Are fed income taxes on US citizens that earn income inside the US constitutional?
The 1.5 hour video is www.video.google.com/videoplay...
keep in mind that despite the facts presented in this video, US courts sentenced Larken Rose to 15 months in prison and issued a $10,000 fine(it may be more). The presiding judge also instructed jurors that section 861 was not to be considered as law. This any many other examples in the link below illustrate this. Very close to the end give the Larken Rose example...
www.answers.com/topic/tax-prot...
However, below is a link that spells out how to decide for yourself through your own research...It took me about 30 mins to read the first page. I also decided test some of the suggested examples with data-mining...you know what...section 861 shows up in every example...in some cases it is the only example...
www.whatistaxed.com
More disturbing is reading through this page of the link...
Go to the solutions link on the first page...
You decide...
Answer:
I didn't bother going to your links because as soon as I saw the name Larken Rose, I knew exactly what his argument is.
Basically, based upon his misguided interpretation, he believes that section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code says that only income from outside the U.S. is taxable.
Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states defines “gross income” (which is the starting point for the calculation of taxable income) as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”
The general rule, therefore, is that all income is included in gross income, unless there is a specific exception or exclusion in some other section of the Internal Revenue Code. (The reference to “this subtitle” is a reference to Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue, which is where the income tax are defined and imposed. Other subtitles relate to other kinds of taxes, such as the federal to estate and gift taxes, or to the enforcement and administration of taxes generally.)
The regulations confirm that U.S. citizens (and residents) are taxed on all of their income, regardless of where the source is located, and so the source of income is irrelevant to U.S. citizens and residents.
“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.”
Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).
The general rule, therefore, is that all income is included in gross income, regardless of the source of the income.
In Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 477, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (1982)
“The determination of where income is derived or ‘sourced’ is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under section 1 and section 11, respectively, on their worldwide income.”
In Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40,
<BEGIN QUOTE>
“Petitioner also contends that no Federal statute imposes a tax on the income of citizens or residents of the United States that is derived from sources within the United States. Instead, petitioner asserts that Federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on the privilege of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations to receive income from sources within the United States. Petitioner’s argument is unclear. Apparently, petitioner believes that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861, that income from sources within the United States is taxed only to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations pursuant to sections 871, 881, and 882, and that section 1461 is the only section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes anyone liable for the taxes imposed by sections 1 and 11.
“Section 61(a) defines gross income generally as ‘all income from whatever source derived,’ including, but not limited to, compensation for services and interest. Sec. 61(a)(1), (4). Section 63 defines and explains the computation of section ‘taxable income’. Section 1 imposes an income tax on the taxable income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States. Sec. 1.1-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.; see Habersham-Bey v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 304, 309 (1982).
“Under section 61(a)(1) and (4), petitioner clearly is required to include his wages, tokes, and interest in gross income.”
<END QUOTE>
Larken Rose and a dozen other tax protestors that have used this argument base their claims on a complete twisting of the Internal Revenue Code. The reason a judge will tell a jury not to refer to a portion of code is because jury members are not trained in interpreting law. It is the job of the court to tell the jurors what the law is and what it means. This is to preclude the jury from rendering a bad decision based upon an incorrect interpretation of the law.
Basically, all arguments claiming that section 861 says that U.S. citizens cannot be taxed on their income earned in the U.S. are specious and without merit.
Here is one more court case reference. In Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 18 (2002), (sanctions of $15,000 imposed against the taxpayer and costs of $10,500 imposed against his lawyer for frivolous proceedings.)
“Moreover, even if Mr. Sulla [taxpayer’s counsel] had not been presented with sufficient evidence contradicting the 861 argument, the 861 argument, on its face, is inherently improbable, because it leads to conclusions that defy common sense; i.e., U.S. citizens and residents earning income within the United States are taxable only on income earned from possessions, corporations, and the Federal Government, and the vast amount of wages and interest paid to U.S. citizens and residents is not taxable under the Internal Revenue Code. We agree with what the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit said in Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471, 475 (10th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-433, before imposing costs on a taxpayer’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927: ‘Courts are in no way obligated to tolerate arguments that thoroughly defy common sense.’ The conclusions to be drawn from the 861 argument thoroughly defy common sense. We find that Mr. Sulla acted recklessly in making the 861 argument and, thus, he acted in bad faith.”
16th Amendment
16th Amendment
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.
If that amendment were repealed the federal government would have no authorization for the income tax.
Look at why it was passed. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/const...
Yes. The 16th amendment of the Constitution makes income tax legal. There are tons of court opinions in support as well as federal statutes and regulations.
I didn't bother to go to the links you had, because there is no basis for claiming that the federal government has no right to impose and collect an income tax. As others have pointed out, the 16th Amendment makes it clear that the government has this right. What the 16th Amendment really does, actually, is simply clarifies that Congress has this right, and it need not apportion the taxes among the states according to population. The claims that it is invalid usually speak of alleged irregularities in the ratification process. These irregularities are usually simply minor differences in wording or even punctuation among the final forms ratified by the states. Courts have universally rejected this argument, as the differences are trivial, and amendments are almost always ratified with slight differences among the states. In 1955, the Supreme Court made clear that income meant any increase in income, from any source, unless specifically exempted by Congress.
I'm sorry you wasted all that time going through those sources, as they are pointless and worthless. We all have to pay our taxes.
Don't believe the hippie conspiracy theorist B.S. and read the 16th amendment. It clearly states that the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.
State constitutions also have amendments that give them the power to collect taxes. The logic is simple. It costs money to run a government, and that money comes from taxes, if there were no taxes the government wouldn't be able to provide us with the services we depend on: national defense, interstate highways, etc...
You have highlighted one big problem with doing legal research on the Internet, which is that there is no requirement that information being put on the Internet be true or done in a competent manner. See Yahoo's legal disclaimer at the bottom of this page for an example. Beware of any source, video or otherwise, having some agenda that includes having no interest in keeping you out of prison, especially to make the political point that misery enjoys company. This is a matter of being clueful and CYA (covering your assets).
Generally, there ARE Internet sources for showing that IRC section 1 is constitutional, but you need some skill at doing legal research of past federal court cases to find them. Any nearby community college with a paralegal program will have a one-semester course in legal research if the program is seeking ABA certification or just trying to be competitive. Taking this course may very well save you thousands in legal fees over your lifetime.
As for section 861, notice that the text does NOT exclude citizens' income through US wages from taxation; it merely adds other sources of gross income to those things that are taxable. Without bothering to look at the video, one may surmise that some non-lawyer failed to see the context of 861 as not applying to her or his case and then tried to use it as an excuse for hiding one's income, the obvious explanation for a judge's instruction to a jury of non-lawyers to ignore it as a potentially applicable law. Any lawyer giving advice to apply 861 to otherwise taxable individual income of US citizens would get sued out of practice. Beware of anyone who tries to to be authoritative by citing part of a court record out of context, for doing so is sloppy legal research. Ignorance of the law -- especially willful ignorance -- is no excuse.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Questions and Answers: