Federal Income Tax unconstitutional? No law exists that requires you to pay?

I watched the movie â€œZeitgeistâ€ I found it really â€œinterestingâ€ and â€œamusingâ€ but there was one part of the move that takes place at 1h 22min 55sec into the movie that really surprised me. I have no idea if its true or not so please if you have time watch that segment of the movie.

The movie says that no Law exists that requires you to pay this tax. is this true? If so why in hell do so people pay the income tax? In the movie they interview two IRS agents who claim they havenâ€™t file a tax return in years without any consequences to them.

I havenâ€™t started working so I havenâ€™t had the opportunity to pay taxes yet. If all this **** turned out to be true it will make my day it (and maybe yours too).

The Federal Income Tax law is NOT unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress the power to tax. However, the Constitution was specific in that Congress didn't have complete power to tax by creating categories of taxes called 'direct' and 'indirect'. While most people assume or believe that income taxes are 'direct' taxes that would have to apportioned among the states (before the 16th amendment anyway), they are wrong. In a Constitutional sense, income taxes are 'indirect' taxes and therefore would not have to be apportioned. It was only in 1894 and 1895 when the Supreme Court of the time got the Constitutional intent wrong. In fact, in the majority opinion of the court, they even said that they might be contradicting the Constitutional intent. In Pollock v. Farmersâ€™ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895).
[BEGIN QUOTE]
"Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized.â€
[END QUOTE]

Because of the Pollock decision and a few other reasons, the 16th amendment was proposed, passed, and ratified making it a permanent part of the Constitution. The 16th amendment clarified the power of Congress to levy an income tax without apportionment. After the ratification of the 16th amendment, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1913. There were several other revenue acts after 1913 up to the modern Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which forms the basis for our current income tax laws. There have been yearly revisions to the Internal Revenue Code since 1954, but the basic structure is essentially the same. BTW, all revisions are passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time.

The actual Internal Revenue Code can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large. Copies of the U.S. Statutes at large can be found in various federal depository libraries across the country. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 can be found in Volume 68a, pg. 3. Other revisions to the code can be found in the U.S. Statutes at large in various volumes that contain the laws passed by Congress in the various sessions since 1954.

The Internal Revenue Code has been 'codified' in the U.S. Code as Title 26. This is considered prima facie law. Unless there is an argument that Title 26 does not accurately reflect the Internal Revenue Code, the courts will use Title 26 as evidence of the law.

So, to answer your question, as I have shown, the Federal Income tax is Constitutional. Also, there is a law, it is the Internal Revenue Code, which is evidenced by Title 26 of the U.S. Code.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

Now, in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, Â§ 1, titled "Tax imposed", it says in various paragraphs,
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income ofâ€”"
This imposes a tax on a person's taxable income. Other sections of Title 26 discuss how to determine taxable income.

Don't believe the tax protestor kool-aid saying that wages are not income. That will only get you in trouble. In United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).
"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income."

Basically, don't believe tax protestors. Go to the links that Gray Shadow provided and educate yourself. Definitely go to Dan Evans' website at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Also, you might want to check out http://www.quatloos.com/

Good luck,

There most certainly IS a law that governs Federal income taxes. It's called Title 26 of the US Code. Google "Title 26" for numerous hits. You'll probably get some hits from the Tax Kook sites. Disregard them.

Virtually every Tax Kook has paid their taxes eventually. Many of them faced criminal prosecution and most of those were convicted. A few did manage to dodge the bullet on the criminal conviction -- call it poor preparation by the prosecution or jury nullification, whatever -- but the civil action for the collection of their taxes always succeeds 100%.

The authority to levy taxes, including income taxes, comes directly from The Constitution. Prior to the 16th Amendment various courts held that income taxes were direct taxes and as such had to be apportioned among the several states. That was administratively impossible so it effectively made income taxes as we know them today illegal. However, the 16th Amendment specifically states that income taxes may be levied without apportionment, making the laws that implemented the current income tax completely legal. There are law libraries full of court cases that so state so anyone who tries to claim otherwise will lose, pure and simple.

The really stupid thing with all of the Tax Kooks is that when they eventually do pay up, they will pay many times what they would have had to pay had they paid on time. Regardless of what they think about the legality of income taxes, that's just plain stupid, IMHO. Seriously, would you pay $150,000 for a $20,000 car? Of course not! Then why would anyone prefer to pay the IRS $150,000 for $20,000 tax debt? Only a MORON would!

Sorry, it's false. You gotta pay.

If you want to see the relevant case law, check out the IRS site below.

(from the IRS website)

Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.

The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the "Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation."

Well, since some people with good attorneys have gone to prison for income tax evasion, I feel sure there must be a law requiring you to pay income tax!

The movie is representing a viewpoint from a movement often called "tax protestors" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester ) A more accurate term would be "tax law deniers". They surround themselves in dubious legal claims that thrive within their community, but fall short in the courts.

For the income tax laws, check out:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Income_tax
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006012----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000003----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006651----000-.html

just dont pay it ; or refuse to pay it, and see if anything happens

Just know that if you don't pay taxes AND don't file an income tax return you will eventually get caught and owe a huge amount of money and most likely go to jail.

This idea of taxes being unconstitutional is urban legend that circulates occasionally. Too bad it isn't true...

An income tax return is the document (paper or electronic) that goes to the IRS. It has nothing to do with whether or not you get a refund or owe more tax. You have to file whether or not you are getting a refund or owe more tax. For that matter, how would you know if you were due a refund or owed more unless you completed your return?

There is a difference between filing an income tax return, and paying taxes. You HAVE to pay taxes (that money is used for schools, roads, government salary, etc), but you DON'T have to file an income tax return. A return is request for overpayment of income taxes. The federal government will take your money as long as you work, but you have to request any overpayments back in the form of a return. There is no penalty for not filing a return, however, if the government feels that you are not paying enough in income taxes (or not paying at all) then you will have consequences.

Do you honestly believe EVERYTHING that you see or hear on TV? I hope not.

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. 0.014
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy