IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

[adaminc]

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

The rest of the story is here.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

Seems to me that this lawyer no longer has to pay federal income tax. From what I have gathered, most if not all of that specific tax goes to fund the US Military.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Seems to me that this lawyer no longer has to pay federal income tax. From what I have gathered, most if not all of that specific tax goes to fund the US Military.

Source?

 

[adaminc]

Sorry, I trusted someone when I should'nt have about the info, when I looked into it for myself its more like, about 1/4 goes to Defence, 1/4 goes to HHS, another 1/4 goes to pay off the interest on the national debt and the last 1/4 goes to social security. (Actually less than 1/4 for all four as there are various other small govt programs/institutions that get some of the money)

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html (source, updates bar on the right)

 

[formerarmybrat23]

I watched a documentary on this. "America: freedom to fascism". Which can be viewed here A http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

The jury found a man not guilty of tax evasion. The judge turned white when he heard this. He was found not guilty basically because all the jury wanted to see was a law that showed you had to pay taxes. The IRS evaded and never came up with one.  Mostly becuase there is none.  The 16th amedment was never legally passed. Its amazing what threats and intimidation can achieve. Over 100 years of taxes.  Although there is no law, no one wants to risk losing there property and life. Fear is a powerful tool.

 

[adaminc]

I've heard that the 16th was never really ratified because Ohio wasn't really a state when it happened, however the Supreme Court has said time and time again that they don't care about that, that its inconsequential.

 

[formerarmybrat23]

inconsequential? Its not a law!  there are two forms of tax direct and indirect. Income tax falls into neither and is unconstitutional.
income is defined in the constitution as: a gain or profit from corporate activity not labour or wages.  money for your labour is a fair and untaxable trade. Just watch you'll see.

 

[adaminc]

Where does this constitutional definition come from, I couldnt find it, but anyways.

Money for labour is how that lawyer won against the IRS, his argument is that he didn't make any profit because the money he made was for all the energy, time, and "life that was used up" aka labour! Although what he did means little up here in Canada, our laws are a bit different, although we do have to pay provincial income tax, as far as I have read, we don't need to pay federal income tax. Income tax is a direct tax and only the province is allowed to levy direct taxes, and they aren't allowed to pass the power onto the federal government either. It is a direct tax because it is levied directly against the individual, as opposed to a indirect like an excise or customs tax.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I think the lion (IRS) has found a sheep that will fight back. If he continues to build steam and is successful this could change the way the IRS does business as usual. In fact, down the road you may see folks suing the IRS for a big refund.

Its abit early yet to speculate on wether this will go anywhere, but stranger things have happened and sometimes it only takes one brave soul to stand up, to make a difference. Get enough people on the wagon and you have a party 8)

 

[Michael OLeary]

One hell of a party until you realize that everything just became "pay as you go" and that sales tax just went to 35% to cover the rest of society's "responsibilities" to meet the expected "rights" of the same individuals.

 

[GAP]

One hell of a party until you realize that everything just became "pay as you go" and that sales tax just went to 35% to cover the rest of society's "responsibilities" to meet the expected "rights" of the same individuals.

That would make a 4 litre jug of milk go from $3.75 to $5.06, A $1.20 loaf of bread go to $1.62, a $20,000 car go to $27,000

 

[formerarmybrat23]

I think the issue is alittle more then paying taxes. It the principal that you can't just make up laws, and refuse to provide the people with proof of the law that you are basing all these sentences and penalties and penalties on top of penalties. IF the government wishes to pass a law to justify these actions, then i say go to it. Until then tough for them.

 

[dapaterson]

Despite the tinfoil hat brigade's assertions of the 16th amendment being null and void, courts have rejected that interpretation.  Sufficient states ratified the amendment so that even if Ohio is excluded the amendment is valid.

Newsflash: On the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog.  Anyone can post anything anywhere (pretty much); that a website claims "We've defeated the evil IRS!!! Withhold all your taxes!!!" means nothing.

And on the note of anyone can say anything on the internet, here's Cecil Adams' take on it: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html

 

[adaminc]

According to the Canadian budget, total budgetary revenue was 222,203 (millions), 103,691 (millions) of that was personal income tax, total program expenses were 175,213 (millions), so if they cut out personal income tax, they would have to come up with 56,701 (millions), I don't know how difficult this would be, probably pretty difficult.

 

[formerarmybrat23]

when did we start talking about canada?

 

[adaminc]

I mentioned it when I asked where your constitutional definition of income came from because I couldn't find it anywhere.