Monday, October 03, 2005

Hank Goltz interviews Cindy Neun

26 Old Comments:

Looks like the judge didn't have any trouble finding the law that makes Irwin, Cindy and Larry liable for income taxes.

But of course no court, including the U.S. Supreme Court has had trouble finding it either, nor has any legal or constitutional scholar.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 9:39 PM  

Could you post it for us here please. I missed it.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 9:59 PM  

Where the heck is this phantom law?
The following have an OPINION about what the law is, but they can't PRODUCE the actual text of the law:

Judge, IRS, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Congress, Executive Branch, Legal and Constitutional scholars...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 10:06 PM  

"Could you post it for us here please. I missed it."

Nah, just listen to the first minute of Cindy's audioblog so that you get it directly from the source.

Or you can read Dan Evans' summary:

Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax, there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for the tax (and must use the word "liable"). However, that is not what the law requires.

In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. .."

As explained in the regulations:

"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.

In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on upaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that "The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation...." U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).

Also, section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return "shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return." The Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating: "When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay..." U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).

As explained below, the obligation to file a return is established by section 6012. A person having more than a stated minimum of income is required to file a return and, according to section 6151, is required to pay the tax shown on the return.

So what have the courts said about the claim that there is no one liable for the tax imposed on their incomes?

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
"Purportedly in support of his claim, plaintiff submitted a statement along with the Form 1040, in which he argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax 'liability.' The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is 'hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual' (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between 'imposing' a tax and creating a 'liability' for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Porcaro v. United States, 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5547, No. 99-CV-60406-AA (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. October 25, 1999).
"Sasscer makes the puzzling argument that section 1461 is the only provision in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes liability for payment of a tax on 'income.' Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that 26 U.S.C. section 1 could hardly be more clear in imposing a tax on 'income.' See generally United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153, 1996 WL 271468 *2-3 (4th Cir. May 22, 1996) (unpublished opinion)." United States v. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, n. 3, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000).
"Plaintiff's arguments are no less frivolous here. [Footnote omitted.] First, Plaintiff argues the Code does not impose a tax "liability". The plain language of the Code belies this, stating the tax is "imposed". See 96 [sic] U.S.C. section 1. He attempts to distinguish between "imposing" a tax and creating a "liability" for tax. The Court fails to see a difference. Individuals have an affirmative duty to pay taxes. Gabelman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 86 F.3d 609, 611 (6th Cir. 1996)." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
See also, United States v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95 (10th Cir. 1979);
United States v. Slater, 545 F.Supp. 179 (Del. 1982).
"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
An attorney named Thomas J. Carley argued before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that "[n]owhere in any of the Statutes of the United States is there any section of law making any individual liable to pay a tax or excise on 'taxable income.'" The Second Circuit responded that "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.) (hereinafter the Code) provides in plain, clear and precise language that '[t]here is hereby imposed the taxable income of every individual ... a tax determined in accordance with' tables set-out later in the statute. ... Despite the appellant's attempted contorted construction of the statutory scheme, we find that it coherently and forthrightly imposed upon the appellant tax upon his income for the year 1980." Ficalora v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 1869 (1985).

Oddly enough, the same attorney raised nearly the identical argument before the Eighth Circuit, arguing that there was "no law imposing an income tax" on his clients. The Eighth Circuit held that the appeal was "frivolous" and imposed a penalty on the appellants of double the Commissioner's costs of the appeal. Lively v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 1983).

Even more incredibly, only a year after losing the Lively appeal, and six month after losing the Ficalora appeal, the same attorney, Thomas J. Carley, raises the same idiot issue with the 10th Circuit, questioning "Whether there is any law or statute imposing an income tax on appellants for the year 1977 and, if such a law or statute is claimed to exist, what is the precise citation of such law or statute?" The 10th Circuit quoted from both the Ficalora and Lively opinions, and then spent the rest of the opinion explaining why it was going to impose sanctions on Mr. Carley personally (not his clients). "It is obvious that despite having full knowledge of the learned opinions of two different Article III courts and the accurate reasoning of the Tax Court in Manley [v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 46 T.C.M. 1359 (1983), another case lost by Mr. Carley)] concerning his arguments, Carley has failed to learn that he has no right to occupy the time of such courts with frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious proceedings, and that if he does so, he exposes not only his clients but also himself personally to sanctions." Charczuk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 771 F.2d 471, 474 (10th Cir. 1985). The court also referred to Mr. Carley's arguments as "meritless," "preposterous," "nearly silly," and "that thoroughly defy common sense."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 10:08 PM  

My favorite part: The court also referred to Mr. Carley's arguments as "meritless," "preposterous," "nearly silly," and "that thoroughly defy common sense."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 10:09 PM  

Now that Dawson has quoted the law making a person liable Irwin said that he would plead guilty once the thug force (government) showed him the law making him liable. Of course if Irwin is going to plead guilty he has every right to understand the law that makes him liable. There should be no problem discussing the three sections in front of the jury that Dawson claims makes a person liable.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 10:25 PM  

Irwin has a fundamental misunderstanding that the word "liable" must be used, but of course the Constitution does not require the use of the word "liable".

But of course Irwin has been wrong twice before. What is amazing is that anybody would be so stupid as to follow the rants of a two-time loser, but I guess since most of the TPs themselves are losers, they relate to him.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 10:29 PM  

So how did Joe Banister get aquitted? How did Vernice Kuglin get aquitted? Why couldn't they produce the law for them to file?

You Quatloser smucks.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 11:35 PM  

Banister wasn't even prosecuted for failure to file since he was paying his taxes all along. He was acquitted of conspiracy to file a false return, after his client was convicted.

Kuglin was acquitted, but still had to pay her taxes. In fact, she entered into a settlements where she is paying ALL of her back taxes, interest and penalties so the IRS won't foreclose on her house. She's probably "working for the IRS" even now.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 11:42 PM  

Imposition of a tax doesn't create liability. A tax on cigarettes is imposed but you aren't liable unless you buy cigarettes. Other taxes in the IR Code represent imposition and liabilty separately.

BTW Sections 63 and 6012 of the IR Code have no implementing regulation and therefore no force and effect of law.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 11:45 PM  

"BTW Sections 63 and 6012 of the IR Code have no implementing regulation and therefore no force and effect of law."

Yet another paytriot myth.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 11:48 PM  

"Imposition of a tax doesn't create liability."

Let us know when anybody who matters agrees with you. Certainly, none of the judges will.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2005 11:51 PM  

Erm, to see the truth, one must learn to read...
---quote---
In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. .."
---end quote---

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

So, one can just ignore what the law defines taxable income as?

And when one does not have "taxable income"? Is one liable for tax?

---quote---
Tax protestors claim that...blah blah blah
--- end quote ---
The most common method of causing confusion on this topic is to make up an argument (or mis-interpret it) and then show the (false) argument to be invalid.

What those who know the truth claim is that if one does not have taxable income, one cannot be liable for a tax on their income. The law states this clearly enough.

---quote---
"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
---end quote---
Hold on there hoss. Don't forget to keep reading as the following is part of that same section. Odd that you conveniently leave it out of your quote...
"The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by
subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income)."

Anywise, more par for the statist course. Of course...they can go read the law and get the truth (provided they know to use the CFR and USC together, they know what a legal term is, and they know that when a term uses the word includes that it includes only the listed items and excludes all other items).

Of course, why bother reading the law when those who steal their earnings from them tell them that the theft is legal...

Strangely, it seems a bit more logical to go look for oneself.

There is an amendment against slavery and indentured servitude.

Forcing someone to work 2 hours per day for nothing would be 2 hours of slavery per day. A 20% tax on a persons labor is exactly the same thing if the person works 10 hour days.

People are just so conditioned to this method of slavery that they simply do not recognize it...yet.

By Anonymous KiteKaze, at 10/04/2005 12:41 AM  

Let us know when anybody who matters agrees with you. Certainly, none of the judges will.

Indeed.

It is too bad that people believe that the Republican or Democratic parties can make things better. Both are statist parties that believe power should be given to the government at the expense of the people.

No statist is every going to acknowledge the truth behind the income tax as that would lead to smaller government.

Only parties supporting personal liberty above government (Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc) would acknowledge such...and unfortunately too many have been trained to believe that only the government can take care of them...as if they are small children.

Until people realize the truth, those who are ignorant shall continue on in willful slavery and those who refuse to be good slaves shall be persecuted.

By Anonymous KiteKaze, at 10/04/2005 12:53 AM  

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Am I not in servitude when three days of my wages out of six go to the government for taxes?
Seems to me no law to collect taxes can be legal if my thirteenth amendment right is being violated.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 1:23 AM  

If you think you are in slavery, then flee. Lots of freedom in Haiti.

Nobody will stop you from leaving, oh, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:23 AM  

If you think you are in slavery, then flee. Lots of freedom in Haiti.

Only your type of scumbag would avoid the constitutional question. Just like the IRS when asked by a group of reporters avoided the question on the law.
The day will come when un-patriotic garbage like you will have to leave this country.

We are growing in strength at a rapid rate. Our martyr’s will be freed from jail. You have seen what one man did in retaliation to a bunch of terrorists called the US government after they murdered 17 children in WACO. Not to mention the government terrorists that murdered a 15 year old boy and his mother at RUBY RIDGE. The real way to stop the government terrorists is the way that Mahatma Gandhi did to get England out of India. Irwin Schiff might just be the man to lead us. Go ahead make a martyr out of Irwin.
If the jury is reading these blogs remember you will be judged as you have judged on judgment day. You have witnessed a kangaroo court and for no other reason you have to find Irwin not guilty regardless of Dawson’s instructions that is your right as a jury. You are the power of this trial not Dawson.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 7:27 AM  

"Irwin Schiff might just be the man to lead us."

Only if he can sell you a $38 book with a $95 series of tapes to lead you in your revolution.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 9:10 AM  

the Internal Revenue Code is a local, municipal Code as far as federal income taxes are concerned.

When Congress makes laws which apply only inside the District of Columbia, these laws are called "municipal" laws in 28 U.S.C. Rule 54(c),
Application of Terms:

"As used in these rules the following terms have the
designated meanings. 'Act of Congress' includes any act of
Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District
of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular
possession."


the Citizens of the 50 States of the United States of America have never been required to file
or to pay "income taxes. The Constitution forbids unapportioned direct taxes upon the Citizens
of the several States of the 50 States of the Union

By birth, we are each a Citizen of the State of (50 states) or a Citizen of whatever
Union State wherein we were born and, at the same time, we are
all Citizens of the United States of America, and are not subject
to any Acts of Congress, other than the 18 powers specifically
enumerated in the Constitution for the United States of America.

People who are born, or who reside, within the federal District
of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the
Northern Mariana Islands, any territory, on any naval base or
dockyard, within forts, or within insular possessions, are called
U.S. citizens and are subject to Acts of Congress.

Our Constitution is the Constitution for the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution is the
Constitution of Puerto Rico.

July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06.

Without the approval of Congress or the President, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury. the Department of Treasury's intent to use OMB Form 83-1 (rather than OMB Form 83) to legally certify IRS Individual Form 1040 as a valid government document, is compelling proof establishing that IRS Form 1040 is merely a PROPOSED tax form, and that there is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY that authorizes its use.

For our goverment to defend a foreign trust against people who defended this country time and again and ask a jury who enjoys these freedoms to convic a freedom fighter with lies has got to stop

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 10:23 AM  

"the Internal Revenue Code is a local, municipal Code as far as federal income taxes are concerned."

More paytriot myth.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 11:02 AM  

NEWS FLASH
Uncle Irwin, the reason you can't talk law in a USDC is because they got you in the wrong court even the jury is not a legal body. Look at 18 U.S.C. 3231, you should be in a DCUS court and when you petition the court for a dismissal, or a stay of proceedings, pending final resolution of the challenge, A stay will freeze, on any further hearings, until the controversy is settled. For final resolution go directly to Supreme Court do not pass go or collect any prisoners you have finally got to United States Supreme Court (law of the land). You have set the trap so so well...see ya in Supreme Court...
then tell us its a paytriot myth...hahaha welcome to law 101...should have studied more lol.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 1:10 PM  

Anonymous said...

If you think you are in slavery, then flee. Lots of freedom in Haiti.

Nobody will stop you from leaving, oh, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

10/04/2005 7:23 AM


WOW! That's convincing.

By Anonymous NOT!, at 10/04/2005 1:29 PM  

Only your type of scumbag would avoid the constitutional question. Just like the IRS when asked by a group of reporters avoided the question on the law.

Mark Everson avoids the question
Nina Olsen avoids the question

By Anonymous I see the lies, at 10/04/2005 1:36 PM  

Thanks I see I wanted to post those sites and could not find them.
Great to see how we patriots are coming together. I'm looking forward to Bob Schultz coming to testify.

John

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/04/2005 6:03 PM  

Hey schmukc, I beg to differ with you as the Supreme Court can not find any law that requries on to file and pay taxes if they are not liable...Maybe if you are so smart, you can show many of us where to find it...we can read you know.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/05/2005 11:04 AM  

Anonymous cowardly silly persons continue asserting:

"Banister wasn't even prosecuted for failure to file since he was paying his taxes all along."

Since they provide exactly zero evidence to bolster their comments, and since the language of the comments is liable to lead to arguments over what "his" taxes means (at least, it should, LOL), these unsourced assertions are not very useful except as examples of Quatlooser-style trolling.

By Blogger Jamie, at 10/09/2005 2:27 PM