Federal Income Tax

[Bookcat]

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.

I do not need to prove anything. You are simply mistaken. As the US Govt. will tell you and as others will tell you. One is required to pay income taxes.

See the links I provided to answer your questions.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I do not need to prove anything. You are simply mistaken. As the US Govt. will tell you and as others will tell you. One is required to pay income taxes.

See the links I provided to answer your questions.

I have seen that site before coming here Bookat. Nothing you have provided is news. You are refusing to take the information from your links and compare it to the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

The US government also tells me that abortion isnt murder so I fail to see what you hope to prove with “But the Gov said so”. The Consitution which is what keeps our Government in line does not approve of what the government is doing and if you are an American citizen this should concern you.

 

[Bookcat]

You are refusing to take the information from your links and compare it to the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

I am refusing to follow a trail that is not well founded.

 

[Bookcat]

As to your bringing in the fact that the law permits abortion. If one says hey they are allowing that horror…so you should not listen to them about the law concerning taxes …such would mean that one should also not follow any other laws either. They are two different things. The Church is clear that the Govt. can require taxes (as is Jesus himself and Paul).

The early Christians paid their taxes …basically to those who were murdering them.

 

[Quarles47]

I wanted to know if Christians are morally obligated to pay the federal income tax?

This one starts with a seemly innocent question and goes on to answer it themself.

I would like to see this one try and take that argument before a judge to defend himself.:slapfight:

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I am refusing to follow a trail that is not well founded.

Right. Well when you get the time please watch this video. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023#

It’s very educational and I hope you will actually take the time to watch it.

From what I can see from the information you and others have provided is that the Federal Income Tax does not apply to me and therefore I’m not morally obligated to pay it and therefore I am not comitting a sin.

God Bless

Mods can close this thread now.
Thank you.

 

[Bookcat]

I am not in doubt about my obligation to pay my income taxes.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Credo in Deum;8304584:

I wanted to know if Christians are morally obligated to pay the federal income tax?

This one starts with a seemly innocent question and goes on to answer it themself.

I would like to see this one try and take that argument before a judge to defend himself.:slapfight:

Of course the morality question would not uphold however the facts should…should being the key word. The sad reality is the lower courts have not been following the Supreme Court’s ruling. Some however have upheld the Supreme court.

See Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, 204 Ala. 492, 86 So. 56, 58 (1920); State v. Pinder, 108 A. 43, 45 (Del. 1919); Bachrach v. Nelson, 349 Ill. 579, 182 N.E. 909 (1932); Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 108 N.E. 570 (1915); Trefry v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 116 N.E. 904 (1917); Maguire v. Tax Comm. of Commonwealth, 230 Mass. 503, 120 N.E. 162, 166 (1918); Hart v. Tax Comm., 240 Mass. 37, 132 N.E. 621 (1921); In re Ponzi, 6 F.2d 324 (D.Mass. 1925); Kennedy v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N.E. 747 (1926); In re Opinion of the Justices, 266 Mass. 583, 165 N.E. 900, 902 (1929); Hutchins v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 272 Mass. 422, 172 N.E. 605, 608 (1930); Bryant v. Comm. of Corps. & Tax’n., 291 Mass. 498, 197 N.E. 509 (1935); Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P.2d 81, 82 (1933); Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936); State ex rel Manitowoc Gas Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 161 Wis. 111, 152 N.W. 848, 850 (1915); and State ex rel Sallie F. Moon Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 166 Wis. 287, 163 N.W. 639, 640 (1917).

 

[Bookcat]

Quarles47;8305818:

The sad reality is the lower courts have not been following the Supreme Court’s ruling. Some however have upheld the Supreme court.

See Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes

, 204 Ala. 492, 86 So. 56, 58 (1920); State v. Pinder, 108 A. 43, 45 (Del. 1919); Bachrach v. Nelson, 349 Ill. 579, 182 N.E. 909 (1932); Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 108 N.E. 570 (1915); Trefry v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 116 N.E. 904 (1917); Maguire v. Tax Comm. of Commonwealth, 230 Mass. 503, 120 N.E. 162, 166 (1918); Hart v. Tax Comm., 240 Mass. 37, 132 N.E. 621 (1921); In re Ponzi, 6 F.2d 324 (D.Mass. 1925); Kennedy v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N.E. 747 (1926); In re Opinion of the Justices, 266 Mass. 583, 165 N.E. 900, 902 (1929); Hutchins v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 272 Mass. 422, 172 N.E. 605, 608 (1930); Bryant v. Comm. of Corps. & Tax’n., 291 Mass. 498, 197 N.E. 509 (1935); Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P.2d 81, 82 (1933); Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936); State ex rel Manitowoc Gas Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 161 Wis. 111, 152 N.W. 848, 850 (1915); and State ex rel Sallie F. Moon Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 166 Wis. 287, 163 N.W. 639, 640 (1917).



Whatever those cases etc are…they are from ages ago…some around 100 year ago.

And if it were not the Law for individuals to pay an income tax then every year there would not be those nice little forms to fill out.

If you doubt such…go ahead…submit it to the supreme court. You will find that they agree with the Law that is in force all across the United States of America.

 

[Wardog]

If the IRS is imposing taxes on the people that did not receive income according to what the definition of “income” is and has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be then the IRS is committing a crime.

Also this is a tax question that came to mind after going to the IRS since they could not show me any law that requires me to pay the Federal Income Tax other than the one they have which is not applicable to me according to the definition of what the Supreme Court ruled “income” to be.

rather than talk about taxes on this site, why don’t you take this to court and report back on what happens to you. that would be a lot more helpful.

 

[TimothyH]

I know my friend and sometimes you have to make that sacrifice to show injustice.

So you gonna take one for the team or what?

Are you going to H&R Block this April or are you going to abstain?

What’s the bottom line?

-Tim-

 

[Wardog]

16th Amendment
Amendment XVI
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.

Income tax is constitutional. You will have to get the 16th Amendment repealed.

 

[Cyclophile]

Please read the entire thread before you respond. If you did you would see that this proves nothing.

I did and I think that it does… Seriously. If you are sincere in your convictions then, by all means, stop paying income tax and argue the matter in court… as Wesley Snipes, among others, has.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
check, your move

 

[Rence]

I am not going to go research all the background of our current income taxes.

I was wondering if you were going to undertake that task. You certainly have provided a LOT of research on Catholic teachings, for which I (as well as others) am very grateful…most of the time

It is clear from that April deadline each year and those handy little booklets we get sent on how to file our income taxes that such is expected of us.

If you have a tax question contact the IRS et al.

 

[Warrior1979]

One of the people I met on another forum was an self-proclaimed expert on this matter. He used to bore us to tears.

What is interesting though is that he appeared to be correct. There was a case a few years ago where the IRS sued a private individual (to be distinguished from corporations, etc…the rules are different in that case) that did not file or pay taxes (note: not filing was very relevant; once you file your making a promise). The IRS saw they were going to lose the case, and had the case dismissed with prejudice. The last thing they wanted to do was to go to the Supreme Court and lose, which would affirmatively state no private individual in the would have to pay taxes. The gist of the case dealt with control number of various forms, and that the IRS didn’t have the authority to collect personal income taxes.

 

[Bookcat]

docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

So you gonna take one for the team or what?

Are you going to H&R Block this April or are you going to abstain?

What’s the bottom line?

-Tim-

Hello Tim,

At this point in time I’m choosing to abstain however I’m going to stay open and research this further.

I know this has gotten to be a somewhat heated debate but regardless I do want to thank everyone for posting links and info to support their position.

 

[Bookcat]

Perhaps give a call to all the Priests in the U.S. And the Catholic Moral Theologians.

One will find that they too pay income taxes

 

[KristyRae44657]

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.

You might do well to remember that this is a Catholic forum (as in religious) - NOT to be confused with a Legal Discussion forum (as in taxation and Supreme Court matters).

With your first post I assumed you were asking a legitimate moral question. Your insistence that YOUR point of view is the only valid one shows me that you came here with alternate intentions.

Again - please don’t be catty with those of us who are trying to give our opinion - after all, YOU did ask for it. If it is a legal debate you want - you should take this matter over to a Legal discussion forum and get your facts straight - then IF your point of view really is correct - come back and ask us about the moral implications.