http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29taxes-t.html There’s one thing, though, that has prevented Hendrickson’s complete metamorphosis from mail bomber to soccer dad: his views about the income tax. Although he no longer contends that the tax is unconstitutional — a misguided notion, he says, that led to his misguided actions of 19 years ago — he does believe the tax is grossly misapplied. The incomes of most Americans, he argues, aren’t legally subject to state or federal income tax.
Uh-oh. This is sure to attract the FWF tax protester group like moths to a flame. So lets get this out of the way:
Here is a nice summary of the anti-tax movement -
ADL said: Origins: 1950s Background: An anti-government movement that believes that income taxes are illegitimate Ideology: Anti-government, some white supremacist elements Outreach: Books, manuals, seminars, radio shows, Web sites Favorite arguments: Filing tax returns violates Fifth Amendment rights; the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified; wages are not income; income taxes are voluntary; income taxes apply only to residents of Washington, D.C., and certain other limited areas Criminal activity: Overall level of criminal activity is high, consisting mostly of attempts at tax evasion. Some tax protesters have engaged in large-scale scams and frauds. Violent incidents are also well-documented. Source: History of Tax Protestor Movement
All of the arguments the tax protesters are about to bring up have been thoroughly debunked, and you can get the 70 page debunking document (from the IRS - OH NOES ITS A CONSPIRACY!) here.
In conclusion, while you may not like the income tax, while it may be unfair, - you indeed have to pay it and that is based in the law.
EDIT: Fixed the link, thanks for pointing that out.
You know that old saying "The only things certain in life are death and taxes"? Well, if you don't have to pay your taxes, that means we can start being immortal!
fatBankr
New Member
posted: Mar. 31, 2009 @ 7:12p
Nutjobs. Nothing to see here folks - move along back inside the fence sheeple - that's it.
MegaRed said: Y'all realize this Hendrickson has beaten the rap 3 times and this 4th attempt is really a rule-of-law case not a tax case. "You don't actually believe your sworn written testimony + we' gonna keep harrassin til you give us the testimony we want." huh? hello.. I didn't know fascism was here already.
Oh, and don't tell Magika but this guy won round one too: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86953 "Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling and in that process the Court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes."
Hendrickson's site has already been addressed in previous threads. I always find it amusing that for people that believe in how right they are (like Hendrickson), they never have complete list of reference to all the documents pertaining to their particular lawsuits, instead falling back on "summarizing" or at most referencing documents without any in-depth information. I don't care for a petition for dismissal form if no previous documents are showing what is being dismissed.
MegaRed said: Y'all realize this Hendrickson has beaten the rap 3 times and this 4th attempt is really a rule-of-law case not a tax case. "You don't actually believe your sworn written testimony + we' gonna keep harrassin til you give us the testimony we want." huh? hello.. I didn't know fascism was here already.
Oh, and don't tell Magika but this guy won round one too: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86953 "Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling and in that process the Court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes." Since the mods deleted this the last time you posted it, and my response, I'll do it again, it's perfectly relevant here..
It was not a court case, it was a Bar complaint. It happened to be decided on by a real Judge. The blogger pounced on that to claim it was a legal decision. It was not. When you're having beers with the judge at the bar and he says Wally Sczerbiak is the greatest basketball player ever, that does not legally make Wally so.
I have a distant relative who is in to this tax avoider nonsense. He says the latest theory that is used, successfully he claims, by tax protesters is that the tax forms do not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and therefore are invalid, rendering all income taxes invalid. He claims that there are no published federal cases that state this because if anyone raises this argument as a defense, the IRS simply voluntarily dismisses the case so that there will be no binding precedent that will be reported and used by millions more people. When I pointed out that no one in government is dumb enough to allow some error like this to continue, he says that if they correct the error it will go public and the floodgates will open to millions of lawsuits and the whole system will be dismantled.
However, he also swore that he had on absolute, bet-your-firstborn-child's-life authority that last fall the Bush administration would attack and invade Iran, declare a state of emergency, then declare martial law and suspend the November presidential elections.
lousygolfer said: I have a distant relative who is in to this tax avoider nonsense. He says the latest theory that is used, successfully he claims, by tax protesters is that the tax forms do not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and therefore are invalid, rendering all income taxes invalid. He claims that there are no published federal cases that state this because if anyone raises this argument as a defense, the IRS simply voluntarily dismisses the case so that there will be no binding precedent that will be reported and used by millions more people. When I pointed out that no one in government is dumb enough to allow some error like this to continue, he says that if they correct the error it will go public and the floodgates will open to millions of lawsuits and the whole system will be dismantled.Shhhh, don't tell him, but the Paperwork Reduction Act argument has been on the IRS list of "dirty dozen" tax scams for a few years now. Here is an article from 2006 about it. Here is a quote: "Hucksters may include some of the Dirty Dozen schemes in their publications and seminars. For example, a new entry on the 2006 list is the "zero wages" scam: Claim no income on your return, and justify it by filing a substitute W-2 that rebuts the income shown on an employer's W-2. Filers might try this on an amended return, hoping the IRS will substitute it for the original return.
Zero-wages filers also might add references to obscure statutory or constitutional language they believe give them the right to sidestep paying taxes.
John Hiddleson says these types of scams are rare, esoteric, and sometimes pretty darn funny, like the guy whose defense in court was that he didn't owe taxes on the grounds that he was participating in the federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
"All such arguments get thrown out of court routinely. There's nothing to them," Hiddleson says." Hiddleson is an IRS senior tax specialist in Milwaukee.
If your relative would like to see some case law, here is an '07 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision making fun of the Paperwork Reduction argument. Here is a quote: The last of the issues we address is Patridge’s contention that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–21, forecloses his conviction. This contention is as weak as the other 18, but it has been raised in several recent appeals—despite the fact that it was considered and rejected in Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992)—so we take this occasion to hold that the 1995 amendments to the Act do not alter Salberg’s conclusion. Section 3507 provides that an agency needs the approval of the Office of Management and Budget to collect information, and §3512(a)(1) adds that “no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter” unless OMB’s approval is evinced by a “valid control number” on the agency’s demand for information. Per §3507(g), OMB “may not approve a collection of information for a period in excess of 3 years.” Patridge observes that the IRS’s Form 1040 has displayed the same control number since 1981 and argues that it must therefore represent an approval lasting for more than 3 years. Moreover, he asserts that the IRS did not obtain a new approval between the 1995 amendments and the adoption of forms for tax years 1996 and 1997, so these forms must be (in counsel’s words) “outlaw and bootleg.” Finally, Patridge contends that all IRS forms are invalid because they do not tell taxpayers that the lack of a valid control number means that they need not supply any information. How any of this could block a conviction for tax evasion is a mystery. Patridge evaded taxes by shuffling his income among trusts in an attempt to conceal it from the IRS. That crime does not depend on the contents of any form. Evading one’s taxes is illegal independent of the information one does or does not supply. Consider another example: the Clean Air Act requires businesses to curtail certain emissions using the best available technology, and to report on those emissions to the EPA. An error in the EPA’s forms might spare the business any penalties for bad information but would not license it to emit pollution without limit. The Paperwork Reduction Act does not change any substantive obligation. Anyway, as we held in Salberg, the obligation to file a tax return stems from 26 U.S.C. §7203, not from any agency’s demand. The Paperwork Reduction Act does not repeal §7203. Repeal by implication depends on inconsistency that makes it impossible to comply with the newer law while still honoring the old one, see Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003); J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 141–44 (2001), and there is no such inconsistency between §7203 and the Paperwork Reduction Act. One reason for this is that §7203 requires a “return” but does not define that word or require anyone to use Form 1040, or any “official” form at all. All that is required is a complete and candid report of income. Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. Section 3507 requires periodic review, not a periodic change in control numbers. Patridge offers us no reason to think that the necessary review has not been conducted. The control number on Form 1040 appears on OMB’s web site as a current, valid number; if this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer’s say-so to establish the proposition. That OMB didn’t re-review Form 1040 between the 1995 and 1996 tax year is irrelevant; nothing in the 1995 amendments says that all existing approvals become invalid or that all forms must be resubmitted. None of the remaining 16 arguments in the criminal appeal requires comment.
lousygolfer said: He says the latest theory that is used, successfully he claims, by tax protesters is that the tax forms do not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and therefore are invalid, rendering all income taxes invalid. Silly - wouldn't they just reprint new forms to comply?
magika said: Uh-oh. This is sure to attract the FWF tax protester group like moths to a flame. So lets get this out of the way:
Here is a nice summary of the anti-tax movement -
ADL said: Origins: 1950s Background: An anti-government movement that believes that income taxes are illegitimate Ideology: Anti-government, some white supremacist elements Outreach: Books, manuals, seminars, radio shows, Web sites Favorite arguments: Filing tax returns violates Fifth Amendment rights; the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified; wages are not income; income taxes are voluntary; income taxes apply only to residents of Washington, D.C., and certain other limited areas Criminal activity: Overall level of criminal activity is high, consisting mostly of attempts at tax evasion. Some tax protesters have engaged in large-scale scams and frauds. Violent incidents are also well-documented. Source: History of Tax Protestor Movement
All of the arguments the tax protesters are about to bring up have been thoroughly debunked, and you can get the 70 page debunking document (from the IRS - OH NOES ITS A CONSPIRACY!) HERE: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf.
