Expect this one to be the ralling cry

[Dezcad]

It takes some "guru, who probably never actually read any part of the law concerning the tax in question to convince them they are required to file and to ignore their own eyes. .

The "gurus" that I follow are the Supreme Court justices. Have you really read and understood the Cheek case?

[Florida]

No one is going to take the Cryer case, who sitting on the fence, and now believe they can get out of paying taxes.

Too funny. Interview any TP and ask them what made them take the giant leap to quit filing and paying taxes. 99% will say it was some TP guru who led them to believe it was OK. It is the lemming effect. Most come back to their senses. A few become hardcore tax deniers. Some like you, stevesy, just blather.

So all the people that do file actually have read the law or some court case and know, from personal knowledge, they are really required to file? Or, do they act like lemmings and just file because some tax guru (who also most likely never read the law) told them they must?
Trouble is for your group the average people who actually read the law comes to the realization they are most likely not required to pay income taxes or at least have serious doubts. Present the average person with the "includes" bs in the law or who the government may place a levy on and you'll soon find out no one with a shred of common sense will come to the conclusion it includes them. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant what matters is what they believe once they read it for themselves.

It takes some "guru, who probably never actually read any part of the law concerning the tax in question to convince them they are required to file and to ignore their own eyes. This is why all of you always fail miserably trying to use common sense and reason and why you rarely if ever attempt it. Instead you must resort to quoting this person or that person to support your argument otherwise no one would believe you. It's also why you must always hold the word of a judge as if it came from God himself. If not there is no believability to your argument because it requires someone to ignore common sense and reason.

Paying taxes. So easy, a caveman can do it.

[Famspear]

SteveSy:

.....btw you mind providing some evidence to show the jury thought he was required to file? I realize that's an impossible task considering they let him off for not filing.

Kind of amusing watching you try very hard to dance around the fact that Cryer commited [sic] no crime by not filing. It seems that you're saying that he was required by law to file and on the other he commited no crime by not filing, and you claim I'm irrational

Wow, Steve, what a mess. No, Steve what were saying is that everyone who has gross income over the filing requirement amount for the tax year in question for that person's filing status is required to file a return. And we're saying that the jury found Cryer not guilty of willful failure to timely file a return. Yes, Steve, on this Federal income tax stuff, you are quite irrational.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

It is a win for me. Though I may not use his win to avoid the evil government I do win receiving personal satisfaction in the fact that the government for the time being failed to convince average people that everyone must file and pay their extortion.

You obvioulsy know very little about the thought process of the average person who is like me. You have this flawed view that everyone like me is just looking to get out of paying something I know I should pay. Instead I'm just greedy....and want to keep my money.

Most TP's (if you want to call me that), feel that the government is stealing money from the average person.

Steve, it's obvious that I and other posters here know A GREAT DEAL about the thought processes of tax protesters. Tax protesters are not "average people" in the sense in which you are thinking. Average people are not delusional about the Federal income tax system. On taxes, you are not an average person. You are delusional.

You say that most tax protesters feel that the government is stealing money from the average person. You are giving the store away, Steve -- possibly without realizing it. You are bringing us closer to understanding your motivation -- what's really behind your beliefs.

I and other Quatloos posters who have studied tax protesters for years know very well that what's really driving all the tax protester rhetoric for many (but maybe not all) protesters is not the question of the validity or application of Federal tax laws. What is driving this is anti-government feelings and, as you said, a feeling that the government is "stealing." The delusional "belief" that the tax system is LEGALLY invalid is the RESULT, and not the CAUSE of the anti-government feelings, etc. The reason tax protesters are delusional is, in part, that the protesters WANT the tax system to be LEGALLY INVALID. To some extent, some protester are confusing "moral invalidity" (to use an imprecise term) with legal invalidity.

Again, I don't know how many times I have had protesters who don't even know who I am "accuse" me of being a "government agent." It's as though, in the protesters' minds, I or anyone else who questions the protesters laughable, delusional thought processes about the nature of the tax law must somehow work for "the enemy" (the government).

Look, if anyone should feel bitter about the IRS, it should be me, not you (unless you have a personal horror story, I don't know). You see, I deal with IRS employees all the time. I represent real people in dealings with the IRS. I've done it for many years. I don't represent the IRS. *I'M THE ONE* who has to deal with the IRS, and with the complexity of the tax law. You and most protesters have ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPT of how complex the law is, or how opaque and systemically incompetent the IRS can be.

But after all these years, I do not have a hatred of the IRS or of its employees. Indeed, thinking and talking about the IRS -- and about taxation -- does not cause me to have strong "feelings" (either pro or con). It's just a job, and it's an interesting, challenging job.

I have also prepared gazillions of Federal income tax returns -- many of them of a mind-numbing complexity. I AM THE ONE who has to deal with this complexity, Steve, not you.

Steve, if thinking about the IRS or about Federal income taxes causes you to have overly strong "feelings" or "emotions" -- especially negative ones -- that should be a warning signal for you. There's something wrong psychologically, at least in my amateur opinion (I'm not a psychologist).

Ask yourself: Why are you posting comments here in Quatloos? Is it just to be humiliated? I don't think so.

Do you really think that you know as much about the validity of the Federal income tax law as anyone else here? I suspect that deep down inside you realize that you are hopelessly outclassed.

Do you really think you are ever going to hurl fastballs that will strike out the heavy hitters here? Are you going to convince people who have studied the law to a depth that you cannot even imagine that you are right and they are wrong? Deep down inside, I think you realize that this is not a reasonable hope.

So, why do you feel the way you do about taxes, and why do you post here? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself, Steve.

I know that I and other people are hard on you here from time to time, but really, aside from the fact that I enjoy this forum in the short time I've been here, I really am here to try to do some good. I believe that many other posters here are also trying to do some good. If we can turn just one person away from delusional thinking about Federal income taxes, I think that's good.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong, if you can just find the strength to turn from the delusion. Other people have done it.

Ask yourself, Steve: Why do you "feel" the way you do? What is really behind all this? Only you can answer those questions for yourself.

[Florida]

SteveSy wrote:

It is a win for me. Though I may not use his win to avoid the evil government I do win receiving personal satisfaction in the fact that the government for the time being failed to convince average people that everyone must file and pay their extortion.

You obvioulsy know very little about the thought process of the average person who is like me. You have this flawed view that everyone like me is just looking to get out of paying something I know I should pay. Instead I'm just greedy....and want to keep my money.

Most TP's (if you want to call me that), feel that the government is stealing money from the average person.

Steve, it's obvious that I and other posters here know A GREAT DEAL about the thought processes of tax protesters. Tax protesters are not "average people" in the sense in which you are thinking. Average people are not delusional about the Federal income tax system. On taxes, you are not an average person. You are delusional.

You say that most tax protesters feel that the government is stealing money from the average person. You are giving the store away, Steve -- possibly without realizing it. You are bringing us closer to understanding your motivation -- what's really behind your beliefs.

I and other Quatloos posters who have studied tax protesters for years know very well that what's really driving all the tax protester rhetoric for many (but maybe not all) protesters is not the question of the validity or application of Federal tax laws. What is driving this is anti-government feelings and, as you said, a feeling that the government is "stealing." The delusional "belief" that the tax system is LEGALLY invalid is the RESULT, and not the CAUSE of the anti-government feelings, etc. The reason tax protesters are delusional is, in part, that the protesters WANT the tax system to be LEGALLY INVALID. To some extent, some protester are confusing "moral invalidity" (to use an imprecise term) with legal invalidity.

Again, I don't know how many times I have had protesters who don't even know who I am "accuse" me of being a "government agent." It's as though, in the protesters' minds, I or anyone else who questions the protesters laughable, delusional thought processes about the nature of the tax law must somehow work for "the enemy" (the government).

Look, if anyone should feel bitter about the IRS, it should be me, not you (unless you have a personal horror story, I don't know). You see, I deal with IRS employees all the time. I represent real people in dealings with the IRS. I've done it for many years. I don't represent the IRS. *I'M THE ONE* who has to deal with the IRS, and with the complexity of the tax law. You and most protesters have ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPT of how complex the law is, or how opaque and systemically incompetent the IRS can be.

But after all these years, I do not have a hatred of the IRS or of its employees. Indeed, thinking and talking about the IRS -- and about taxation -- does not cause me to have strong "feelings" (either pro or con). It's just a job, and it's an interesting, challenging job.

I have also prepared gazillions of Federal income tax returns -- many of them of a mind-numbing complexity. I AM THE ONE who has to deal with this complexity, Steve, not you.

Steve, if thinking about the IRS or about Federal income taxes causes you to have overly strong "feelings" or "emotions" -- especially negative ones -- that should be a warning signal for you. There's something wrong psychologically, at least in my amateur opinion (I'm not a psychologist).

Ask yourself: Why are you posting comments here in Quatloos? Is it just to be humiliated? I don't think so.

Do you really think that you know as much about the validity of the Federal income tax law as anyone else here? I suspect that deep down inside you realize that you are hopelessly outclassed.

Do you really think you are ever going to hurl fastballs that will strike out the heavy hitters here? Are you going to convince people who have studied the law to a depth that you cannot even imagine that you are right and they are wrong? Deep down inside, I think you realize that this is not a reasonable hope.

So, why do you feel the way you do about taxes, and why do you post here? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself, Steve.

I know that I and other people are hard on you here from time to time, but really, aside from the fact that I enjoy this forum in the short time I've been here, I really am here to try to do some good. I believe that many other posters here are also trying to do some good. If we can turn just one person away from delusional thinking about Federal income taxes, I think that's good.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong, if you can just find the strength to turn from the delusion. Other people have done it.

