posted March 08, 2011 01:35 PM            

quote:

---

Btw, if the IRS can't find such a law and Tax Court judges can't find such a law and IRS criminal investigative agents can't find such a law...after repeated requests to produce that law...then good luck to you acoustic.

---

Everyone's found the law. This is a false statement, and like I said, if you wish to challenge it, go for it. Send me the transcripts. I'd be very interested. Unfortunately, if you decide to mix your legal challenge with not submitting your taxes you may be sending me those transcripts from prison, but whatever. You should stand by your convictions with complete integrity. As a 10th house Sun, you should be capable of that minor Capricornian trait.

quote:

---

Not even the Congress Research Group could find such a law.

---

posted March 08, 2011 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Yeah, it would be a step up, and if the whole nation took part in preventative care there would be less expense as people age. There's a lot of money spent on emergency care for people who haven't gone to the doctor because they couldn't afford it.

---

posted March 08, 2011 04:36 PM            

You have yet to stop shooting your mouth off on this subject acoustic. Yet, you can't find the law, and neither can anyone else, which requires a wage earner or salaried individual citizen of the US to file an income tax return.

posted March 08, 2011 05:26 PM            

You like to do this when you get in a jam. You always pick a place from which to disbelieve the other people in the conversation. Displaying your ability to not arrive at the right conclusion, tells me you're lazy. If you're lazy, then it follows that you likely have an accountant do your taxes. Why don't you contact that person, and find out the truth from someone you trust?

That's three ways you've been challenged to find the truth in this matter. Just to recap:

- Look where I've already cut & paste from, the IRS's website, which would naturally post the relevant law

- Go to court

- Call your accountant

posted March 08, 2011 07:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Yes, there was a court way back when that declared income tax unConstitutional,

---

posted March 08, 2011 09:28 PM            

Exactly littlecloud.

Since the US Supreme Court heard and decided a case based on the 16th Amendment and published their decision that the 16th Amendment DID NOT give the federal government any new powers to tax which they did not already have AND an earlier US Supreme Court declared an income tax levying a tax on wages and salaries of individual citizens to be unconstitutional..THEN, the 16th Amendment DID NOT give the federal government the power to lay an income tax on the wages and salaries of individual citizens.

That US Supreme Court decision from the early 1890s is still in full force today...and those who wish to volunteer to self assess a tax on their wages and salaries, report to the IRS and pay a tax may do so and there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. –Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 IRS IR Audit Manual

posted March 08, 2011 10:55 PM            

History care of Wikipedia:

Early Federal income taxes

The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812. The idea for the tax was based on the British Tax Act of 1798. The British tax law applied progressive rates to income. The British tax rates were 0.08% on income above £60 and 10% on income above £200. The tax proposal was developed in 1814. Because the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815, ending hostilities and the need for additional revenue, the tax was never imposed in the United States.

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800).[12] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862.[13]

By 1866, the measure earned over $310 million, the highest in the previous 90 year history of the country and a level not reached again until 1911. [14]

In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.[15] Also, the Panic of 1893 is said to have something to do with the passage of Wilson-Gorman.

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. However, the Court affirmed that the Constitution did not deny Congress the power to impose a tax on real and personal property, and it affirmed that such would be a direct tax.[16] Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (below).

Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913),[17] which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Constitutional

Further, the Internal Revenue Code establishes the income tax. This code was created by Congress, and signed into law by the sitting President.

Genesis of tax codes in the United States

Prior to 1874, U.S. statutes (whether in tax law or other subjects) were not codified. That is, they were not set forth in one comprehensive subject matter title, but were instead contained in the various acts passed by Congress. Codifications of statutes, including tax statutes, undertaken in 1873 resulted in the Revised Statutes of the United States, approved June 22, 1874, effective for the laws in force as of December 1, 1873. Title 35 of the Revised Statutes was the internal revenue title. Another codification was undertaken in 1878.

In 1919, a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives began a project to recodify U.S. statutes which eventually resulted in a new United States Code in 1926 (including tax statutes).

Internal Revenue Code of 1939

The tax statutes were re-codified by an Act of Congress on February 10, 1939 as the "Internal Revenue Code" (later known as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1939"). The 1939 Code was published as volume 53, Part I, of the United States Statutes at Large and as title 26 of the United States Code. Subsequent permanent tax laws enacted by the United States Congress updated and amended the 1939 Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code

Title 26 (The section of the Code dealing with income taxes) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html

posted March 08, 2011 11:54 PM            

I would hesitate to take wikipedia as proof if the sources weren't cited. In stuff like this, the sources are well cited.

posted March 09, 2011 01:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Filing a tax return isn't required for financial aid. You would check on the FASFA that you did not file a return. The financial aid administrator will want a signed written statement of your income that will be used to calculate your award.

---

posted March 18, 2011 02:03 PM            

Support for repeal of the national health care law has reached its highest level since May of last year. The number of voters who believe the plan will increase the cost of care has tied its highest level since the law’s passage last March.

posted August 12, 2011 03:02 PM            

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.

Obama and his administration had pressed for the law to help halt the steep increases in healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans who are without it.

It argued that the requirement was legal under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion.

The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.

Many other provisions of the healthcare law are already being implemented.

The decision contrasts with one by the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, which had upheld the individual mandate as constitutional. That case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court.

posted August 12, 2011 03:54 PM            

The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.