Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Snipes Hunt Over
In a sad day for the "tax honesty movement" of income tax rebels, actor Wesley Snipes, who used unorthodox tax advice from "American Rights Litigators" to not file or not pay taxes the government insists he owes, surrenders to the feds in Orlando.
Snipes plans to blame those who gave him the advice, apparently.
American Rights Litigators slammed as the "Hee Haw contingent of
the anti-tax movement" here.
My May 2004 Reason feature on the wild, wooly world of income
tax rebels.
|12.8.06 @ 7:23PM|#
Sigh.
You knew it would end this way but you kept trying to fool
yourself.
Sigh.
|12.8.06 @ 7:40PM|#
I see Snipes has been taking his tax advice from those domestic shortwave radio broadcasts...
The Wine Commonsewer|12.8.06 @ 9:24PM|#
You know the really stupid thing about all of this tax protest
stuff is that it doesn't matter what you may think the law
technically says. It don't matter of the money we use ain't legal,
or that Ohio isn't really a state, or that we file on a voluntary
basis so we really don't have to. There is almost a hundred year
history of legal requirements to file a return and pay the tax. If
you are dumb enough to think the government is going to buy off on
any of this, well, let's put it this way, government knows what
side the bread's buttered on.
Then again, there was that Fed Ex pilot who beat the
system..........
|12.8.06 @ 10:18PM|#
The Wine Commonsewer:
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, so I'll just play it
straight.
The Federal Express pilot you're referring to (Vernice B. Kuglin)
didn't "beat the system" in the manner you imply. She was acquitted
of tax fraud, true, but all that accomplished was to save her ass
from jail time. She still had to fork over all the unpaid income
tax (over half a million dollars, according to
this IRS FAQ).
|12.8.06 @ 10:28PM|#
I've had some personal contact with Irwin Schiff over the years and found him to be a pleasant enough fellow and a lively conversationalist. Still, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Guy Montag|12.8.06 @ 11:11PM|#
The Wine Commonsewer,
Are you speaking of a maritime court? I noticed the gold fringe on
the flag.
|12.8.06 @ 11:45PM|#
Everyone always knew where Snipes was. he posted bond and is
probably already back in Namibia.
And the Snipes issue with IRS has been going on since 1996,
IIRC.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.9.06 @ 12:52AM|#
Son, I seriously thought that Kuglin was off the hook.
Guy, fringe? well we are sort of a fringe.
|12.9.06 @ 1:51AM|#
As the following film reveals, there have been cases where folks
have prevailed against the IRS in court with their contention that
the income tax is illegal.
Watch this movie to understand the legal
foundations for non-payment of income tax and to understand the
history, including outright fraud, of the Federal Reserve, and the
case for its abolition. Hollywood movie producer and candidate for
the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, Aaron Russo, produce
it:
America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
The movie is very well researched, documented, and argued.
It is also very frightening.
Here is the America: Freedom to Fascism web site:
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
Discloser: Although I pay my federal income taxes, I'm joining the
political movement spearheaded by Aaron Russo to abolish both the
IRS and the Federal Reserve.
|12.9.06 @ 1:58AM|#
You can view the entire movie, free of charge, at the
first link that I provided.
The movie is also very entertaining.
|12.9.06 @ 7:42AM|#
The arguments by tax protestors that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified are pretty absurd. 1) the differences in the texts of the ratifying instruments from state legislatures are de minimis, and 2) the Constitution is pretty anemic on the process of amendment, so as long as 3/4 of the states agree, that's good enough.
Guy Montag|12.9.06 @ 8:36AM|#
FinFangFoom,
Absurd is one way to put it. I call it hilarious! They are right up
there with the holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, the faked
death of [insert famous person] theorists, [insert non-UBL villain]
9/11 conspiracy believers, gold fringe flags == maritime/martial
law court scholars, socialism == fairness fans, the 'Rosenbergs
were framed' theologians and many others, in my book.
They have all failed to convince me, but I do take the time to
encourage them on occasion.
|12.9.06 @ 10:51AM|#
Guy Montag:
I commiserate with you. Obviously, reality does not sit well with
some people.
|12.9.06 @ 11:06AM|#
Guy Montag:
Congratulations,
That was a really good rant. Congratulations are in order.
Larry A|12.9.06 @ 11:30AM|#
The only relevant argument in the IRS v The People debate is,
"Which side has the most guns?"
As long as the IRS is picking on a small minority of individuals,
they will prevail. When the majority says, "Enough!" they'll fold
like a house of cards.
Everyone hold your breath, now.
Brendan|12.9.06 @ 11:32AM|#
I have heard that Eddie Kahn (whose beliefs Wesley subscribes to) was kidnapped from Panama by the feds despite no extradition treaty for tax crimes.
Brendan|12.9.06 @ 11:43AM|#
The winecommonsewer probably has it right--
The government is the monopoly provider of "justice" and "defense"
and questions about its laws are handled by--another branch of the
government--another part of the monopoly. So, why be surprised if
they are not sympathetic to the tax arguments? Despite the obvious
5th Amendment implications, despite the jurisdictional issues,
despite that different circuits cannot decide if the tax is a
direct tax or an excise tax, despite the inability to come up with
a valid assessment or to show proper delegation of authority to
file a 1040 for a non filer, etc. etc.
In the only recent tax protest case to get to the
Supremes, they did make it harder to convict criminally saying that
people have a right to sincere beliefs about the tax.
Judges do not always allow those beliefs a proper hearing in court.
The judge in Irwin Schiff's case said he would not allow the law in
his courtroom!
And, there is no similar Supreme Court case limiting civil actions.
They have a pretty free hand in grabbing your money, which is
mostly what they want, anyway.
Brendan|12.9.06 @ 12:04PM|#
Back one more time==
The We the People Foundation http://www.givemeliberty.org
recently held a neat demonstration in Washington DC with over a
hundred folks dressed up as "V" from "V for Vendetta" --surprised
Reason did not notice it--check out the cool fotos and the "No
Answer-No Taxes" banner.
They have what I believe is a very interesting case in the courts
regarding not taxes per se but the First Amendment. Specifically,
the right to petition clause. The case claims that right is a
substantive right and Congress must hear petitions in some
meaningfull way.
Far from a mass movement, but the concept of the V demonstration
was brilliant. And, those costumes cost about $100 a pop!
Jonathan C. Hohensee|12.9.06 @ 12:35PM|#
Badnarik did that too. Shortly before he got his ass beat election-wise.
|12.9.06 @ 12:44PM|#
FinFangFoom, Guy Montag,
That an insufficient number of states ratified the 16th amendment
is established. In fact, in the movie to which I linked, a judge is
quoted citing the fact in a recent court case. Here is the link for
the movie again:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
|12.9.06 @ 12:57PM|#
Broadly accepted law is more potent than constitutionally
correct law in every case. You could argue 90% of regulatory
actions are unconstitutional, but you wouldn't get anywhere because
people like those agencies.
You can't gimmick yourself to liberty, people.
Guy Montag|12.9.06 @ 1:14PM|#
Rick Barton,
That an insufficient number of states ratified the 16th
amendment is established.
As much as I would like another reason to tell the supporters of
the highest decorated sailor from both sides of the same war to
quit whining about the 2004 election results from Ohio, I will pass
on using that one.
Come to think of it, wasn't one of the primary fakers of the first
alleged moon landing from Ohio? That Armstrong boy?
I see this goes deeper than I ever could imagine . . .
|12.9.06 @ 2:14PM|#
The Courts have always deferrred on the question of whether
Constitutional Amendments have been properly ratified to the
Congress. That the 16th Amendment has been ratified is considered
settled law.
And even if the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, and some
court ruled so, how long do you think it would take to get
ratified? About a day, I should think.
Guy Montag|12.9.06 @ 2:33PM|#
Mark,
I think Rick is onto something. Just a bit ago I was watching FOX
news and the USA is about to make a fake moon colony. Oh, they
didn't call it fake, but they really can't do that you know. I
could read between the lines.
The guy who fired the missile into the Pentagon and the crew who
planted the explosives for the World Trade Center are rumored to be
from Ohio too.
And don't get me started on Karl Rove faking Lincoln's death!
JD|12.9.06 @ 4:40PM|#
Just to re-establish my crazy cred - I do believe that the fringe on the flag means something. The argument "It's just a bit of decoration" looks pretty threadbare when you discover that all the military service flags and the Presidential flag have fringe specified in their design, while no other Federal flag does. (Including the flag for the Secretary of Defense...who is a civilian.) Now, do I think it means anything practical WRT the law? Not really. I'm with Jason Ligon in that regard: the courts, as a whole, will do what they want, and to win, you need to convince them, not yourself. They're not going to fall over and cry uncle just because you think you're clever.
|12.9.06 @ 5:28PM|#
Guy Montag,
One of the reasons for political conspiracy theories is political
conspiracy. It does happen. When we debase conspiracy analysis,
we're throwing out an invaluable tool for understanding real
politic. Political power is often transmitted via the machinations
of hidden collusion and miss-direction. Often, conspiracy
theorizing is the only way to apprehend political reality.
I think we need to engage in conspiracy analysis to understand
political power. We need to ask the question; Who benefits? I like
Rothbard's extension of common sense conspiracy analysis from
smaller political situations like the collusion of labor and
management to enact tariffs, to larger things like entry into war,
the creation of the Fed. etc.
|12.9.06 @ 5:50PM|#
That the 16th Amendment has been ratified is considered
settled law.
That's not true. The contention that it hasn't been ratified is one
of the points that some folks have used to defeat the IRS in
court.
As I said, in the movie to which I linked, a judge is quoted in a
recent court case
citing the fact that the 16th Amendment was never ratified:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
|12.9.06 @ 7:46PM|#
And you people want to know why libertarians don't get elected?
It's because you keep on with these sorts of arguements.
Look, if you don't want to pay income taxes, then don't pay income
taxes. But don't come whining to me for sympathy when the IRS gets
medieval on you. Especially since you are still taking advantage of
all those things that your income taxes would have paid for.
If you really believed what you preached about no taxes, you'd move
to a country that had no taxes. Like Ethiopia. Or Iraq.
|12.9.06 @ 7:47PM|#
All right, so if the Income Tax Amendment was never ratified,
then the amendment we call the Seventeenth was in fact the
Sixteenth, and so on.
So what do we do with the Twenty-First -- excuse me, the Twentieth
-- Amendment? That's the amendment which was generally understood
as repealing Prohibition. Here's a key phrase:
"The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is herely repealed."
We generally refer to the Prohibition Amendment as the eighteenth.
But that presumes that the Income Tax Amendment is #16! Leave out
the Income Tax Amendment, and the Prohibition Amendment gets bumped
down to #17. That means that what we call the Nineteenth Amendment
is actually #18. What does that amendment say?
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of sex.
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation."
So, woman's suffrage has been taken out of the U. S. Constitution,
putting the matter back in the hands of the states!
I'd drink to that, but since the Prohibition Amendment has actually
not been repealed, it would be illegal to furnish me with beverage
alcohol.
|12.9.06 @ 8:06PM|#
Rick Barton,
I'm about an hour into watching that movie (and listening as I post
this). Some of the more esoteric arguments sound great but won't
play, but the arguments about the Federal Reserve System, which is
where I am now, are not only sound, but morally correct. The
destruction of the Federal Reserve System is the only way to begin
to break the chains.
Good luck with that, though. How do you take up arms against the
bankers? It's easier to overthrow a government than a banking
system.
|12.9.06 @ 8:49PM|#
grumpy realist,
I pay income taxes but if, for any of a few reasons, the income tax
is unconstitutional, and that's where the evidence seems to point,
then they're being illegally extracted from us.
By their nature, all taxes are a limitation of liberty. The only
tme that a case might be able to be made for them not being so is
if they are exclusively spent to protect individual; liberty.
The evidence is abundant that taxes tend to harm both the
production and consumption of wealth.
Guy Montag|12.9.06 @ 8:55PM|#
Rick Barton,
Pony up your copy of an F4506-T delivered
to Reason Magazine showing that you have not filed an income tax
return for a while.
Otherwise, you are as relevant as those "taxation without
representation" freaks in the only CONUS part of the USA that is
NOT supposed to be represented in the Congress, per the
Constitution, as relevant as those folks that believe in the flag
fringe crap and as relevant as those folks who believe that you
really can get away with operating a motor vehicle without a
license if it is not commercial or carrying a concealed pistol
without a license (outside VT or AK).
The last 2 items I wish be the case, but they are not.
Guy Montag|12.9.06 @ 9:20PM|#
Ah, our posts went in almost at the same time.
So, you assert that we need not pay income tax but you do anyway,
with all manner of "exidence" that we don't need to.
Cute, really cute.
|12.9.06 @ 9:25PM|#
Guy Montag,
As I said, I pay income taxes. My relevancy is not what is relevant
for this discourse. It's the legality or lack thereof of the Fed.
Income tax.
Just as political movements have made it so those two states allow
carrying a concealed pistol without a license, so we should join a
political movement to abolish the income tax and the Federal
Reserve.
|12.9.06 @ 9:33PM|#
jf,
Yeah, the abolition of the Federal Reserve would have the effect of
the removal of giant leach. That seems to be Russo's main
mission.
Guy Montag|12.9.06 @ 9:48PM|#
As I am fully in the camp that it should be perfectly legal to
carry and conceal any weapon that is regularly issued to the
Infantry, I know tha the settled law is not in the direction of my
desire.
I also know that what you are trying to get others into trouble
with what is not the law, but pure fantasy on your part with a
fancy video that is worthy of Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and his
dimmer cousin Al Gore, granted them on other topics.
Now, when you STOP paying income taxes and prove to us that you
stopped (I gave you the link to the form) then I will believe
you.
When the USSC recognizes that I can carry concealed without a 2nd
Amendment license, then I will do that too.
What your fetish hate for the Fed is I do not know and, believe me
(please) I have been hearing wacky arguments about it's
"illegality" for well over 20 years now, that are just re-hashings
of 100s year old nonsense.
|12.9.06 @ 10:58PM|#
but pure fantasy on your part with a fancy video worthy of
Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal ...
It's quite evident that you haven't actually watched the movie. The
contention in the movie concerning the Fed is not about its
illegality, rather, the advisability of its abolition.
|12.9.06 @ 11:31PM|#
I also know that what you are trying to get others into
trouble...
I'm not trying to get anyone into trouble, especially the folks who
frequent this place. I'm hoping that others might join political
action to rid us of the fed and/or the income tax. We have nothing
to lose but our chains.
|12.10.06 @ 1:00AM|#
Guy:
Now, when you STOP paying income taxes and prove to us that you
stopped then I will believe you.
Were I an African American 40 to 50 years ago in some of our
southern states, and if I did not want to take the risks of trying
to register to vote, it would in no way diminish my contention that
the government's obstructing my efforts ro register was
illegal.
|12.10.06 @ 2:48AM|#
Ok, if you hate the income so much, then run on a political
platform advocating for the abolishing of it.
And don't forget explaining how you're going to pay for the stuff
you're getting from the federal government right now that income
taxes go for. Y'know, the stuff like the military, the law courts,
all those nice federal highways that you drive along, for starters.
For a bunch of people who think property rights are the end-all,
you seem to ignore the fact that *KEEPING* property rights from
devolving down into nothing more than "might makes right" involves
a whole lot of law courts and policemen enforcing the laws.
Law is ITSELF a construction of government, for all those of you
who are tossing around legalese on this thread.
Look, why don't you just go get a copy of Mad Max and wank off to
it, ok?
|12.10.06 @ 3:16AM|#
grumpy realist,
If the federal government was reduced to its proper role of
protecting life, liberty and property, it would have more than
enough funds without the imposition of an income tax to pay for the
military, and the federal law courts. Gas taxes pay for the federal
highways.
An income tax that harms liberty and prosperity and a government
that wastes all that money is not very realistic, Grumpy.
David Rollins|12.10.06 @ 4:36AM|#
Guy Montag:
I do not file taxes, and I will be happy to fill out a F4506-T
request if you wish. Now will you agree with us?
In my limited experience, if you pay the withholding and do not
file they will eventually estimate your taxes for you and file a
return on your behalf. No harm, no foul. You lose out on a few tax
breaks, but your "soul is pristine" (or whatever wackoid phrase you
prefer), and you can claim the moral high ground if you care about
such things (I do not).
They just want the money; you don't have to kiss the ring. Now will
you watch the film and shut the fuck up about the F4506-T?
|12.10.06 @ 8:35AM|#
If typographical errors are enough to invalidate the
ratification of Constitutional amendments, then the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments weren't ratified, either.
Judge
examines and rejects argument that 16th amendment was not properly
ratified.
Also, just to stir the pot a little: Why the Federal
Reserve is Irrelevant.
|12.10.06 @ 9:43AM|#
Don't be an evader or protester. Just be like me and Badnarik,
and join the "Tax minimizer" unemployment movements.
Either earn so little that you don't have to file taxes ( or if you
do, you at least don't owe any) or take advantage of all the easy
deductions.
It beats going to prison.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 10:05AM|#
David Rollins,
How would you expect to vote 50 years ago if, as Son of a! points
out, the amendments protecting that right are just as 'illegal' as
the one you don't like now? Actually, are you doing anything to get
these 'illegal' amendments ratified?
I now require a copy of form 27B/6 (twenty-seven-B-stroke-six) as I
am a stickler for paperwork.
Son of a!, thank you for the Fed Reserve link. Pretty much what we
got in Economics and Finance classes in the early 90s, with a
different approach and sme new info.
Johncjackson, one approach is to earn as much as you can but
constantly owe without paying. Can't go to jail, but at some point
they might take all of your stuff (that you couldn't afford if you
don't make enough to pay income taxes). Key is, file honestly and
you just owe money, not jail time.
|12.10.06 @ 11:08AM|#
I realize there's probably no one still reading at this point,
but I thought I'd post here something that just occurred to
me.
If we invalidate amendments 14-16 on account of typography, then
apply Mad Max's logic about the 21st amendment, we find that the
18th amendment is, in fact, what we call the 21st amendment.
So, I guess it isn't part of the constitution, either, since it's
just repealing itself.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 11:26AM|#
Son of a!,
I think you missed one reader :)
As I pondered what Mr. Rollins proposed I noticed a business
opportunity for the scholars who believe in this amendment
nullification through misspellings business.
Since, according to the scholars, 14, 15 and 16 are invalid, then
they could, in good conscience (if that means anything to them)
market full income tax refunds to anybody who believes that they
are a person incorrectly covered by 14 & 15. Sort of like that
reparations scheme that has been going around for the past 15 or 20
years.
Not a business model that I would endorse, of course, but if these
guys really believe this stuff then they could try to make a 'tax
free' living by helping others!
Oh, and another link for the moonbats:
The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth
Was going to the moon unconstitutional? What about faking it? What
about faking the moon itself? Perhaps the moon is invalid?
|12.10.06 @ 11:40AM|#
Rick: Having encountered tax protestors of virtually every
variety possible in the course of my career (I am a tax attorney),
I would like to ask you some questions: What is the purpose of
arguing that the income tax is illegal? If it is not to convince
others to stop filing tax returns, what is the goal? If it is to
convince people to elect representatives who will abolish the
income tax, why waste time arguing that it is illegal? In fact,
isn't the latter strategy undermined by your arguments, to the
extent it implies that the "powers that be" will perpetuate the tax
regardless of whom you vote for? Or are you calling for open
rebellion, a la Mr Shays?
I do not intend to be insulting here, but having learned long ago
there is no point arguing the merits of the issues with tax
protestors, I have no interest whatsoever in discussing your points
above, but I am curious about your motives.
|12.10.06 @ 11:55AM|#
Guy Montag:
Thanks for the link. I had totally forgotten that the moon wasn't
real. (I know, I know: "How can you forget something as
mind-blowing as that?" What can I say? The liberal media's
propaganda campaign is relentless.)
I'll have to bookmark it so I don't forget. It'll go along with the
one I picked up here on H&R about a month ago: The "State" Of
Idaho: The Case For Open Debate.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 12:00PM|#
Son of a!,
Very welcome.
There are people who believe Idaho is a State?
There must be a marketing opportunity somewhere in there too.
thoreau|12.10.06 @ 12:39PM|#
I think Mad Max had the best post in this thread.
I think the stuff about the income tax being illegal is a bunch of
nonsense. The law is what it is. The suckitude does not make it any
less real.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 1:31PM|#
thoreau,
I think Mad Max had the best post in this thread.
