rvupgradestore.com Composet Products Fridge Defend
RV Life Magazine RV Park Reviews RV Trip Wizard

Author Topic: Any tax professionals here?  (Read 8120 times)

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Any tax professionals here?
« on: September 19, 2006, 04:49:53 AM »
This is a big forum and I have also posted this in other forums with no real help in what I am trying to do.
Let me set this up a bit, First off I am very much a tax payer. I also do not support anything illegal. At the same time I am always in search of the truth.

That said...

I live in a small town. We have of course have the town elder (family has been here since 1868) who is also somewhat of a nut, or so I thought. He used to carry on about how the government is a private corporation and the IRS and the Federal Reserve or both Private European Corporations. He also went onto to say UNITED STATES and United States were actually two separate entities.

OK, here is my plight. He also went on to say that MOST people don't have to pay taxes, or at least domestic income tax to the government. People pay it out of fear of the IRS that they pay. I old him he was crazy. So he made me a bet, that I could not find anywhere in the tax law that specifically says that "taxable income" is actually domestic labor tax. Now I have been hearing this for years but never actually found anything that to support it.

After about 3 weeks of searching I am about to give up, I can not find it anywhere in the tax law. Not only can I not find it I have found other information the supports his claim. Surely someone here is a Tax pro, or retired tax attorney, someone who knows more then I can find.

This is what i have found so far, and its not supporting my side of paying taxes. I have found Internal Revenue Code 861 which states taxable income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_861 which state only resident aliens, and foreign corporations need pay income tax.
This 861 code was used in court as reason for not filing, and of course he lost, but that doesn't help me in finding my verbiage stating what taxable income is.

In my first search I found this article, http://www.stopthelie.com/taxes.html

This is an actual IRS collection agent speaking about how taxes are collected.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1658315558785013776&q=IRS

Then in my next search I found this which is actually quite disturbing if its true. this one here is pretty simple once I finish reading the tax law myself =\  http://tree3.com/861/index.html

And of course I have also found many sites that are just way out there.
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/index.html

Anyone have any new insight into this subject?

Thanks,

Tim


« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 05:01:59 AM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Dan Walters

  • ---
  • Posts: 465
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2006, 11:39:51 AM »
Tim,

I am a CPA and practiced as such for 15 years before changing over to a Financial Consultant (eg. Financial Planner, Stock Broker).  I can give you something to look up in the Internal Revenue Code that may answer this question for you.  Look first at Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part I, Section 63 which states (paraphrased) that Taxable Income means Gross Income minus exemptions and deductions allowed in this section.  Now, to define Gross Income, go to Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part I, Section 61 and look at the definition of Gross Income, which includes Compensation received as an employee.

Hope this helps.

Dan
Dan
Houston Texas Area
2000 Fleetwood American Dream
Towing a 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2006, 11:57:28 AM »
Hey thanks Dan,

Quote
Taxable Income means Gross Income minus exemptions and deductions allowed in this section
Thats my problem ALLOWED in this section? What is allowed and what is exempt.

I have read that recently. I guess my real question is the definition of "Taxable income" Having read so much about this lately and hearing and reading from different CPA's  and Tax attorney's position's to the IRS position no one can seem to answer that question. CPA's that find out about the 861 code to the IRS never answering the question. The stance of the 861 proponents is that the tax law is assumed and not written, and the IRS is just not answering.

Here is another book by a Idaho Legislator


some text:
The issue of direct v. indirect taxes has been debated in Congress beginning not long after the constitutional ink had dried. From page 1898 of The Annals of Congress (the 4th Congress, 1797) Representative Williams from New York was recorded as reminding Congress of the Roman example of direct v. indirect taxation.

Taxes on labor, as currently collected by the IRS as an "income" tax, cannot be described as anything other than a direct tax.

Senator Norris Brown from Nebraska, the man who wrote the 16th Amendment, defined clearly what income was and what the income tax was intended to accomplish. Not once did Sen. Brown mention that Congress intended to pass an amendment that would grant the federal government a new power to directly tax the wages or salaries of working people.

This is like the twilight zone for me.....

I want my "death and taxes" back

« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 12:05:38 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Carl L

  • Forum Staff
  • ---
  • *
  • Posts: 7297
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2006, 12:03:39 PM »
The 16th Amendment seems pretty clear and simple.   Here is in its entirity:

Article XVI
Sent to the states 12 July 1909; Ratified 3 February 1913

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Surely a tax on the income from labor is included in that power.   
« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 12:06:10 PM by Carl Lundquist »
Carl L/LA   [Forum Staff]  KI6SEZ

Prowler 23LV TT pulled by a '95 Ford Bronco

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2006, 12:11:39 PM »
The 16th Amendment seems pretty clear and simple.   Here is in its entirity:

Article XVI
Sent to the states 12 July 1909; Ratified 3 February 1913

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Surely a tax on the income from labor is included in that power.   

I agree, but there are exemptions under the law like Life insurance benefits etc.. So what else is also exempt is where it gets really vague and as you said "Surely a tax on the income from labor is included in that power" is an assumption, I can not find the text inside the tax code which defines this.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 12:14:13 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Dan Walters

  • ---
  • Posts: 465
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2006, 12:13:23 PM »
Tim,

You may have already read it, but Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2004-12 and Revenue Ruling: 2004-30 dated March 22, 2004 address the Section 861 argument to exclude earned wages from gross income.  This has been debated for years and many who have tried to claim an exclusion under Section 861 have been taken to court and lost.  However, it makes for and interesting discussion.

Dan
Dan
Houston Texas Area
2000 Fleetwood American Dream
Towing a 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2006, 12:16:52 PM »
Quote
You may have already read it, but Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2004-12 and Revenue Ruling: 2004-30 dated March 22, 2004 address the Section 861 argument to exclude earned wages from gross income.  This has been debated for years and many who have tried to claim an exclusion under Section 861 have been taken to court and lost.  However, it makes for and interesting discussion

Thanks Dan,

Thats what I was afraid of so this guys claim that we essentially pay taxes for fear of reprisal is true..
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Dan Walters

  • ---
  • Posts: 465
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2006, 12:30:21 PM »
Tim,

I guess you can look at it that way, but I don't think that is entirely true.  The basis for taxing income is in the code sections of the law that I cited.  Section 63 says that Taxable Income is defined as Gross Income minus deductions allowed.  Section 61 defines Gross Income to include wages earned, so that is the basis for the taxation of wages earned.  As stated in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, "The rules of sections 861 through 865 have significance solely in determining whether income is considered from sources within the United States or without the United States, which is relevant, for example, in determining whether a U.S. citizen or resident may claim a credit for foreign taxes paid".  So, the folks who try to use this to exclude wages earned from taxable income are taking this section out of context.  More food for debate. 

Dan
Dan
Houston Texas Area
2000 Fleetwood American Dream
Towing a 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2006, 01:01:37 PM »
Good point, then we also have someone who actually won in California using this defense.
http://www.stopthelie.com/taxes.html

This is a mess, this is going to take longer then I thought. There are tax credits allowed, now I just need to find out how they apply to this. Refer to this, refer to that caution here caution there. =\

My real curiosity is how in a country designed and built around laws very specific in their intention can this tax code be open for legitimate debate?

There is a very strong rational arguments on both sides of this

Thanks Dan
« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 01:20:36 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Dan Walters

  • ---
  • Posts: 465
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2006, 01:13:25 PM »
Tim,

Good discussion, thanks for the topic.  You are right about the tax code.  It has long been a cumbersome, hard to understand and hard to interpret set of laws, and a set of laws that keep changing with amendments, additions, IRS rulings, civil court rulings and tax court rulings.  That old saying that "you have to be a Philadelphia Lawyer to understand it", may not even be adequate.  Anyway, enjoyed the discussion.  Thanks.

Dan
Dan
Houston Texas Area
2000 Fleetwood American Dream
Towing a 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2006, 01:26:05 PM »
Hey thanks Dan for your time, I appreciate it.

This is a long and convoluted topic that surely wont be answered here, but I least you have given me some ammo for a decent rebuttal.

I am going to ask a friend on mine who is an Attorney, he likes pet projects like this.

Thanks again

Tim

In July 2004 almost 2000 Americans filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Government seeking to have the federal Judiciary declare
-- for the first time in history -- the constitutional meaning of the First Amendment Petition clause including the Right of the People to enforce the Right of Petition if Redress is denied. 

We the People believes the Right to Petition
is, in fact, the "capstone" Right of the Bill of Rights and that its effect is the direct exercise of Popular Sovereignty -- the First Principle of the Founding documents that declares government is the servant of Men.   


Just give me death and taxes back......
« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 02:37:40 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2006, 03:00:15 AM »
In 1895, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In that year, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. The Court concluded the tax imposed by the Act on “rents or income of real estate” was not significantly distinct from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, the Court classified the tax as a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States.

Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether the income tax was a direct or indirect tax. As a result, Congress sought to remove any confusion by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment, which was “allegedly” adopted in 1913.

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Immediately after the Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted another income tax act similar to the 1894 Act. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional. In 1916, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the scope of the Amendment. These decisions were analyzed in a 1980 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The report, prepared by an agency of Congress, discussed the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax:

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

As stated by CRS, the Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax or repeal or revoke the existing clauses. Indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity and direct taxes were still required to be apportioned among the several States.

If the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or modify its existing power, then what did the Amendment accomplish? Since the Amendment states that income taxes are not subject to the rule apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the category of indirect taxes. This means Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Direct taxes must be imposed on the several States according to the rule of apportionment.

I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2006, 03:11:04 AM »
Recent rulings
On August 22, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service[13] and United States [Murphy v. United States]) that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purports to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings. The Court stated:

At the outset, we reject the Government’s breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment -- upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as “incomes” every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the “Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.”
The Court also stated:

In sum, every indication is that damages received solely in compensation for a personal injury are not income within the meaning of that term in the Sixteenth Amendment. First, as compensation for the loss of a personal attribute, such as well-being or a good reputation, the damages are not received in lieu of income. Second, the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury -- including a nonphysical injury -- to be income. Therefore, we hold § 104(a)(2) unconstitutional insofar as it permits the taxation of an award of damages for mental distress and loss of reputation.

The Murphy ruling is mandatory precedent only in the District of Columbia.

I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Dan Walters

  • ---
  • Posts: 465
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2006, 10:11:48 AM »
Tim,

Wow!  You've done a lot of research on this topic.  I have never heard of some of the information that you have shared, but it is very interesting if you are into tax law.  The August 22, 2006 Court of Appeals Ruling could be very important for anyone who has been awarded damages in a civil lawsuit, because in the past, the IRS viewed anything over and above compensation for direct damages (eg. lost wages, property loss, etc.) as taxable.  This would make at least some of the punitive damages (mental distress, loss of reputation or non-physical injury) awarded in lawsuits non-taxable.  Even though this ruling is a mandatory precedenet only in the District of Columbia it will, no doubt, be used as a defence against IRS claims to tax that sort of income in all jurisdictions.  Thanks for the info.

Dan
Dan
Houston Texas Area
2000 Fleetwood American Dream
Towing a 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2006, 05:22:33 PM »
What a long strange trip it has been!
Its been Like Alice in wonderland from long days past...

If you get a minute look at this trailer for a movie that i stumbled on in my research about taxes.
Film Trailer

Let me preface this just a bit, I was extremely skeptical about this kind of film. This is a production from Aaron Russo who also produced "The Rose" with Bette Middler, and "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy.
Also I want to also say this has nothing to do with Republican & Democrat this I believe is an American issue, although I traditionally vote republican - traditionally
That being said I found it very strange that while most people who hate this movie are Republican are also the folks who support tax cuts, and tax relief are so adamant about there might actually be something to this about not having to legally pay taxes. I find that very ironic.

Anyways, i am done with this little project - my conclusion is Income tax is not legal as it is direct tax and must be apportioned as stated in the constitution. Also "income" was defined under the constitution as profit or gaines and a wage was a trade of services - labor/wage. A wage should not be taxed as it is your body and labor. Also found that the Supreme court has ruled that the 16th amendment does not grant congress any new taxing power. Everything I just stated is documented.

Now I really wish I was 20 again....kind of =\

Tim
« Last Edit: September 21, 2006, 12:43:19 AM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Kenneth

  • ---
  • Posts: 438
  • 2008 MONACO CAMELOT 42DSQ
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2006, 05:33:17 PM »
I know of two individuals who "were" part of a very large group of people, that did not pay income taxes. One filed the wrong form one year and opened up the door for the IRS to send him to the big house for two years. The other did absolutely everything by the book and settled this year with the IRS, only having to pay back the last three years,and promise never to attempt to do this again.

The first one lost everything and the second one is running scared. :o
Kenneth H, from League City TX, currently in Lakeland Florida !!

woodartist

  • ---
  • Posts: 562
  • Along the Colorado
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2006, 05:41:27 PM »
I don't have the time or money to fight the IRS...so I just play by the book. I keep good records and pay my taxes on time. I sleep well and in an odd way figure I have done my civic duty. Can't say I enjoy supporting some programs and spending, but I do get some benefits ::)

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2006, 05:49:55 PM »
I am with you, I should have also said although it is illegal I believe - I am still going to pay my taxes.

