April 19th, 2007

Income Tax Offer

Care for a cool $300,000?

All you have to do is take up the following challenge from the Freedom Law School:

Freedom Law School is offering $100,000 to the first person who can demonstrate any of the three propositions listed below. The winner can collect up to $300,000 if he or she can prove all of the propositions below.

1. Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.

2. How can Americans file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right not to give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.

3. Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist was, lawfully added to the United States Constitution.

Hint: It’s not as easy as it sounds. Aaron Russo would agree.

8 Responses to “Income Tax Offer”

  1. Spencer J
    April 19, 2007 at 12:12 pm #

    I will look into it and get back to you…. (5 seconds later) OK, I’m back. It is not possible to find them because they are not there. I could pencil in the answer, but I don’t think that will qualify me for the $100,000.

  2. Kelly Winterton
    April 19, 2007 at 12:31 pm #

    I’ve seen some of the videos that claim there is no law. Freedom to Fascism and one called something like “the 861 proposition.” Intriguing stuff to contemplate.

    I am confused because it seems that just paying the illegal tax is a way to keep government from harassing you, and the Church says we need to pay taxes so that we can have a temple recommend.

    If we stopped paying income taxes, what would they come up with to fill the treasury gap? It seems to me that a national sales tax is about the only fair way. (I would favor such.)

  3. Jason
    April 19, 2007 at 1:23 pm #

    #1. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
    #2. I have yet to study the fifth ammendment and don’t have the time to take up the study of it right now. However, I feel confident that if there was something here the argument would have prevailed in the almost 100 years since an income tax has been collected.
    #3. A list of cases where the constitutional ammendment was upheld. United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986); Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9103 (2d Cir. 1984); Sisk v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 58, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9433 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9308 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827 (1988); United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9518 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 888 (1987); Brown v. Commissioner, 53 T.C.M. (CCH) 94, T.C. Memo 1987-78, CCH Dec. 43,696(M) (1987); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 87-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9296 (7th Cir. 1987); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9184 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. House, 617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9562 (W.D. Mich. 1985).

    I found this information doing a search on google. The case cites are from wikipedia. I think if you approach this problem with an open mind will see that, although it sucks, you have to file an income tax form.

  4. RoastedTomatoes
    April 19, 2007 at 1:41 pm #

    I am fascinated by these arguments, really. I always have been. Question number one is a simple factual one with evident answers, as Jason showed in his link. The Congress passed the US Code, which contains straightforward laws imposing a tax and requiring a tax return. So I really would appreciate an explanation of how tax protesters think there is a controversy here. I assume they have some explanation, but I simply can’t imagine what it is. If someone could explain to be what the objection is, I’d be grateful.

    The fifth amendment argument relies, I think, on the protection against being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against” ourselves. Applying this to a tax return seems odd. There’s no criminal case underway when you file the return. So the return isn’t a form of being a witness against oneself in a criminal case. I understand that falsifying a return can be a crime and initiate criminal proceedings — but the same is true of lying under oath or any number of other versions of falsifying speech. Do we have a fifth amendment right not to testify in other people’s trials — because we might lie and open the door to future prosecution? I don’t know the answer for sure, but it seems likely that we don’t. The tax return scenario seems comparable.

    Regarding the ratification process, I am once again mystified. It seems that the process was essentially routine, with the following final results:

    The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on July 12, 1909, when it passed the House, 44 Cong. Rec. (61st Cong., 1st Sess.) 4390, 4440, 4441, having previously passed the Senate on July 5. Id., 4121. It appears officially in 36 Stat. 184. Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913, when the legislature of the thirty-sixth State (Delaware, Wyoming, or New Mexico) approved the amendment, there being then 48 States in the Union. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State Knox certified that this amendment had become a part of the Constitution. 37 Stat. 1785.

    The several state legislatures ratified the Sixteenth Amendment on the following dates: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 27, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 1, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Kansas, March 2, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected the amendment at the session begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 16, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware, February 3, 1913; Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913; New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913; Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected the amendment on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

    What, once again, is the argument here?

  5. Sam B
    April 20, 2007 at 12:09 pm #

    Implicit in the “prove” is “prove to FLS’s satisfaction.” However, FLS has not explained what they considered necessary for proof. Supreme Court decisions? Check. Other judicial decisions, at several levels? Check. United States Code? Check. Treasury publications? Check. But if they deny the authority of the courts, the legislative branch, the executive branch, and common practice, I’ll lose.

    It’s worth noting that FLS should probably raise their offer to $1 million (or $1 billion, or whatever), because not only will nobody win it (because FLS’s criteria is purely subjective and is nowhere presented), but there is judicial precedent that says that such an offer is not binding, i.e., I could prove it to FLS’s satisfaction, and FLS would have no legal obligation to pay me the money.

    Their arguments are frivolous; the Internal Revenue Code, a constitutional part of our federal laws, mandates the payment of taxes. But the Internal Revenue Code can be deliberately misread as easily as any other law (or, for that matter, novel, poem, or blog post),

  6. Sam B
    April 20, 2007 at 12:13 pm #

    (and Kelly, the proposition that Section 861 of the Code prevents a US citizen from having taxable income is both idiotic and a stretched misreading. Even if you decide to ignore the fact that the section is referring to income of nonresident aliens and nonresident alien corporations, it does not purport to be a exclusive list of what constitutes income. )

  7. Sam B
    April 20, 2007 at 12:16 pm #

    The Fifth Amendment prevents your having to incriminate yourself, even if there’s no criminal case currently pending against you. That said, there’s generally nothing incriminating about disclosing how much money you made. The criminal action is in not paying taxes.

    And there is such thing as a Fifth Amendment return, used by drug dealers and other criminals, wherein they disclose their income but don’t tell where it came from. Although I vaguely remember that such returns may not be considered returns, and may not protect a criminal from liability for not filing. But I don’t remember for certain.

  8. Kelly Winterton
    April 20, 2007 at 1:19 pm #

    Thanks for your comments to me Sam B.

    I don’t want to play hardball with the IRS anyway. Too many smart people with too much power – I’d stand no chance trying to explain to them why I don’t wish to pay my income tax.

    I still think we ought to do away with the whole tax code, and impliment some kind of national sales tax.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.