I agree. Don't trust whitie.
Brendan|12.10.06 @ 3:46PM|#
Mr Grumpy Realist is far off the mark in his assertion that
eliminating the income tax would remove many good things that the
government provides.
Also, he is far off the mark in believing that law is only those
statutes passed by a government legislature and enforced in
government courts. (legal positivism).
If the income tax were abolished today, it would remove
approximately 35% of government revenue. The government would be
reduced to taking in receipts that (if it were a business that had
to live within its means) would necessitate its reduction to about
the size it had in 1988. Yes, that is 1988, not 1888. The
government would be about the size it was under Bush 41.
Any good conservative should be able to sit down with pen and paper
and whack off a mere 35% of the gargantuan federal budget before
breakfast. And leave adequate amounts for defense, courts, and
roads. Whether we should have federal police, or federal prisons
for all the numerous unconstitutional federal crimes that the
legislature under Mr Grumpy's theory of legal positivism has
created is fodder for another debate.
|12.10.06 @ 4:05PM|#
US District Judge James C. Fox in a 2003 ruling: "If you
... examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a
sufficient number of states never ratified that
amendment".
Judge Fox's quoted statement can be found on page 23 of the
ruling's 26 pages. The ruling was in Sullivan v. U.S., 03-CV-39, US
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Wilmington, 21 March 2003.
Judge Fox used the invalid ratification of the 16th Amendment as an
example to argue that some parts of the Constitution are in
there because of long-term usage, despite those parts' being
properly unconstitutional. Judge Fox comments that no federal court
will throw out the 16th Amendment, no matter what evidence of its
improper ratification is brought, precisely because of its
long-term use.
http://www.populistamerica.com/outing_the_constitutional_criminals
But surley this injustice is not any less so because of "long term
usage". And surely considering long term usage flies in the face of
the revered doctrine of the original intent. And what can "a nation
of laws not men" possibly mean if we allow unconstitutionality to
continue longer just cuz it already has for a while?
Disclosure: I have no affiliation with the Populist Party. The link
is just one of the places where you can find the Judge Fox'x quote
and commentary. It is: An Analysis and Review of Aaron Russo's
Film, America: Freedom to Fascism to which I linked up-thread.
|12.10.06 @ 4:34PM|#
Ron:
If it is to convince people to elect representatives who will
abolish the income tax, why waste time arguing that it is
illegal?
That's what I hope for-political pressure. Don't you think that
publicizing the fact that taxes are being extracted from folks
unconstitutionally adds political impetus to end the theft?
In fact, isn't the latter strategy undermined by your
arguments, to the extent it implies that the "powers that be" will
perpetuate the tax regardless of whom you vote for?
Just cuz the powers that be have operated contra the law in the
pat, starting some 90 years ago when they prevailed upon the
government to announce that the 16th was properly ratified when it
was actually not, doesn't mean that they will again. And most
important, the fact that they have being made common knowledge
ought to increase the political pressure.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 7:03PM|#
So, now that the moon is not real does that mean becoming an Astronayt is futile?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.10.06 @ 7:38PM|#
I also meant to mention that IRS says they don't have to give consideration to your fifth amendment rights until it's a criminal matter. When they're just taking your money by seizing your home, bank account, or paycheck it's okay because you aren't going to jail.
|12.11.06 @ 10:10AM|#
Rick Barton: There are lots of laws out there that are
unconstitutional in my view; unfortunately, the Courts haven't seen
it that way yet. The danger of making the "unconstitutional"
argument re the income tax is that credulous persons may be tempted
to believe they actually have a chance in court. In my experience,
the most vocal and articulate tax protestors almost always file and
pay taxes (or they have no income to speak of), but they manage to
convince folks like Mr. Snipes, who has much more to lose, that
these arguments have merit in court.
By the way, you can find at least one US District Court Judge to
say just about anything about the law. In Nevada, a couple of them
were impeached for refusing to pay social security taxes.
By the way, I am no fan of the income tax. It is grossly unfair to
wage earners, who invariably end up paying much more than a
self-employed person with the same income. A credit-invoice VAT is
the way to go, but it must be in lieu of the income tax, not in
addition to it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245