As far as "Civic duty" its is my responcibilty as an American to try and keep Government in check. They are supposed to work for me, although I know they dont I wish they did.
Also my "Civic duty" is to understand both sides of any arguement that is in Politics. I feel that unless I truly understand what the other guy is saying then I truly have no idea what I am voting for. At least thats just me..

I was last reading a case where Mr. Schif i believe his name was got 13 years for income tax fraud. I had a chance to read clips of the court transcripts where Mr. Schif? tried to quote the Supreme Court ruling from I believe 1953 as it pertained to his case and was told it was irrelevant.
 
WOW, the Supreme court is irrelevant!

Death & Taxes!

Tim
« Last Edit: September 20, 2006, 05:54:56 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

woodartist

  • ---
  • Posts: 562
  • Along the Colorado
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2006, 06:03:08 PM »
Well, I agree Tim. I have seen seminars offered, to teach you have to pay zero taxes and that the income tax is illegal. A few months later there are arrests and the folks go to jail. Not my idea of a happy experience.  ;) Don't want to be an example for the government ;D

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2006, 09:41:25 PM »
Here is another angle..



Dan,
question: do you have any experience with CRT's, FLP and "C" corp tax setup? Tax code 664D and 77-137

CRT= Charitable Remainder Trust
FLP= Family Limited Partnership

I have been reading on this tax setup for lawsuit protection as well as agressive tax relief. Very interesting stuff.

You dont have to answer..

Film Clip
« Last Edit: September 22, 2006, 09:44:09 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Carl L

  • Forum Staff
  • ---
  • *
  • Posts: 7297
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2006, 01:49:31 PM »
Well, I agree Tim. I have seen seminars offered, to teach you have to pay zero taxes and that the income tax is illegal. A few months later there are arrests and the folks go to jail. Not my idea of a happy experience.  ;) Don't want to be an example for the government ;D

Well they do wind up paying no taxes.   Prison wages are below the taxing level and the room and board does not count as income.  Even the clothes are free.     ;D
Carl L/LA   [Forum Staff]  KI6SEZ

Prowler 23LV TT pulled by a '95 Ford Bronco

woodartist

  • ---
  • Posts: 562
  • Along the Colorado
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2006, 01:59:03 PM »
Good point Carl...didn't see it that way:)

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2006, 08:05:19 PM »
Well they do wind up paying no taxes.   Prison wages are below the taxing level and the room and board does not count as income.  Even the clothes are free.     ;D

LOL, three hots and a cot.

I got to tell you though, I feel like a complete moron. I was always under the impression we lived in a free country protected by the constitution. With a servant government, who was looking after my best interest. I have always done whtat I was told to do and respected the laws of the land. I am NOT happy with my research one bit. Matter of fact I am F#$% furious! Most of the stuff I was led to isnt even in our time!

Has anyone read the PNAC agenda?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Then the Globalazation of the planet by big business set down by the trilateral commission
http://www.augustreview.com/images/pics/tcm-2006.pdf

Or is anyone aware of the North American Union currently being discussed? No more borders at Mexico and Canada to facilitate people and goods.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron9.htm
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060919132553106/print

Hell I just found out that Federal Reserve is a private owned banking institution that is not subject to tax, or being audited and my tax dollar only goes to the interest of the National Debt, not one dime goes into the economy.

the 10 days of research I did this is what I have found among others, but give this info no creed and watch C-SPAN or any political news channel and it makes what this information is saying correct. I mean connecting the dots.

I guess I was just being foolish.

Tim
« Last Edit: September 23, 2006, 08:37:59 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Carl L

  • Forum Staff
  • ---
  • *
  • Posts: 7297
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2006, 08:35:42 PM »
Quote
One hundred years of overt Government corruption. Hell I just found out that Federal Reserve is a private owned banking institution that is not subject to tax, or being audited and my tax dollar only goes to the interest of the National Debt, not one dime goes into the economy.


Then you found out wrong.   It is an independent agency of the Federal government.  From Federal Reserves website:

Are the Federal Reserve Banks private companies?

The Federal Reserve Banks, created by an act of Congress in 1913, are operated in the public interest rather than for profit or to benefit any private group.

Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in the Reserve Bank in their region, but they do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Holding stock in a regional Reserve Bank does not carry with it the kind of control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock affords, and the stock may not be sold or traded.  Member banks do, however, receive a fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors.

Although they are set up like private corporations and member banks hold their stock, the Federal Reserve Banks owe their existence to an act of Congress and have a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, they are not really "private" companies, but rather are "owned" by the citizens of the United States.


