IRS vs. KUGLIN "Pay No Taxes"

[Velociryx]

and for the record, I pay my taxes, and don't have a problem with it....the discussion was interesting to me tho, so....I figured I'd do a part to keep the thread alive...

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

As Hersh point out Vel, the constitution includes articles outlining how it can be modified and ammended by the legislature an majority of states. ny consituttional ammendment is by definiton constitutional and fully a part of it, with all the power and validity of that document.

And as Hersh so amply pointed out, with the 16th ammendment, your arguement vs. the income tax (that of apportionment) was removed constitutionally.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by blackice

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_2169609,00.html

A link to the local news, I ask the jury is out on that one, MichaeltheGreat. While she has this one under wraps, the question still remains. Do you have to pay taxes in the USofA?

The quote about payment of taxes being unresolved at the end of the trial is meaningless. Collection and prosecution are distinct functions. The US Attorney's office prosecutes cases, it doesn't do tax collection. The IRS Collection division is the reverse. Neither the judge nor the jury has any authority to make a finding on tax liability, only on the statutory offense of tax evasion.

As I said in a previous post, all you need to do is start with Section 1 of the IRC, which is Title 26, U.S.C. The liability is clear enough. The reason there's no cutesie semantic language that "each person is obligated to pay income tax" is that each person isn't obligated to pay income tax. Unless they make enough income to be subject to the law. The IRS (and the Congress) isn't really interested in having people say "I found a dime on the street and begged for a hundred bucks last year, but didn't work and lived in a shelter, and here's my form 1040-EZR and a payment for zero."

It would seem no one can answer that question.
It would seem another court fight is on the horizon. She seems competent and determined to get an answer to that question, "where does it say she has to"

I guess equally important in this news is the fact not one major news source carried it... You really have to ask why.

Several reasons: "tax evasion" is a crime of intent. If someone refuses to pay taxes because of a genuine, unshakeable belief that she doesn't have to, then you may have a case where a jury felt the government didn't prove she knowingly evaded a tax obligation.

Another reason is that she didn't get out of paying taxes, she just got out of jail time for not paying taxes. The first situation would be real interesting, the second isn't. It's sure not national news.

The third reason is that without really getting into the transcript, there's no way to know if this is inept prosecution, jury nullification, or simply a jury pool with people who can't understand concepts beyond the level of "Dick and Jane." In any event, it's not "pay no taxes" and it's not more then an odd curiousity in terms of legal significance.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Quite so, but the SC has already ruled that "income" = Corporate profits.

As I am not a corporate entity, then under the definition, I cannot have income to tax, true? Which would seem to put the "laws" governing my taxation on soggy ground.

-=Vel=-

Wrong again. Courts don't rule on the general meaning of words in the English language. They rule on the meaning in the context of a particular legal issue before the courts. If you want to go by a law library for fun, check out the book series "Words and Phrases" - it rocks. Every word that has been the focus of litigation in the US is in there, and every meaning that has been applied based on the particular legal issue in which the word's meaning was contested is listed. So under "Income" you'd find dozens of entries, giving the meaning interpreted, the court and case cite, and the relevant statute or issue for which the meaning of the word was contested.

In the case you were referring to, income would be defined as meaning corporate profits as the term income was used in the particular statute being challenged. Since the statute is long dead, the meaning of the term income applied in that context is long dead along with it.

[Velociryx]

GePap: I'm aware of that...I'm also aware of the fact that the SC has made the following statements re: the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:

Income = Corporate Profits

The 16th Does not grant any new taxation ability to the Congress.

""...the proposition and the contentions under it [the Sixteenth "Amendment"] ...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... This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish(,) would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."

This doesn't sound like constitutional removal to me....sounds like a paradox introduced with the introduction of the 16th.

[GePap]

Just deal with hersh quote Vel, and MtG's objections. They are doing a good enough job at this.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Quite so, but the SC has already ruled that "income" = Corporate profits.

Read the cases you cite in full.

"That the trustee was such a 'taxable person' is clear"

MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

The SC only used the definition of corporate "income" from a statute to determine that person's "income" in a statute lacking a definition, in concreto that capital gains are income.

[Velociryx]

Hey, I agree with 'em...I'm just tossing stuff out there....and that looks like a checkmate to me, Hersh and MtG...

-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The 16th Does not grant any new taxation ability to the Congress.

I pointed out the error before. Your claim is only in so far correct as the power laready existed:

"It is clear on the face of this text [16th amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, - an authority already possessed and never questioned"

It only removed the requirement of apportionment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's no fun without the real "taxes = theft" and "constitutional amendments aren't amendments and are unconstitutional" crowd to play, though.

I'm already

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I'm already

Repetitio non delectat.

[GePap]

Well, the libertarians aren't in the house, so what can one do?

[HershOstropoler]

Ok Vel, where did you find that stuff? That is some brilliant example for how not to use legal method, I might be able to use that...

[HershOstropoler]

dp

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Repetitio non delectat.