, and the like are all constitutional and legal.
-
April 29, 2010 3:40 p.m. nocones Reader
flountown wrote:
Income Taxes are voluntary.
This guy seems to make a pretty good argument using tax code articles and laws and stuff to say that's wrong. As does most of the non-tax protester portion of the internet.
-
April 29, 2010 3:42 p.m. moxnix Reader
flountown wrote:
Income Taxes are voluntary. If you want to get some learning done on the IRS and tax code and challenges to the validity of an income tax please watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
It's called 'From Freedom to Fascism' and is quite an eye opener.
Try reading the IRS website. http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc224375578 It is quite an eye shutter.
-
April 29, 2010 3:43 p.m. Otto_Maddox Reader
In reply to flountown:
Simple answer is voluntary reporting does not equal voluntary paying.
OK, you asked for it -
Some taxpayers assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."
The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.” The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.
In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things, selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88, and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31, 2005).
In August 2007, a U.S. District Court permanently barred Robert Schulz and his organizations, We the People Congress and We the People Foundation, from promoting a tax scheme that helped employers and employees improperly stop tax withholding from wages on the false premise that federal income taxation is voluntary. The court concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the two organizations that operate the website, or their founder, because the site incited criminal conduct. The court also ordered that the web site that sold the materials stating that individuals can legally stop paying taxes be shut. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07214.htm, and http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07595.htm. The result in this case was affirmed on appeal and certiorari was denied. United States v. Schulz, 529 F. Supp. 2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd, 517 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 435 (2008).
-
April 29, 2010 3:48 p.m. TJ Dork
I watched that movie. Aaron Russo owed something like $2Million in unpaid taxes that the IRS was going after. He wasn't exactly an unbiased source nor a legal expert.
Here is a link to a law professor's webpage that lays out the applicable laws that the movie claims do not exist. link
-
April 29, 2010 5:00 p.m. aircooled SuperDork
One of the listed stars of the film, Irwin Schiff, was sentenced on February 24, 2006 to 13 years and 7 months in prison for tax evasion and ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution.[4] In pre-sentencing documents filed with the court, Schiff's lawyers had argued that he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about taxation.[5]
That there is some pretty funny stuff...
-
April 29, 2010 10:15 p.m. WilberM3 Reader
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."
The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset.
why is it that our federal government is so specific regarding certain words like this use of voluntary yet congress then takes other specific words or groups of words like 'general welfare' or 'to regulate' so far from their original context...
-
April 30, 2010 1:01 a.m. friedgreencorrado SuperDork
fastmiata makes a good point. My fellow "libruls" would recoil in horror to hear me say it, but I think the main problem with the IRS isn't the inequal taxation between "rich" and "poor" (although I do still believe this is a problem), but in their treatment of people who owe.
They still seem to operate from the perception that any mistake in a return is evidence that someone is trying to be dishonest. The penalties and interest are much too high, because they want to "punish the cheaters". My own tax problems a few years ago were because I had to reduce my withholding enough to keep my take-home pay big enough to actually pay my child support (you'd think that there'd be support for that in the tax code, but there isn't.). Most years, I had enough "found money" to pay off the bill in April, but on the year that I didn't, my little $740 bill became $2K very quickly.
OTOH, I was lucky enough that I suffered this problem during the Clinton era, and the IRS' power to seize personal property was limited. They accepted a monthly payment as low as $20 a month (I was still paying child support-here in GA it was 23% of my income) to escape seizure of my property..but the interest rates were so high that I'd never have been able to pay the thing off at that rate. I only escaped when a wealthy relative gifted me some stock, which I sold to pay the damn thing off once and for all. And yes, paying the Capital Gain on that sale the following year was cheaper than continuing to pay the interest on my "late" payment.
As far as the TV ads go...Schimidlap and integraguy's right. No reduction in the tax bill, the ambulance chasers won't get you five million for a tap on the rear, and the latest "wonder diet" won't help you lose 20lb in three days. And yet, the people who write and produce those ads still manage to tempt the desperate & stupid into digging themselves deeper into the hole. Notice that none of those ads promise they'll do the deed for free...
-
April 30, 2010 1:17 a.m. friedgreencorrado SuperDork
flountown wrote:
Income Taxes are voluntary. If you want to get some learning done on the IRS and tax code and challenges to the validity of an income tax please watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
It's called 'From Freedom to Fascism' and is quite an eye opener.
flountown, the "taxes are voluntary" argument has been debunked years ago. Even this website that one of my "rightie" buddies sent me admits that:
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/is-the-income-tax-truly.html
DILYDave's right. IIRC, both Ruby Ridge and Waco started because the heads of those compounds were playing fast and loose with tax law.
-
April 30, 2010 10:19 a.m. MadScientistMatt Dork
In reply to FoxTrapper, I consider the examples from the Helmsley case to be cheating too, such as extortion schemes, claiming your underpants are a business expense, and otherwise hiding your money from the IRS. My definition of "playing the game" would be stuff like combining tax credit laws in ways their creators didn't anticipate.
-
April 30, 2010 11:01 a.m. flountown New Reader
Well thanks for the information in that respect. I am no tax code expert, and when I hear about the doings of the IRS it makes me cringe. When it comes down to it, I feel that the government deserves nothing for MY hard work. Now if I conduct business, and make money off of that business, and laws in the United States regulate and allow that business to exist, then I have no problem with taxing that. As I stated above, I am a huge supporter of FairTax. The amount of money spent on regulating the tax code and enforcing tax laws, if we simply paid a consumption tax. The more business you do, the more you pay. Very simple, and doesn't allow people to skirt the issue.
