Food for thought

[imua]

1. There is no regulation or statute that says you must file a 1040. If you disagree, please cite it for me.
2. There is no regulation or statute making anyone liable for an income tax. Section 1 may impose a tax, but unless you are made liable for the tax imposed, you don't owe a tax. There are MANY taxes imposed in the IRC. Does that mean I have to pay all of them? Of course not. The imposition of a tax doesn't mean you have to pay it. You have to be liable for the tax imposed.
3. To further the above point, in the IRC, under "Liability for Taxes" index, there's every tax under the sun...but no income tax. Why is this? Inadvertent omission? Printing error?
4. All statutes giving the IRS authority to seize property and garnish wages deal with CFR 27...Liquor, Tobacco and Firearms. The regulations implementing these statutes have nothing to do with income taxes, CFR 26. But because practically no one knows this, the IRS sure as heck won't tell you. Fraud alert.
5. All anti-tax protestor "authorities" love to cite case law as to why anti tax arguments are frivolous. For ONCE, try citing SUPREME COURT RULINGS and STATUTES AND REGULATIONS instead of these lame circuit court rulings that 1. conflict with Supreme Court rulings and 2. are made by judges that have no clue as to what the statutes and regulations say regarding taxes.

[wserra]

Wow! New "arguments"!

Never heard any of those before.

We ought to start an Astronomy forum, so these folks could channel Ptolemy.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Is this a troll account for one of the regulars?

[Imalawman]

May I suggest http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
Tax Protester FAQ? If you have any further questions, please contact us again. Thank you.

[LPC]

1. There is no regulation or statute that says you must file a 1040. If you disagree, please cite it for me.

Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code plainly states that “Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount....”

And Treas. Reg. section 1.6012-1(a)(6) provides that "Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this paragraph."

2. There is no regulation or statute making anyone liable for an income tax. Section 1 may impose a tax, but unless you are made liable for the tax imposed, you don't owe a tax.

Wrong.

Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b) states that:

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.”

In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on unpaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that:

“The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation....”

U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).

Also, I.R.C. section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return “shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”

The words “shall ... pay” certainly looks like an obligation to pay, and the Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating:

"When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay...”

U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).

5. All anti-tax protestor "authorities" love to cite case law as to why anti tax arguments are frivolous. For ONCE, try citing SUPREME COURT RULINGS and STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Done. See above.

instead of these lame circuit court rulings that 1. conflict with Supreme Court rulings

No they don't.

and 2. are made by judges that have no clue as to what the statutes and regulations say regarding taxes.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Randall]

1. There is no regulation or statute that says you must file a 1040. If you disagree, please cite it for me.

Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code plainly states that “Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount....”

And Treas. Reg. section 1.6012-1(a)(6) provides that "Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this paragraph."

2. There is no regulation or statute making anyone liable for an income tax. Section 1 may impose a tax, but unless you are made liable for the tax imposed, you don't owe a tax.

Wrong.

Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b) states that:

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.”

In a bankruptcy dispute over the allowance of interest on unpaid taxes as a claim against the estate of the bankrupt, the Supreme Court stated the self-evident proposition that:

“The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation....”

U.S. v. Childs, 266 U.S. 304 (1924).

Also, I.R.C. section 6151 directs that any person required to file a return “shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return.”

The words “shall ... pay” certainly looks like an obligation to pay, and the Supreme Court has held that the United States may enforce a stamp tax through a suit to collect the amount of the tax from the person required to pay the tax, even though the statute did not impose any personal liability for the tax, stating:

"When a statute says that a person shall pay a given tax, it obviously imposes upon that person the duty to pay...”

U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 US 250 (1910).

5. All anti-tax protestor "authorities" love to cite case law as to why anti tax arguments are frivolous. For ONCE, try citing SUPREME COURT RULINGS and STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Done. See above.

instead of these lame circuit court rulings that 1. conflict with Supreme Court rulings

No they don't.

and 2. are made by judges that have no clue as to what the statutes and regulations say regarding taxes.

Thanks for the laugh.

Shame on you, Dan, for confusing the issue with facts.

[gottago]

What about an answer for number 4 on the OP's list?

[Demosthenes]

4. All statutes giving the IRS authority to seize property and garnish wages deal with CFR 27...Liquor, Tobacco and Firearms. The regulations implementing these statutes have nothing to do with income taxes, CFR 26. But because practically no one knows this, the IRS sure as heck won't tell you. Fraud alert.

