Where is the law that states that US citizens are required to pay a Federal Income Tax?
Question by tristan_n: Where is the law that states that US citizens are required to pay a Federal Income Tax?
I am under the impression that no such law exists, but I would love for you to prove me wrong. So, I challenge you to find for me the written law stating that an American must pay a Federal Income Tax.
wow, I am getting a lot of responses. But I would like to make a few points:
in the IRS code 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-03 Edition) it states that filing is “voluntary compliance”.
in the court case of the government vs Whitey Harrell, Mr Harrell was found innocent for refusing to file his 1040 since the jury found that they could identify no law requiring him to do so.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment did not create new taxing power. Therefore anyone who was untaxable before the 16th amendment remained so after it.
Please, refute these statements. Truly, I wan’t you to do it for me.
Lies?
Harrell’s case is cited as PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL, Case Number 97CF89 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.
look it up
What the Supreme Court ruled, in Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co. and in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., is that since the provisions of Article I, requiring that direct taxes be apportioned, were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. And, that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen. Article I cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our Law.
ok, I guess I was wrong. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
just one more thing to add… did you know that the federal income tax is used 100% to pay off the interest of the national debt and does not go to any services whatsoever. And also, did you know that the federal reserve is not a goverment body but a private corporate interest which has been given government authority to print the US dollar. Therefore the US government is indebted to a corporate entity and 100% of your income taxes go towards paying interest to that corporate body. So, basically your taxes are the privately owned federal reserve’s main source of profit.
Boy, am I glad that I am Canadian…lol
Best answer:
Answer by dizneyfreak1
16th amendment to the Constitution! people keep claiming that taxes are illegal – sorry they’re not
Add your own answer in the comments!
Title 26 of the US Code. Plus enough case law to fill a large law library. Your impression is incorrect. Sorry.
OK, since you asked: Mr Harrell was acquitted of a charge for failing to file an ILLINOIS STATE income tax return. State case, my friend, nothing to do with Title 26!
In Brushaber, the court UPHELD the tax as essentially an indirect excise tax that was applied uniformly across all states, not a direct tax to be apportioned among the several states. More correctly, a new type of tax that although direct would be applied uniformly as an indirect tax would be.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeTo address Brushaber and Stanton (which you interpreted backwards, by the way):
To understand the statement of the Supreme Court when it said that the 16th Amendment created “no new power,” you have to understand the context in which it was made. One of the claims made by the taxpayer in the Brushaber case was that the 16th Amendment was “repugnant to the constitution” because it created a form of tax that was neither apportioned (as required for “direct” taxes by Article I, Section 9) nor uniform (as required for “excises” by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The court referred to the conclusion “that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes,” as an “erroneous assumption.”
“[T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that “by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation….”
Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the “previous complete and plenary power of income taxation,” taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation “to which it inherently belonged.” And rather than twisting the facts as you have done, the above contains direct quotations from the Supreme Court decisions.
As to the argument of the Harrell case as it applies to federal tax, and the “voluntary compliance” thing:
Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code plainly states that “Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount….”
Section 6012 therefore provides a very clear and very mechanical rule that requires people to file returns if they have more than a certain amount of income. If the return shows that tax is due, then section 6151 directs the person filing the return to pay the tax. Since these code sections are part of Title 26, your argument that there are no laws requiring tax returns to be filed, or that it is voluntary, would only hold water if you can substantiate the claim that Article 26 is not law.
You might want to look at United States v. Bowers 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990), Abrams, 82 T.C. at 406-07, May v. C.I.R., 752 F.2d 1301, 1302 (8th Cir. 1985), United States v. Pottorf, 769 F.Supp. 1176, 1183 (D.Kan. 1991), and United States v. Pottorf, 769 F.Supp. 1176, 1183 (D.Kan. 1991).
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikehttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
Two of these questions in one day……and we went a few days without one.
Batting Average of Tax Protestors in Court: .000 !!!
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeWhere do you think the money comes from to pay for your president, and all your other politicians? It also pays for wars, and other government agencies such as the welfare system. Don’t knock them either, someday you may need one.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeYour ‘additional information’ is a combination of outright lies, deliberate misinterpretations, and partial quotes taken grossly out of context. I seriously doubt you didn’t already know that.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeFrankly, I’m glad too that you’re a Canadian and not a US citizen.
Are you aware that the Gaylon Harrel case is regarding Illinois STATE law on income tax, so has nothing really to do with your premise regarding Federal income tax?
Are you further aware that, while there are many “tax protestors” who spout this same drivel, when the IRS has gotten them into court, the protestors have always lost? Are there some still out their spouting this same nonsense? Sure – it takes awhile for the IRS to get to them.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislike