Thread Rating:

VCUSkyhawk
VCUSkyhawk
Joined: Sep 22, 2013
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 644
October 16th, 2018 at 3:06:04 PM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

the "general welfare of the United States" also strongly implies that the gov't can collect taxes and use them for universal healthcare.



Apparently Chief Justice Roberts agrees with you. I however, do not.
I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
October 16th, 2018 at 3:24:53 PM permalink
Quote: Romes

In pretending you're right that a business can't trespass you for counting cards (again I'm not saying I agree with this, just let's say that's true) that doesn't really mean anything. There is also no law that says citizens must pay income tax. Why do you do that? Stop paying income tax... same thing... then see how that works out for you.

There really isn't btw. My uncle (a very intelligent successful DBA) was on a large group of people whom tried to point this out and prove it in the 80's. There's also a challenge out right now for $1,000,000 to anyone that can find the statute that claims Americans have to pay income tax to the government. There isn't one.



I applaud your uncle and I've actually studied the income tax for the past 3 years in excruciating detail but have pulled away from discussing it here because of the amount of cognitive dissonance that people suffer from. I even thought of making a fully detailed thread about it as well, but decided not to. All I got to say is people that are claiming the 16th amendment changed anything have a lot of Supreme Court reading to do on what that amendment actually changed. I have read every single Supreme Court ruling regarding the income tax starting from Pollock in 1895 all the way to Brushaber v Union Pacific to Stanton v Baltic Mining, to Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka to Stratton Independence to Peck v Lowe to Doyle Mitchell Brothers, and others I'm probably forgetting as I write this.

First of all, the Constitution prohibits any direct taxation unless APPORTIONED among the several states. That is, if Congress wants to levy a direct tax, it first must send each state a tax bill based on their population after taking a nationwide census and is then equally paid by each state through its property owners until the entire federal direct tax is paid off. Direct taxes cannot be constitutionally laid on its citizens, but rather on the STATES.

Secondly, the 16th amendment, the amendment that everyone and the government claim allowed the federal government to lay a direct unapportioned tax on its citizens, is patently false. The 16th amendment did NOT allow for an unapportioned direct tax and this is not my opinion, but an historical fact, just go look up the Supreme Court rulings after the amendment was passed in 1913 starting with the Brushaber v Union Pacific case. The amendment to make a long story short as explained in the Brushaber ruling in excruciating detail, simply allowed the government to tax corporate profits as an indirect EXCISE tax after the income tax was ruled unconstitutional in 1895 in the Pollock ruling due to it violating the direct taxing clauses of the constitution. You will never see this brought up on TV airwaves or even in indoctrinated universities and law schools. If people actually took the time to read the Supreme Court decisions handed down word for word, the truth will be quite disturbing after they find out what really happened. Also once you learn the truth, you can never unlearn it and you really start questioning everything from then on.

Furthermore, the 16th amendment was proposed right after the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 came into effect and then ratified in 1913. The 1909 Act imposed an indirect excise tax on all corporations organized for profit. The Supreme Court then ruled time and time again in 1916 through Brushaber and throughout the years to 1920 that income meant a corporate profit and that the 16th amendment was passed to allow an indirect excise tax on corporate profits, which otherwise wasnt allowed prior to the 16th amendment. BUT for the 16th amendment to stay constitutional and to tax without apportionment, the Supreme Court in the Brushaber decision ruled that it had to be levied as an indirect tax to not contradict and violate the direct taxing clauses of the Constitution. They further ruled that the 16th amendment contained nothing "repudiating or challenging the ruling in Pollock", which was ruled unconstitutional in 1895, but instead allowed the tax to be levied as an indirect tax if the federal government wanted to tax without apportionment.

I love particularly love when the IRS loves to cite the Brushaber decision. They say this is what made the income tax constitutional. Guess what? NO ONE, at least not the educated ones are arguing ABOUT the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the income tax. The problem is the MISAPPLICATION of the income tax and who it really applies to. Sure it's constitutional, but who does it EXACTLY APPLY to? In the Brushaber decision it was found that the income tax IS constitutional as long as it was was laid as an EXCISE tax and not a direct tax as laid out above and if you're not engaged in the exvise taxable activity, you do NOT owe the tax. But it still has to be IMPOSED. Well guess what? The excise tax on Corporations from 1909 was imposed once the Act was passed in 1909. Ding Ding Ding.

The real truth comes out in the Code of Federal REGULATIONS though. Look up the implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations for Title 26 for the enforcement statues in Subtitle F such as 26 USC 7201, the tax evasion statute as well as 26 USC 7203, the willful failure to file statute. You wont find ANY enforcement regulations for these statutes. In fact, there are NO TITLE 26 REGULATIONS in the Federal Register for producing your books and records as well as no regulation for liens and levies. The regulations in place for those statutes are found in Title 27 which is the title for Intoxicating Liquors NOT for Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code. There are literally NO IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS FOR TITLE 26 in the Code of Federal regulations to enforce any of the enforcement statutes in Subtitle F of Title 26 AND without any regulation published in the Federal Register, NO PENALTY can be assessed against a citizen. That's not my opinion either. Just look at what the Supreme Court said in multiple rulings about not having any regulations when it comes to enforcing a statute.

The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only TOGETHER do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.

-- U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960)

Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of REGULATIONS promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.

-- CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ, 416 U.S. 21 (1974)

So go ahead and find me the implementing enforcement regulation for those 2 tax penalty statutes. I'll wait... And without those regulations in place, those statutes have the same authority as if they were never written to begin with.

Not to mention, what many people don't understand is that there are 3 different types of REGULATIONS and only one form of those has the full force and effect of law. That type of regulation is called 'Legislative' Regulations'. Guess what type of regulations you mostly find in Title 26? INTERPRETIVE Regulations, which have no full force and effect of law and are regulations interpreted by the agency to give their opinion on what they think it means. The other types of regulations are Procedural which also do not have the full force and effect of law. Not to mention, as stated before, in the enforcement section of Title 26 with all of the enforcement statutes, EVERY single regulation points to Title 27 for Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and NOT the Internal Revenue Code for Title 26. WOW, I wonder why?

I can go on and on further exposing it, but would need to make a thread. You also can get into the actual ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY of the Secretary and the IRS when creating Substitute Returns via their SFR program, but they actually have no right to create a substitute return for a 1040 without you first signing off on it FIRST and It's right in the statute itself.
Any private business open to the PUBLIC (ie. droned out casinos) cannot have a criminal trespass enforced against an individual without GOOD CAUSE (Disruptive or Disorderly conduct). You will never go to prison for being thrown out of a casino for legal advantage play and then returning because it's simply unconstitutional 'as applied' to the individual. 'As applied' constitutional issues must FIRST be raised in DISTRICT COURT (trial court) to have it thrown out. You CANNOT raise it on APPEAL This is the best kept secret in the world of casinos not just in Vegas but everywhere in the country. Thank me later.
TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
Thanks for this post from:
gordonm888
October 16th, 2018 at 3:34:45 PM permalink
This income tax argument is moot and a waste of time.

The government is going to keep doing it, period.

Worst case scenario, if it gets enough traction, Congress will just pass a law or bill or whatever in less than a week saying, "Okay, NOW we can legally collect income tax."

We're never going to not have income tax in this country.
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 6836
October 16th, 2018 at 3:39:58 PM permalink
" 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) of the Internal Revenue Code. See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income in a given tax year is obligated to file a return for that tax year. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-compliant individual to civil and/or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986)"


source: https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c#_Toc350157885
"What, me worry?"
ZenKinG
ZenKinG
Joined: May 3, 2016
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 1443
October 16th, 2018 at 3:44:55 PM permalink
Quote: MrV

" 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) of the Internal Revenue Code. See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income in a given tax year is obligated to file a return for that tax year. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-compliant individual to civil and/or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986)"


source: https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c#_Toc350157885



Nothing like the little pamphlet guide full of vague amd generalizing terms to not directly come out and say certain people dont owe it. Thats always lovely by our wonderful IRS.