Congress can organize the laws they pass in any way they want. That there is overlap between IRS and ATF statutes is to be expected considering that the modern Internal Revenue Code was drafted in 1954, and the ATF was part of the IRS until 1972.

[Cpt Banjo]

Re item #4: usually, the TP mantra is that there are no regs in 26 CFR dealing with levy and other collection matters and that they're all over in 27 CFR. In fact, there are plenty of regs regarding these matters at 26 CFR Part 301.

[Quixote]

4. All statutes giving the IRS authority to seize property and garnish wages deal with CFR 27...Liquor, Tobacco and Firearms. The regulations implementing these statutes have nothing to do with income taxes, CFR 26. But because practically no one knows this, the IRS sure as heck won't tell you. Fraud alert.

Oh, let's beat this horse a little more.

26 USC § 6331. Levy and distraint

(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.

26 CFR 301.6331-1 Levy and distraint.

(a) Authority to levy--(1) In general. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the tax within 10 days after notice and demand, the district director to whom the assessment is charged (or, upon his request, any other district director) may proceed to collect the tax by levy. The district director may levy upon any property, or rights to property, whether real or personal, tangible or intangible, belonging to the taxpayer.

[Quixote]

Hey kids, remember Demosthenes asked us to NOT feed the trolls. Once you feed them, they follow you home and you can never be rid of them.

No, it's terrorists who follow you home. Trolls just sit under bridges waiting for goats.

[imua]

So many lame responses to reply to. Where to begin.

First of all, MY BAD. There are a lot of regulations that cite these requirements. Unfortunately, these regulations are not legislative, and the fact still remains that no STATUTES make any liable to pay income taxes. Read on...

1. Regarding 26 USC Sec 6331, please cross reference the parallel table of regulations and you will find that this applies to the CFR 27, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ONLY. And when quoting regulations, PLEASE make sure that these regulations are LEGISLATIVE, meaning they are backed by a STATUTE. Otherwise, they are INTERPETIVE OR PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS, and have NO FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW.

By the way, the "overlap" garbage regarding how Congress can do whatever they want is LAUGHABLE. So you're saying they DO apply to income taxes but someone forgot to link that statute to income tax regulations?

2. Thanks for the reference to Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b), but please refer to regulations that are legislative. Or try referring to a statute. Otherwise, they are INTERPETIVE OR PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS, and have NO FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW.

3. Funny. There is a tax imposed on estate taxes (Sec 2001). But in the next section (2002), it tells you who's liable for the tax. Now, if the imposition of the tax were enough to make you liable, why the heck is there another section telling you who is liable?

There are excise taxes and alcohol taxes and estate taxes and other taxes. They are all imposed. Does it mean I have to automatically pay them all?

4. Thanks for the MYRIAD of Supreme Court decisions. You should tell IRS.GOV to cite some as well once and a while.

5. Regarding conflict of Supreme Court decisions with circuit court decisions, of course they do.

Shucks. I'll get back to work for now. Please respond so I can get a good laugh before I go to sleep.

[Paul]

please cross reference the parallel table of regulations and you will find that this applies to the CFR 27, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ONLY.

So who are you gonna believe, the words of the statute and the regulations that really do exist at 26 cfr 301, or some "table of regulations" that you have never actually seen, you just cut and pasted a reference to it from some lame tax avoidance site?

And I notice you didn't respond to the 6012/6151 statutes quoted to you. Don't you have ANY response to 6012, which tells you who has to file? And your only "response" to 6151 is to say that other statutes say who is "liable". Why do you think that a statute has to use the word liable in order to oblige you to pay the tax?

[Tax Guest]

IRC section 6012 isn't a statute? Since when?

[jg]

And this is not statutory authority to levy?

26 USC § 6331. Levy and distraint

(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.

[Quixote]

1. Regarding 26 USC Sec 6331, please cross reference the parallel table of regulations and you will find that this applies to the CFR 27, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ONLY. And when quoting regulations, PLEASE make sure that these regulations are LEGISLATIVE, meaning they are backed by a STATUTE. Otherwise, they are INTERPETIVE OR PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS, and have NO FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW.

Unlike the parallel table of regulations which trumps reality.

imua follows the first rule of fringe ideology: never trust a primary source if a vaguer secondary source exists. If imua actually read 6331 instead of his guru's explanation of what 6331 says based on a misreading of the parallel table of regulations, he might have to abandon his fantasy.

[Florida]

So many lame responses to reply to. Where to begin.

First of all, MY BAD. There are a lot of regulations that cite these requirements. Unfortunately, these regulations are not legislative, and the fact still remains that no STATUTES make any liable to pay income taxes. Read on...

1. Regarding 26 USC Sec 6331, please cross reference the parallel table of regulations and you will find that this applies to the CFR 27, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ONLY. And when quoting regulations, PLEASE make sure that these regulations are LEGISLATIVE, meaning they are backed by a STATUTE. Otherwise, they are INTERPETIVE OR PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS, and have NO FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW.

By the way, the "overlap" garbage regarding how Congress can do whatever they want is LAUGHABLE. So you're saying they DO apply to income taxes but someone forgot to link that statute to income tax regulations?

2. Thanks for the reference to Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b), but please refer to regulations that are legislative. Or try referring to a statute. Otherwise, they are INTERPETIVE OR PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS, and have NO FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW.

3. Funny. There is a tax imposed on estate taxes (Sec 2001). But in the next section (2002), it tells you who's liable for the tax. Now, if the imposition of the tax were enough to make you liable, why the heck is there another section telling you who is liable?

There are excise taxes and alcohol taxes and estate taxes and other taxes. They are all imposed. Does it mean I have to automatically pay them all?

4. Thanks for the MYRIAD of Supreme Court decisions. You should tell IRS.GOV to cite some as well once and a while.

5. Regarding conflict of Supreme Court decisions with circuit court decisions, of course they do.

Shucks. I'll get back to work for now. Please respond so I can get a good laugh before I go to sleep.

Actually, an interpretive regulation will be upheld by a court unless its contrary to legislative mandate. Unless you can show where the statute says otherwise, an interpretive regulation is authoratative.

But, that's just real life practice. I'm sure it has no applicability in Wonkaland.

As for Section 2002, when you have a dead person with a bunch of people holding his/her money, who is liable for the tax? You'd have to be an idiot not to see the purpose of identifying who shall pay the tax in this situation. Remember, we don't have an inheritance tax, like the good folks in Pennsylvania, where the answer may be more intuitive.

You seem mad that you've been shown US Supreme Court decisions. If youre seeking teh truth, why get upset with that? You seem like youve already made up your mind.

You should just go to sleep and never come back. Youre mind is either greatly troubled or youre a tax advocate implant trying to make tax protestors look dumb.

[grammarian44]

Actually, an interpretive regulation will be upheld by a court unless its contrary to legislative mandate. Unless you can show where the statute says otherwise, an interpretive regulation is authoratative.

"Contrary to legislative mandate" is an understatement. Where a regulation interprets a statute that is not clear on its face, the regulation will be upheld unless manifestly unreasonable, per Chevron.

Chevron, imua, is a Supreme Court case, one of those authorities you claim to know so well and that you consider to be so important. It is one of the most frequently cited Supreme Court cases in US history. That you are completely ignorant about this case and how it applies directly to your understanding of how regulations are interpreted says a great deal about your overall legal knowledge.

But imua's diatribe about regulations and lower court cases is really a red herring. It's clear from 26 USCA 1, 60, and 63 that wages are taxable. Imua, where are your arguments that these statutes are invalid?

[Weathervane]

Shucks. I'll get back to work for now. Please respond so I can get a good laugh before I go to sleep.

Another young captain of his ship, steering away from the blessed trade winds of good fortune, only to heed the siren call of the wicked, and dash his future against the rocks of a barren wasteland...and laughing about it.

Sweet dreams imua, sweet dreams.

[Florida]

Actually, an interpretive regulation will be upheld by a court unless its contrary to legislative mandate. Unless you can show where the statute says otherwise, an interpretive regulation is authoratative.

"Contrary to legislative mandate" is an understatement. Where a regulation interprets a statute that is not clear on its face, the regulation will be upheld unless manifestly unreasonable, per Chevron.

My point was that it would be very difficult to discount the value of a regulation, even if "only" interpretive (and therefore not given express permission in the statute) in nature. I should have provided citations and given the standard as provided in caselaw, but opted not to.