Ask yourself, Steve: Why do you "feel" the way you do? What is really behind all this? Only you can answer those questions for yourself.

For some reason I get the feeling he does it just to ruffle a few feathers. Or oppositional defiant disorder. Not sure.

[SteveSy]

But after all these years, I do not have a hatred of the IRS or of its employees. Indeed, thinking and talking about the IRS -- and about taxation -- does not cause me to have strong "feelings" (either pro or con). It's just a job, and it's an interesting, challenging job.

A job that would likely not exist and your effort to be a "tax guru" would have been a total waste of time if the income tax was eliminated tomorrow. Let me guess....you would have no problems whatsoever retraining. You might even be qualified to be something productive, like say a janitor and you could do something for someone that truely benefits them instead of helping thieves collect more money. I'll even give you the benefit and you could be some accountant...of course with the income tax gone that market would be saturated and accountants would be a dime a dozen. Probably make more money as a janitor. Most likely your whole existance, everything you have revolves around income taxes.....nah you have no vested interest in keeping the nonsense going.

Income taxes supply billions of wasted dollars to lots of tax professionals just like you. All those people out of work, all those people whose entire material life depends on that revenue.

I have also prepared gazillions of Federal income tax returns -- many of them of a mind-numbing complexity. I AM THE ONE who has to deal with this complexity, Steve, not you.

So what? The guy at H&R block, who has NEVER read a line of legal code, has prepared a gazillion returns also....that means about as much as what I flushed down the toilet a few minutes ago.

Steve, if thinking about the IRS or about Federal income taxes causes you to have overly strong "feelings" or "emotions" -- especially negative ones -- that should be a warning signal for you. There's something wrong psychologically, at least in my amateur opinion (I'm not a psychologist).

No it just means I'm tired of seeing theives steal from hard working individuals for their own personal gain, political or otherwise.

Ask yourself: Why are you posting comments here in Quatloos? Is it just to be humiliated? I don't think so.

Nah I enjoy watching egomanics make asses out of themselves by thinking they're intelligent by merely restating what someone else has told them.

Do you really think that you know as much about the validity of the Federal income tax law as anyone else here? I suspect that deep down inside you realize that you are hopelessly outclassed.

Now that's a laugh.....I'm pretty sure I've read more on the history of taxation and the income tax itself than you ever have or ever will. But then again, someone told you something and you can tell me what they said so that makes you smarter....

Do you really think you are ever going to hurl fastballs that will strike out the heavy hitters here? Are you going to convince people who have studied the law to a depth that you cannot even imagine that you are right and they are wrong? Deep down inside, I think you realize that this is not a reasonable hope.

Well when you learn how to even throw the ball get back with me. Your first step is to stop using someone else to throw it for you and taking the credit for it. Maybe you'll start to realize he never even threw a fast ball himself but duped you in to beleiving he had.

So, why do you feel the way you do about taxes, and why do you post here? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself, Steve.

I do it because someone needs to show how silly and irrational your thought processes are. Everything you say and do is because someone else told you to think that way. When someone says you're wrong you simply become a mindless parrot.

I know that I and other people are hard on you here from time to time, but really, aside from the fact that I enjoy this forum in the short time I've been here, I really am here to try to do some good. I believe that many other posters here are also trying to do some good. If we can turn just one person away from delusional thinking about Federal income taxes, I think that's good.

I don't ask anyone not to file nor do I suggest that they do not file. I do not tell anyone they are not required to file. In fact I would suggest they file to keep the government off their back. I would make the same type of suggestion to anyone being robbed at gun point. Give him the money or the guy will hurt you. It's just not worth it. However, it's still wrong and people should know that it is wrong.

[LDE]

SteveSy wrote:

The people who founded this country, created our constitution, and allowed you to be free of Britain’s rule would have NEVER accepted that a newly formed federal government would have such a power over the people and the States.

Maybe so, Steve, but since then we've had the 16th Amendment, passed in the early 20th century, when things had greatly changed since the Revolutionary era.

Actually the Founders disagreed about whether finance should be centralized in Washington. Hamilton strongly supported a Bank of the United States; others disagreed. Andrew Jackson was swept into office with a pledge of abolishing the central bank, and did so.

Really, the government resulting from Amendments 13-15 was a much different one from that envisioned by the Founders. As the French might put it, it was a Second Republic.

After repeated economic crashes, including the devastating Panic of 1907, it became clear that the financial system had become dysfunctional. The Federal Reserve was meant to replace the power a single man, Andrew Mellon, had over the economy. The income tax was meant to put the country on a sounder financial footing.

I can't understand this fetishization of an 18th-century constitution. Sure, it was a terrific advance at the time. Today, though, the American government seems paralyzed, unable to resolve basic issues other countries have figured out such as universal health care. Despite an incredible level of military spending, the U.S. can't defeat lightly armed rabble in Afghanistan or Iraq. Not only can't Congress balance the budget—it can't even pass a budget. It relies on short-term funding resolutions and did so even when both houses and the Presidency were controlled by the same party.

A Constitution fit for the XXIth century would allow for direct election of the President by popular vote and instant runoff—no Electoral College. (Whether or not you liked the result of the 2000 election, surely nobody could defend the process.) The Senate should be abolished as it allows tiny populations in rural areas to trump the will of the large majority. (Unfortunately, this is the one provision of the Constitution that cannot be amended.) The Bill of Rights should be updated for the age of electronic communication.

Unfortunately we're stuck with an outmoded document that is very hard to change no matter how widespread the desire for change. I imagine the largely right-wing, wealthy members of this board will brand me a dangerous, ranting, nutcase for saying so, but I stand my ground. Today's United States, compared to the rest of the industrialized world, has shorter and declining lifespan, poorer health, and lousy and declining educational achievement. It has hollowed out its manufacturing base, it has racked up enormous debts that it is likely to default upon or else inflate the currency, Argentina-style, to pay off. Militarily it is a laughingstock, Nixon's "pitiful, helpless giant." All thanks to a constitutional democracy that results in Congressional gridlock and an imperial Presidency that knows no restraint.

The Constitution? Call a convention and start over. The Founders died a long time ago.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

But after all these years, I do not have a hatred of the IRS or of its employees. Indeed, thinking and talking about the IRS -- and about taxation -- does not cause me to have strong "feelings" (either pro or con). It's just a job, and it's an interesting, challenging job.

A job that would likely not exist and your effort to be a "tax guru" would have been a total waste of time if the income tax was eliminated tomorrow. Let me guess....you would have no problems whatsoever retraining. You might even be qualified to be something productive, like say a janitor and you could do something for someone that truely benefits them instead of helping thieves collect more money. I'll even give you the benefit and you could be some accountant...of course with the income tax gone that market would be saturated and accountants would be a dime a dozen. Probably make more money as a janitor.

WOW! Simply WOW! The disconnects are astounding. Until this post, it was believed that the worst career counselors were parents. Amazing how someone can deduce from a few posts that a person has great transferable janitorial skills because they deal with tax laws. Seriously, if the income tax was repealed tomorrow, he would still be needed to figure out the myriad of other taxes and fees that would be imposed.

Most likely your whole existance, everything you have revolves around income taxes.....nah you have no vested interest in keeping the nonsense going.

Are you saying that it is all part of a sinister plot to pay for government expenses?

Income taxes supply billions of wasted dollars to lots of tax professionals just like you. All those people out of work, all those people whose entire material life depends on that revenue.

If those people were smart enough to get in on the "scam" of tax preparation and tax law, wouldn't you suppose they are savy enough to make it in another career. Who can blame them for being smart and choosing a lucrative career? Why didn't you become a tax professional?

I have also prepared gazillions of Federal income tax returns -- many of them of a mind-numbing complexity. I AM THE ONE who has to deal with this complexity, Steve, not you.

So what? The guy at H&R block, who has NEVER read a line of legal code, has prepared a gazillion returns also....that means about as much as what I flushed down the toilet a few minutes ago.

Yeah but you didn't get paid for what you flushed down the toilet. Why are you not in on the "tax preparation scam"?

Steve, if thinking about the IRS or about Federal income taxes causes you to have overly strong "feelings" or "emotions" -- especially negative ones -- that should be a warning signal for you. There's something wrong psychologically, at least in my amateur opinion (I'm not a psychologist).

No it just means I'm tired of seeing theives steal from hard working individuals for their own personal gain, political or otherwise.

Are you anti-corporate too?

Ask yourself: Why are you posting comments here in Quatloos? Is it just to be humiliated? I don't think so.

Nah I enjoy watching egomanics make asses out of themselves by thinking they're intelligent by merely restating what someone else has told them.

Guilty as charged. God told me to type this.

[LPC]

The people who founded this country, created our constitution, and allowed you to be free of Britain’s rule would have NEVER accepted that a newly formed federal government would have such a power over the people and the States.

"I thought at first that the power of taxation [given in the new Federal Constitution] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." Thomas Jefferson

Sybil *loves* the founding fathers and knows *exactly* how they think, but really can't stand the decisions they made. Like Larken Rose, Sybil doesn't really like the Constitution, because it gives too much power to people who don't think as he thinks (i.e., a large majority of the population).

And I'm getting my own message from the founding fathers, which is that they NEVER would have wanted to try to dictate to future generations the kind of tax system they should have. Each generation gets to govern itself, and the founders never intended to exercise dead hand control over future federal taxation or future federal spending.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Now that's a laugh.....I'm pretty sure I've read more on the history of taxation and the income tax itself than you ever have or ever will.

Steve, again you are delusional. I have more knowledge of the history of taxation --and the income tax itself -- in my little finger than you will ever hope to have.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Let me guess....you would have no problems whatsoever retraining. You might even be qualified to be something productive, like say a janitor and you could do something for someone that truely benefits them instead of helping thieves collect more money.

Dear Steve: You guess right. If the income tax went away, I could retrain. Uh, but wait a minute Steve. I don't even need to retrain. I'm a lawyer and a certified public accountant. There's lots of lawyer and CPA stuff to do even without a Federal income tax. Here's another clue, Steve. I had a prior career in entertainment and news business. So even if I don't want to do lawyer stuff or CPA stuff, there's other stuff as well.

Another thing, Steve. I make the big bucks to do what I do. I save people real money -- my clients save taxes LEGALLY. I'm not helping the IRS (the people you refer to as thieves) collect "more" money.

I get paid what I get paid because real people conclude that it's worth it for them to pay me. People vote with their pocketbooks, Steve, and they're voting for me, not you.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I do it because someone needs to show how silly and irrational your thought processes are. Everything you say and do is because someone else told you to think that way. When someone says you're wrong you simply become a mindless parrot.

Steve, what I and other lawyers learn does not come from parroting what other people say. No one has told me to think the way I think about tax law. Legal education in the United States is, in large part, what I call "directed self teaching." That means that although you do go to class, the professor does not usually "lecture" in the way professors do in college. And in law school (at least at mine) we do not usually read "textbooks" written by "experts."

The law school experience involves reading verbatim reprints of the actual Constitution, the actual statutes, the actual court cases, and so on. Not just one case, or ten cases, or a hundred cases. We're talking thousands of cases, from England and the United States.

One of the many things that escapes 99% of tax protesters is that the same rules of formal legal analysis that apply to tax law apply to other areas of law. Tax protester nonsense, as pseudo-logic, does not work in the tax law area, just as it would not work if applied to property law, contracts, torts, or any other area of law.

You would be delusional if you believed you could understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as well as Einstein understood it merely by reading summaries of it on the internet. You would be delusional if you believed you could understand French Impressionism in the way Monet understood it merely by walking through Monet's garden at Giverny (which I have done, by the way) or by gazing at his paintings. No, Steve, there is very little that you really know about tax law. You are delusional if you believe that you can know what I know.

By contrast, probably 90% of what tax protesters read is garbage posted on the internet by other tax protesters -- including quotations from, of all things, old Supreme Court cases like Brushaber and Stanton and Merchants' Loan. The tax protesters are so dense, so delusional, that many of them don't even notice that the Court in these cases UPHELD the tax. The tax protester garbage also includes phony quotations, non-existent quotations, and just about every fallacy imaginable.

No, Steve, the TAX PROTESTERS are the ones who are parroting what they have already heard or read elsewhere. I have lots of experience with tax protesters, and I have debunked more tax protester arguments than you can imagine.

The fact that a few educated people (people like Cryer and Banister) do unfortunately promulgate tax protester garbage is a testament to the enormous capacity of the human mind for self-delusion.

Steve, I don't know what your level of education is, but if you really think you know something about tax law that I and the majority of posters here don't know, you are (uh-oh, here comes that word again) DELUSIONAL.

[LPC]

A lot of people would not want a country essentially run by CA, TX, FL, NJ, NY, MA, IL, VA, GA, SC, NV and AZ - a quarter of the states making choices for all 50. A really, really bad idea.

Much better to have a system in which the 21 least populous states, representing less than 20% of the population, gets to dictate federal policy to the other 80% of the population.

Where you sit depends on where you stand. If the least populous states were voting Democratic instead of Republican, I am sure you would be screaming about the lack of fairness in Senate representation.

Ditto the Electoral College. It is there to prevent a mobocracy, to prevent a demagog from playing on peoples' basest fears

Then it's not working. Bush got re-elected anyway.

[Imalawman]

A lot of people would not want a country essentially run by CA, TX, FL, NJ, NY, MA, IL, VA, GA, SC, NV and AZ - a quarter of the states making choices for all 50. A really, really bad idea.

Much better to have a system in which the 21 least populous states, representing less than 20% of the population, gets to dictate federal policy to the other 80% of the population.

Where you sit depends on where you stand. If the least populous states were voting Democratic instead of Republican, I am sure you would be screaming about the lack of fairness in Senate representation.

Ditto the Electoral College. It is there to prevent a mobocracy, to prevent a demagog from playing on peoples' basest fears

Then it's not working. Bush got re-elected anyway.

Dan, you rather sound like a bitter liberal. Keep in mind, I'm not a fan of Bush, but remember, Clinton got elected twice without the majority vote. You weren't screaming about the electoral college then were you?

But you are right about those that complain about the senate being largely democrats. But to me its an absurd argument which is indicative of the mess the democrats have gotten themselves into. As they lost power over the last 12 years or so, they got angrier and angrier. So much so, that they contrived maps to show how dumb the people were that voted republican. The called them idiots, uneducated, stupid, etc. etc. Generally sounding bitter and angry at the everyone.

And so, the democrats philosophy and platform has been for the last 5 years now - "vote for us, we're not the other guys. If you don't agree with us, you're stupid." Just look at the demise of congress since that bitter agenda has taken place - record low approval rating and nothing has gotten accomplished. If dems want to win in 2008, they better start having their own message and sounding less hateful and bitter.

Meanwhile, the republicans still suck balls. Geez, I hate politics right now.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

I do it because someone needs to show how silly and irrational your thought processes are. Everything you say and do is because someone else told you to think that way. When someone says you're wrong you simply become a mindless parrot.

Steve, what I and other lawyers learn does not come from parroting what other people say. No one has told me to think the way I think about tax law. Legal education in the United States is, in large part, what I call "directed self teaching." That means that although you do go to class, the professor does not usually "lecture" in the way professors do in college. And in law school (at least at mine) we do not usually read "textbooks" written by "experts."

The law school experience involves reading verbatim reprints of the actual Constitution, the actual statutes, the actual court cases, and so on. Not just one case, or ten cases, or a hundred cases. We're talking thousands of cases, from England and the United States.

What a load......

The legal system hasn't become ultra liberal by lawyers reading up on history. If what you say is true I think we have had an epidemic of dyslexia going around since the 1930's. The Holmes approach was created just because people like you did not read up on history, and if they had, didn't like what they were reading so they gave themselves the ability to reinvent it to their liking.

You would be delusional if you believed you could understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as well as Einstein understood it merely by reading summaries of it on the internet. You would be delusional if you believed you could understand French Impressionism in the way Monet understood it merely by walking through Monet's garden at Giverny (which I have done, by the way) or by gazing at his paintings. No, Steve, there is very little that you really know about tax law. You are delusional if you believe that you can know what I know.

I've done far more than read a few things on the internet. I'm pretty sure my home library contains more books from the historical prospective on the history of taxation than you've even read.

By contrast, probably 90% of what tax protesters read is garbage posted on the internet by other tax protesters -- including quotations from, of all things, old Supreme Court cases like Brushaber and Stanton and Merchants' Loan. The tax protesters are so dense, so delusional, that many of them don't even notice that the Court in these cases UPHELD the tax. The tax protester garbage also includes phony quotations, non-existent quotations, and just about every fallacy imaginable.

You'll never see me quote another "tax protestor" nor do I ever post "phony quotes". There are a lot of people on your side of the fence that do similar things. They quote out of context in order to prove their position.

No, Steve, the TAX PROTESTERS are the ones who are parroting what they have already heard or read elsewhere. I have lots of experience with tax protesters, and I have debunked more tax protester arguments than you can imagine.

Some do, not all or even a majority. A majority of your group wholly rely on what someone else has told them. Most of the people in your group have never researched anything it’s simply a regurgitation of what they read on the internet or were told by someone else.

Steve, I don't know what your level of education is, but if you really think you know something about tax law that I and the majority of posters here don't know, you are (uh-oh, here comes that word again) DELUSIONAL.

[yawn]


Here's what a "legal education" might get you.

While courts may have offered differing views of the income tax over time, the United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the federal income tax for 80 years. Since 1916, the Court has construed the tax as an indirect tax authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11, 16-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236
(1916).

- United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153 (4th Cir. 05/22/1996)

Therefore, the Sixteenth Amendment, along with the pre-existing taxing power created by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, provides Congress with the necessary authority to impose a direct, non-apportioned income tax. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916). See also Parker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984).

- United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 04/20/1988)

The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a direct tax, thus refuting the argument based upon his first theory. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S. Ct. 236, 242, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916) (the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to take the income tax "out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes").

- United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 02/06/1980)

For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves, see Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1

- United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 11/27/1990)


What they actually said:

We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth 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. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear...

- Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

There are four or five more circuit court cases that have this same dyslexic problem not to mention the countless cases that cite these in support of their opinion. Actually it's very rare that they get it right. I posted one example, the first, and there's only one more that I found. The one's that are wrong are cited all over the place a multitude of times.

So a lot of the so called "legal experts" don't even know what the tax is little alone know what the Supreme Court in Brushaber actually said. In fact they're calling each other’s position frivolous and we're supposed to believe you have a firm grasp on what the income tax is or how its treated from a constitutional prospective becuase you have a "legal education".....looks like you're barking up the wrong tree claiming a legal "education" offers you something special.

[Duke2Earl]

Tell you what Sybil, show me a case where any court in the United States in the last 90 or so years has ever said that wages are not subject to income tax? Until you do that all your research and posturing is simply bull hockey. Nothing in the Cryer case said implied or even hinted that he doesn't owe every penny of tax plus interest and penalties. Actually, I prefer that he is out of jail so he can continue making income and assets that can be seized. And despite your screaming to the contrary you do not get the right to self decide the law. What you call "common sense" is neither common nor sense.

[Quixote]

You'll never see me quote another "tax protestor" nor do I ever post "phony quotes".

Well, not since you got handed your head for doing so.

As seen above, your current bad habit is harping on irrelevant inconsistencies in court opinions.

[natty]

I've done far more than read a few things on the internet. I'm pretty sure my home library contains more books from the historical prospective on the history of taxation than you've even read.

Then why, stevesy, can't you explain how apportionment ever limited in any way the Congress' power to tax?

So a lot of the so called "legal experts" don't even know what the tax is little alone know what the Supreme Court in Brushaber actually said. In fact they're calling each other’s position frivolous and we're supposed to believe you have a firm grasp on what the income tax is or how its treated from a constitutional prospective becuase you have a "legal education".....looks like you're barking up the wrong tree claiming a legal "education" offers you something special.

What you ignorantly omit, stevesy, is that everyone of those courts held that THE INCOME TAX DOES NOT REQUIRE APPORTIONMENT which is the only relevant conclusion. How they came to that conclusion is merely academic, not cause for raising doubts about income tax liability.

Even your belief about the "nature of the income tax" is illogical and turns Brushaber on its head. Brushaber held that ALL income taxes fell into the category of an excise.

[natty]

In fact I would suggest they file to keep the government off their back. I would make the same type of suggestion to anyone being robbed at gun point. Give him the money or the guy will hurt you. It's just not worth it. However, it's still wrong and people should know that it is wrong.

Given that "being robbed at gun point" is a singular event and filing and supposedly paying taxes is a recurring event, your analogy sux.

What exactly are you calling "wrong", stevesy?
If you are filing just to keep the govt off your back, you are admitting that you are a cowardly slave.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Some do, not all or even a majority. A majority of your group wholly rely on what someone else has told them. Most of the people in your group have never researched anything it’s simply a regurgitation of what they read on the internet or were told by someone else.

No, Steve, you’re describing the tax protesters. The vast majority of tax protesters have no concept of how to perform legal research or to perform proper legal analysis.

SteveSy wrote:

I'm pretty sure my home library contains more books from the historical prospective on the history of taxation than you've even read.

No, Steve, you’re NOT pretty sure that your home library contains more such books than I’ve ever read. You have no idea how much study of the history of taxation I’ve undertaken. And the study of the history of taxation – in the way I suspect you have undertaken it – will not lead you (and has not led you) to a proper understanding of taxation. It’s results that count, and I suspect you flunk in the results category.

SteveSy wrote:

You'll never see me quote another "tax protestor" nor do I ever post "phony quotes". There are a lot of people on your side of the fence that do similar things. They quote out of context in order to prove their position.

No, Steve, there are not lots of people “on my side” who quote things out of context. You have provided one exception to that rule – the Francisco case, which I’ll talk about below. You are blowing smoke, and nobody is buying your smoke.

SteveSy wrote:

A majority of your group wholly rely on what someone else has told them. Most of the people in your group have never researched anything it’s simply a regurgitation of what they read on the internet or were told by someone else.

Wrong again, Steve. You are describing the tax protesters.

Regarding the quotations from the various cases you cited, the only court that got it wrong was the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Francisco case. The quote from the Brushaber case cited in the Francisco case was technically accurate, but the Eighth Circuit did misinterpret what the Supreme Court was saying in Brushaber.

You are obviously frustrated by what you see as conflicting language in various cases. The following material, therefore, is provided. This material shown in quotes below is adapted from something I wrote in another place on the internet. It's about two seemingly conflicting interpretations of the Brushaber case and the Sixteenth Amendment-- two lines of interpretations that have followed Brushaber down through the years.

The language in cases like Brushaber has two characteristics which make it difficult to follow. First, the language is archaic, to the point of being in some places actually ungrammatical by 21st Century standards. Second, the language is circumlocutory. That is, the Court states things in roundabout ways, where more direct statements would be more helpful.

There are two possible ways to read Brushaber and the other cases after it that interpret the Sixteenth Amendment. Both ways, however, bring you to the same result from a legal standpoint.

Alternative A: One way is to say that the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the part of the Pollock ruling that held that taxes on income from property (taxes on interest, dividends, etc.) should be treated as being direct taxes in substance.

Alternative B: The other way is to say that the Amendment ''did'' change that ruling, and that the Amendment put those income taxes back in the category of excises (indirect taxes) -- i.e., put those taxes back in the category of taxes not required to be apportioned.

Under Alternative A, one would say that “the language of the Amendment doesn't care,” essentially, whether a particular income tax was considered a direct tax by the Court in Pollock. And essentially, from a legal standpoint, that would be correct. Here's why.

The amendment says that Congress shall have power to impose taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without having to apportion the taxes among the states, etc., etc. There is absolutely no limitation in this language regarding which kinds of income taxes are covered by the amendment. The amendment does not say “only income taxes that happened to be considered direct taxes in the Pollock decisions.” The amendment does not say “only income taxes that happened to be considered indirect taxes in the Pollock decisions.” The amendment does not say “only income taxes that happen to be taxes your grandmother has to pay.” The amendment does not say “only income taxes that happened to be income taxes your dog has to pay.” The amendment does not say “only income taxes that happened to be income taxes you have to pay while standing on your head and whistling Dixie backward.”

The amendment says "taxes on incomes." There is absolutely no limitation in the text of the Amendment. Under ordinary rules of construction, that means that if it's an income tax, it's covered by the rule of the Amendment. If you're looking a particular tax, and it happens to be an income tax, then from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter whether that tax is a direct tax or is not a direct tax or would have been a direct tax under Pollock or would not have been a direct tax under Pollock. That's what various courts have meant when they have said that the Amendment authorizes a direct tax on incomes without having to apportion the tax.

On the other hand, Alternative B -- the interpretation that the Amendment actually put the income taxes that had been treated in Pollock as direct taxes BACK into the category of indirect taxes -- is supported by some of the language in the Brushaber case. If you like Alternative B, you reach the same legal result. If ''all income taxes'' are indirect taxes, then by definition NO income taxes are required to be apportioned (since the apportionment rule applies only to direct taxes).

The key point is that various Federal courts have essentially used both Alternative A and Alternative B from time to time and, as explained below, BOTH ALTERNATIVES ARE LEGALLY CORRECT.

Tax protesters have come into court on various occasions and have argued, essentially, that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct tax, or that the Amendment does not authorize a direct unapportioned tax. I was re-reading a case just the other day where someone had argued that. The court came back with the flat statement that the Amendment indeed DOES authorize a direct unapportioned tax. And that statement, from a legal standpoint, is correct.

Remember the all-encompassing flat out statement of the Sixteenth Amendment: taxes on incomes. The amendment itself says nothing about taking certain income taxes considered by the Pollock court as direct taxes and putting them back in the category of indirect taxes. Sure, that language in one form or another is found in Brushaber or in some cases that cite Brushaber. That language is not in the Amendment itself.

Well, how (you may ask) can both Alternative A and Alternative B be considered correct, considering the language in Brushaber?

The answer is that under U.S. law, a case is important not for all the detailed reasoning that went into the decision, but only for the decision itself. This is the rule of stare decisis. Case law is different from statute. In a statute, almost every word is important. In case law, much of the statements of law and the statements of the court's reasoning are what the law refers to as obiter dicta, or ''words said in passing'' (singular, Obiter dictum). Obiter dicta are non-binding statements by the court included in the court's opinion that are ''not part of the binding decision itself. Even correct statements on rules of law that are made by the court in a case are really obiter dicta -- as far as that case is concerned. The same statements in some other case may be part of the court's holding, part of the actual decision.

Separating the decision from the dicta in court opinions is just one part of what law students do in studying the actual, verbatim texts of literally thousands of court decisions during law school. That process continues after the individual completes law school, obtains the degree, passes the bar exam, is inducted as an attorney, and begins the practice of law. The skill of distilling the holding (roughly, the decision) or holdings of a case cannot be adequately learned by reading the texts of one, or ten, or even a hundred court opinions.

The mere fact that the Court in Brushaber used, or arguably used, Alternative B in dicta does not foreclose the proper use of Alternative A by another court -- to reach the same result. The legal result is the same under both lines of reasoning, and under the U.S. legal system it is the decision that is of primary importance, not the winding paths used by courts to reach that decision. Yes, the path is important -- but the decision itself is paramount.

This means that when you cite a case like Brushaber, you have to understand that much of the language in the case is non-binding dicta. The mere fact that the Brushaber court may have used one line of reasoning (such as, this Amendment put those taxes back in that category over there) does not foreclose another court from using another line of reasoning to reach essentially the same decision reached in Brushaber, or to reach some other decision that does not conflict with the decision(s) in Brushaber. Under the U.S. legal system, "a court case is important for WHAT it decides, not HOW it decides."

A statement -- that the Brushaber court judged that the Amendment should be interpreted as to do away with the decision in Pollock and put all income taxes, from whatever source derived, back into the excise class -- is essentially a correct reading of the effect of the Amendment -- but it's only one of the correct readings. It's correct under the Alternative B approach. The Alternative A approach, while different in form, is also correct. The Federal courts have used both approaches to reach the same legal result.

It's important not to get bogged down in the dicta found in Brushaber and other court cases, and to instead focus on the decisions themselves -- the actual, detailed legal result that followed from an actual, detailed set of facts.

Steve, it's obvious that you're uncomfortable with the complexity found in legal texts. You are lashing out at what you feel are "dyslexic" legal experts -- because you do not understand what you are reading. The above material, which I wrote a while back and adapted just now, was intended to be understood by non-lawyers. I hope it's beneficial.

You Steve, cannot hope to understand how to perform proper legal analysis by approaching it the way you do. I have a suggestion: Leave the legal analysis to the experts.

--Famspear