LawyersKey - Lawyers Key » LawyersKey » Lawyer Lookup » Can some one plz find the law that says that we are required by law to pay taxes in our wages?

Reply
  #11 (permalink)
: Re: Please find the law...

Okey dokey. The income tax laws are codified in the U.S. Code as Title 26. You can read it at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
or at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.html
or at http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml
Title 26 is known as prima facie law or evidence of the actual or positive laws passed by Congress. You can read the actual acts passed by Congress in the U.S. Statutes at Large which can be found in most Federal Depository Libraries.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html
You can begin with the Internal Revenue Act of 1954 which can be found in Volume 68A starting on page 3. You can follow that by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which can be found in Volume 100 starting on page 2085.

Re: Why doesn't the Fed Gov or IRS show the law.

Tax protesters are regularly shown the law, but they refuse to believe it. There are tax protesters who have met with the IRS and been told why they have to file returns, have been indicted for failing to file returns, have met with lawyers and judges who have told them why they had returns, been convicted by juries of failing to file returns, and have still claimed not to know why they were required to file returns. Aaron Russo, before he died, was a typical tax protester.

The movie "Freedom to Fascism" is inaccurate, conspiracy theory nonsense.I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites.

BTW, the book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated,
[QUOTE]
"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so."

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted.
[END QUOTE]

A few sentences later in the same decision, the court continues, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review."
[END QUOTE OF CASE]

Judge Fox's statement was in the context of giving an example. He was not making a statement of fact. The comments made by Judge Fox were made in passing, without judicial review, and in a case that had nothing to do with the 16th amendment. In the end, the Judge also said that he didn't think any court would ever set it aside.

The Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance.

Finally, the quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

The Federal Reserve is independently audited every year. Those audits and more are part of the Federal Reserve annual report to Congress.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/default.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/sec6/c3.htm

Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it.

There are many more quotes in the movie that are taken completely out of context and there are many claims in the movie that are just plain wrong.



Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in the movie was tried for willful failure to file and tax evasion on Oct. 29 and 30, 2007. GUILTY on all counts. Sentencing will be soon and she will be going to prison. Additionally, SHE STILL HAS TO PAY HER TAXES.

A few people have successfully beaten criminal charges, but that doesn't mean there isn't a law any more than O.J. Simpson's acquittal means there isn't a law concerning the murder of your ex-wife.
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what to do if stepfather claims me as a dependent on his taxes? Heather Lawyer For Divorce 4 01-26-2014 11:01 PM
Question about separated parents and taxes? Brandy Tax Lawyer 5 01-24-2014 11:01 AM
Is no taxes illegal in this situation? Yes Lawyer Jobs 1 01-13-2014 05:01 AM
Child Support and Taxes? Carrie Tax Lawyer 1 12-30-2013 11:01 AM
Legal Question about taxes? Jeremy Lawyer For Divorce 2 03-25-2013 09:05 AM

Friendly Sites:

Copyright ©2014, LawyersKey.com.