posted July 27, 2007 07:35 AM            

Compensation for your labor is not "income" nor is a "profit" produced when you get paid for spending your productive time in the service of another. An equal exchange has occurred in these transactions...something for something.

In order to call compensation from your labor "income" and therefore taxable, the IRS computes your labor as having no value whatsoever and every penny you earn is considered "income or profit".

If you don't believe your labor is an equal exchange for the compensation you receive from your employer...then try this.

Inform your employer you will continue to pick up your paycheck as usual. Also inform your employer you will not be showing up for work to perform your usual duties...or any duties whatsoever. Good luck!

THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation
Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily.com

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.

The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.

The logo for the new Truth Attack campaign against income taxes

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.

"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.

He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.

"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.

The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

posted July 27, 2007 09:02 AM            

Is there is any way citizens should legally, ie. constitutionally, be taxed for things, though?

There are other other ways we are taxed, such as sales taxes, vehicle excise taxes, etc. Does the illegality of taxing only apply to wages or does it have a broader application, including state taxes?

I wonder because there are many programs that are supported by our tax dollars and I wonder which will fall when wages are finally no longer taxed like this.

I see the article mentions that the federal government was not meant to regulate education, employment and agriculture as far as our Constituion is concerned. I guess what I want to know is ... what does the Constitution allow as taxable, how much if any of this applies to individual states instead of just the federal government, and what kinds of things is the government legally empowered to regulate this way?

posted July 28, 2007 09:27 AM            

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Powers not specifically delegated to the United States..federal government...are reserved for the states or the people.

If the power to do this or that are not found in the Constitution then the federal government has no authority to regulate, control or legislate on that subject.

States do have the authority to levy taxes. Some would say that includes an income tax. But the state governments are much closer to their own citizens and much more subject to their protests...and being thrown out of office.

In the past, states, counties and cities have even levied taxes on the number of windows a home had.

A federal sales tax on purchases would be a legal tax for the federal government to levy. But a tax on the productive labor of citizens is not. That would also mean a flat tax on productive labor would also be prohibited..instead of the graduated income tax we now have...a tax which was not heard of until the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx. Time to get rid of the federal income tax.

The US Constitution calls for the following taxes at the federal level:
Excise
Imposts
Duties

The Constitution also permits a tax for all citizens to pay...based on apportionment among the states. This is not an income tax but in an emergency..shortfall of federal revenue to run the government..a direct tax can be levied against citizens, providing the tax is apportioned and each citizen is taxed the same amount.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

posted July 30, 2007 06:49 AM            

I realize that the powers our government has are not always in keeping with our Constitution ... though I do have to pick my way through it again, it seems. What I can't seem to settle on is why that should be so. Yes, power, money and influence on the one hand and ignorance and apathy on the other. But is that really all there is to it?

Would it be realistic for us all to refuse to pay our taxes in 2008 unless the IRS can "show us the authorization" they have to do so?

posted August 09, 2007 09:15 AM            

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Before he celebrates his windfall, the New York Mets fan who emerged from a violent scrum clutching Barry Bonds' record-setting home run ball should probably call his accountant.

As soon as 21-year-old Matt Murphy snagged the valuable piece of sports history Tuesday night, his souvenir became taxable income in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, according to experts.

"It's an expensive catch," said John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave LLP in New York who grew up watching the Giants play at Candlestick Park. "Once he took possession of the ball and it was his ball, it was income to him based on its value as of yesterday,"

By most estimates, the ball that put Bonds atop the list of all-time home run hitters with 756 would sell in the half-million dollar range on the open market or at auction.

That would instantly put Murphy, a college student from Queens, in the highest tax bracket for individual income, where he would face a tax rate of about 35 percent, or about $210,000 on a $600,000 ball.

Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still owe the taxes based on a reasonable estimate of its value, according to Barrie. Capital gains taxes also could be levied in the future as the ball gains value, he said.

On the other hand, he said, if the ongoing federal investigation into steroid abuse among professional athletes takes a criminal turn for Bonds, the ball's value could go down -- which would likely allow Murphy to claim a loss.

Not everyone concurs on Barrie's interpretation of the intersection between professional sports and the nation's tax code.

But for its part, the IRS seems reluctant to clear up the confusion. With six-figure treasures so rarely falling out of the sky, the agency declined to comment Wednesday on what regulations would apply and whether they would be enforced in the case of the Bonds ball.

History does not provide much of a guide since most fans who have been lucky enough to snag previous long balls have chosen to sell their mementos. And at least one ball was as much a source of embarrassment for the IRS as revenue.

As Mark McGwire chased the mark for most home runs in a season in 1998, IRS officials initially said the ball that broke Roger Maris' long-standing record could be subject to taxes even if it were returned to McGwire. The statements were ridiculed by politicians and quickly disavowed by the agency's top brass.

"All I know is that the fan who gives back the home run ball deserves a round of applause, not a big tax bill," then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti said at the time.

Ultimately, Tim Forneris, a member of the St. Louis Cardinals grounds crew, recovered McGwire's 62nd home run ball. He turned it over to the Cardinals and received a trip to Disney World and a minivan in return.

Phil Ozersky, a Cardinals season-ticket holder, caught McGwire's 70th homer later that season and sold it in 1999 to comic book artist Todd McFarlane for $3 million.

A spokeswoman for the Giants said that as with any ball that enters the stands at AT&T Park, Bonds' 435-foot drive into the right-center field stands belonged to the person who caught it, so the team wouldn't seek its return. Bonds said he also had no interest in retrieving it.

Murphy, who went to the game during a layover from a flight to Australia, grew up near Shea Stadium and was wearing a Mets jersey when he made the charmed grab.

He told the New York Daily News he planned to keep 51 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the ball and would give the rest to his friend, Amir Kamal, 21, of New York, who was also at the game.

posted August 10, 2007 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

I realize that the powers our government has are not always in keeping with our Constitution.

---

That's just the real problem Eleanore. If the federal government is exercising powers not granted to them by the Constitution...and they are...then they are acting "under color of authority", exercising powers they do not really have.