posted March 03, 2011 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

i have a friend who has never filed. he works on a W2 and his taxes are deducted like most peoples, however he gets paid in cash,

---

kat, I don`t understand. He has his deductions taken out then the employer pays the balance in cash?

How is that different than a paycheck when the taxes and earnings are recorded?

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 03, 2011 06:57 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 03, 2011 11:35 PM            

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, “although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper.” The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

posted March 04, 2011 08:32 AM            

Did you really think the IRS wouldn't do everything in their power...including lie..to improve their "compliance rates".

There's no worse, no more corrupt court in America than Tax Court. There, the presumption of GUILT is on the defendant. The process there is more like an administrative court.

Some of those court decisions your cite are appeals from Tax Court decisions. The appeals process is far different than a case in a normal federal court. In appeals courts, judges are looking at process for judicial error, not facts and not guilt or innocence.

In normal federal courts where a jury can be demanded by defendants, the IRS doesn't fair nearly so well.

I agree with Randall. There's no logic in getting carried away with new knowledge that the individual income tax and filing requirements are unconstitutional if administered in a compulsory/mandatory manner...which they are.

It's far better, in my opinion to pay every penny of tax owed and file every return required, while working on Senators and House members to give the Income Tax and the IRS Code the ax. Otherwise, you risk prosecution by a corrupt US Attorney in front of a corrupt federal judge both of whom will do all they can to prevent you from asserting a defense in front of a jury of your peers.

I also agree with Randall that the IRS Code was written by attorneys to confuse issues, change the common definition of words and not define at all some key words which would shed light on "who" is required to do "what"..if anything at all.

posted March 04, 2011 08:43 AM            

Til we get the Fair Tax , pay up and work to get the laws changes or rewritten to make sense to the average American.

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted March 04, 2011 12:48 PM            

A federal judge in Florida issued some stern criticism aimed at the Obama Administration today, after the Justice Department tried to bog down his decision ruling all of the president’s health care overhaul unconstitutional.

District Judge Roger Vinson told administration attorneys they have seven days to appeal his decision. If they don’t meet that deadline, Vinson said the states can then consider the law invalid.

Florida and 25 states sued to block the law, and Vinson ruled on Jan. 31 that the entire law was unconstituitional. Instead of appealing the ruling, however, the administration waited two and one-half weeks to file for a clarification, asking if his ruling meant amounted to a “stay” of the law.

“The conspicuous absence of a severability clause — which is ordinarily included in complex legislation as a matter of routine — could be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized that the Act could not operate as intended if the individual mandate was eventually struck down by the courts,” Vinson wrote in his remarks Thursday.

In the meantime, Vinson did issue a stay of his ruling pending the administration’s appeal to the 11th Circuit — which must be “expedited,” according to his statement. In essence, then, states must continue implementing the president’s health care overhaul even though he has declared it unconstitutional.

Lyle Dennison at SCOTUSblog explains the latest ruling:

A Florida federal judge who struck down all of the new federal health care law ordered the Obama Administration on Thursday to stop enforcing any part of the 2,700 page statute — but then immediately put his ruling on hold on condition that the Administration move quickly to appeal to a higher court — a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court.

Although saying that he thought his decision on Jan. 31 nullifying the law was clear enough, the judge did acknowledge that some confusion has arisen around the country about whether he intended to block all parts of the law — including provisions already in effect. He thus summarized what he had ruled earlier, then declared — as he had not done before — that his decision was the binding equivalent of an order totally blocking enforcement.

posted March 04, 2011 01:51 PM            

I think that if there were a truly Constitutional way out of it loads of people would have done it. I don't think that judges side with the government out of self-interest. I think that if taxation were deemed legally unConstitutional it would be a government crisis, and Congress would move to make it compulsory in a heartbeat.

posted March 04, 2011 02:29 PM            

That's a bridge way, way, way too far acoustic.

The IRS booklet says no such thing..."Our tax system is based on self assessment and voluntary compliance".

The booklet doesn't say "one can volunteer to prepare their own tax form, volunteer a paid tax preparer or volunteer the IRS to prepaid their tax return".

No one can "volunteer" to file an individual income tax return with the IRS without first waiving their 4th and 5th Amendment rights...as Randall has noted.

posted March 04, 2011 02:41 PM            

Using only logic with no emotional content at all, which is worse.

A man earns $100,000 for his labor during the tax year. This man files no income tax return and pays no tax to the US government.

posted March 04, 2011 03:04 PM            

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has said: "The fifth amendment's protection against self-incrimination applies in any type of proceeding whether civil, criminal, administrative, investigatory, or adjudicatory. And it applies not only to evidence which may directly support a criminal conviction, but to information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence taht could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, it may apply in the context of an IRS investigation into civil liability, given the recognized potential that such invstigations have to leading to criminal prosecutions." United States v. Sharp 920 F.2d 1167

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has said: "There can exist a legitimate fear of criminal prosecution while an IRS investigation remains in the civil stage, before formal transfer to the criminal division." United States v. Argomaniz 925 F.2d 1349

In Garner v. United States 424 U.S. 648.96 S.ct. 1178, the US Supreme Court held that the information given in a tax return is the "testimony of a witness." But in the Garner decision, they also said: "It cannot fairly be said that taxpayers are "volunteers" when they file their rerturns. The Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for example, the appearance of a "witness" before a grand jury."

In a very unusual ruling that no one seems to want to discuss, the 10th Circuit of Appeals in Conklin v. U.S. 94-1213 ruled that the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to filing an income tax return because filing returns is not required. Conklin filed an unsigned return in 1986 along with a cover letter stating that he had consulted with several attorneys, and none could show him how to sign the return without waiving his 5th Amendment right. He was fined $500 for filing a "frivolous" return. He sued the IRS in federal court (not tax court), and after sitting on the case for five years, Judge Nottingham told him that he couldn't rule in his favor, because it would overturn the federal tax system. In direct opposition to the Garner decision, the judge ruled that in order for the 5th Amendment to apply, it would have to be compelled, but since filing returns is voluntary, 5th Amendment protection is not available. He reiterated that the 5th Amendment would not apply, because filing returns is not required.

posted March 04, 2011 03:18 PM            

quote:

---

That's a bridge way, way, way too far acoustic.

---

No, it's not. I've already posted half of what IRS said on the issue.

Further I think the 5th Amendment argument falls off logically at the point that when you're taken to court for having failed to file taxes, the lack of having filed is evidence enough of your guilt. You don't have to testify against yourself to establish that you haven't filed. All the government has to do is established that you've made more than the statutory amount required for a tax return filing, and then show you haven't paid it. You don't even have to be present for a ruling to be made on that.

Also, filing your taxes is not an incriminating action, so the idea that your tax return is incriminating is kind of nonsense. You're not going to be sentenced for having earned money, and properly paid the taxes you're responsible for.
___________________

posted March 04, 2011 04:15 PM            

The problem with your argument acoustic is that a person filing a tax return doesn't know what information they give might be used against them in a civil or criminal prosecution.

Studies have been done in which different IRS offices around the country were contacted by supposed persons attemping to file their returns but needing additional information. They asked the IRS personnel the same guestions about tax matters...how to handle this and that...and got differing answers from different offices. Further acoustic, one cannot be compelled to be a witness against themself even if the possible penalty imposed by government is only a fine.

Yes, it would "seem" the man who filed his tax return and paid some taxes to the government...though he under stated his income and underpaid his taxes...was the better of the 2 examples.