A Stand-off: Refusing to Pay Taxes

[SugarInTheRaw]

Anyone hear of this tax situation with Ed Brown and his wife? These two refused to pay taxes for almost a decade. They are now holding down the fort, literally, in a stand-off with police at their home in New Hampshire.

There is a brief description of the current situation on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lewis_Brown

Check out this Fox news clip, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dITKfUJKkl8

"[Brown] is doing it for us?" and it "could become a bloody confrontation?"

:eek:

[mathcart]

That is pretty crazy. I would of liked it better if he was refusing to pay taxes because of the massive squandering of tax dollars by this administration on frivilious spending boondoogles for haliburton (et al) and the unnecessary and unbelievably poorly run war in Iraq.

[SugarInTheRaw]

If you ask an IRS commisioner to show you the law that requires you to pay the federal income tax, he/she'll probably say you have to pay it because they've shown it through the courts and you have to.

When you have a government that enforces non-law passed by Congress, you're run by a king and it usually ends up tyrannical. George Bush says he doesn't care what Congress says. He's going to do what he wants.

[SugarInTheRaw]

Ed Brown's recent conversation with his lawyer after being apprehended for not paying his taxes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq9WU1Nxb1s

Ed Brown says he was gassed in his cell.

[Bob]

If you ask an IRS commisioner to show you the law that requires you to pay the federal income tax, he/she'll probably say you have to pay it because they've shown it through the courts and you have to.

When you have a government that enforces non-law passed by Congress, you're run by a king and it usually ends up tyrannical. George Bush says he doesn't care what Congress says. He's going to do what he wants.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common%20law :confused:

[SugarInTheRaw]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common%20law :confused:

I've heard of common law, Bob, but I'm unsure what you are saying. Is it okay to pay lawless taxes because it has been accepted blindly by people? What do you think?

[Bob]

I've heard of common law, Bob, but I'm unsure what you are saying. Is it okay to pay lawless taxes because it has been accepted blindly by people? What do you think?

i'm actually unsure of what you're saying. you said "if you ask an IRS commissioner to show you the law (do you mean statute?) that says you have to pay taxes, they'll tell you that the courts have said that you have to." that's what common law is, basically, right? law through court decisions? that would make it legal if i'm not mistaken, courts do that a lot

[SugarInTheRaw]

i'm actually unsure of what you're saying. you said "if you ask an IRS commissioner to show you the law (do you mean statute?) that says you have to pay taxes, they'll tell you that the courts have said that you have to." that's what common law is, basically, right? law through court decisions? that would make it legal if i'm not mistaken, courts do that a lot

Yeah, I meant the statute. Thanks for clarifying.

I understand that Ed Brown was tortured in detainment. That's a whole nuther bag, but regardless, I was surprised I didn't hear more about this stand-off in mainstream U.S. news.

[JohnnyChavello]

If you ask an IRS commisioner to show you the law that requires you to pay the federal income tax, he/she'll probably say you have to pay it because they've shown it through the courts and you have to.

When you have a government that enforces non-law passed by Congress, you're run by a king and it usually ends up tyrannical. George Bush says he doesn't care what Congress says. He's going to do what he wants.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

In addition, the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As for the statutes, title 26 of the United States Code establishes the IRS's authority to collect the federal income tax on behalf of the government, along with civil and criminal penalties for failing to pay the tax. And if that's not enough, Congress' authority to lay and collect taxes carries with it the implicit authority to create a division of the federal government organized for that purpose. The necessary and proper clause of Article I, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution provides:

"The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [e.g., the power to "lay and collect taxes"], and all other powers vested by this the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

You could have done that research yourself. By the way, Congress is the legislative branch of the U.S. Government and it is their defined role in our constitutional scheme to pass laws, i.e., there is no such thing as a "non-law passed by Congress."

[SOP]

Is it okay to pay lawless taxes because it has been accepted blindly by people? What do you think?

The IRS might describe this situation as abusive tax avoidance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ)?

[Documad]

I was surprised I didn't hear more about this stand-off in mainstream U.S. news.

I heard a lot about it via media, but then I was following the story in hopes that the government would get those two idiots before the idiots hurt a cop or neighbor. It turned out really well in the end, but I hope the government can sell their mansion to pay for the tax dollars that went into this long standoff. (y)

[SugarInTheRaw]

You could have done that research yourself. By the way, Congress is the legislative branch of the U.S. Government and it is their defined role in our constitutional scheme to pass laws, i.e., there is no such thing as a "non-law passed by Congress."

Thanks, Johnny Chavello. I looked further into this. I still seem to come across info that makes me think the Federal Income Tax is a direct, unapportioned tax, making it unconstitutional.

According to U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, the required number of states needed in order to ratify the 16th amendment to allow the Income Tax was never met.

Today, approximately 30% of the average worker's income is taken from him or her via the Income Tax to pay the interest on the currency being produced by the Federal Reserve Bank. It seems that almost four months of a worker's pay out of the entire fiscal year goes straight into the pockets of the International Bankers.

What do you think?:confused:

[saz]

i think right-wingers really have to get over the fact that taxes and governments are necessary, or else more bridges will be collapsing, just like in minnesota this past summer, and the public infrastructure and lives will further be at risk. it doesn't help when people who hate government and think its ineffective get into power, then both run it into the ground by appointing incompetent boobs into positions of great power and responsibility (alberto gonzales, michael brown, michael chertoff), and by waging multi-billion dollar, unnecessary wars, all the while expanding the overall scope of the government (ie department of homeland security) while they regurgitate rhetoric about smaller government, fiscal responsibility and unnecessary pork. not only are governments and taxes crucial to a society's well-being and survival, but also those who have a different take on the role of government should at least stay true to their rhetoric and their party's traditional viewpoints, and not resort to outright hypocracy, run amok and go spend thrift once in positions of power in an attmept to prove that governments don't work. goverments do work, but not in the way that republicans operate them.

[Bob]

i think right-wingers really have to get over the fact that taxes and governments are necessary, or else more bridges will be collapsing, just like in minnesota this past summer, and the public infrastructure and lives will further be at risk. it doesn't help when people who hate government and think its ineffective get into power, then both run it into the ground by appointing incompetent boobs into positions of great power and responsibility (alberto gonzales, michael brown, michael chertoff), and by waging multi-billion dollar, unnecessary wars, all the while expanding the overall scope of the government (ie department of homeland security) while they regurgitate rhetoric about smaller government, fiscal responsibility and unnecessary pork. not only are governments and taxes crucial to a society's well-being and survival, but also those who have a different take on the role of government should at least stay true to their rhetoric and their party's traditional viewpoints, and not resort to outright hypocracy, run amok and go spend thrift once in positions of power in an attmept to prove that governments don't work. goverments do work, but not in the way that republicans operate them.

that was the most concise, eloquent bitch-slap to conservatism that i've ever read. wow.

[yeahwho]

that was the most concise, eloquent bitch-slap to conservatism that i've ever read. wow.

sazi always solid. I would say there also is a large percentage of democrats just as guilty of the same style of governing as his description too.

sazi is a great contributor around here, he's one bitch slappin' mofo'

[JohnnyChavello]

I still seem to come across info that makes me think the Federal Income Tax is a direct, unapportioned tax, making it unconstitutional.

According to U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, the required number of states needed in order to ratify the 16th amendment to allow the Income Tax was never met.

Today, approximately 30% of the average worker's income is taken from him or her via the Income Tax to pay the interest on the currency being produced by the Federal Reserve Bank. It seems that almost four months of a worker's pay out of the entire fiscal year goes straight into the pockets of the International Bankers.

What do you think?:confused:

No court has ever held that the 16th Amendment was improperly ratified - ever. But even if somehow it were, it would be ratified within weeks by the current Congress, so it's really a moot point. Moreover, James C. Fox, the district court judge you cited, has never claimed that the 16th Amendment was improperly ratified. He wrote an opinion in a case in which a defendant raised this argument and the language that's been cut and pasted to support this assertion is from a portion of his opinion that merely describes the defendant's legal position. He flatly rejects the argument later in the very same opinion.

This is one of the problems with the internet: even in the absence of traditional gatekeepers with journalistic standards, people still assume that everything they read should be afforded the same weight. It makes it very easy for crackpots to create their own particular house of cards. With likeminded people around every corner of the Web, an echo chamber gives even the dumbest propositions the appearance of truth.

Whether or not you're paying too much of your income in taxes, or whether the US Government is fiscally irresponsible, are serious questions worth a lot of considered thought and discussion, but whether or not the federal income tax is legal is a question that no sane person should ever have to deal with.