Show Me The Law?

[quasimodo]

This is from Ralph Winterowd

Attachments = 12 documents - Special List members only.

There persists the patriot myth and ABSOLUTE stupidity in the field of Attorneys that there is no "law of Congress", i.e. "law" to file a tax return. This is always in the Jury Instructions, but it is never provided.

This was the undoing of Sherry Peel Jackson along with Becraft at the helm.

The actual "legal duty" is a question of law - another series of cases not provided in this post so as stay strictly on this one topic. The mandate of of 26 USC § 7805 to enforce the IRS Code is only by regulations with Supreme Court of the United States holding same. You will find a couple of references to 26 CFR § 1.6012-1 in a case or two herein provided. The people that brought this argument in were unprepared and the judges misstated the use of regulations to the ignorant defendants. It is fairly easy when you finally understand, but it is hard to get your head out of the sand and evaluate the facts that conclusively prove the use of substantive regulations.

This is TOTALLY untrue of no "law" exists on filing returns and I have posted the module and cases in support as I am using this in a current research document to challenge the IRS Fascists.

Now, a "law of Congress" is only in the District, territories and possessions. This is not a "Law of the United States." This is another subject and will not addressed in this post as I don't have the time to even present a thumbnail sketch for list members to understand.

This is list of the most clearly stated cases of 6012 requiring the filing of returns.

The cases that pronounce or hold that “taxpayers”, i.e. Individuals, must file Returns is posited in 26 U.S.C. § 6012, to wit: United States v. Vroman, 975 F.2d 669, 670-671 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Bower, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Kahl, 583 F.2d 1351, 1355 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Spine, 945 F.2d 143, 149 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Stierhoff, 500 F.Supp. 2d 55, 62-63 (D. R.I. 2007); United States v. Washington, 947 F.Supp. 87, 91 (S.D. N.Y.1996); and other unpublished Cases such as United States v. Gaumer, 27 F.3d 568, 572 (6th Cir. 1994).

I have also attached the brief of the DoJ (Docket 89) and a Chief Judge of Rhode Island (Docket 101) stating exactly the same thing that the "law" is in 6012, and the Fascists don't have to tell you on willful failure to file. There are many reasons why they CAN'T tell you, but that is another post.

CAN THIS CHAIN OF IGNORANCE BE FINALLY BROKEN? There is a LAW in the Administrative State, i.e. the Land of OZi!!!!! Pull back the curtain and take a peek.

Ralph

[macerico]

There is a law that requires you to file a TAX RETURN.

There is no law that establishes that anyone has to pay an INCOME TAX.

The thuggery that the IRS does is that if you file a correct return in that you owe no income tax (also called a "zero return"), they come after you for tax evasion and use their corrupt courts to get a judgment.

[Shoonra]

The requirement to file an income tax return is articulated in 26 USC secs 6011 et seq. The requirement to pay the calculated tax is set forth in 26 USC secs 6151 et seq.

With reference to some other assertions on this thread:
The federal income tax law applies throughout all 50 states and more; it applies to every US citizen even if residing abroad and to every non-citizen who resides (for at least 6 months out of the year) inside the US. There is no creature called "a law of Congress", the income tax laws are laws of the United States. Laws intended to apply only in such non-states as DC, Puerto Rico, Samoa, etc., specify this in their text.

The "void for vagueness" argument has worked only occasionally in tax cases, and then in dealing with relatively new charnges in the laws involving uncommon situations. I do not think, in the last half century at least, it has succeeded with ordinary income tax situations. I gretly doubt it would or could work in ordinary income tax situations since (a) the court decisions explaining various sections of the Internal Revenue Code have been widely published, (b) the IRS itself publishes instructions that accompany tax forms and provides opinions by phone and mail, and (c) there are plenty of non-govt sources of experienced tax advice such as H&R Block, Lasser's annual books, etc.

lIn any case, if there is some uncertainty about some particular (and uncommon) item of income (such as, say, annuity benefits), the IRS is a lot happier and more gentle if the taxpayer works up a proper tax return and payment to cover everything else, to the best of his ability, than if he fails to file any tax return at all.

[quasimodo]

Originally Posted by macerico

There is a law that requires you to file a TAX RETURN.

There is no law that establishes that anyone has to pay an INCOME TAX.

The thuggery that the IRS does is that if you file a correct return in that you owe no income tax (also called a "zero return"), they come after you for tax evasion and use their corrupt courts to get a judgment.

Precisely. And, then there's the issue of filing a fraudulent return with a fraudulent OMB number. Beside the fact the 1040 tells you NOT to file it in the first place if you do not fit into certain categories.

[quasimodo]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

it applies to every US citizen

That would be a "federal citizen" -vs- a "State Citizen. Right?

[Shoonra]

First, I am unaware of how someone can be a state citizen without also being a US citizen, but, Second, even if that were so: whether or not a US citizen, anyone residing in the US is obliged to comply with the US income tax laws.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

First, I am unaware of how someone can be a state citizen without also being a US citizen, but, Second, even if that were so: whether or not a US citizen, anyone residing in the US is obliged to comply with the US income tax laws.

Not entirely true Shoonra.

Foreigners RESIDING in the United States at locations referred to as embassies, are not requirred to adhere to the income tax laws or any other laws. In fact, numerous cases have shown where such select individuals have been so exempt from the law that they literally walk away with the murder or rape of an American on their hands. So what makes these people so special that the American officials are requirred to turn their eyes away from the commission of a felony crime?

Jerry

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

First, I am unaware of how someone can be a state citizen without also being a US citizen,

You are correct, the 14th Amndmt (imposed by armed force in times of peace) is what creates that REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.

Prior to the 14th, "citizen of the United States " was held, by MANY Supreme Court decisions PLUS one of the main drafters of the 14th (James G. Blaine); to mean that it meant a citizen of a Union State (singular citizenship status).

After the 14th, the rebuttable presumption was set forth that one possesed a dual status (fed & state)

Prior to the 14th, the singular, non-fed state citizenship was actually conferred by the respective state.

After the 14th, the several states' bodies politic were deemed to possess the dual, state-fed status, thus all becoming one (E Plurbus Unim) body politic emanating out of D.C.

Therefore, it is impossible to become a state citizen, because there is no body politic of such singular status to confer such upon you. As a result, all one can claim, should they want to rebut the federal status presumption; is their respective state NATIONALITY

Originally Posted by Shoonra

but, Second, even if that were so: whether or not a US citizen, anyone residing in the US is obliged to comply with the US income tax laws.

I got no beef w/you on that one, Shoonra

TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE

CHAPTER I--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

PART 1_INCOME TAXES--Table of Contents

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b),

The question is whether someone wants to maintain the defacto status which was imposed by the 14th amendment; the amendment imposed by armed force in times of presidentially proclaimed peace

[mrg]

So what is the statutory definition of income?

[Shoonra]

Quite right, embassy personnel are "select". A question might recur on whether they are residing or receiving income in the United States, inasmuch as embassies are usually treated as if foreign soil.

Since the word "income" appears in the 16th Amendment, it cannot be manipulated by attempts to define it by statute. However, the Internal Revenue Code does define gross income and then provides an enormous number of ways that amounts can be subtracted from it to produce a sum called adjusted income or taxable income.