User talk:1911-GT

Welcome to Wikipedia!
The article on Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments was not the proper place to pose your question. And, contrary to your assertion, the question has been posed -- and answered -- on numerous occasions. Your question illustrates a basic misconception about how U.S. Federal tax law works. The imposition of a Federal income tax does not have to be limited to one particular "section" of the Internal Revenue Code -- and indeed, the imposition is not so limited. (More on this later.)

Years ago, some tax protesters would argue: "There is no law that makes me liable for the tax". The rhetoric they often used was "show me the law". Some even contended or implied that for a given Code section to impose liability, the language of that section itself must contain the word "liable" or. This argument made about as much sense as trying to argue that because your automobile doesn't have the word "automobile" written on it, it's not an automobile -- or about as much sense as trying to argue that because a horse doesn't have the word "horse" written on it, it's not a horse. This mistake is a manifestation of what can be called the "imaginary rule" delusion -- a malady that afflicted tax protesters in general. They made up an imaginary rule that a particular statute had to be worded in a particular magical way in order for that statute to have a certain legal effect. These people were trying to "get technical" with legal terms -- but they didn't know how to be technical.

Some tax protesters promoted this theory by pointing out that some sections of the Internal Revenue Code do contain the word "liable". The protesters' argument seemed to be that because the word "liable" is used those Code sections, the word itself has a magical legal effect, such that the absence of the term "liable" in a Code section meant that the section in question cannot impose any legal "liability." Unfortunately, that argument is false. Further, such a position is legally frivolous. The position is similar to the position that in order for murder to be against the law, or to be a crime, the statute itself must include the phrase "against the law" or the word "crime." There is no such rule of law that says that a particular statute must contain certain specific language. For example, the Texas statute code section making murder a crime does not include the word "crime" or the phrase "against the law."

Other tax protesters believed that the entire verbiage imposing liability must be found in one and only one Code section. That belief is incorrect and, bluntly, a bit bizarre.

Regarding imposition of U.S. federal income tax, Internal Revenue Code sections 1 and 11  are examples of statutes that impose an income tax on "taxable income," which in turn is defined in section 63.

For the requirement to file Federal income tax returns, see. See also.

For the general rule on the time prescribed for filing a federal income tax return for an individual, see subsection (a) of (generally, April 15th following the close of the tax year). See also and.

For the general rule on the time prescribed for filing a federal income tax return for a corporation, see. See also and.

For the duty to pay the tax at the time prescribed for filing the related tax return, see. In citing this particular Code section, a unanimous United States Supreme Court stated, on February 25, 1992: "The Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay federal income taxes to the duty to make an income tax return." Holywell Corp. v. Smith, 503 U.S. 47 (1992), at.

For civil penalties for failure to timely file tax returns, see.

For civil penalties for failure to timely pay taxes, see.

For criminal penalties for failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes, see.

The law does not "need" to have one and only one particular "section" that imposes Federal income tax, any more than any other Federal or state law on any other topic would somehow "need" to have some other particular legal effect by making that legal effect be spelled out in one and only one "section." Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the question you posed:


 * "Because it is true that the 16th Amendment provided Congress with the power to lay and collect taxes on income, the question is, which section of Title 26 United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code, did Congress exercise that power?"


 * You characterized that question as one that has been "overlooked." That is incorrect. It has not been overlooked. It was beaten to death by tax protesters for many years.


 * You also characterized that question as a "fundamental" question. That is incorrect. It is not a "fundamental" question at all. Indeed, as explained above, is it a question based on a misunderstanding of how statutory law works. Famspear (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)