Signing a tax return...

[ga1150]

To continue...

Regarding my question - "If you are required by law to file a tax return, then the requirement also exists that everything that you put on that form must be true. Why them, must you sign it stating that it is?"

+++++++++++++++++

John J. Bulten wrote...

"By the way, 1150, if you disagree with the majority of Quatloos posters (like I do), you'd do better to confront them with direct head-on rather than subtle leading questions."

Oh, but it IS a "head-on" question.

silversopp wrote...

"Yep, you misread it. It's not that uncommon of a mistake though."

Wow, and I highlighted the word "true" and everything. So, what is it that you are swearing to exactly then?

grammarian44 wrote...

"Your question presupposes something you have by no means established."

My question presupposes nothing. My question merely parrots what is stated in the quasi-jurat at the bottom of the current Form 1040. I really don't need to establish anything - it's all there in black and white.

grammarian44 also wrote...

"If you are required to file a tax return by law, then how does it necessarily follow that everything you put on that form must be true?"

So, you are saying that if you are legally required to file a form with the Government, there is no requirement for the information in that form to be true and accurate? In other words, the government can require you to file the form, but they have no power to punish you if the information is false?

[David Merrill]

If it were law that you are required to insure your car, then why do you have to sign a statement so on the back of the Tax/Registration Receipt?

It is about private agreement. Law was blended with equity in 1938 - Erie RR Co. v. Thompkins.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Quixote]

So, you are saying that if you are legally required to file a form with the Government, there is no requirement for the information in that form to be true and accurate?

Nope, only true and accurate to the best of the filer's knowledge and belief.

In other words, the government can require you to file the form, but they have no power to punish you if the information is false?

We all make mistakes. I wouldn't want to be prosecuted for a typo. Would you?

[David Merrill]

One signing under the penalty of perjury is required to tell the truth. I doubt you are here testing empirical truth against what the taxpayer believes to be true and correct.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv

All banks are required to show stock in the Fed. However there have been no Federal Reserve Bank Notes since 1945 so the Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket are now the stock certificates. Bankers have a fiduciary responsibility - the same as stockholders.

That is really the purpose of the signature, to establish you have a fiduciary obligation to protect the Fed. Having endorsed private credit, granted from the Fed obligates you to file a return of income. Ergo, the one year leads to an obligation to file the next unless you begin redeeming lawful money instead.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/attachme ... 1176137303

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

Regards,

David Merrill.

[Paul]

Regarding my question - "If you are required by law to file a tax return, then the requirement also exists that everything that you put on that form must be true. Why them, must you sign it stating that it is?"

Why do you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before giving testimony in court?

It's the way it's been done for hundreds of years. Maybe because it puts you on notice that lying about what you are swearing is the truth is a crime?

[Judge Roy Bean]

One signing under the penalty of perjury is required to tell the truth. I doubt you are here testing empirical truth against what the taxpayer believes to be true and correct.

[gratuitious link to meaningless drivel to rack up web hits deleted]

All banks are required to show stock in the Fed. However there have been no Federal Reserve Bank Notes since 1945 so the Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket are now the stock certificates. Bankers have a fiduciary responsibility - the same as stockholders.

That is really the purpose of the signature, to establish you have a fiduciary obligation to protect the Fed. Having endorsed private credit, granted from the Fed obligates you to file a return of income. Ergo, the one year leads to an obligation to file the next unless you begin redeeming lawful money instead.

[Meaningless drivel designed to drive up hit counters deleted]

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

[More meaningless drivel designed to drive up hit counters deleted]

Regards,

David Merrill Van Pelt, Self-professed Master of the Meaningless Self-Agrandizing Nonsense.

Once again - if we block posting of links and large posts, Van Pelt will dry up and go away.

[LPC]

In other words, the government can require you to file the form, but they have no power to punish you if the information is false?

Of course the government can punish someone who files a false return.

But!

(Wait for it....)

Just to make sure that we don't punish the wrong person, or punish someone who didn't understand the possible penalties, we're going to take two (count them, *TWO*, that's -2-) precautions:

1. We're going to require that the person SIGN the return. That's to make sure that we know (and can prove) who actually filed the return.

And.....

(Wait for it....)

2. We're going to include a statement, above where the person has to sign, which says that the return is under "penalties of perjury" so that we can be sure that the person signing the return has notice, and knows that, they can be punished for filing a tax return that they *know* is false.

Other than that, the jurat serves no purpose at all.</sarcasm>

[ga1150]

If it were law that you are required to insure your car, then why do you have to sign a statement so on the back of the Tax/Registration Receipt?

So you are saying that you are required to both HAVE insurance, AND sign that you have insurance? Is there a statement at the signature line indicating that you are swearing an oath that you have insurance, and are you required by law to sign such an oath?

At any rate, here in Georgia, you are only required to HAVE insurance. We don't have a requirement to sign something stating that we have insurance. Seems kind of silly anyway.

Nope, only true and accurate to the best of the filer's knowledge and belief.

Well, what other sort of "true and accurate" is there? "True and accurate" to someone else's knowledge and belief?

Just to make sure that we don't punish the wrong person, or punish someone who didn't understand the possible penalties, we're going to take two (count them, *TWO*, that's -2-) precautions:

1. We're going to require that the person SIGN the return. That's to make sure that we know (and can prove) who actually filed the return.

And.....

(Wait for it....)

2. We're going to include a statement, above where the person has to sign, which says that the return is under "penalties of perjury" so that we can be sure that the person signing the return has notice, and knows that, they can be punished for filing a tax return that they *know* is false.

Other than that, the jurat serves no purpose at all.

This really flies in the face of the oft cried "Ignorantia juris non excusat" concept here. Are you saying that "we", ostensibly, the Government, can actually force a person to sign something stating that they are aware of the penalties of perjury? And, as far as proving that a person submitted a form just because their signature is on it, well, I certainly hope you never leave your checkbook lying around where it can be stolen. Your signature is easy...you leave it every time you use a credit card. Would that be "proof" that you wrote the check?

Why do you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before giving testimony in court?

You don't. There is no legal requirement to do so. You are 'asked' to do so because once you actually DO swear such an oath, you are bound by law to comply. Pay attention to the words. "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth...", NOT "Do you understand that you are required by to tell the truth..."

[Nikki]

Why do you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before giving testimony in court?

You don't. There is no legal requirement to do so. You are 'asked' to do so because once you actually DO swear such an oath, you are bound by law to comply. Pay attention to the words. "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth...", NOT "Do you understand that you are required by to tell the truth..."

Wrong, oh great person bordering on trolldom.

When you testify in court, you are there eirher as the plaintiff, the defendant, or a witness.

Irrespective of your status, you are required to either swear or affirm that your testimony will be truthful. If you fail to do so, your testimony will be disregarded by the jury or the judge AND you will be held in contempt. You are required, by law, to give truthful testimony under the penalty of perjury.

[David Merrill]

One signing under the penalty of perjury is required to tell the truth. I doubt you are here testing empirical truth against what the taxpayer believes to be true and correct.

[gratuitious link to meaningless drivel to rack up web hits deleted]

All banks are required to show stock in the Fed. However there have been no Federal Reserve Bank Notes since 1945 so the Federal Reserve Notes in your pocket are now the stock certificates. Bankers have a fiduciary responsibility - the same as stockholders.

That is really the purpose of the signature, to establish you have a fiduciary obligation to protect the Fed. Having endorsed private credit, granted from the Fed obligates you to file a return of income. Ergo, the one year leads to an obligation to file the next unless you begin redeeming lawful money instead.

[Meaningless drivel designed to drive up hit counters deleted]

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

[More meaningless drivel designed to drive up hit counters deleted]

Regards,

David Merrill Van Pelt, Self-professed Master of the Meaningless Self-Agrandizing Nonsense.

Once again - if we block posting of links and large posts, Van Pelt will dry up and go away.

Thank you for again inferring a Government bond.

You are required, by law, to give truthful testimony under the penalty of perjury.

Therefore you admit no need to swear an oath.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

No, you are attempting to put your words into my mouth.

The witness is required to give truthful testimony. That is ensured by requiring them to swear or affirm, subject to the penalty of perjury, that their testimony is truthful.

David, you've been in court enough times to be aware of what the procedures are. When you sued to recover your scooter, did you not have to swear that your testimony (at least in your opinion) was truthful?

[ga1150]

If you fail to do so, your testimony will be disregarded by the jury or the judge AND you will be held in contempt. You are required, by law, to give truthful testimony under the penalty of perjury.

There have been people charged for refusing to swear to "tell the truth", but usually they are charged with disrupting the order of the courtroom. Some have just been discharged from the stand without testimony. Perjury is "the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn...". Since there has been no oath taken, there can hardly be perjury. [emphasis mine]

bordering on trolldom

I had truly hoped that this thread could be conducted without the typical resort to name calling so prevalent in this Forum. We shall see...

[/u][/i]

[Florida]

If you fail to do so, your testimony will be disregarded by the jury or the judge AND you will be held in contempt. You are required, by law, to give truthful testimony under the penalty of perjury.

There have been people charged for refusing to swear to "tell the truth", but usually they are charged with disrupting the order of the courtroom. Some have just been discharged from the stand without testimony. Perjury is "the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn...". Since there has been no oath taken, there can hardly be perjury. [emphasis mine]

bordering on trolldom

I had truly hoped that this thread could be conducted without the typical resort to name calling so prevalent in this Forum. We shall see...

[/u][/i]

Isn't there a sentence that addresses making a declaration before the signature line?

[notorial dissent]

In the states that require it, having insurance, and signing the affidavit on the registration, the reason is for the simple fact that some people refuse to obey the law and have insurance for their cars, and by requiring the signature on the registration, it says once and for all, that they knew they were required to have insurance, they ignored the law and the requirement, and when they finally get hung out to dry in court, they will have no excuse that they didn’t know, and they can then also be charged with perjury for falsely swearing that they did have insurance.

What it all boils down to, and the deniers strive very hard to get away from, is that the form very plainly and concisely tells them that it must be filled out correctly and completely, according to the instructions provided, and that it also implies that it be filled out truthfully. The jurat at the end of the document reinforces that and very plainly warns you once again and finally that if the form is not filled out correctly, completely, and truthfully that you can and will be held liable for it, and that by signing the jurat you are aware and informed of that so that you cannot come back later and say you didn’t know.

[LPC]

If you fail to do so, your testimony will be disregarded by the jury or the judge AND you will be held in contempt. You are required, by law, to give truthful testimony under the penalty of perjury.

There have been people charged for refusing to swear to "tell the truth", but usually they are charged with disrupting the order of the courtroom.

Wrong again.

Refusing to be sworn as a witness after being ordered to do so by the judge is contempt of court and is subject to the punishments of civil contempt. It may also be punishable as criminal contempt. See, for example, N.Y. Penal Law 215.50(4), which provides in relevant part that:

A person is guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree when he engages in any of the following conduct:
[...]
4. Contumacious and unlawful refusal to be sworn as a witness in any court proceeding or, after being sworn, to answer any legal and proper interrogatory; [....]

[grammarian44]

grammarian44 also wrote...

"If you are required to file a tax return by law, then how does it necessarily follow that everything you put on that form must be true?"

So, you are saying that if you are legally required to file a form with the Government, there is no requirement for the information in that form to be true and accurate? In other words, the government can require you to file the form, but they have no power to punish you if the information is false?

Sure, that is exactly what I was saying. When I answered your question about why you are required to sign the form and assert the truth of what is on the form, I was saying the government has no power to require that very thing.

No point in arguing with you, ga1150. You will take whatever I say and turn it into exactly the opposite. You asked why you were required to sign the form. I answered. Ignoring that answer, you focused on half of my remarks and drew a conclusion that is the complete opposite of what I said. You win!

Go ahead, lie on your tax forms. Good luck to you.

[ga1150]

and by requiring the signature on the registration, it says once and for all, that they knew they were required to have insurance, they ignored the law and the requirement, and when they finally get hung out to dry in court, they will have no excuse that they didn’t know

Once again, ignoring the "Ignorantia juris non excusat" concept(pun intended). It doesn't matter if you "knew you were required to have insurance" or not. If the law requires it, it requires it. The Court doesn't need any signature stating that you were aware that you knew that you were required.

and that it also implies that it be filled out truthfully

No, if it's as you folks claim, it is not 'implied', it is compelled.

Wrong again.

Refusing to be sworn as a witness after being ordered to do so by the judge is contempt of court and is subject to the punishments of civil contempt.

No, not wrong at all, since the charge that I referred to IS a 'contempt of court' charge.

At any rate, what you are stating is that there is no requirement for the witness to "tell the truth" until the oath is sworn...much as with the quasi-jurat on a Form 1040. That is why the IRS will not accept a Form 1040 without that being signed. Or, if you add something to the effect of "Signed under Duress", or "Signed as Required By Law" to the quasi-jurat prior to signing. This is quite telling. Why in the world would they not be able to accept a form without the oath that the 'witness' signing it is telling the truth? Isn't the filer required by law to file the form and the information given be true? Does the signing of that oath make it even MORE a legal requirement? Or does the signing of the oath make it legal testimony of a witness...and therefore able to be used against the witness as stated in the Privacy Act Notice? If it were compelled, then it would not be available for such use.

In fact, you may even have to get out your dictionary in order to fully understand what you are being called.

No, I understand, as well as I understand that it just occurred. Sorry it had to degrade to such this rapidly. You folks were fun...and informative...and a good exercise. Have more fun with this until it gets locked at 100 or whatever the limit is. What I've learned here is...

The Form 1040 is required by law. Even though the quasi-jurat plainly states that the signer(witness) is swearing an oath that everything on the form is 'true and accurate to the best of the filer's knowledge and belief" (as opposed to "true and accurate to the best of the someone else's knowledge and belief"), they are not swearing that the information is true and accurate to the best of the filer's knowledge and belief as stated by 'silversopp' -"One does not sign that everything on the 1040 is true."

I've also learned that the quasi-jurat that is required by law to be signed is simply a friendly reminder that the information on the return is required by law to be true and accurate...and that you are forced to sign this 'friendly reminder'.

I've also learned that the signature on this line makes the "true and accurate" requirement even MORE of a requirement! Wow...what if they made you sign it 5 times...would it be 5 times more of a requirement?

I've also learned that when you folks have a hard time answering a valid question with substantive commentary, some will just shoot from the hip, and the rest will go down the insult road, as evidenced by CaptainKickback's comments. BTW Captain, I had my money on your being the first to do so. Thanks for not disappointing.

Bye all!

[David Merrill]

No, you are attempting to put your words into my mouth.

The witness is required to give truthful testimony. That is ensured by requiring them to swear or affirm, subject to the penalty of perjury, that their testimony is truthful.

David, you've been in court enough times to be aware of what the procedures are. When you sued to recover your scooter, did you not have to swear that your testimony (at least in your opinion) was truthful?

Just like with the Registration/Tax Receipt - if there is a general and applicable law, there is no reason for signing that under the penalty of perjury, the affiant swears that there is insurance on the automobile, on the backside of the form. That is the simple concept being inquired here.

If there is a law requiring that somebody pay Income Tax, then the requirement of telling the truth is inherent in the law. There is no law requiring anyone pay Income Tax. It is a private agreement protected by no state will abrogate the obligations of contract Clause in the Constitution. The penalty clause about perjury is actually the contract and when heard in a court blending law and equity since 1938, the contract obligations become the law being reviewed.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[wserra]

Regarding my question - "If you are required by law to file a tax return, then the requirement also exists that everything that you put on that form must be true. Why them, must you sign it stating that it is?"

To bring your representations within 26 USC 7206 (false statement on a return "which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury"), as opposed to the general non-sworn false statement statute, 18 USC 1001.

In addition to what Dan previously wrote.

Why do you ask? Just curious?

[webhick]

I was thinking about the meaning of belief this morning and looked it up (I found the stuff in bold interesting):

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

I think that's what they mean when they say "belief" in the jurat. You trust that what you're putting down is (reasonably) accurate.

Then I thought about perjury (again, the stuff in bold is interesting), which is something that always seems to come up in relation to that jurat thingy:

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.

So, if I'm filling out all zeros on my 1040, and I had like $100k in income. I sign the form, which clearly states that I agree that I'm telling the truth. But I'm not. I just made a verifiably false statement, since it can be proven that I had that stuff. I guess I just perjured myself.

I'm not a lawyer or anything, it's just how I see it from a layman's point of view.

The wording needs to be changed on the jurat, that's for sure. It's confusing. Maybe it should say, "By signing this form, I attest to the fact that this is indeed my tax form and I'm not lying about what's on here. I know that stuff on this form can be held against me in a court of law. I don't like paying taxes as much as the next guy, but I'm doing it anyway."