Similarly, for the Tenth District, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the argument that “the Internal Revenue Code has not been translated into `positive law.`” [34] The most important legal provision regarding income tax is the very first: Section I of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 1 collects income tax. If you are not married, the relevant provision is Article 1(c), which states: Most taxes can be divided into three areas: taxes on what you earn, taxes on what you buy, and taxes on what you own. There is hardly a constitutional amendment, law or presumption that has not been used to prove that the collection of income tax is invalid. As a constitutional lawyer working for a tax policy organization, I am often asked whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or (often more crudely) shows where the law that requires people to pay income taxes is. “There is no law that requires you to pay federal income taxes.” Taxpayer Robert L. Schulz filed motions in Federal Court to lift IRS subpoenas[50] to obtain testimony and documents related to an IRS investigation. In the Schulz case, the court did not rule that a taxpayer has the right to ask the IRS to explain why they are taxable, and that issue was not referred to the court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the taxpayer`s claims for lack of material jurisdiction because there was no factual or controversial case, as required by Article III of the Constitution. The court argued that the subpoenas posed no risk of harm to the taxpayer because the IRS had not yet initiated enforcement proceedings against him. In other words, the taxpayer was not entitled to a court order to lift the subpoenas until the IRS went to court to demand that he comply with the subpoena or face sanctions — something the IRS had not yet done. Once the IRS takes this step, the taxpayer would have ample opportunity to challenge the validity of the subpoenas.
Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states: “No refund or other direct tax shall be levied unless it is proportionate to the census or census provided for herein and ordered in advance.” In 1894, Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman Tariff, which introduced a 2% income tax on incomes over $4,000. Charles Pollock denied that the section 1, section 9 tax was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted certiorari the hearing of this question in Pollock v. Farmers` Loan and Trust Company, 157 US 429 (1895). Taxpayers have attempted to argue that the Cordner Doctrine (see above) should not apply if the coins remain in circulation, since the coins were withdrawn from circulation in the Cordner (gold coins) case. This claim was rejected. In Stoecklin, the court held that a taxpayer who receives coins (in this case, dollar coins) as compensation for services is taxed at the fair market value of the coins, not at the lower face value, whether or not the coins have been withdrawn from circulation. [77] Similarly, in United States v.
Kahre, the defendants` arguments – that where gold or silver coins are currently in circulation, the taxpayer can report the coins as income at face value rather than at their higher market value – were rejected. [78] Kahre also made headlines, because although the defendants lost their argument that receipt of circulation coins could be taxed at the lower face value, the defendants were not convicted of the criminal charges against them, with the lead defendant drawing a jury. [79] Kahre was later convicted and is currently serving a 15-year sentence in federal prison. [80] [81] Some tax protesters argue that in Montello Salt Co. v. 1911 in Utah,[7] the Supreme Court concluded that the term “including” is generally interchangeable with “also,” but not necessarily, and can sometimes have a sense of exclusivity. The Montello Salt case was not a federal tax case, and no question relating to the meaning of the terms “state” or “includes” or “including” as used in the Internal Revenue Code has been referred or decided by the court. The word “tax” does not appear in the text of Montello Salt.
Since then, income tax has become an integral part of American life. Long before the permanent introduction of income tax, or worse, pay-as-you-go income tax, Benjamin Franklin lamented, “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Since then, medical advances have made progress in at least delaying death, but we have steadily lost ground on taxes. Patrick Michael Mooney was fined $1,000 under Section 6673 of the Internal Revenue Code by the U.S. Treasury Court for making frivolous arguments. The court rejected his argument that his salary received from a private employer was not taxable. The Court also rejected his argument that the term “employee” was limited to “a person who performs the duties of a public office.” [27] For an overview of the many false arguments that U.S. citizens do not have to pay income tax, and refutations of these arguments, see here: www.jsiegel.net/taxes/IncomeTax.htm Argument 861 refers to Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code entitled “Income from Sources in the United States.” This provision describes what types of income are treated as income from U.S.-based sources when taxes are levied on resident aliens, non-resident aliens, and foreign corporations. The provision does not apply to U.S. citizens, but the wording of Section 861 is sometimes cited by tax protesters who claim that the law excludes a portion of U.S. citizens` income.
Citizens and resident foreigners are exempt from tax in accordance with the provisions of the Code. [82] A related argument is that the taxpayer should not be punished for tax evasion unless he knows that section 7201 is the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code that criminalizes conduct. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed this argument as “frivolous,” stating: Last month, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a 2010 update of its discussion/rebuttal of various “tax protest” arguments (PDF). The IRS recommends that “anyone considering arguing against [paying taxes] for legal reasons should first read the 80-page document.” Wikipedia also has a reference page, as does Professor Jonathan Siegel of George Washington University School of Law. The Internal Revenue Code in Title 26 of the United States Code. Title 26 is the complete compilation of all laws passed by Congress regarding fiscal liability and all other legal obligations, definitions, exemptions, exemptions, etc. The Internal Revenue Code is the law that requires people to pay taxes, and if you believe people who just say it a legal obligation, they are wrong. The courts have consistently ruled that this interpretation is wrong, and proponents of the argument that have used it as a basis for non-payment of taxes have been punished and even imprisoned.
For example, actor Wesley Snipes was convicted of three counts of failing to file tax returns, despite being acquitted of the charge of fraud against the U.S. government. He was sentenced to three years in prison. Snipes appealed the conviction.) [83] [84] [85] In Flora, the taxpayer did not argue, and the court did not rule, that there was no legal obligation to file federal income tax returns or pay related taxes. The court`s verdict in Flora was almost the opposite: the taxpayer had to pay the full amount of tax claimed by the IRS, which was to be owed by the taxpayer, even before the court heard a taxpayer`s lawsuit against the government to determine the correct amount of tax. The Internal Revenue Code links the obligation to pay federal income taxes to the obligation to file an income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. 6151(a) (“where a tax return is required. The person who must make the declaration must. to pay this tax”). [36] In another case, a taxpayer`s argument that gold and silver coins should be valued at face value for federal income tax purposes was rejected, while foreign coins should generally be valued on the basis of their precious metal content.
The court stated: “Exhibits that are not currently legal tender are property valued at fair market value for purposes of Section 1001(b). This result is not affected by the fact that these coins can continue to be used as legal tender at face value. [76] 26 U.S.C.