There is no law says that you should pay to the IRS. There isn't, zippo, nada...

Listen to ex-IRS employees and others about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWgakZK1QVM

Why even have this? Especially now? They are ruining the country even more, looting the pockets of the taxpayers.

I agree with local taxes to be paid, also agree with taxes on all merchandise and service, but I don't agree having a Federal Income Tax.

tbere are lots of people sitting in prison that tried to use that defense

And there are some that never have to pay federal income tax again as well...

income tax myths

The most basic myth of tax protestors is that there is simply no law mandating the payment of income taxes. Frequently one can observe anti-tax types to say something like, “if only someone would show me the law that says that I have to file a tax return and pay taxes, I’d be happy to do it.” I have a strong suspicion that people who say that are not serious, but I’m going to take them at their word. Here are the laws that (a) impose an income tax on you, (b) require you to file an income tax return, and (c) require you to pay taxes:

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress (“Title” basically means “Volume” when applied to the U.S. Code as a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26).

The Internal Revenue Code is the law that requires people to pay taxes (and yes, the Internal Revenue Code is the law -- for more detail on this point click here).

The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:

*********************************************************************

more at

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

The website you are quoting from is like asking the nazis if there are any nazis. And the nazis say "Of course there are no nazis".




There Is No Law That Makes You Liable For An Income Tax
By Eduardo M. Rivera
Candidate for Governor

Any California student could figure out that we have been fooled into believing that the so-called income tax is legitimate. That's if the child wasn't forced to go to a government public school. In California, as in every state of the Union, there can be no tax on a person's God given right to live and work. A man can earn his living by any lawful means and the only authority that the state can use to interfere with that right is the "police power." The police power pertains to the public safety, the public health or the public morals. Article 1, Section 35 of the Constitution of California specifically declares that the sales tax is to be used exclusively for public safety. No such claim has been made with respect to the state's income tax.

The IRS believes, and in turn has convinced us, that the 16th Amendment is the law that allows them to tax earnings. That seems perfectly reasonable given the language of the Amendment. The simple explaination is in what it doesn't do, rather than what it does do. 1. It does not permit any taxation on the income itself. 2. It doesn't create any new power to tax outside of what was allowed by our Constitution. 3. It doesn't change the Constitution in any way, (direct tax must still be apportioned, or shared by the states), as stated in the Constitution. A direct tax is one on property, versus activities. For a complete explaination of this, go to my web site address at http://www.afreshstart.com/notax and click on "Where Is The Income Tax Law". The point that I am making here is that the term income tax as is stated in the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Code, is misrepresented. The Supreme Court ruled in an 1895 case that the income tax contained in the Tariff act of 1894 was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax and not apportioned. The 16th Amendment simply added the protection of making the income tax forever an excise tax that would not have to be apportioned. According to the court, the Amendment was to take the income tax out of consideration as a direct tax in keeping with our Constitution.

The sales tax is on the privilege of selling at retail, and not on the income. Legally, the name of the tax means nothing. What is the subject of the tax? That's the test. The retail sales tax is a legal income tax. It is an excise tax paid by the seller for the privilege of selling at retail. Could other businesses and professions be taxed this way, and pass it on to the end user? Yes, governments have always been able to impose excise taxes. The trouble being, that if the tax were too high the People would stop buying the things that were taxed. The income tax got around that problem but it was struck down as unconstitutional. The IRS and Franchise Tax Board now intimidate, extort and bully the People to pay a tax they don't owe.

In a free country with our Constitution, there can be no direct taxation of income. The American People are the most honest, patriotic and caring People in the world. They are not tax cheats. They are good People and in their hearts they know they don't owe this tax but they don't know why.

The evil of the State Franchise Tax Board and IRS comes from arrogance of little men who will not search for truth. The evil of the public schools and our entire education system is that it teaches answers instead of teaching people to think, to question the status quo, and to challenge government indoctrination. The schools teach that the income tax is a tax on income and you better pay it. We, like most of the IRS agents have gone to public schools and learned those obvious answers that just aren't so.

As Governor I would make sure that everyone knows that they should not be forced to pay income tax. If they wish to volunteer to pay, that is their business. I would also make sure that everyone that serves in the state judicial system knows the real truth concerning the income tax, and that citizens are not harassed if they choose not to pay.

http://www.smartvoter.org/1998jun/ca/state/vote/rivera_e/paper1.html

you can look up the actual laws they give

that may be..........but if we all did it, not pay the federal.......what could they do? NOTHING.........hell, if 12 mill. illegals can roam around this country, murder, rape, rob, steal, take advantage of our medical system, not pay taxes, distribute drugs, squat anywhere they feel, and still be free to roam in this country and trample our constitution, then why the hell are we paying taxes in the first place? VERY SORE TOPIC WITH ME................

Internal Revenue Code Title 26 - subtitle A

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/

16th Amendment to the Constitution

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.

uh oh

If you watch the video I posted in the 1st pot, the 16th amendment wasn't ratified by many states, because it's unconstitutional.


Ok, another story time!!!

Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges

Cryer stopped filing income taxes more than 10 years ago

By Loresha Wilson • ljwilson@gannett.com • July 13, 2007
...........................

A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.

A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.

And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.

Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls made to the two were not immediately returned.

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."

Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue Service during 2000 and 2001.

Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.

"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income," Cryer said. "I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can show me I have a lawful reason to pay."

"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."

Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03

it was ratified by enough states or it wouldn't be an amendment.

how can the Constitution be unconstitutional?

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:

Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
New Mexico (February 3, 1913)

Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911

The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:

Connecticut
Rhode Island
Utah

The following states never took up the proposed amendment:

Pennsylvania
Virginia
Florida

...and you people wouldn't even support getting rid of it, would you now?

you people?

I do see some good with federal taxes as long as it isn't abused like it tends to be. but as of right now...there are laws for it

I don't care. my income is non taxable

Kim, you call yourself a constitutionalists and your own representative Ron Paul wants to get rid of IRS and you give him a slap on his face by that comment.

ummmmm quiet should you the 16th amendment in the constitution

quiet said
"it was ratified by enough states or it wouldn't be an amendment.

how can the Constitution be unconstitutional?"


so I'm slapping who in the face??? I never even said Ron Paul was perfect....IMO he is the better of the politicians

actually Ron Paul represents the area between Houston and Rockport

Rose's congressman is Pete Sessions

So his idea to remove the 16th amendment makes him imperfect or something else?