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.
Message edited by: Borkus on 2009-03-31 20:13:01 CDT
To enter a coupon code in your post please enter the following info:
Coupon Code:
Coupon Offer:
Merchant:
Expires (optional):
Restrictions (optional):
saving...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
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.
Message edited by: magika on 2009-04-02 00:43:35 CDT
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!
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.
Message edited by: geo123 on 2009-04-01 10:06:06 CDT
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?
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.