In conclusion, while you may not like the income tax, while it may be unfair, - you indeed have to pay it and that is based in the law.
MegaRed said: Yes, forget about that Paperwork Reduction argument; doesn't hold water.RushnRockt said: I always find it amusing that for people that believe in how right they are (like Hendrickson), they never have complete list of reference to all the documents pertaining to their particular lawsuits, instead falling back on "summarizing" or at most referencing documents without any in-depth information. I don't care for a petition for dismissal form if no previous documents are showing what is being dismissed.Huh? Rushn, this 4th case (begun April 2006) is 06-11753. Direct link: http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_Complaint.pdf Furthermore he's got a lawsuit page with links to that & all the motions, briefs and petitions. Read up and decide for yourself. The government has a mound of federal statutes, a three-million-word IRS code, and billions in banker's money and the heart of their argument is "defendant does not believe his sworn written testimony." ?! That itself shows how weak the govt case is. Without some sort of judicial misconduct, he'll walk from this one too.
Government moved for dismissal of civil proceeding in favor of criminal proceedings and that's somehow a victory?
"On November 12, 2008, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan announced that Hendrickson had been arraigned on an indictment charging him with 10 counts of filing false documents with the Internal Revenue Service. According to the indictment, Hendrickson filed false income tax returns (Forms 1040) and false substitutes for wage statements (Forms 4852) for the years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 reporting that he had received no wages in those years even though he had in fact received wages in those years."
And lets not forget a number of his followers that lost in court. Or that the guy does not mind using fire bombs and when he gets caught, sells out his partners.
Government: The people are civilly suing Hendrickson for the payment of back taxes. Hendrickson: I don't owe taxes because taxes are illegal. Government: The people are bringing criminal charges to put this nut in jail. We are withdrawing our civil lawsuit in order to do so. Hendrickson: I won! I told you so!
fatBankr
New Member
posted: Apr. 1, 2009 @ 9:23p
bankers? oh noes, why drag me into this? who told u that? And where do all theese tax-peeple come from! Magika, can't we stop this - lock the thread or something (I have cash) anyone? I didn't sleep well last night- Fatboy what if the peeple start to figure out ... ok so we made some mistakes, crazy bets, derivatives, but now look - we need some help here, this year - pony-up a little extra tax if you can - bankers are people too. I'm down to my last few billion here, well, aside from a ton of gold, but that's emergency use only... oh man ... sometimes I get scared... no it's OK.. nobady believes him anyway..
Borkus
Broke Member
posted: Apr. 14, 2009 @ 3:30a
Well I'm jumping off the wheel. I've learned there really is no direct tax on everyone's labor in this country. I received a full refund of everything withheld for '08 making this the hottest deal of the year for me. The federal income tax is a limited excise tax on certain privileged gains, or "income" but the IRS is desperate to keep this information from you. I'll be at the Tea Party to answer any questions, or just PM me.
LH2004
Frivolous Member
posted: Apr. 14, 2009 @ 3:42a
I shoplifted once when I was 6, and they never caught me, either. I guess the whole idea that stealing is a crime is also an IRS conspiracy.
Borkus said: Well I'm jumping off the wheel. I've learned there really is no direct tax on everyone's labor in this country. I received a full refund of everything withheld for '08 making this the hottest deal of the year for me. The federal income tax is a limited excise tax on certain privileged gains, or "income" but the IRS is desperate to keep this information from you. I'll be at the Tea Party to answer any questions, or just PM me.
If that full refund was based on you misrepresenting information on your taxes due to tax protester myths, the hottest deal of the year for you is hopefully going to be years of free food and a cell at the federal prison.
One thing tax protesters seem to ignore that the IRS has no problem getting government laws getting changed. If there really were some secret hidden definition of income then it would take days to issue new regulations or if need be get Congress to pass a new law if it required new jurisdiction. As I've said before, there are many reasons to dislike the income tax, but none of them mean you can stop paying them based on conspiracy myths.
Borkus
Broke Member
posted: May. 1, 2009 @ 6:44p
No, I did not misrepresent. I had no income as statutorily defined. Yes the IRS is very powerful but fortunately, they can't change the US Constitution which twice forbids direct federal taxes: ".. direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states .."1 "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census .."2
And no, the 16th Amendment didn't change this; it merely closed a loophole. It talks not of direct taxation but of "incomes" which lost its everyday meaning and became a legal term via the Revenue Act of 1862, and is essentially defined as receipts resulting from the exercise of federal privilege.