They are the US's central bank, our analogue of the Bank of England.   See their website HERE.
Carl L/LA   [Forum Staff]  KI6SEZ

Prowler 23LV TT pulled by a '95 Ford Bronco

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2006, 09:04:31 PM »
Thanks for the link to the web site, I will look into this. I always thought it was.

Is there a law for income tax, a direct unapportioned income tax as stated in the Constitution. I found an article that a court case was throw out with preduce. The actual 1040 Form is not a legal form.

If you get minute this film that is coming out right now, is rather thought provoking. These dont appear to be nuts protesting this.
FILM CLIP

This is a clip of some of the stuff I am finding about this topic, this is from May of this year 2006
****
On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley. 

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public.  The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley’s tactic paid off.  Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

The trial was to have started on Monday morning, May 15th. 

On Wednesday, May 10, Stilley mailed a set of documents to the DOJ in response to DOJ’s discovery demands. The documents revealed to DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was basing his entire defense on an act of Congress, 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520, also known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act" (PRA).

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding (such as Lawrence’s criminal trial).

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence's sole  defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number.

Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040. They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA.  That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America.

Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number.  If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect. 

Under the facts and circumstances of the last 24 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments.   

Caught between a rock and a hard place, the DOJ and IRS decided not to let the Lawrence case proceed because it would reveal one critical and damning fact: 

The PRA law protects those that fail to file IRS bootleg Form 1040

The DOJ knew that it stood a significant chance of losing the case, and if that happened, the press and others would quickly spread the word, and leave only fools to ever file a 1040 again.  Oscar Stilley’s pleadings and documents made these points quite clear:

IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.
 
Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.
 
The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.
 
The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals.  That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.
*****
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm

Now I can not verify this yet, matter of fact I dont get it at all.

This is the Government OMB library

And here is 1040 form the from the IRS web site, and these number match.




« Last Edit: September 23, 2006, 09:20:27 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

ArdraF

  • ---
  • Posts: 10208
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2006, 06:16:02 PM »
Tim,

I'm definitely not a tax professional and can't answer your specific question, but I do know a person who believed what one of these tax avoidance groups told him and he spent a number of years in a federal prison as a result.  Until then he was a law abiding family man who worked hard to support his family.  It all depends what a person is willing to risk.  Personally, I'd much rather pay my taxes and live free than try to outwit the feds and end up in a cell somewhere.  Moreover, after traveling the world and seeing how people live in the other countries where tax avoidance and corruption are a serious issue, I'd rather pay my USA taxes and live well.  We get a LOT for our tax money!  A wonderful system of highways and parks, which we RVers use to our advantage, is just one of them.  Another is decent drinking water and I could go on forever listing things our taxes pay for that we take for granted.  Who in their right mind would want to give all that up???

ArdraF

ArdraF
:D :D

Ned

  • Former Staff
  • ---
  • Posts: 25501
  • Ned and Lorna are former full time RVers
    • Have you seen Rolling Stock?
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2006, 09:46:49 PM »
Ardra,

Some people want everything for nothing.
-- Ned -- Fulltimer 1997-2013
1997 Holiday Rambler Endeavor LE
2007 GMC Canyon

Wendy

  • Forum Staff
  • ---
  • *
  • Posts: 12520
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2006, 09:55:59 PM »
Something they taught us in school while working toward an accounting degree was that tax 'avoidance' is perfectly legal while tax 'evasion' is a big no-no. You should 'avoid' paying taxes that you don't owe. But to 'evade' paying taxes means that you try not to pay taxes that you actually owe. Nice terminology to remember if you ever get into a disagreement with the IRS. Also remember that the IRS wins more times than they lose.
Wendy, Mike, and Gordon
~We can't be lost because we don't care where we're going~
Here's where we are http://map.datastormusers.com/user2.cfm?user=2276
2015 Allegro Ooen Road
1973 Sunshine Yellow VW Bug

TheDude

  • ---
  • Posts: 45
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2006, 11:16:47 PM »
Ardra,

Some people want everything for nothing.

If I can LEGALLY get something of value for FREE, I will.

If YOU want to pay for something that could be free that's also fine by me. :)
« Last Edit: September 28, 2006, 11:20:00 PM by TheDude »
I will fight (to the death) for your <b>RIGHT</b> to disagree with me.

Ned

  • Former Staff
  • ---
  • Posts: 25501
  • Ned and Lorna are former full time RVers
    • Have you seen Rolling Stock?
Re: Any tax professionals here?
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2006, 06:58:11 AM »
Nothing is free, somebody pays.
-- Ned -- Fulltimer 1997-2013
1997 Holiday Rambler Endeavor LE
2007 GMC Canyon