User talk:Mrasewell

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome to Wikipedia!

In the article on Tax protester statutory arguments, you inserted a large amount of nonsensical material that was obviously obtained from tax protester web sites, etc. For example, you wrote:


 * The IRS, as well as many tax experts, often cite Title 26 of the United States Code as the "law" that requires everyone to pay income tax. However, Title 26 clearly states that filing a 1040 is "voluntary compliance."

Sorry, but there is no statement in title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code) that filing a 1040 is "voluntary compliance." If you don't believe me, you are welcome to go search the federal income tax provisions of the Code. The Code is available on line.

You wrote:


 * The instructions included in the 1040 tax form also state that filing the form, and hence paying an income tax, is voluntary.

No, the instructions for the Form 1040 tax return do not state that filing the form is voluntary, or that paying the income tax is voluntary. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to download a copy of the Form 1040 instructions fromt the IRS web site and check it out.

You wrote:


 * Further more, the word "income" is not clearly defined in the IRS code.

That's correct. "Income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code (although "gross income" and "adjusted gross income" and "taxable income" are defined in the Code). So what? MOST LEGAL TERMS are not clearly defined in the statutes, etc. Indeed MOST LEGAL TERMS are NOT DEFINED AT ALL in the statutes. Further, in the U.S. Constitution, for example, "due process" is not defined. The "equal protection" of the law is not defined.

These are crucially important terms. And yet they're not defined in the statutes or the Constitution. Why? BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME NON-LAWYERS MAY BELIEVE, THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT A GIVEN TERM BE DEFINED in the statute or in the other material where it is found. Some terms are defined, but others are not.

You wrote:


 * Every time an income tax case has made it to the Supreme Court, the court has overruled it based on the fact that the IRS cannot legally force anyone to pay income tax.

That is ABSOLUTELY UTTERLY FALSE. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that the IRS cannot legally force anyone to pay income tax, and no Federal court has ever overruled a federal income tax based on the supposed "fact" that the IRS cannot legally force anyone to pay. That's utter nonsense.

You wrote:


 * Every time an IRS agent has pointed out the fact that there is no income tax law, they have swiftly lost their job.

Sorry, but that's false. A few IRS agents have indeed become tax protesters, and have lost their IRS jobs - but that has never occurred "swiftly." And any IRS employee who willfully refuses to file his federal income tax return or pay his tax SHOULD be fired.

You wrote:


 * When congressman Ron Paul was asked if we are required by law to pay an income tax, this is what he had to say: "Not explicitly, but it is implied… I can't cite a law."

So what? Most people cannot cite the law that makes MURDER a crime, much less the law that requires the payment of taxes. The point is: The law is there, and you can find it if you look for it -- or if you ask a lawyer to help you find it.

You wrote:


 * ....in most cases of people not paying their federal income taxes, they are tried in a lower-level court and it is not uncommon for lower-level judges to dismiss Supreme Court rulings as evidence (I know, absurd, but true).

No. Lower court judges do not "dismiss" United States Supreme Court rulings. You have been reading tax protester literature that falsely claims that the Supreme Court ruled a certain way on a federal tax case or some other way on some other federal tax case -- and the literature you have been reading is full of lies.

You wrote:


 * The bottom line is this: If there really is a law that requires us to pay income tax, what's the big deal? Why doesn't the IRS just show us the law?

The IRS DOES show you the law. You just refuse to accept that it is the law.

The phrase "show me the law" is very famous tax protester rhetoric. It's baloney.

More to the point: Even if the IRS did not "show you the law," that would not make any difference. MURDER IS AGAINST THE LAW, and there is no legal requirement that the police or a court or anyone else show you the actual text of the murder statute before you kill someone, in order for murder to be a crime.

Another variation on this is the false claim that the tax statute must use the word "liable" to make someone "liable" for the tax. That's like saying that the murder statute must have the words "against the law" in it in order for murder to be against the law, or the word "crime" in it for murder to be a crime. Earth calling: The Texas statute making murder against the law dos not include the word "crime" or the phrase "against the law."

There are a lot of these kinds of arguments that tax protesters fabricate that sound "sort of" plausible at first glance. But, when you start digging, you find that the arguments are goofy nonsense.

The material you posted is full of blatantly false statements, and the "reasoning" in the material is completely illogical. You have been reading very typical tax protester literature. I've been studying this kind of nonsense for over fifteen years. Famspear (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

More on tax protester nonsense
For more information about tax protester nonsense, see the Tax Protester FAQ, by Daniel B. Evans:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

At that web site, you will find most of the tax protester arguments you will ever run into, and you will find out why the arguments are legally frivolous.

And, for information on specific tax protesters, see:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/start

There, you will find material on former IRS employees like Joseph Banister and Sherry Jackson. Famspear (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is some detail on the phony rhetoric of "show me the law":

Some tax protesters contend or imply that for a given Code section to impose "liability," the language of that section itself must contain the word "liable". Some tax protesters promote this theory by pointing out that some sections of the Internal Revenue Code do contain the word "liable". The protesters' argument seems 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 means 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 making murder a crime does not include the word "crime" or the phrase "against the law."

Other tax protesters seem to believe 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.

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 subsection (b) of (for a calendar year corporation, March 15th following the close of the tax year). 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. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)