'Any taxpayer'. 'When required by regulations'. Where all the regulations? Who is made liable to become a taxpayer? Gross income is what again? How can you define Gross income without ever defining what income is in Title 26? What did the Supreme Court say what income was again? If you also go read those section of 6011, 6012, and 6072, you will find those same vague and generalizing terms. 'Anyone who is made liable'. 'Anyone who owes the tax'. But they never tell us what makes you liable, but rather let the reader falsely assume he has a liability to pay it.

Mr. V can you please cite the implementing regulations that were publisbed in the Federal Register for the enforcement statutes of Title 26 please? Can you please tell me also why nearly every statute in Title 26 have a regulation that refers to Title 27 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or NO REGULATION at all? Hmm. Also the Implementing regulation for Section 1.1 where the tax is imposed is an INTERPRETIVE REGULATION trying to interpet what the statute saying EVERYONE is liable. Well guess how I know that? The statute never says everyone is liable so the agency cant falsely interpret everyone is and therefore is NOT a LEGISLATIVE regulation. The problem is no one knows there are 3 DIFFERENT types of regulations(Legislative, Interpretive, and Procedural). Only Legislative regulations have the full force and effect of law.
Last edited by: ZenKinG on Oct 16, 2018
Any private business open to the PUBLIC (ie. droned out casinos) cannot have a criminal trespass enforced against an individual without GOOD CAUSE (Disruptive or Disorderly conduct). You will never go to prison for being thrown out of a casino for legal advantage play and then returning because it's simply unconstitutional 'as applied' to the individual. 'As applied' constitutional issues must FIRST be raised in DISTRICT COURT (trial court) to have it thrown out. You CANNOT raise it on APPEAL This is the best kept secret in the world of casinos not just in Vegas but everywhere in the country. Thank me later.
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
October 16th, 2018 at 3:52:31 PM permalink
Isnt there a reward for turning people in who don't pay taxes. I think I am going to send zenkings name into the IRS with copies of posts he made on here for proof as to what he has made. Then we might hear how his arguments really hold up in court.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
ChumpChange
ChumpChange
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 1965
October 16th, 2018 at 3:57:34 PM permalink
Yeah, well, I'm gonna turn $12,000 into $1.7 million at the $10,000 max craps table with triple odds in one day.
prozema
prozema
Joined: Oct 24, 2016
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1194
October 16th, 2018 at 4:08:07 PM permalink
Is this an *OFFICIAL* thread on the legality of income tax?
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 4964
October 16th, 2018 at 4:08:44 PM permalink
I, for one, am impressed by Zenking's research and by his eloquent assertions about US law. However, his logic seems deeply flawed. He asserts almost in every post that his fellow citizens are uneducated drones, and in his next breath, he asserts that the strong will of his peers and the immutable Constitution will see him right. He can't have it both ways.
Now, imagine a scenario, which ZK would seem happy to find himself in....


He's happily card counting and is taken to task: A pit boss tells him he must leave. Maybe protocol is followed, maybe it's not. ZK asserts that it's his right to stay. Security are called and one of the security guys puts a hand on ZK's shoulder to encourage him to leave. Clearly, that is assault, so ZK kicks off and knocks some of the guys teeth out. More security arrive and they subdue ZK, quite roughly. The police are called. They see the toothless guard. They see the video and wrongfully agree that the guard did not deserve to be punched..
Clearly ZK broke no laws. he was assaulted and his rights were abused..... Now let's place bets on how that pans out. Does ZK get rich, or will cruel reality bite his ass?
Remember... ZK will represent himself.

Personally, I reckon reality is a b1tch. Maybe ZK can tell us how his last backoff panned out. Maybe ZK is already rich from his last civil case. Maybe not.

Knowing your rights is one thing. Successfully asserting them quite another.

Meanwhile some of us drones keep our heads down and prosper and thank the ZK's of the world for distracting the heat.
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 4964
October 16th, 2018 at 4:11:04 PM permalink
Quote: GWAE

Isnt there a reward for turning people in who don't pay taxes. I think I am going to send zenkings name into the IRS with copies of posts he made on here for proof as to what he has made. Then we might hear how his arguments really hold up in court.




Yayyyyy. no tax on gambling profits in the Uk..... God save the Queen.
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..

  • Jump to: