Income tax

Hey. Over the years your bodies become walking autobiographies, telling friends and strangers alike of the minor and major stresses of your lives. Help me! Please help find sites for: Detox your body for free. I found only this - whole body detox diet. We are whole to detoxify our nutritional order, fast in drug for the ticket validity. Before the alpha team was based, he held mr. Thanks for the help :-), Cleon from Malawi.

Nice idea. I think this is gonna be a reference for some knowledge about income tax return or about internal revenue wherein this is very important for being an employee or a businessman. Income tax are very confidential that accountant should know what to do about it. This income tax should be paid in regularly to able help our government in a fair way. mesa accountant

Nice idea. I think this is gonna be a reference for some knowledge about income tax return or about internal revenue wherein this is very important for being an employee or a businessman. Income tax are very confidential that accountant should know what to do about it. This income tax should be paid in regularly to able help our government in a fair way. Mesa CPA

Excuse me. Learning to live in the present moment is part of the path of joy. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Alavert. I found only this - Alavert alcohol. Mg mcg tablets toprol xl mg tablets. Most md use blood tests called t, t, and t to determine thyroid activity in synthroid is what is mostly prescribed, but it has been linked to osteoporosis. Thanks for the help :rolleyes:, Herb from Uruguay.

map

The definition of a tax protester, according to King Jonathan Siegel, is anyone that questions King Siegel’s opinions regarding the tax code, tax law, or the Code of Federal Regulation. King Siegel is the final arbitrator of ALL Federal income tax code or law, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE LAW. THE JURY IS WRONG TO FIND TOMMY CRYER OR ANYONE ELSE INNOCENT OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW. Not even God Almighty is allowed to question the King and Professor Jonathan Siegel!!! Anyone that wants to give an endowment to the George Washington University, think twice. There are too many good colleges that could use the endowment. George Washington University does not need it. They have a tenured professor that is judge, jury, and God all rolled into one. This god goes under the mortal name of Professor Jonathan Siegel.

His Royal Highness, Professor and King Jonathan Siegel hath declared, since the tax protester, Tommy Cryer, has been found innocent of willful failure to file, and other tax charges, Tommy Cryer should be disbarred from practicing law. King Siegel also states out of one side of his mouth, that the Cheek doctrine does not apply to the IRS, however, out of the other side of King Siegel’s mouth King Siegel states that Tommy Cryer beat the rap due to the Cheek doctrine. King Siegel also has decreed that Cryer still has to pay all back taxes, penalties, etc. King Siegel cannot keep his lies straight. He must be a shill for the criminals in the US Government that steal the public’s money. It is too bad that King Siegel can’t be sued for slander and for a PERSONAL & PUBLIC verbal attack on Tommy Cryer.

BREAKING NEWS 07/11/07

Tom Cryer VS IRS: NOT Guilty

Tom was found not guilty of willful failure to file and all tax evasion charges were dropped by the IRS. This is a huge victory for the tax honesty movement and definitely backs up what Ed & Elaine Brown have been fighting for all along.
Let's bring down the complicit IRS and the Federal Reserve. Please tell people about TruthAttack.org Thanks!

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the sixteenth amendment did not grant Congress any additional taxing authority not already enumerated in the Constitution. Unapportioned taxes on the earnings of private sector workers is not part of Congress's constitutionally granted powers of taxation. To subvert the truth, the IRS code appropriates common language words, such as 'employee', employer', 'wages', 'trade', and 'business', and redefines them into legal terms with very specific, very limited application. The IRC is a private law with jurisdiction only on Federal 'employees'. That is why anyone else, not specifically required, by law, to particpate is said to be operating under "voluntary compliance". Lack of full disclosure constitutes fraud, pure and simple. How else would a foreign entity, whose letterhead uses the Puerto Rican seal, be allowed to disregard laws requiring due process ?

A Blessing on you and your house Ms Bartha.
The reason that Jonathan Siegel has not responded to any of the comments on the tax debate is that we know the emperor has no clothes. Deities like Mr. Siegel become embarrassed when they are caught in a lie. He is supposed to be a “Constitutional” lawyer. Which constitution? The constitution of the Third Reich or the constitution of communist North Korea? For ALL lawyers let me quote Thomas Jefferson. …”Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add within the limits of the law, because the law is often but the tyrants will and always so when it violates the right of the individual.” It’s interesting, federal income tax law actually does not violate the right of the individual, but His Royal Highness, Professor Jonathan Siegel’s interpretation of the tax law sure as heck does. Sincerely, David Jewel

Thank you, Mr. Jewel for your kind response. I am glad you responded, but I notice Mr. Siegel has no response. Perhaps, he's too busy for us. I am looking forward to any response from his royal highness. Mr. Siegel, this is for you...RESISTANCE IS NOT FUTILE!...Without it, what need would we have for lawyers.

It is my prayer that every good, American, patriotic voter rises up and learns the tapestry of doublespeak B.S. and how to destroy it. Then, we can end our bondage to a greedy government fraught with corruption and selfish wealth. That's the Matrix.

Hang in there, Mr. Jewel, every empire has one thing in common, they fall after rising, sadly, our time is coming. Our current system CANNOT sustain itself forever, it's too corrupt and it's built upon lies.

Blessings upon your house,
Ms. Bartha

Ms. Bartha, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I pray to God that there will be more attorneys like you getting into legal system. You described Jonathan Siegel perfectly. I grew up around the DC area and met many government officials. Many were attorneys. I discovered one consistent quality about the majority of governmental attorneys. You could always tell when they were lying. It is usually when they open their mouths and spoke. To make matters more interesting, they were under the impression that the general public was too moronic to question or disbelieve them. They perceived themselves as deities. I perceive them as demons. Sincerely, David Jewel

After years of hearing both sides of the issue, researching law and listening to the brainwashed rhetoric of "professionals" like Mr. Siegel's, I am convinced after hearing him speak for the first that he, like many other lawyers, craft arguments to suit their needs and work backward in their logic.

I am a student of law, a 41 yr. old student, and I have been paying my taxes dutifully as if I owed them for many years. When it comes right down to it, Mr. Siegel, dismissing other arguments and demonizing them through labeling does NOT INVALIDATE THEM.

Your comments about slavery and choice totally miss the mark and no award or certificate or accolade can change facts. If you decided, by choice, because according to you we have one, to stop paying a tax that you don't owe you would have the IRS breathing down your throat with guns, and imprisoning you with the aid of the court system. By it's very nature, it's NOT FREEDOM and it's definitely NOT CHOICE!

Query: Do we have the "choice" to determine whether our "income" is "taxable" or not? Please answer that, because if we do not have choice in that matter, we ARE INDEED, SLAVES. Slavery can also mean doing something against your will or wishes. If I have the "choice" of one injustice over another, do I have "choice"? Either way I would still be a slave to an injustice, leaving me with no choice, because MY CHOICE would be NO INJUSTICE.

You appear to be telling people, resistance is futile. You HAVE to do something against their will, by doing so, you have endorsed slavery. Sugarcoat it and spin it all you want, the American taxpayer is a slave and the people with the power and the guns have been enforcing slavery on all of us since the twisting of the Constitution with the bogus inception of the 16th Amendment.

You did not cite Supreme Court decisions. By design, you neglect to properly inform people that codified law is NOT the LAW. That argument is for the court room and it must represent prima facie law by precedent. The court room is abundant with error. In light of the scandal involving the firings of judges because of political differences, the arguments of the "protestor" seem to be supported. Calling them names like "tax protestor" makes you look like a little kid on a playground. Sticks and stones, Mr. Siegel. Name calling does NOT INVALIDATE THEIR ARGUMENT.

Mr. Rose was imprisoned as result of injustice. Many others are as well, unless you want us to believe that EVERYONE (I notice you like using absolutes in your oratories)is in PRISON justly and that NO MISTAKES ARE MADE BY OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM, and I would then say you are UNQUALIFIED to make any determination as to Mr. Rose's credibility because you would be WRONG.

THE EMPERER HAS NO CLOTHES. I went to your webpage and I had to search for it. I typed your address in as you spoke it in the radio program and it seems there is a problem with that page. After a search I started reading your conservative take on codified law. I clicked a link designed to instill fear. It directed me to a fake news enterprise called FOX NEWS. As if this was ever real news! Rupert Murdoch has NEVER BEEN A NEWSMAN. He is rich and brainwashed though.

I am really glad that there are educated folks out there, who have walls filled with B.S. plaques and all other kinds of accolades, who do not subscribe to your stereotypical, brainwashed doublespeak, I'm glad they leave twisted views on truth to sharks like you.

Taxpayers can and will learn the laws, they will get their degrees and they will continue to challenge the garbage constantly spewed by dictatorship they apparently live under. I know I will.

I wonder, what argument will you have for those who have great resume's and question the government? My hunch is that you will have to make up something else to justify the play-as-you-go parasitic lawyering infecting the foundations of freedom which the settlers to this country worked so hard to get away from. While I may not posess the same pedigree of degrees you hold, I am no less of an American. To say that something is not up for debate indicates blatant arrogance and if I open the floor to an alternate opinion, you can best believe there will be debate. All the slickest lawyering in the world will not change that.

I won't be frightened into complacency either. Generated news reports about what can happen to you if you don't pay your taxes is blatant thuggery. Racketeering.

It's a good thing that I started law school later in life, because of an injustice, or else I may believe the garbage being taught by professors like you.
It may me sick to think that you are teaching our young folks how NOT TO QUESTION THEIR GOVERNMENT AND VOLUNTARILY COMPLY TO A TAX THEY DON'T OWE.

I also noticed your "worldwide" comment. What "worldwide"? Most American income taxpayers don't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY TRANSACTION WORLDWIDE! BY THE WAY, PLEASE DIRECT ME TO THE PLACE IN THE CODE WHERE THE WORD "WORLDWIDE" EXISTS. I have nothing to do with anything "worldwide" and I am paying income tax!

After listening to you, with an open mind, I have determined that Larken Rose is right about you and he looks good and you don't. Too bad... all the stuff on your resume did nothing for you.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Bartha

I finally had the opportunity to download the “debate” between this “person” Jonathan Siegel and Larken Rose.
I am astonished and amazed by the arrogance of Jonathan Siegel. This guy comes across as a disingenuous phony. He is also a very glib liar. He took the LAW, and tried to twist it around to fit his personal agenda, and tried to come off as an authority on the tax LAW. He spoke of the thousands of lawyers that never question the tax code. Of course not, by doing so they would be cutting their financial throats. These lawyers, like their fellow illicit drug dealers, feed off the misery and sorrow of others. He mentioned that Federal judges all ruled against the 861 evidence. (not argument) That, to me, proves one thing, if that were true, that there is honor amongst thieves. However, that statement is not true.
Mr. Siegel made a big issue of Larken Rose having to go to jail. I think that was to completely discredit Larken Rose. This is a typical strategy for someone that has to hide the truth or the fact that they don’t know the truth. Also it was a means to scare listeners to file. That, Mr. Siegel is call “terrorism”. Mr. Siegel doesn’t know the fact of Larken’s case. He doesn’t how the prosecution and the CROOKED FEDERAL JUDGE ganged up on Larken and never gave him an honest chance to defend himself.
His analogy on slavery stunk. Anytime anyone has to pay financial “tribute” to this miserable monster called the US Government, for the right to actually live, that is slavery, no matter which way you look at it. Mr. Siegel, there is a CONSTITUTION that you like to conveniently ignore in order to advance your master‘s agenda. Maybe that is why you are a professor of “law“. Your masters are pleased with you.
I used to revere the LAW. I occasionally wonder if I had not made a mistake by not becoming an attorney. I have the intellect, and the verbal skills to argue my points. I’m glad the Mr. Siegel came on your show. After listening to him, I realize I made the right choice, by NOT becoming a lawyer. I like sleeping in peace at night knowing I still have a conscience. Thank you Mr. Siegel for showing me who has the light of truth to show me the correct path to follow. It certainly isn’t your light, you live in darkness.

I listened to your debate with Larkin Rose and was struck by the fact that you, a law prof. did not quote any specific statute to prove your point. Instead you talked around the subject What is so difficult about citing a specific statute when asked where in the tax code is it stated that the domestic income earned by a us citizen within the states is subject to the tax. If you can answer that question using the code and nothing else you can earn $5,000 from Irwin Schiff Also I have followed the trials of several people and find it more than a little disturbing that you can be brought before a judge for breaking a law but the judge will not let you bring up what the law that you are charged with breaking actually says And when the jury asks the judge to show them the law he refuses. I'm 54 and I have learned in life that usually when people refuse to answer a question they have in fact answered it by default.

Professor Seigel is WRONG. NOT every court has ruled that the 861 evidence is wrong.

I have raised this SPECIFIC issue of the proper application of Section 861 in determing 'taxable income from sources within the Unite States" in a refund lawsuit I filed in 2003.

The complaint can be read here:

http://www.reasons2vote.com/AmendedComplaint2000-2001.html

I also filed Interrogatories, which can be read here:

http://www.reasons2vote.com/interrogatories.html

During a hearing for oral arguments on cross Motions for summary judgment, Federal Judge Charles Weiner ordered the DOJ to answer my Interrogatories. They NEVER did. My Motion for Summary Judgement can be read here:

http://www.reasons2vote.com/briefsummaryjudgment.html

How did the judge rule about the proper application of Section 861???? HE DIDN'T! He manufactured some other B.S. argument that I DIDN'T MAKE, and then ruled against his fabricated strawman. In other words, Federal Judge Charles Wiener LIED to protect this fraud. Here is his BS ruling:

http://www.reasons2vote.com/show_case_doc.pdf

Here is my Motion for Reconsideration:

http://www.reasons2vote.com/reconsideration.html

This is the LARGEST FINANCIAL FRAUD IN WORLD HISTORY. My "professionals" have build their careers around this lie. Most are either in denial because they can't fathom the possibility that they have been so gullible, or they are deceptively participating in the fruad.

In my example, it should be "Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 1918".

Scott Haley

In your explanation of the definition of "taxable income", Professor, you seem to have stopped short. What is the USC (not CFR) Title 26 definition of "compensation for services"?

What say you about the Supreme Court rulings which concluded that 16th Amendment "incomes" referred to "gain from corporate activity"? [Example: Doyle v. Metro Bros. Co., 1918)

Sincerely,
Scott Haley
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/

This tax is on a combination of three things: (1) being an "individual", (2) having "income", and (3) being "married".

Most marriages are State-licensed.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. So for example, Congress could, if it wished, tax the income of married people at 250%, thus destroying marriage.

Under its "full measure of the taxing power", Congress only has the power to tax things that it has been delegated the power to destroy. Right? Therefore, Federal taxes are imposed on imports, interstate commerce, etc. -- things that have been placed under the jurisdiction of Congress.

OK, so when did We the People delegate to Congress the power to destroy marriage?

Is it not clear that this statute refers ONLY to Federally licensed marriage?

When you say that there can be no 'room for reasonable debate' on this issue is just false. A debate takes place when there are opposing sides to an issue, whether or not you believe in the validity of their side or not.
And since you are a professor on constitutional law, it would be safe to say that you would have viewed all relevant pieces of information on the subject.
You know as well as others the Supreme Court cases that they sight as their basis for their beliefs so I will briefly point those out:
Brushaber v. Union Pacific
Flint v. Stone Tracy
Pollock v.Farmers' Loan and Trust
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.
Adair v. United States
Adkins v. Childrens Hospital of D.C.
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.

These just name a few. They are all Supreme Court cases.
I would like to bring your attention to something that is not a court case but, I believe, has just as much, if not more, weight on this topic. It is in the Congressional Record on the House floor for the year 1943.
They were debating ways to bring the treasury account current and how to do that. In doing so, they described our tax history in length. I will write verbatim so as not to get any confusion as to what they were trying to convey. I am not writing the whole thing, just paragraphs from page 2580.

"After a lapse of about a quarter century Congress again passed an income-tax law. The act of 1894(28 Stat. 509, 553; Aug. 27, 1894) provided for a tax to be levied, collected, and paid "from and after" January 1, 1895, " and until the 1st day of January 1900" (sec. 27). Like the Civil War acts it provided that the tax should be based on the "income received in the preceding calender year." Although the Supreme Court held this portion of the act to be unconstitutional, it still recognized that the income tax was in essence and excise tax. The Court said that a tax on income from business, privileges, or employments, standing by itself, would be valid as an excise tax; but the tax on investment income was held to be invalid because the Court regarded a tax based on income from property as a tax on the property itself and therefore a direct tax which must be apportioned among the States(Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), 157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601)."

"There are still those who think that in this case the Court went further than necessary in treating a tax based on income from property as a tax on property itself, and that in any event the excise-tax principle should have been applied to rents and other investment income, as was done under the Civil War acts. In other words, the making and holding of investments, while perhaps not technically a business, is, at least, a kind of activity or privilege which can properly be subjected to an excise tax measured by reference to the income derived therefrom.
That investment income may be included as a part of the basis for measuring an excise tax was recognized by Congress in the act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112)."

"The tax imposed by this act was really an income tax in that it was based on net income, but was given the correct designation of "excise tax." It was imposed with respect to carrying on or doing business;.... The sole test of taxability under this act was whether a corporation was engaged in business. If it was so engaged, then all the income (except dividends), including investment income as well as business income, was used in measuring the tax."

"So far as the objections raised in the Pollock case are concerned, the principle applied to corporation under the act of 1909 with the approval of the Supreme Court might have been extended to individuals engaged in business. In that way investment income of most individuals as well as of corporations could doubtless have been brought under the terms of the act. And the field of income could have been completely covered by applying the principle that the ownership and management of investment property is an activity or privilege with respect to which Congress may impose an excise.
However that may be, Congress chose to remove all doubt by an amendment to the Constitution. The resolution embodying the proposed amendment (S. J. Res. 40, 36 Stat. 184; 61st Cong., 1st sess.) was deposited in the Department of State on July 31, 1909, a few days before the act of 1909 was approved by the President. The amendment was duly ratified and became effective as the sixteenth amendment on February 25, 1913. (Secretary of State's Certification of Adoption, 37 Stat. 1785)."

"The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or excepted subjects but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income whether it be derived from one source or another.(Brushaber).
So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally and excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the bases for determining the amount of tax.(If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax. (See Foster and Abbott, op. cit., p. 85.))"

As you can see, the tax is an excise tax on a privilege and certain activities according to the Court and Congress. That is far from the entire nation.
I would love to hear a response from you Mr. Siegel and hear your thoughts on this matter.

I listen to the debate because I thought you would point out in the law the questions that was ask to you. But all you did was give your opinion of the law. Sir your opinion is not the law. Thank you Mr. Siegel for convincing me that the income tax is a frad to the American people.

The whole issue revolves around "taxable income". What someone needs to do is show us in the "Code" where you go to determine (calculate) your taxable income. We are very well aware of the fact that Section 61 "defines" gross income. I personally have asked many times and gotten no response. It's like this; I know the "definition" of diabetes, it's a whole different matter to "determine" that you have it.

In you explanation page, it was nice of you to examine the term "taxable income".

Your argument goes astray when you fail to define this term: "source", and this term: "derived".

Keep in mind that a term is completely different from a word. A term has a specific definition assigned to it in law. The definition can vary for the same "letters in a row" from Title to Title, and Section to Section of the law. The law scriveners do that specifically to confuse and muddle the readers of tax and other law.

"Source" is specifically defined in Title 26, I'll leave it to you to do proper research to discover its real meaning.

"Derived" has been defined by the Supreme Court many times. In law, the Supremes trump written law, so you can ignore Title 26, the IRC, and focus your research on Supreme Court decisions for the definition of that term.

Another whopper than needs to be exposed are the terms: "includes and including". A quick look at www.dictionary.com for these will reveal that there is some current controversey over the definitions. It suggests that if you want it to mean A, B, C and "other stuff not mentioned" it may or may not be the appropriate word to use. The notation at the definition suggests to avoid ambiguity, the words "comprise", or "consist of" with the complete list of items should be used.

It is interesting to note that when the law scriveners really want the 50 states to be "included" they are always specifically mentioned in other Titles. But in the IRC Title 26, "states" are always defined as DC and/or its territories like PR, VI, and AS.

The fraud is very easy to see, once you understand the difference between a term and a word.

this is all you need to know about title 26

Sec. 3401. - Definitions

(a) Wages

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''wages'' means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer,…

c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation. [A “United States Corporation”, defined in Sec. 207 of the Public Salary Tax Act as, “a corporate agency or instrumentality, is one (a) a majority of the stock of which is owned by or on behalf of the United States, or (b) the power to appoint or select a majority of the board of directors of which is exercisable by or on behalf of the United States

Geesh! Such hubris!

The earth is neither flat, nor is it round. The earth is spherical. And therein lies the crux of the debate!

I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe in our Founders dream of a Constitutional Republic. I don't let accademics and bureaucrats try to skew the argument in contradiction to the Founders intentions.

There is NOT, and never has been a federal tax on private receipts. Until the middle of the last century, no one even pretended to insist that there was.

What we have had is misinformation, confusion, vaguary perpetrated by not only by our representatives in government, but by the crowd that profits from this confusion - the CPA's and tax-preparers that insist the YOU owe an Income Tax. Keep in mind that most of these people are educated in liberal, state run colleges and universities taught by academics like Prof. Siegel.

There are more people in our society now who can tell you about who's winning on 'Survivor' than who can talk about the Constitution and the limitations it imposes on the federal government. We've been tricked into ignoring Lincoln's admonition to "Study the Constitution"....ourselves!

We DO have an federal income tax in this country and it is, in fact, Constitional. It does apply to some people. The IRC is quite explicit about to whom it applies.. and it is NOT YOU! Unless of course you're are the government, their employee, contract holder or live in their jurisdiction. They know it. Now you know it. Act on it.

And, listen to Mr. Larken Rose. He has walked the walk. He has earned the right to talk the talk. He speaks the truth without any ax to grind to turf to protect. He is one of us - you and I. Together we can overcome all this fear, intimidation, and the hubris that comes from those who hold the "conventional wisdom" on the Income Tax.

-Spencer Benedict