can't find it???

There's one court case I've read. Might have it tucked away in all my files, but can't find it...yet.


The court stated, in whatever ruling, something to the effect of "to collect taxes from whatever source derviced does not mean from whatever source derived."


Any help?


Thanks, y'all.


Randy

Originally Posted by Randy

There's one court case I've read. Might have it tucked away in all my files, but can't find it...yet.


The court stated, in whatever ruling, something to the effect of "to collect taxes from whatever source derviced does not mean from whatever source derived."


Any help?


Thanks, y'all.


Randy

I would'nt waste any time on it Randy.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Randy

There's one court case I've read. Might have it tucked away in all my files, but can't find it...yet.


The court stated, in whatever ruling, something to the effect of "to collect taxes from whatever source derviced does not mean from whatever source derived."


Any help?


Thanks, y'all.


Randy

This may be of some help?

U.S. Supreme Court
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment.

http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread...0&page=8&pp=10

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Stoneman

I would'nt waste any time on it Randy.

Stoneman, it might help if you would look at a few U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as, BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Stoneman

I would'nt waste any time on it Randy.

Stoneman, it might help if you would look at a few U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as, BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). See what it has to say about the Constitution and direct taxes.

U.S. Supreme Court
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...

U.S. Constitution, Section. 9.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Thus, We the People do not owe a direct tax, period.

Thus, it is the IRS making frivolous arguments.

It's not about direct or indirect taxes! It's about gross income!
No gross income.....no liability! Is the're any mention of direct or indirect taxes in section 6020 under filing requirements?

The tax code is complicated for a reason. It went from 170 pages to over 17,000 pages for a reason. People want to throw all of these court cases which seems like a good idea at first. It's like a web. you want to struggle but the more you struggle the more tangled the web becomes. By making a complicated system even more complicated it plays into the strength of the oponent.

If you want to look at a Supreme Court case, look at Gould vs Gould.

I'm done for the day.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Stoneman

It's not about direct or indirect taxes! It's about gross income!
No gross income.....no liability! Is the're any mention of direct or indirect taxes in section 6020 under filing requirements?

The tax code is complicated for a reason. It went from 170 pages to over 17,000 pages for a reason. People want to through all of these court cases which seems like a good idea at first. It's like a web. you want to struggle but the more you struggle the more tangled the web becomes. By making a complicated system even more complicated it plays into the strength of the oponent.

If you want to look at a Supreme Court case, look at Gould vs Gould.

I'm done for the day.

"Voluntary Compliance" is what it is about.

Originally Posted by BOBT12

"Voluntary Compliance" is what it is about.

Two things you have to consider when having a legal position. 1) Has it already been ruled by the courts. 2) Do I have the legal firepower to back it up. The voluntary Compliance argument has already been shot down by the courts and you can't tell a citizen that the income tax is voluntary if they do in fact meet the filing requirements as perscribed by section 6020.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Stoneman

Two things you have to consider when having a legal position. 1) Has it already been ruled by the courts. 2) Do I have the legal firepower to back it up. The voluntary Compliance argument has already been shot down by the courts and you can't tell a citizen that the income tax is voluntary if they do in fact meet the filing requirements as perscribed by section 6020.

Section 6020. Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary

(a) Preparation of return by Secretary
If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title
or by regulations prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to
disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof,
then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return,
which, being signed by such person, may be received by the
Secretary as the return of such person.
(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal
revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed
therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent
return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own
knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through
testimony or otherwise.
(2) Status of returns
Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be
prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=26&sec=6020

Where is a Subtitle “A” required? I already stated that I don’t give my consent.

The second part of your post is what really angers me, if I am acting within lawful bounds, why should the IRS, the government bother me. THIS IS TYRANNY, GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE, SOMETIMES CALLED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION! We the People must resist!

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Where is a Subtitle “A” required? I already stated that I don’t give my consent.

The second part of your post is what really angers me, if I am acting within lawful bounds, why should the IRS, the government bother me. THIS IS TYRANNY, GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE, SOMETIMES CALLED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION! We the People must resist!

Its big, its ugly, its not fair, its a lot of things...but it is not tyranny.

There is no "boogie man". No one is out to get you.

Calm down, take a deep breath, don't panic.

Love is all you need, have a drink, IT WILL BE OK.