Taxes are unconstitutional.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (69)
sorted by:
No, they are constitutional, but ONLY people who live in District of Columbia, work for the government, collect a government pension, or are an entity that does business with the government. The rest of us DO NOT have to file and pay income taxes. There is no law on the books that requires regular citizens to file a document that declares that you OWE the government money.
Sorta close, but there are laws that permit the government to presume you have a federal nexus if you do not challenge and rebut the presumption that is made by the information returns they receive. Eventually if unresolved this gives them power to assess you (in lieu of your correcting self-assessment), making them the ones to file the document declaring you owe them. Thus correct filing is essential and everyone's responsibility if there is a claim of income.
Yea maybe, but if took them to court with argument I've presented you'd win. At least according to the way the law is written, and according to IRS special agent Joe Bannister.
I respect Bannister! The problem is, as others are saying here, that it's not useful to speculate about who would win according to whom. What we actually have is a bunch of false theories without basis in law, and the words of the law themselves, and the IRS is incentivized to have you prefer the false theories because they have power to enforce against them.
Your statement was that "ONLY people" in four categories "have to file and pay". The situation calls for exact language, and there are many others who may have to file and pay because of other federal nexuses (of which there are many), such as participants in socialized medicine, workers for a federal contractor, recipients of federally insured interest, etc. So the argument as you stated it would be defeated immediately.
If the argument was "ONLY people with federal nexus have to file and pay", that generic statement should stand, but it would be ignored in court because the other side would say you had a federal nexus, in hidden language, and unless you find the language and correct that presumption your theory is useless. For all Bannister's educational work, he was in enforcement and not administration and so he doesn't seem to have gotten successful consistent remedies, so I'm not sure exactly what his work is about nowadays.
Of course we have no need to take the government to court, in theory if you give a correct filing and they take you to court, that's when you'd present the argument, but you'll have needed to be perfectly consistent with the argument before then. So accurate action must precede court presentation.
If you stand upon the law as written, and work to understand the salient points of it, you can achieve remedy for any failure, or you can (like the occasional principled patriot) go to jail with a clear conscience knowing that your standing on the law will be recognized by others later, which is a remedy in the court of public opinion. Taking on trillionaires is not for the skittish.
So you're on the right track but you can't stop with those who say "DC only" and the rest because you need to determine where the nexus is alleged and how to correct that presumption if incorrect.