10 bucks says you can't figure out this question about income taxes!!!!!?

ill give you 10$ if you
(1) Show how to file a federal income tax return without waving one's 5th amendment rights
and
(2) identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.

good luck =]
Additional Details
Wesley Snipes is not an average everyday worker.
keep trying =]

Re: File a tax return without violating fifth amendment rights.
First, the power to tax is a power granted by the Constitution to Congress. Since the Constitution is the highest law of the land, the power to tax IS due process of law. Therefore, the due process clause does not apply to taxes. Second, the right not to incriminate yourself only applies to CRIMINAL matters and does not apply to civil law which is the situation when filing a tax return. However, if you have committed a criminal act, then to not violate your fifth amendment right to not incriminate yourself, simply leave off all incriminating information from the return.

BTW, William Conklin has offered $50,000 to anyone who can show him how to file an income tax return without waiving his 5th Amendment rights. One person gave him the CORRECT ANSWER (which is to omit any incriminating information from the return) and then sued him for the $50,000, but the court ruled in Conklin’s favor, saying that because Conklin was the one who had to be satisfied, he was the “sole arbitor of the sufficiency of any answer tendered,” it was solely up to him whether or not to award the prize, and he could reject answers he didn’t like even if the answers were LEGALLY CORRECT. Walder v. Conklin, Case No. 01-CV-1038-B (U.S.D.C. Wyo. 12/13/2001). (Believe it or not, Conklin brags about this decision on his web site, listing it as a “win” and not realizing that the decision shows him to be a FRAUD because his “reward offer” is MEANINGLESS.) So, it is not an impossible question. Just because William Conklin or you don't accept the correct answer does not mean the answer is incorrect. It only means that you are delusional.

Re: Section of the internal revenue code that makes a typical worker liable for the income tax.
26 USC 1
26 USC 61
26 USC 62 and
26 USC 63.
Taxes imposed on taxable income and taxable income is gross income minus deductions and allowances. Gross income is ALL income from ALL sources.

Re: Credit River decision (FNB of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly)
First, that case was tried in a Justice of the Peace court. The justices for these types of courts are appointed by the county commission or are elected. Typically, these courts are designed to dispense summary justice and deal with administrative applications of common law. In many instances, these justices were appointed from the citizenry and were not required to have any legal education. Justice Mahoney made his decision in direct contradiction to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Ultimately, the decision of Justice Mahoney was nullified and Jerome Daly, who was a lawyer, was disbarred. No, he wasn't disbarred for retaliation. He was disbarred for being an incompetent idiot.

Re: Sherry Peel Jackson
Sherry Jackson was convicted on Oct. 31, 2007 of four counts of willful failure to file tax returns. On Feb. 14, 2008, she was sentenced to four years in prison. She appealed but remained in prison. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed her sentence. So, I would say she has lost.

I hope you are joking. People like you go to jail.

1)
Contention: Federal income taxes constitute a “taking” of
property without due process of law, violating the Fifth
Amendment. Some assert that the collection of federal income taxes constitutes a “taking” of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, any attempt by the IRS to collect federal income taxes owed by a taxpayer is unconstitutional.
The Law: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916), that “it is . . . well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution
does not conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing power, and taking the same power away on the other by limitations of the due process clause.” Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931).
The Internal Revenue Code provides methods to ensure due process to taxpayers: (1) the “refund method,” set forth in section 7422(e) and 28 U.S.C. '' 1341 and 1346(a), where a taxpayer must pay the full amount of the tax and then sue in a federal district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims for a refund; and (2) the “deficiency method,” set forth in
section 6213(a), where a taxpayer may, without paying the contested tax, petition the United States Tax Court to redetermine a tax deficiency asserted by the IRS. Courts have found that both methods provide constitutional due process.
The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, which discusses this frivolous argument in more detail, warning taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds. For a discussion of frivolous tax arguments made in collection due process cases arising under sections 6320 and 6330, see Section II of this outline.
Relevant Case Law:
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 175 (1960) – the United States Supreme Court held that a taxpayer must pay the full tax assessment before being able to file a refund suit in district court, noting that a person has the right to appeal an ssessment to the Tax Court “without paying a cent.”
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1990) – the court rejected a due process claim where the taxpayer chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to appeal a deficiency notice to the Tax Court.
Contention: Taxpayers do not have to file returns or provide financial information because of the protection against self incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment.
Some argue that taxpayers may refuse to file federal income tax returns, or may submit tax returns on which they refuse to provide any financial information, because they believe that their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will be violated.
The Law: There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return on the ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the taxpayer “could not draw a conjurer’s circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of
the law.” The failure to comply with the filing and reporting requirements of the federal tax laws will not be excused based upon blanket assertions of the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, which discusses this frivolous argument in more detail, warning taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds.
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 83 (2d Cir. 1979) – the court said that “the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying. Only those who assert as to each particular question that the answer to that question would tend to incriminate them are protected . . . .
[T]he questions in the income tax return are neutral on their face . . .
[h]ence privilege may not be claimed against all disclosure on an income tax return.”
United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10th Cir. 1979) – noting that the Supreme Court had established “that the self-incrimination privilege can be employed to protect the taxpayer from revealing the information as to an illegal source of income, but does not protect him from

It's a Sunday, but I didn't know it was a full moon.

You are fool if you think that you can prove there isn't a law--Wesley Snipes is awaiting sentencing because there is a law and it's being enforced.

Actually, you can get this information for free. Simply refuse to pay your tax, and the IRS will explain it all to you in court.

Okay, maybe that won't be free. It'll cost you at least double the taxes owing, plus interest, plus a potential jail term. But at least you can save your $10 NOW.

Which is good, you'll need it for lawyer's fees....

There is no such code section and I'll pay $10 if you find a jury that won't convict you anyway.

Here is my challenge to you:

I will give you $100 if you can show me a court case where someone has used your theory and gotten out of paying their taxes. Here is a hint: You won't find one.

Other sites that you should read:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments

From the last site:

"Another tax protester argument is that the manner in which the income tax is enforced violates the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from having to make self-incriminating statements. In particular, they argue that the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being required to file a personal income tax return. This argument was ruled invalid by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Sullivan."

In a recent case, a tax protester was hit with a $20,000 penalty for making frivolous arguments in court. It was a very expensive lesson for him.

EDIT- Sherry Peel Jackson is currently in Federal Prison on tax fraud charges. Here is her Bureau of Prison's listing:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Sherry&Middle=P&LastName=Jackson&Race=B&Sex=F&Age=&x=60&y=9

THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL I SAW THEM ON THE INTERNET:

Nobody ever really landed on the moon - it was a giant hoax. What you saw on TV was filmed in Utah.

Elvis is still alive, and performing marriage ceremonies in Las Vegas.

It is unconstitutional for the government to tax your wages (income tax), the 16th amendment was never ratified, and most of what we think of as income isn't really income anyway.

Excuse me now....I just won 2 million pounds in the online UK lottery when my email was randomly selected, and I have to go answer the email.....

;-}

It doesn't matter whether it is the IRS code or not since the income tax was made legal by a constitutional amendment. You are almost right about the self-incrimination. It is very close to that, but if you file your return properly, you do not incriminate yourself since you are not being charged by a crime, since it is not illegal to make taxable income.

The 5th amendment issue was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1927. You got no case.

You don't sound interesting enough to get an IRS special agent interested in you but if you want to continue with this nonsense, someone from IRS will come out and give you an attitude adjustment.

Courts have ruled against you. The tax code is complicated enough that there may not actually be a specific law requiring you to pay taxes. Our political system is designed so that if a law is written badly, it can be interpreted correctly.

I can understand the desire to avoid paying taxes, but just arguing that you don't have to is not a good plan, unless your argument can convince a court.

another $20 says you are right.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.024
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy