No prescription vicodin. Vicodin. Pharmacy online no prescription vicodin. Effects of vicodin….

I do not want anyone to make costly mistakes either, that is why I told my own children to not follow in my steps until they knew for certain that was the way they wanted to go and were on solid ground.

But, this all begs the orginal point and question. Show the law in Title 26 that requires a free man to pay an income tax on the fruits of his labor.

I stated that no attorney, no IRS agent, no Tax preparer, and no court has ever done so; and though he pooh poohed me (chuckle) STRB did not and could not. I don't believe you can either, Bruce.

I say again, IRS regulations apply to IRS employees, not to you and I.

There is a lot of wording in Title 26 that tells you how the code will be administered and what will and will not happen when and if a person required to pay an income tax does not do so; but it all still hinges on exactly who is required to pay and how that is determined.

I will look again at Cryer's case and see what I missed, but that does not alter what I just said.

Show me the law, somebody please.

Looking at Cryer's case, he was found not guilty of willfully failing to file a tax return. His defense had nothing to do with the legality of the income tax. The actual defense was that he believed he had properly set up a series of tax exempt trusts which were not required to file tax returns. Thus, he lacked any criminal intent and did not willfully (the operative word in a mens rea defense) fail to file. The jury acquitted on that basis. Cryer, after the verdict, was still required to file the delinquent returns and pay any tax, penalty and interest to the IRS.

As to my defense of the tax system, I just want to keep people from making large and costly mistakes.

I bet you will.

You will find that the Supreme court views the constitutionality of the income tax the same way after the 16th amendment. It all hinges on the unchanging definition of what constitutes "income".

Read Tom's memorandum all the way through, it is worth the time it takes.

Bruce, I have to say I personally find it frightening to find one who would work so hard to aid and abet the slave master with such diligence. Work so hard to kill curiosity and to cement anecdotal, presumptive, and conventional wisdom. Live a little, work to find out if you "need to" instead of working to justify why you do.

Tom makes the same basic argument you saw in the case sites I posted, the IRS lost.

Perhaps you might want to reread the cases you cited. They are all off point. One was decided 30 years prior to passage of the 16th amendment. The other two both pertained to arguments regarding revenues earned prior to passage of the 16th amendment. Haven't gotten to Cryer yet, but I'm sure I'll find it interesting.

… you can neither read intelligently or write intelligently.

That should be "neither read intelligently nor write intelligently."

That does have a nice ring to it :p

Vidyohs,

I've still been reading and studying the information you've provided here and privately. Fascinating stuff, and I'm always looking forward to more. Thanks again for your time, and the links to all the information.

I will deign this one time to answer you only because it enables me to point out once again that you can neither read intelligently or write intelligently.

Your answers are in past communications to STRB and Bruce. Title 26 is legal and constitutional, the 16th Amendment is legal and constitutional(some question about the proper ratification which seems to be fraudulant), and I told you that the Supreme Court has ruled that Title 26 in its proper application and in its anecdotal, presumptive, and conventional wisdom application does not violate the 13th Amendment.

An intelligent person would understand then that I am obviously saying that U.S. citizens are "liable" for an income tax.

What I have also told you is that the "liable" part can't be determined until the "income" part is settled, and that is another Supreme Court ruling (found in the links I posted above). There is also the fact that Title 26 only applies to U. S. Citizens and foreigners who produce "income" in the 50 States.

I will close with this. You're entirely too naive to be allowed to possess or handle sharp objects if you think for one moment the socialist press is ever going to publicize the facts about the fraud practiced by the IRS. That will only happen with the death of the IRS.

STRB (chuckle) can not produce or document the exact law requiring an income tax to paid upon your even exchange of service for fruits of labor no more than, as I said, can any other tax professional, IRS agent, or Treasury dept. official.

Bruce,

for you. You might try looking at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189
and
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=247&invol=179
and
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=111&page=746

Bruce, you have to realize one thing, the IRS is not going to tell you or give you a hint of anything that contradicts your anecdotal, presumptive, and conventional wisdom belief that you owe an income tax. Not on their website or in their phamptlets and you won't find anything on sites sycophantic to the IRS, H.R.Block et. al.

Again you might also go to truthattack.org and look at Tom Cryer's winning arguments.

I am not telling anyone not to pay a lawful tax, I am only saying we should all know and understand what is lawful and what is fraudulent.

Remember as you twist in the wind, it is a fact that law can not compel performance. That pesky 13th Amendment prevents that.

Compelled performance is slavery/involuntary servitude. 13th Amendment.

Yes Title 26 is valid law and yes some people in specific circumstances are required to pay a tax. But, if you and I only exchange things of equal value…..well tell us what the Supreme Court said about "income", the defintion and interpretation as used in Title 26.

But, then when you get that far if you ever do, we will bring up the fact of 12 million Amish in the USA and how they relate to Title 26. Curious thing, eh? Or, were you even aware of the Amish situation?

The more you dig the more you discover that it isn't just a cut and dried thing like the IRS website, regs, phamplets, anecdotal wisdom, presumptive wisdom, and conventional wisdom would like you to believe.

You've got the "round the mulberry bush blues" and are being deliberately obtuse.

I said that Title 26 is valid law, I said that the Supreme court made that ruling, as well as the 16th amendment.

I agree with you that there are a lot of scam artists selling phony schemes to gullible people and I have nothing to do with them. I am not selling anything. I have honor enough to not sell freedom; but if I can help you think you're way to it I'll certqainly do it.

Show us the law that requires a man, who labors in the 50 states of the USA and gets his entire compensation from within the 50 states, to file a 1040 and pay an income tax.

Pure and simple thing for a tax professor and you're back pedaling. My attitude towards the government is meaningless, irrelevant, to your ability to (chuckle) show us the law that you know so well.

It is an obvious fact that everything on the IRS website, their regs, and their phamplets are supposedly based upon the law in Title 26, so why try and mess with the middleman when the middleman is a proven liar?

Title 26 has all the law necessary for you to try and make your case, go for it big guy!

By structuring your argument with the canard that everyone in the government is lying you effectively prevent anyone from having a serious discussion with you.

I've read a lot more tax evasion materials than you have, and I've read the top lawyers and accountants, and none of your arguments work. I file my tax return and pay my taxes, and I complain and call my Congressman, but I know the system is legal.

If you have more time you might want to look into U.S. v. Thomas et. al., a current case in the U.S. District Court, Northern Ohio.

The defendants, who convinced a couple of hundred people to create phony trusts and file bogus tax returns, are now sitting in jail trying to convince the judge they cannot be tried because they are crazy. I doubt they succeed.

(Interesting subplot, they argued there was no such thing as the income tax, and then charged the suckers hundreds of dollars a piece to file phony income tax returns!)

The real debate is how to restructure the system.

I smell it over the cables coming into my computer.

Once you know the truth, the last thing you'd ever want is to have the current income tax structure (Title 26) changed. It is structured in your favor, you just don't want to know about it.

If I read your post correctly, you are making the argument relating to the definition of income. More specifically, you seem to be making the exchange argument which says that the wages I earn from my employer are, in fact, an equal exchange for the time and service I provide. Thus, I have no gain and no "income". The IRS addresses this argument at the link I provided above. I will copy and paste their response:

Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes – Law and Arguments (Section II)

II. The Meaning of Income: Taxable Income and Gross Income

A. Contention: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income.

This argument asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income, because there is allegedly no taxable gain when a person "exchanges" labor for money. Under this theory, wages are not taxable income because people have basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive; thus, there is no gain to be taxed. Some take a different approach and argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit.

The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived."

All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received because of services performed, or to be performed in the future. Furthermore, criminal and civil penalties have been imposed against individuals relying upon this frivolous argument.

Relevant Case Law:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) – Referring to the statute's words "income derived from any source whatever," the Supreme Court stated, "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field 'the full measure of its taxing power.' . . . And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) – The Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) – The court stated, "[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income."

Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5 th Cir. 1981) – The court rejected as "meritless" the taxpayer's contention that the "exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction . . . ." Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8 th Cir. 980) – The court said the entire amount received from the sale of one's services constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8 th Cir. 1983) – The court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the taxpayer's contention that wages and salaries are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is "totally lacking in merit."

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9 th Cir. 1981) – The court affirmed Romero's conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns, finding, in part, that "[t]he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of ['income' and 'person']. Romero's proclaimed belief that he was not a 'person' and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not 'income' is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect." Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) – The court rejected the argument that wages are not income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000 for pursuing a position that was "frivolous and groundless . . . and maintained primarily for delay."

Cullinane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-2, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, 1193 (1999) – Noting that "[c]ourts have consistently held that compensation for services rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no tax basis in their labor," the court found Cullinane liable for the failure to file penalty, stating, "[his] argument that he is not required to pay tax on compensation for services does not constitute reasonable cause."

B. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.

Some maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections.

The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1-1(b) provides, "[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States." I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine or define gross income. Further, these frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established legal precedent. "Recently the IRS explained its position on the I.R.C. 861 argument in Rev. Rul. 2004-30 and on the I.R.C. 911 argument in Rev. Rul. 2004-28."

Relevant Case Law:
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) – The court rejected the taxpayer's argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as "reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts."

Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) – The court rejected the taxpayer's argument that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.

Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) – The court labeled as "frivolous" the position that only foreign income is taxable.

Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) – The court rejected the taxpayer's argument that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that "compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States . . . are items of gross income."

On this Cafe, Don posted an article about sweatshops, at the same time this thread was posted. In that article the gentleman made the case that labor has value and that that value is different from place to place and from individual to individual. I totally agree with that, and I suspect most if not all of us do.

Now here is the question. If Mr. A. and Mr. B. exchange things of equal value, which one has gain?

I suggest that those with the imagination sufficient enough to be curious by now, work to find the Supreme Court's decision on what constitutes "income".

Not yet:

"Ok vidyohs, I'll bite.

Share with us how you have successfully been able to never pay your income taxes ever since you read this stuff so we can do the same thing. Show us the way. Make us see the light. Make it as simple as the IRS makes it complicated.
Posted by: Chris M. | Jun 4, 2008 10:23:07 PM"

Let's wait until STRB, (chuckle) tax professor, shows us the law that clearly can create an obligation on you to perform involuntary servitude.

You may find it surprising that the government that we all know and love as the warm cuddling tender nourishing thing it is has said, via Supreme Court decisions, that the government has no obligation to teach or instruct you in the law. They clearly lay that responsibility on you, and if you suffer for ignorance then that is your fault not theirs.

What that says in real speech is that they constructed the trap and it's your fault you fell into it, and now you're in they have no desire or duty to help you find a way out. The government is quite content to keep you in the trap and suck you dry. Knowledge will show you the path out, but it is knowledge you have to make some effort to obtain.

You have to understand one thing about STRB's response, he is an admitted participant in the scheme and so has a lot invested in the status quo of you believing that you owe even though you never made a contract and that you'll stay ignorant and need his services. This explains his attempts to ridicule me and those who are working hard to reveal the "trap" for what it is. There is a wealth of information on the internet, official and unofficial, that will help anyone to learn. All of the good information is free for the reseacher.

For instance, everthing Attorney Tom Cryer, did in whipping the IRS is free on his website http://www.truthattack.org, and he cautions you that using his exact wording may not be appropriate for your particular situation. However, an intelligent person can read, think, and work to modify his basic template. But, essentially that is not the real key to understanding the contstruction of the "trap" and how you got into it.

The important thing is learning how the trap is laid and how you got into it.

In the meantime, let's wait for the tax professor to show us the law.