Docstoc

Dont like paying income taxes

Document Sample
Dont like paying income taxes Powered By Docstoc
					Don't like paying income taxes? You don't have to
By Wilhelm E. Schmitt
Guest commentary
                                                             (Published: April 5, 2000)
Americans, from the beginning of the income tax in 1913, have been gradually
indoctrinated with the idea that paying income taxes is a requirement of law, and
today that impression prevails widely.
However, those who sired the income tax in 1913 and those who have fostered it
since knew that it was unconstitutional. For that reason, no section was ever
written into the IRS Code stating that any person is actually required to pay it.
Scores of sections were carefully crafted during many decades to give the
impression that paying income taxes is required, without actually saying so.
For example, Section 7203 lays down penalties to be imposed on anyone who
willfully fails to file a return or pay the tax. However, notice that it begins with the
words, "Any person required ... " but does not identify who is required to file or
pay. Such deception is common throughout the IRS Code.
This fact was illustrated in a federal district court in Chicago about 10 years ago. A
citizen named Tom Hauert of Elwood, Ill., appeared in a federal district court in
Chicago at his preliminary hearing during October 1990, having been indicted on
charges based on Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26): "Willful
failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax." Mr. Hauert read the first three
words of this section to the court: "Any person required," then asked, "How is it
determined in this book (Title 26) that I am one of those persons required?" The
judge then ordered the prosecuting attorney to provide the statute that made Tom
liable, but he could not do so; not then, and not during the next 12 months.
Finally, the judge dismissed the charges with prejudice, meaning that they could
not be brought against Tom again. Of course, the last fact that the judge wanted to
admit was that no statute existed, so the reason he gave for dismissing the charges
was that the 70-day waiting period specified by the speedy trial rule had been
exceeded (by about 300 days!).
Why was the U.S. attorney unable to provide a copy of the statute that made Tom
liable to pay "income" taxes? The answer is simple: Because none exists.
For many years, protesters across America have been declaring that payment of
"income" taxes on wages is voluntary, and no law exists requiring it. In 1989, a
prominent member of Congress, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, verified that fact in
writing. In a letter dated June 26, 1989, addressed to one of his constituents in
Hawaii, Mr. Fred Ortiz, Sen. Inouye's office wrote as follows: "Based on the
research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision
which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes."
However, the senator's staff member, Mark L. Forman, who wrote the letter on
Senate letterhead, lamely attempted to justify collection of income taxes on the
ground that, since the Constitution authorizes Congress to levy taxes, no specific
law is required! This is a perfect example of the twisting of logic by bureaucrats in
order to maintain their parasitic control over their "subjects."
A copy of the letter referred to above, together with Mr. Ortiz's devastating reply,
has been furnished to the editor of this newspaper. If Americans still have the
courage that characterized the founders of this nation, they will regain their
freedom from the oppressive IRS system by simply saying "no!" to the IRS's
demands for "income" tax -- a hoax that has no basis in law.
In addition to the foregoing considerations, actually halting the withholding of
"income" tax from your pay can be accomplished by the following four steps:
1. Establish with your employer the fact that, according to the IRS Code (Title 26),
only "taxpayers" are obligated to pay "income" tax [IRS Code Sections 1313(b)
and 7701(a)(14)].
2. Establish the fact that the "income" tax has been defined by the courts to be an
excise tax [U.S. Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1
(1916), at 16-17].
3. Show your employer that the courts have consistently ruled that an excise tax
cannot be levied against an activity of common right, such as working for wages to
earn a living [Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819 (1930), and many others].
4. Having demonstrated that you are therefore not a "taxpayer" subject to paying
"income" tax, you can legally demand that your employer stop withholding money
from your paycheck to send to the IRS, and never again will you need to fill out a
1040 "confession" for the IRS.
For additional background on the matters discussed above, see the case U.S. v.
Long, CR 19391, Eastern District of Tennessee, Oct. 15, 1993, in which the jury
agreed with defendant Lloyd R. Long that the "income" tax is actually an excise
tax that cannot be levied on income or earnings derived from the exercise of the
common right to work for wages.
The following sentence concisely sums all that has been stated above: "One who
lawfully contracts his labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities in
exchange for lawful compensation cannot be taxed for revenue purposes and is not
subject to any revenue tax and therefore, is not a 'taxpayer' (as that term is defined
by statute) and is therefore a nontaxpayer and is entitled to ALL the fruits of his
labors."
Happy April 15.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:30
posted:2/27/2010
language:English
pages:2