Oh you can find attorney's who would agree.
I suspect most of them fall in line just like the majority of you do. Jillian DOES NOT believe this stuff.
But I talk to conspiracy theorist tax attorneys and CPA's all the time. I sell the Internal Revenue Code. I tell people at work all the time about what I'm telling you. They don't care/don't believe/don't have all the facts/don't think anything can be done about it even if it were true.
Or they just feel that if the government ends the income tax, they'll just stick us somewhere else. They are the masses. They know nothing, say nothing, do nothing.
That's fine for them Sealy. Most people don't care. But I'm not doing that. I (and Toro) am taking my time to research and I am answering your questions about whether there is a law that requires you to pay taxes by showing you the laws that explicitly require you to pay income taxes.
How can you continue to believe there is no law that requires you to pay taxes when you have it right before you eyes?
I think I found the answer
You hear this all the time. When presented with the simple request to "show me the law that unambiguously requires me to pay income tax," I was told, everyone from congressmen to tax lawyers to IRS agents is stymied, even when Schiff and others offer enormous rewards to anyone who can do so. It didn’t take me long to find what seemed to be an answer to that question.
In U.S. Code Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part I, Section 1, it says, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...," followed by subcategories that seem to include most Americans, complete with tables showing the percentage owed for each income range. (Subchapter A even comes close to that magic word liable that many in the movement insist is nowhere applied to personal income taxes -- it’s called "Determination of Tax Liability.")
Maybe this is a hint they are wrong?
But "taxable income" is the rub. Tax honesty types claim the "constitutional" definition of income, as set forth in such Supreme Court cases as Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers (1918), is corporate profits, not individuals’ wages. (Courts have knocked down this claim regularly during the last 30 years.)
What does that have to do with whether there is a law or not?
At the conference you learn that taxing violates our natural rights; and anyway, the Constitution does not permit an unapportioned direct tax like an income tax; and if you think the 16th Amendment took care of that, well, it wasn’t properly ratified; and even if it was, it didn’t give any new taxing powers to Congress; and even if it did, the statutes and codes of the IRS as written aren’t officially U.S. law; and even if they were, they don’t define liability and income such that any normal working American owes taxes
SEE, THE STATUTES & CODES AREN'T OFFICIALLY LAWS.
OK. According to the conference (whatever conference that is) where do we find the official laws passed by Congress?
Last edited: