IRS agents and tax attorney’s/lawyers question?
If your a IRS agent that deals with income tax. How come you continue to screw people with making them pay a tax that isn’t required to be paid. And if your a tax attorney/lawyer. Why do you help your clients deal/pay income taxes when they don’t even have to. What I mean by this is there is no definition in the Internal Revenue Code anywhere of the word " income". They say you must self assess your self because of voluntary compliance. Here is a section from the book " The Federal Mafia" which will explain what I mean.
"In addition to using deliberately deceptive (though technically not false) language in its official publications, IRS employees (from the top to the bottom) lie profusely (though some are obviously just merely ignorant concerning the "law" that they believe they are enforcing) in letters and conversations with the public and in all tax prosecutions and civil litigation. In all of my civil and criminal litigation I never once have come across an attorney for either the IRS or the tax division of the Justice Department who told the truth about federal income taxes. (Numerous examples appear in following chapters.)
On top of all of this, the government gets total support from a duplicitous federal judiciary, who will not only boldly lie from the bench about alleged "requirements" under our income tax antibiotics buy online "laws," but in furtherance of the government’s mammoth deception, it helps it intimidate the public by conducting illegal trials and by knowingly sending innocent people to jail. So, if our all-powerful federal judiciary is willing to collectively lie about this tax, and to close ranks in sending innocent people to jail-who’s going to challenge it on this issue?
It should also be obvious, that if I have to devote the next 200+ pages of this book trying to convince you of something that the government has already told you at least a dozen times is voluntary-then somebody has done a number on your psyche!
The Red Light Story
If you ask the IRS (or anyone else in government for that matter) the meaning of "voluntary compliance" you will get a lot of double talk. When I first concluded that filing income tax returns was voluntary (based on some of the government documents and statements shown herein), I decided to check out my conclusion with the IRS. I called and asked, "Is filing an income tax return based on voluntary compliance?" "It is," I was told. "In that case," I said, "I don’t want to volunteer." "You have to volunteer," I was informed. "If I have to volunteer," I replied, "wouldn’t that make compliance compulsory and not voluntary?" "No," the agent answered, "voluntary compliance is similar to our motor vehicle laws; you voluntarily stop at a red light-but if you don’t, you get a ticket!" I objected to this reasoning by pointing out that if I could be ticketed, stopping at a red light (or obeying other traffic regulations) was compulsory, and not based on "voluntary compliance" at all. "No," the agent insisted, "you stop voluntarily." His reasoning was based on the absurd logic that since nobody was physically in the car making me stop, then I stopped "voluntarily." If that is true, then all criminal laws are based on "voluntary compliance," since nobody physically prevents anyone from committing murder, rape, bank robberies, etc., etc. But law enforcement people never claim that those laws are based on "voluntary compliance."
The agent, of course, was trying to confuse me-although he himself might have been confused. The IRS obviously indoctrinates all new agents with the "red light" story, so that they will be able to confuse the public if the question ever comes up."
This is one of many reasons and things this guy states in this book why we don’t have to pay income tax. Even me, my self. Have tested this and called up IRS agents my self and have asked them these questions. The first time I called up, and asked the guy. " Do I have to pay income tax". The guy was being all evasive and carefully answering his questions. Why would he be doing this? Hmm……. I wonder why……… Another time I called up a lady said she wasn’t allowed to answer questions from the Internal Revenue Code and only from her manuals. Even though the 6 IRS agents I called before her did. And when I said this, she told me what they did was wrong and they weren’t suppose to. Yea right, BS. And here is a supreme court ruling that shows you don’t have to pay income tax
"Keep(ing) in mind the well settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid." Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 US 397, 416, 24 S.Ct. 383
For people that don’t know what that means. It means that if a tax law isn’t clear in what its taxing/requiring you to do. It means its a void law.
So why do you guys manipulate/ do your jobs incorrectly?
Check this out http://exlax.com
Great? Another tax protester.
·THINGS I DIDN’T KNOW UNTIL I SAW THEM ON THE INTERNET:
Nobody ever really landed on the moon – it was a giant hoax. What you saw on TV was filmed in Utah.
Elvis is still alive, and performing marriage ceremonies in Las Vegas.
It is unconstitutional for the government to tax your wages (income tax), the 16th amendment was never ratified, and most of what we think of as income isn’t really income anyway.
Excuse me now….I just won 2 million pounds in the online UK lottery when my email was randomly selected, and I have to go answer the email…..
;-}
Wasn’t the book "The Federal Mafia" written by Irwin Schiff? Where is he right now? Oh, that’s right. He is in Federal Prison.
You can look him up here on the BOP website:
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Irwin&Middle=&LastName=Schiff&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=0&y=0
Notice that is 80 years old and isn’t scheduled for release until 2016. He may never see freedom again. Before is court case a few years ago he was quoted as saying "I may be dead wrong on this". Guess what? He was!
There are 2 sources of ignorance here:
1. The idiots that wrote that drivel.
2. The poor fools who fall for it.
The second group can be forgiven for being suckered in. The first group cannot because they used lies and subterfuge to support themselves, i.e. sell that garbage to the poor fools in the second group.
The only question on the table here is which group are YOU a member of?
BTW, Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain was reversed and remanded. The question remaining on the table (after ruling against the plaintiff on issues of direct taxes or wharfage income) was whether or not investment income of the firm was part of the gross receipts of the business of refining sugar and the court held that it was not. The underlying law was NOT voided; the case was returned to the lower courts to address the issue of applying the tax to the investment income. This is pretty common practice of the tax protest movement where they extract a tiny portion of a court transcript and present it as being the entire case. You can’t do that; you have to read the entire case and take it as a whole.
There is nothing vague about the basic requirement of Title 26 of the US Code to file a tax return if required and pay any tax due. The fact that it has never been successfully challenged is positive proof of that!
It is a waste of time to try and dispel your false beliefs. You have already jumped to your conclusion.
The income tax laws are based on voluntary ASSESSMENT by the individual. However, PAYMENT of taxes is not voluntary. The IRS has methods to check that the voluntary assessment done by the individual is close to the amount they should be taxed.
The word "income" doesn’t need to be defined. It is a word that is in common usage and has a clear meaning. The tax laws do define GROSS INCOME and ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME and TAXABLE INCOME. The tax laws are also clear that there is a tax imposed on taxable income.
Tax protesters always proclaim that it is some great conspiracy between the courts, the IRS and government. That is ridiculous. The simple fact is that the income tax laws are constitutional, legal and clear.
Your Supreme Court case quote is also misleading. The case is from 1904, and before the passage of modern income tax laws. Additionally, the quote is actually from an earlier case and your quote is incomplete. The case cited concerns the payment of income taxes on a business that dealt with sugar refining. The IRS considered that all income that the business generated was subject to taxation. The business considered only income generated by the sugar refining operation was taxable. That additional income the business earned from investments was not taxable under the law at the time. The modern income tax laws are clear and the cited case is irrelevant.
EDIT: Additional info on Irwin Schiff…he was recently found to be in contempt of court for his antics during his trial. He was sentenced to another 11 months on top of his current prison sentence.
A reasonable person would believe that if the income tax is really unconstitutional then the Supreme Court would have ruled it so sometime in the last 95 years.
If you truly believe this is the case, why don’t you go to a country where you think you will have the liberty you want?