Federal Income Tax

  • Thread starter Thread starter Credo_in_Deum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Credo in Deum, I don’t know where you get all of this, but it is way out there in left field. The 16th admendment specifically says that income tax does not need apportionment. Sorry, you are the one who is making outlandish claims with absolutely no references. I have provided references, they are obviously not adequate for you and I will try to do better to refute your positions; once those positions are documented. So please, provide us references material backing up the following:
  1. Income taxes require apportionment amoung states
  2. Income taxes fund the federal reserve bank
  3. Income taxes are an excise on corporate profit (maybe through a convoluted chain of events this makes a little sense)
  4. It is not mandatory
I have documented my case on 1,3, and 4.
As to item 2, here is a link for documentation: gao.gov/financial/fy2010financialreport.html . Go to page 42 (it is pdf page 8 of the file “financial statements”, and you will see income taxes as a main source of revenue for the federal government.

And yes, the large font does bother me.
 
After reading all of the posts so far - I am beginning to think that you never intended to come here to genuinely ‘ask’ if your viewpoint was correct - but rather to get others worked up.

You obviously already have your mind made up. God doesn’t violate our free will. If you feel that you are just in not paying taxes - then by all means don’t pay and then let us know later how that worked out for you.

For me personally - it is moral and ethical to file my taxes (federal, state and local) when the government says they are due and to either make payment on time or to make payment arrangements before the due date. I sense that most of the members who have posted thus far feel the same way.

Many things in life seem unfair - and some are unfair.

I suggest that you pray about this - talk to your priest - and then act accordingly.
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
The 16th amendment is clear which is why the Supreme Courty ruled on what income is considered to be and has upheld this ruling. The 16th ammendment has not been ratified and you cannot provide me with any proof that it has been.
Click to expand...
This is the basically the argument against ratification…
The William J. Benson contention is essentially that the legislatures of various states passed ratifying resolutions in which the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas), and that these differences made the ratification invalid. Benson makes other assertions including claims that one or more states rejected the Amendment and that the state or states were falsely reported as having ratified the Amendment. The Benson arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised, and were explicitly ruled to be fraudulent in 2007.

The Benson contention was comprehensively addressed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Thomas:

Tax lawyer Alan O. Dixler has written:
Each year some misguided souls refuse to pay their federal income tax liability on the theory that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, or on the theory that the 16th Amendment lacks an enabling clause. Not surprisingly, neither the IRS nor the courts have exhibited much patience for that sort of thing. If, strictly for the purposes of this discussion, the 16th Amendment could be disregarded, the taxpayers making those frivolous claims would still be subject to the income tax. In the first place, income from personal services is taxable without apportionment in the absence of the 16th Amendment. Pollock specifically endorsed Springer’s holding that such income could be taxed without apportionment. The second Pollock decision invalidated the entire 1894 income tax act, including its tax on personal services income, due to inseverability; but, unlike the 1894 act, the current code contains a severability provision. Also, given the teaching of Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939)] – that the theory that taxing income from a particular source is, in effect, taxing the source itself is untenable – the holding in Pollock that taxing income from property is the same thing as taxing the property as such cannot be viewed as good law.In Abrams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court stated: “Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.”
Click to expand...
You can read more about the US income tax fallacies here… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments

I suggest a mod lock this thread. Also, I will not be following it further. :tiphat:

edit: If you’d spend as much time on acts of charity as you do trying to get out of paying taxes, I assure you the money will not be missed. Most of us struggle with finances; I’m no exception. But not paying your taxes is not the christian way.
 
tafan said:
Credo in Deum, I don’t know where you get all of this, but it is way out there in left field. The 16th admendment specifically says that income tax does not need apportionment. Sorry, you are the one who is making outlandish claims with absolutely no references. I have provided references, they are obviously not adequate for you and I will try to do better to refute your positions; once those positions are documented. So please, provide us references material backing up the following:
  1. Income taxes require apportionment amoung states
  2. Income taxes fund the federal reserve bank
  3. Income taxes are an excise on corporate profit (maybe through a convoluted chain of events this makes a little sense)
  4. It is not mandatory
I have documented my case on 1,3, and 4.
As to item 2, here is a link for documentation: gao.gov/financial/fy2010financialreport.html . Go to page 42 (it is pdf page 8 of the file “financial statements”, and you will see income taxes as a main source of revenue for the federal government.

And yes, the large font does bother me.
Click to expand...
Direct taxes have to be apportioned.

archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

U. S. of A. CONSTITUTION
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3*: *"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers…"
**
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: "No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless **in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
 
KristyRae44657 said:
After reading all of the posts so far - I am beginning to think that you never intended to come here to genuinely ‘ask’ if your viewpoint was correct - but rather to get others worked up.

You obviously already have your mind made up. God doesn’t violate our free will. If you feel that you are just in not paying taxes - then by all means don’t pay and then let us know later how that worked out for you.

For me personally - it is moral and ethical to file my taxes (federal, state and local) when the government says they are due and to either make payment on time or to make payment arrangements before the due date. I sense that most of the members who have posted thus far feel the same way.

Many things in life seem unfair - and some are unfair.

I suggest that you pray about this - talk to your priest - and then act accordingly.
Click to expand...
Thank you Kristy. I don’t want others to agree but rather provide proof. I have provided Supreme Court cases and the US constitution and I wanted to know in view of what the Supreme Court, IRS, and Constitution say am I morally wrong for not paying a tax that is being illegally in forced upon me.
 
I think we all remember Christ using a Roman coin and telling us to ‘render unto Ceasar . . .’ So I think paying ‘taxes’ is morally correct.

Any tax is simply a fee for service.

I need a military to protect me. I need roads to move from one place to another. I need schools, police, firemen. I need fair business practice rules. I need a healthy environment. I need health services and medical research. I even benefit from space exploration.

The more important questions are 1) from whom shall or should I get the services I need and 2) what is a fair price to pay for those services?

Some services are just plain better provided at an affordable cost by the government (taxes) or by private industry (fee for service).

I readily acknowledge that a certain part of my taxes go to providing basic services to the poor who pay no income tax and that I may therefore be paying more than what I receive in return. But I also acknoweldge that I am morally obligated to help the poor, so even that portion of my taxes are morally correct.

The question will always remain: How much service from the government and how much service from private business? The best answer available is the result of voting every two years.
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
Thank you Kristy. I don’t want others to agree but rather provide proof. I have provided Supreme Court cases and the US constitution and I wanted to know in view of what the Supreme Court, IRS, and Constitution say am I morally wrong for not paying a tax that is being illegally in forced upon me.
Click to expand...
I for one don’t have any moral issues with you not paying income tax based on your rationale. While you are in jail, remember St. Paul was also unjustly imprisoned for a higher cause.
 
THe problem with conspiracy theories is that there is never enough proof. Conspiracy theorists pick their topic and demand proof refuting their allegations. No matter what one provides, it is never enough or it is from an unreliable source, etc.

This is a moral theology page, I think it best we all just give up on this. I apologize to OP that I have no proof that the income tax is legal, non-optional (obviously the wording of the law does not matter), or funds the US government (cannot trust governmetn financial statements).

God bless
 
Just_Lurking said:
I for one don’t have any moral issues with you not paying income tax based on your rationale. While you are in jail, remember St. Paul was also unjustly imprisoned for a higher cause.
Click to expand...
I know my friend and sometimes you have to make that sacrifice to show injustice.
 
tafan said:
THe problem with conspiracy theories is that there is never enough proof. Conspiracy theorists pick their topic and demand proof refuting their allegations. No matter what one provides, it is never enough or it is from an unreliable source, etc.

This is a moral theology page, I think it best we all just give up on this. I apologize to OP that I have no proof that the income tax is legal, non-optional (obviously the wording of the law does not matter), or funds the US government (cannot trust governmetn financial statements).

God bless
Click to expand...
Tafan I’m not saying the income tax is not legal what I’m saying is the way its being infored is not legal. You see the income tax is perfectly leagal as an indirect tax, however it cannot be inforced as a direct tax which is something the IRS is doing against the ruling of the Supreme Court and the US Constitution.

You see people will provide this from the Constitution:
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
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
Click to expand...
Yet they take this out of context and refuse to acknowledge how the Supreme Courts has ruled cases while using that same ratification. Cases such as this one:

Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co 240 U.S. 1 at 10-11 (1916).
It states “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be the subject of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, …”
You see I’m not stating my opinion but fact, a fact supported by the Supreme Court while those who disagree only have opinion.

@Kristy: I will talk to a priest about this. God bless.
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
You see I’m not stating my opinion but fact, a fact supported by the Supreme Court while those who disagree only have opinion.
Click to expand...
Not so. Your stating a misinformed opinion. If you wish to ask the Supreme Court…feel free. They will agree with Congress here.
 
Bookcat said:
Not so. Your stating a misinformed opinion. If you wish to ask the Supreme Court…feel free. They will agree with Congress here.
Click to expand...
I have told you time and time again. Show me where the Supreme Court has ruled the income tax is a direct tax that does not need to apportioned and I will admit I’m wrong. Believe me I have looked and could only find Supreme Court rulings that show that direcet taxes must be apportioined and while indirect taxes do not have to be. Since the Income Tax is not a direct tax but an indirect one then my position still stands as being valid.

Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co

“But it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes , and thus it would come to pass, that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax, not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographic uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one State or States, than was levied in another State or States. This result, instead of simplifying the situation, and making clear the limitation on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

And they go on to say:

The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax, although it is relieved from apportionment, and is necessarily therefore, not subject to the rule of uniformity, as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning,*** is wholly without foundation…*"

" The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary, recognized **the fact that taxation on income, was in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such…" pg 16-17

Basically Bookat the Supreme Court just said that you upholding the belief that the Income Tax is a direct tax is incorrect. But please find me a supreme court case that says otherwise.
 
Credo_in_Deum said:
But the Federal Income Tax is a voluntary tax so if there isn’t a law then I shouldn’t be obligated to pay it right?
Click to expand...
you need to read the tax code again because you are delusional if you think it is voluntary
and use the tool bar to lower your type size, the screaming keeps me awake
 
Bookcat said:
I have given plenty of links that should be very informative…
Click to expand...
They were Bookcat but they did not prove any of your claimes. According to the Consitution and the Supreme Court I do now fall under the IRS’s catagory as one who is required to pay the federal income tax. This would mean me paying it is completely voluntary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top