I'm following the letter of law - but most people paying federal income taxes are not. Of course the IRS is happy to take their money and not correct their error. It is by design, a grand deception.
This is almost as entertaining as the Agape thread was a few months ago.
fatBankr
New Member
posted: May. 1, 2009 @ 8:34p
o u clueless little peeple clinging to your constution like it will save you. i dont' care i wipe my butt wit it. dont u know bankers run your life? i know hon shouldnt party & post but Durbin admitted it we own your congress, how dou link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/30/ownership/inde... oo the thinks i could tell. Its funny some folks here know the real score but we have pple to counter 'em, label them as nutty ct whackos, but u know what? dont even need em, everyone else jumps all over em "enjoy jail" "pay taxes like we do" ha! i love it. ok so dont pay tax , we had a nice run, sucked so much out your country its obscene
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: May. 1, 2009 @ 8:46p
Yep, almost as entertaining as the Agape thread!
Dow1000
Member
posted: May. 1, 2009 @ 9:12p
I hate taxes as much as anyone, but why do I always imagine tax protesters as toothless hillbillies wielding pitchforks and chasing off the 'revenue man'
Libre
New Member
posted: May. 3, 2009 @ 10:08p
Party's over Bankrman, we know all about your lies, money-from-thin-air, & your Fraudulent Reserve Notes. How you profit off hard-working Americans. We cling to our Constitution because we are a nation of laws, not of men. And, we have a plan to free ourselves from bank slavery. It includes: not feeding the tax-monster, paying off debt, borrowing from private sources, and using US coins locally & digitally for trade instead of FRNs. Sometime soon when you wake from your recurring nightmare hearing chants of "We want our money back!" . . . it just might be real.
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: May. 4, 2009 @ 6:48a
I see OP is at it again (previously locked thread) and doesn't seem to have read or understood the article in the link he posted in this thread. There is no new information in this thread; its existence is further advertising for and regurgitation of the views of the "You don't have to pay income taxes" fringe group.
Think I'm jumping to conclusions? Read the posts in the locked thread, especially by OP, and the agenda seems obvious.
Moderators, please lock this thread. Thanks.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: May. 4, 2009 @ 8:55a
glxpass said: ...Moderators, please lock this thread. Thanks.I think a better approach would be to leave this thread open and then for the mods to strongly encourage the "income tax is illegal" folks to post here instead of spamming every other thread about taxes with their dogma.
While I consider myself to be very economically conservative, these groups always make me chuckle. Yeah taxes suck and we should work to find ways to cut spending and lower taxes, but you not footing the bill won't do anything. All it does is shift the burden to people who do pay taxes, while you get some fun visits from the IRS. I work for a municipal tax collection firm and people who don't pay end up in a world of hurt. I know for sure the IRS has a lot more nasty surprises.
Borkus
Broke Member
posted: May. 4, 2009 @ 9:47p
If I have an agenda, it's no more than what SIS did with Agapeworld - HEY, THIS IS A SCAM. In the spirit of one Fatwalleter helping another and offering the possibility to save yourself thou$ands.
My comments are aimed more at the lurkers, not the shills, the central bankers, & others who profit off the federal income tax scam at the expense of millions of hard-working Americans. They wish to keep you in ignorance and the tax-river flowing.
I know the skeptic in me says "how can a deception this large, by my government, go this long undetected?" Well, I can muster a few guesses but ultimately you'll have to decide for yourself, but it involves some VERY POWERFUL forces. Ask yourself, does a government of the little guy, give trillions in Stimulus, TARP, AIG, etc. to Wall Street bankers against the will OF THE PEOPLE? Does it stack the board of Governors of the FED & Treasury with Goldman Sachs alums? Does the bank-controlled media tell me what's really going on in my good ol' government? Do I continue the ignorance tax, the largest transfer of wealth in the history of man .. standby & watch the steady erosion of our Constitutional freedoms? or try to learn the truth. Years from now don't say "I've been paying taxes I didn't owe FOR YEARS AND NOBODY TOLD ME?!" because I'm saying.
BTW, I pay all taxes I legally owe (including municipal) and recommend you do too.
CreditGuy said: All Daily Show videos are on line--but Hendrickson was never a guest. Your link leads to an area where people can suggest and vote on potential guests. It's not a list of actual guests. Shows you what I know about The Daily Show
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
