Waco 2.0 -- IRS brings in the swat team

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not all separatists are supremacists; but both are racists.

[deleted definations]
I am a "race mixer" and I am hated by both separatists and supremacists.

As a race mixer, I also have the enmity of the Black racists such as Louis Farrakahn et al. The one thing that White, Black, and other racists have in common, and are in staunch agreement, is their hatred for people like me.

Thanks, Jim. From where I was, I didn't see much beyond the second half of your first line, both are racists. Now I can understand the reasoning, while still being in agreement with the basic assessment of their beliefs.

You've done an admirable job explaining the differences, while acknowledging that both views are racist, at their core.

I kinda sorta expected to get some sort of pro-seperatist, thinly veiled racist propaganda in return. I was wrong, and I'm happy to have been so.
 
I tell people that I have done more for racial integtration with my penis than the likes of Jesse Jackson could do with an inexhaustible supply of school buses.

I have a Black/White/Mexican/(Yakima) Indian grandson who we fervently pray will someday marry an Oriental Jewish woman so the Peels can go down in history as p---ing off every racist of every stripe.
 
Jimpeel writes:

I tell people that I have done more for racial integration with my penis than the likes of Jesse Jackson could do with an inexhaustible supply of school buses.

I have a Black/White/Mexican/(Yakima) Indian grandson who we fervently pray will someday marry an Oriental Jewish woman so the Peels can go down in history as p---ing off every racist of every stripe.

----------------------------

Good luck in achieving the goals you stated. Worse things could happen, or so it seems to me.

Respecting earlier comments on separatists v. supremacists, like I said, I'm glad to see that some have not forgotten the differences between the two. While both might be racists, it seems to me that one of the above mentioned simply wants to live without contact with others, the other would act against others, there being a large difference between the two, or so it seems.
 
I have a Black/White/Mexican/(Yakima) Indian grandson who we fervently pray will someday marry an Oriental Jewish woman so the Peels can go down in history as p---ing off every racist of every stripe.

ROTFLMAO!!!:D:D:D:D

Well Jim if ya need a grand daughter in law :)


WildshewouldhavemypersonalitythoughAlaska
 
Seems like you hear about people thinking they don't have to pay the income tax more and more. These people you hear about are not bums or crackheads. They are educated people and have money, usually. Can they all be wrong? Do they have no valid point at all? Victims of mass hallucinations?

When you go to court for anything, they quote you the statute or law that you violated. When folks get on TFL and say they civilally disobeyed this or that law etc., the blindly follows the government crowd posts all sorts of statutes and laws that they broke. Can you guys cite the law in this case? It sure would make this issue cut and dried.

I've read the Irwin Schiff books, the We The People books, and have a copy of the IRS TAx Code. I can find it in there where it says ..."if you deal in Alchohol, tobacco or Firearms...you shall be required to file tax returns..and are liable for Income Tax on same..."

I have read and read and never have found the section that says the same for Income Tax...Perhaps one of you good citizens can point me to the right section and I can post it for all to see and read, and put this dead horse to rest...?

I'm not taking sides on this issue, not saying you do or don't have an obligation to pay Income taxes. I just have never read the statute. I mean...if it's a law then it's a law, ok. Cite please?
 
The first thing your link says is that filing a return and paying the Income tax is voluntary. So why is there a SWAT team around these peoples house? :confused:

I'm not arguing no obligation here. I'm just saying I do not know the cite for the obligation. You're good at cites but missed the mark on this one. That was no cite. Next.
 
The first thing your link says is that filing a return and paying the Income tax is voluntary. So why is there a SWAT team around these peoples house?

I'm not arguing no obligation here. I'm just saying I do not know the cite for the obligation. You're good at cites but missed the mark on this one. That was no cite. Next.

Um, wow. Seriously? Did you even read it or just look at the table of contents?

The contention is that paying taxes is voluntary. The document clearly debunks this and the other contentions by citing the relevent US Code and case law.

Again, wow.
 
Uh, no I didn't read it, work waiting. Tell you what, if the article clearly debunks it, then it''ll be a small request to cite the law that debunks it.

It stands to reason that if it can be found in the code that there is an obligation to pay taxes on regulated activities (ATF), then its in there about the income tax, correct? I await a real cite.

Have a good day.
 
This will probably end with a non-incendiary device that is deployed just seconds before the place and people go up in a giant fire ball.
 
BOSTON - The convicted New Hampshire tax evader now at the center of a standoff for his refusal to surrender and serve a 63-month federal prison term won a pardon in 1976 from then-Mass. Gov. Michael S. Dukakis.

Edward L. Brown, now 64, was convicted in 1960 of assault and armed robbery in Somerville and was sentenced to state prison, according to his pardon.

Fascinating. If not for a pardon from a democrat, he'd likely still be in jail for armed robbery. And I suppose the pardon also let him possess firearms, now, if he was no longer a convicted felon?

Ah, the damage that's been done over the long term. I wonder if Dukakis is available for comment?
 
Uh, no I didn't read it, work waiting.

Then how did you come to the conclusion that it "missed the mark" and was "no cite" if you didn't even read it?

It stands to reason that if it can be found in the code that there is an obligation to pay taxes on regulated activities (ATF), then its in there about the income tax, correct?

Correct, it's in there. The PDF Wildalaska linked even says which part of the US Code it's in and even lists the case law which supports it. It takes all of two minutes to read the "voluntary contention" section.

I think it's an even smaller request to take a few minutes and read it yourself.
 
Uh, no I didn't read it, work waiting. Tell you what, if the article clearly debunks it, then it''ll be a small request to cite the law that debunks it.

It stands to reason that if it can be found in the code that there is an obligation to pay taxes on regulated activities (ATF), then its in there about the income tax, correct? I await a real cite.


I'll bite, it came complete with case law provided.



1
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS
NOVEMBER 30, 2006
This responds to some of the more common frivolous “legal arguments” made by
individuals and groups who oppose compliance with the federal tax laws. The
first section groups these arguments under six general categories, with variations
within each category. Each contention is briefly explained, followed by a
discussion of the legal authority that rejects the contention. The second section
responds to some of the more common frivolous arguments made in collection
due process cases brought pursuant to sections 6320 or 6330. These
arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief
description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal
authority. A final section explains the penalties that the courts may impose on
those who pursue tax cases on frivolous grounds.
I. FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL
A. The Voluntary Nature of the Federal Income Tax System
1. Contention: The filing of a tax return is voluntary.
Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because
the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the
IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax
system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v.
United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the
proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary
assessment and payment, not upon distraint."
The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications,
refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount
of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the
government determine tax for them.
The requirement to file an income tax
return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a),
et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount
of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return
could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including
fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In United States v.
Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states,
“although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the
general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of
the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary
collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are
entirely proper.”
2
In August 2005, the Justice Department announced that Royal Lamarr
Hardy was sentenced to a 156-month prison term for, among other things,
selling a tax evasion scheme called the “Reliance Defense” that incorrectly
asserted the income tax laws were voluntary (i.e., the laws imposed no
legal obligation to pay tax or file a return). Hardy was also ordered to pay
a fine of $59,267.88, costs of prosecution in the amount of $59,267.88,
and restitution to the IRS for $197,555. See 2005 TNT 169-12 (Aug. 31,
2005).
Relevant Case Law:
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the U.S. Supreme Court
stated that “n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily
upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual
return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent
attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil]
sanctions.”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court
held that “[a]ny assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is
without merit.”
United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986) – the court
upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the
premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”
United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) – the court
upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns,
stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected in
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), wherein the
court described appellant’s argument as ‘an imaginative argument, but
totally without arguable merit.’”
Woods v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 88, 90 (1988) – the court rejected the
claim that reporting income taxes is strictly voluntary, referring to it as a
“‘tax protester’ type” argument, and found Woods liable for the penalty for
failure to file a return.
Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-312, 78 T.C.M. (CCH) 468,
471 (1999) – the court found Johnson liable for the failure to file penalty
and rejected his argument “that the tax system is voluntary so that he
cannot be forced to comply” as “frivolous.”
2. Contention: Payment of tax is voluntary.
In a similar vein, some argue that they are not required to pay federal
taxes because the payment of federal taxes is voluntary. Proponents of
this position argue that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary
assessment and payment.
3
The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set
forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on
the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the
tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable
income of corporations.)
Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which
requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay
taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties,
including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that
“when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay
such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at
the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code
imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty
which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981
(8th Cir. 1983).
In United States v. Kuglin, No. 03-20111 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2003),
Vernice B. Kuglin faced criminal charges for falsifying Forms W-4 and
failing to pay taxes on $920,000 of income between 1996 and 2001, but
was acquitted by a federal jury. According to newspaper accounts of the
trial, jurors found persuasive the defendant’s argument that she attempted
to obtain an explanation of the Service’s authority to collect taxes from her
but her correspondence went unanswered. Government officials issued
press releases making it clear that the outcome in Kuglin should be
treated as an “aberration” and noting that persons acquitted of criminal tax
violations are not relieved of their obligation to pay taxes due. See 2003
TNT 155-12 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003 TNT 155-13 (Aug. 11, 2003); 2003
TNT 158-2 (Aug. 14, 2003).
The defendant in United States v. Brunet, No. 03-00057 (M.D. Tenn.
March 12, 2004), argued he could not find any information that would lead
him to conclude the Internal Revenue Code made him liable to file income
tax returns or pay taxes. In stark contrast to Kuglin, the jury returned
guilty verdicts against Brunet on four counts of tax evasion and the court
sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison. See 2004 TNT 51-33 (March
12, 2004).
There have been no civil cases where the Service’s lack of response to a
taxpayer’s inquiry has relieved the taxpayer of the duty to pay tax due
under the law. Courts have in rare instances waived civil penalties
because they have found that a taxpayer relied on a Service misstatement
or wrongful misleading silence with respect to a factual matter. Such an
estoppel argument does not, however, apply to a legal matter such as
whether there is legal authority to collect taxes. See, e.g., McKay v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 465 (1994), rev’d as to other issues, 84 F.3d 433
 
Intelligent design. No obligation to pay income taxes. Black helicopters. Illuminati. Masons. Area 51. The Bildenbergers. ZOG. WA is goodloooking.

All of those are the same as saying the earth is flat.

I should have ignored the provocation. I apologize to the mods for bringing shame upon this Board via my falling into the wierdtrap of silly madness. I will now remove my little finger to expatiate my error, and pray that lurkers do not hold it against those of us who are normal gun owners :)

WildenoughwiththeirsalreadyAlaska
 
Seems to me that the Browns are plain lawbreakers and that a squad car and a pair of U.S. Marshals to serve the warrant would be enough "enforcement". No need for an army of LEOs or body armor. some times our govt. can be as foolish as our fellow citizens.( Now where did I put my tinfoil hat?):)
 
(Oh why did I do that?)

Ok, yes, I just skimmed the table of contents and didn't read the thing as I had to go to work. I've read all this stuff before and when I went through the cites in this, there were many obvious questions arise and it doesn't read so clearcut. Let's treat this as a literary excercise and keep the ad Hom out of it ok WA. Going ad Hom is an indication that you do not know for positive. I am not encouraging civil disobediance or taking either side, simply admitting that I myself have read much of it and am not positive myself. Let's attack the message and see what we can conclusivly pin down one way or the other.

Sigh. Ok, I'll take a stab at it and you good people can spot the hole in it for me. Trying to keep a neutral attitude, I never was able to fully comprehend a clearcut obligation. Anyway,

[QUOTEThe Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications,
refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount
of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the
government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax
return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a),
et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
][/QUOTE]

Since it says "the requirement... is clearly set forth in (these sections)..." let's first go to 6011(a) and see what it says, shall we?

6011(a);
(a) General Rule,
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations./end quote

<6011(a);
(a) General Rule,
When required by regulations (This doesn't say all Citizens, so when is it required by regulations? I can find the requirement in the CFR about commerce in ATF creating liability with the words "shall be required", but not Income tax, little help?!) prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable (Who is made Liable and where? It implies that not all are made liable or at the least, made liable somewhere else than this section of the tax code) for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement (Again, it implies that not all are required or else it would say "Every person (is) required...") shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations./(comments in parenthesis added by me)

So it would seem that the actual requirement to file an Income tax return is not set forth in this particular section but does say that those who are required or made liable (according to regulation) shall include therein the information required by the forms or regulations. Thats what I get out of this section.
 
so instead of discussing way to bring about a peaceful resolution to this whacko mess, we're arguing the semantics of tax code.

I can almost hear the distant sound of the Browns laughing at us.
 
THE APPROPRIATE COURTS HAVE UNIVERSALLY RULED THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY TAXES, BASED ON ESTABLISHED STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND CASE LAW.

FOLKS WHO EVEN THINK IN THE SLIGHTEST RESPECT THAT YOU DONT OR THAT THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING YOU TO DO SO ARE LOONS!

THERE IT IS...LOONS.

THE FOLKS WHO ALLEGE ON THE NET THAT YOU DONT HAVE TO ARE LOONS AND OR TAX EVADING CRIMINALS.

FLAT EARTH.

WildhowsthatforthebottomlineandiHATEtheirsmorethananythingAlaska

PS...we all hate the IRS...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top