« Education Conservancy to Host Conference on Beyond Ranking: Responding to the Call for Useful Information | Main | Senate Holds Hearing Today on Oversight of Government Tax Policy in Farm Country »
July 23, 2007
NH Tax Protestor Offers $1 Million to First Person to Prove that "Law Requires Him to Pay Federal Income Tax"
More on the government's standoff with New Hampshire tax protestors Ed and Elaine Brown:
The Brown couple has been convicted of $1.9 million tax evasion and sentenced to 63 months. The couple refuses to surrender to law enforcement citing no law authorizes the federal income tax. ... Ed Brown like a growing community, claim no law exist allowing federal income tax. Mr. Brown is offering 1 million dollars in compensation to the first person who will demonstrate him the law requiring him to pay federal income tax. The offer has been on the table for 5 months now and no winners???
(Hat Tip: Taxalicious.) See also NH Insider: Ed Brown: "Show Me the Law". Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:
- NH Tax Protestors Dig In for the Long Haul (7/20/07)
- Armed NH Tax Protester Barricades Himself in Home (1/21/07)
July 23, 2007 in News | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00e008ddb6d38834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NH Tax Protestor Offers $1 Million to First Person to Prove that "Law Requires Him to Pay Federal Income Tax":
» SHOW ME THE MONEY from Roth & Company, P.C.
"Show me the law" is a rallying cry of the tax protest set. In fact, some, like barricaded tax resister... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 24, 2007 7:59:04 AM
Comments
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Posted by: GGG | Jul 23, 2007 5:06:12 PM
26 USC 6151
Where's my money?
Posted by: David Schwartz | Jul 23, 2007 6:53:10 PM
Watch "America- From Freedom to Fascism" for more information about our illegal federal income tax system.
Posted by: John Public | Jul 23, 2007 7:21:11 PM
It doesn't matter if taxes are "legal" or "constitutional". Courts have already ruled many MANY times that you pay taxes or go to jail. End of story.
This is what happens when people go for "strict constructionist" judges. They follow precedent set by previous courts. Time to wake up and smell the damage most of these "independent" thinkers like Mr. Brown have done to our court system, by trying to get judges like this.
They wanted "strict constructionist" judges, They wanted judges to follow a policy of Stare decisis... well now they have it.
good luck. Maybe next time people will think through their logic on issues like this and see exactly where it will lead in the end.
Posted by: Ted R. | Jul 23, 2007 7:26:20 PM
I would respond with a request for proof that he has no proof that no law exists allowing federal income tax.
Posted by: Sean | Jul 23, 2007 7:35:59 PM
GGG....That make NO sense what so ever.
Posted by: Joe Mamma | Jul 23, 2007 7:54:06 PM
There are no laws stating that a private citizen must pay federal income taxes. This has already been proven in a court of law in the past. The IRS is not a federal bureau, it is a private corporation. The tax code is needlessly bloated and most likely could be boiled down to a document of a few pages.
Posted by: D | Jul 23, 2007 8:26:46 PM
Hey asshole, if nobody pays taxes this would be 3rd world Cuba (or third world Florida, same thing). You better not show your face around here beating your "I don't need to pitch in, you do it" chest attitude. You'll get pimp slapped in your place.
Posted by: Bulletinboardforum.com | Jul 23, 2007 8:28:22 PM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html
I want my million dollars. I take cash, cash, gold, and cash.
Posted by: Joe Tynan | Jul 23, 2007 8:30:52 PM
In looking at the comments, it's clear none of you can prove or disprove the basic premise either way......So are you yapping just to see yourselves on the web? Go get laid or something.
Posted by: Joe Stahl | Jul 23, 2007 9:43:49 PM
Ted R, you could make yourself a million bucks! call that guy up, and offer your proof. hell, get your money!
the better point is that the law that created the IRS was never ratified by the requisite number of states to be an official law, and should thus be reassessed, and perhaps changed.
that doesn't mean "NOBODY PAYS TAXES"...DUHDUHDUHDUH. this being a LAW forum, let's not digress into Fox News logic, whereby anything less than gushing admiration is taken as an attack, shall we? we're all over the age of 10, yes?
what that means is that we should all consider taking a second look at the tax laws, and maybe effin RATIFY a law that puts a tax-collecting institution in place. The income tax law was created to screw over Al Capone, and since he's long dead now, maybe we should update things.....
personally, I like the graduated tax rates. a flat tax would utterly SHAFT the poor in this country.
there's my 2 cents.
Posted by: tonight, you. | Jul 23, 2007 9:46:53 PM
I guess it's just that the people wealthy enough to fight the IRS over paying an income tax find it easier to evade the income tax with various tax shelters, investments, and other havens. It's the lower income workers who end up paying a higher percentage rate. I don't have a problem paying the taxes taht go towards schools, healthcare for the impoverished, roads, etc. It's the taxes that pay for needless millitary spending, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, the presidents dog to have it's own web page/state dinners.... those are the taxes I'd like to not pay.
Posted by: Misha80 | Jul 23, 2007 10:09:51 PM
If any of you are lawyers, I wouldn't hire ANY of you. You all should be lynched, mainly based on the fact that you're all retarded.
Posted by: RandalMan | Jul 23, 2007 10:32:37 PM
GGG - you're WRONG.
26 USC 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
(b) Exceptions
(1) Income tax not computed by taxpayer
If the taxpayer elects under section 6014 not to show the tax on the return, the amount determined by the Secretary as payable shall be paid within 30 days after the mailing by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice stating such amount and making demand therefor.
(2) Use of government depositaries
For authority of the Secretary to require payments to Government depositaries, see section 6302 (c).
(c) Date fixed for payment of tax
In any case in which a tax is required to be paid on or before a certain date, or within a certain period, any reference in this title to the date fixed for payment of such tax shall be deemed a reference to the last day fixed for such payment (determined without regard to any extension of time for paying the tax.)
Posted by: uncletomla | Jul 23, 2007 10:37:05 PM
personal income taxes comprise roughly 1/3rd of the federal tax revenue. a repeal of individual income taxes would result in total realized federal tax revenue at the level at which total federal tax revenue was in the year 2000...
the more you know...
Posted by: uncletomla | Jul 23, 2007 10:42:03 PM
Oh good heavens. See, for example, section 1(c), Title 26, United States Code: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . a tax determined in accordance with the following table." So spake the Congress. See as well the 16th Amendment, authorizing the Congress to tax incomes. (One might argue, as did the unfortunate Ms. Murphy, that the 16th Amendment is not enough, but, in fact, Congress has had the power to tax incomes since the birth of our Republic. The 16th Amendment was merely a clarification.)
Posted by: Jake | Jul 23, 2007 10:48:00 PM
Good Professor,
You've been farked.
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2951538
Posted by: malaclypse the tertiary | Jul 23, 2007 10:50:52 PM
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
These issues have been litigated. The $1M should be paid. Oh, right. The person who made that claim has all the intellectual honesty and integrity of a snake.
And Ed and Elaine Brown are nothing more than convicted felons, and all necessary force should be used to enforce the sentence imposed.
Posted by: trollfessor | Jul 23, 2007 11:02:43 PM
And the "troll" (trollfessor) is the first poster to get it right.
The Sixteenth Amendment was duly ratified.
26 USC 1 applies to everyone.
People who claim otherwise are just desperately searching for some rationalization to make themselves feel better about not paying their fair share. They should go to jail, and they do.
Posted by: dal20402 | Jul 23, 2007 11:32:18 PM
The constitution states that if a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President it is law.
The Internal Revenue Code was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, so therefore The Internal Revenue Code is law. The Internal Revenue Code (which we know is law) say you have to pay the man. I think it sucks, but it's as simple as that.
Where do I collect my $1m?
Posted by: Bill | Jul 23, 2007 11:38:31 PM
The US Supreme Court, in a 1923 ruling (10 years after the 16th Amendment was ratified) that I don't recall right now, defined the wages resulting from labor to be an equal trade, not income. Therefore, they are not subject to taxation. So that makes income tax for employees null and void, regardless of the 16th Amendment or not. Additionally, Section 2 of the US Consitution states quite clearly:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Income tax qualifies as a direct tax. Additionally, income taxes collected today are not apportioned. Reading the 16th Amendment:
"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."
I would argue that the 16th amendment clearly violates any possible interpretation of the spirit of the original Constitution.
Posted by: The Gentleman Thug | Jul 24, 2007 1:22:15 AM
Check the only official dictionary of the united States of America and you will find the definition of income is not what you think. Equal an apportioned is the law of the land. Income is not what you or I bring home as a paycheck. From there it's all contractual law [and fraudulent].
Posted by: geiser | Jul 24, 2007 1:36:18 AM
The tax code, using circular logic never really defines specifically WHO is liable. If you read carefully it always states 'if a person is required'. When it refers to income, it usually uses general terms not specific terms.
Most people assume the code refers to them and the income is what they earn on their paycheck.
The code is made complicated so people won't bother to read the whole thing carefully.
Posted by: sprky777 | Jul 24, 2007 5:52:38 AM
His property is under siege by the US Government. It isn't as if you can walk up and knock on his door. He couldn't pay the reward even if he wanted to. The IRS probably has all of his assets frozen. Unfortunately crazy people will see this as proof the law isn't Constitutional.
Posted by: Rob | Jul 24, 2007 8:10:18 AM
Police should storm the house like Waco... or drop a guided bomb on it.
Posted by: Waco | Jul 24, 2007 9:54:41 AM
These people are heroes.
Income tax is slavery, plain and simple.
Name 5 things income taxes pay for that we need. Uhhhh....
Everything is handled on a state and local level the IRS is not needed - but then we wouldn't be in debt to the Fed! Oh sweet sweet politics!!
Invest in gold and foreign ETFs cause the american economy is going to collapse soon, these people actually see it.
Posted by: Sean | Jul 24, 2007 10:09:59 AM
this is one of the saddest days in my life... to see so many supporters of the unjust american government who is literally raping it's citizens of their hard work and toil...
income tax is wrong. it is slavery. don't even think about it any other way. i'm not going to get into a debate of what "should" be. but a review is in process.
and to those who are all gungho and want people put in jail or hurt or whatever: please get off of our planet...
flummox
Posted by: flummox | Jul 24, 2007 10:39:55 AM
Yeah. This is stupid.
I watched that stupid movie put together by another guy who was convicted of tax evasion. It is full of lies and misquotes as well as an obvious lack of legal understanding.
The basis of his claim is that the bill wasn't properly ratified, but it was so it amounts to BS.
It is in the constitution and is quite clear.
The million dollar reward is a hoax because he will never pay it, always citing some obscure legal question that no tax attorney would even consider as rational...
Here comes the law:
US Constitution, Article I, section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
Then, there is always the 16th amendment:
"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
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."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16
Million dollars please...
This nonsense deserves no hearing.
These noodleheads refused to pay taxes and now refuse to turn themselves in! GO. GET. THEM.
Shouldn't take more than a half an hour to drive to their home, handcuff them, and drive them to the pokey. End of problem.
Taxes suck. We all hate paying taxes. But until we get the Fair Tax in place (sometime in 2075), comply with the laws and don't be an idiot who thinks they know the law.
Posted by: Jeff | Jul 24, 2007 11:23:29 AM
I pay my taxes, I don't complain.
Posted by: Taxpayer | Jul 24, 2007 12:03:26 PM
From today's tax notes:
"Tax Protester Receives Penalty, Warned of Other Sanctions
"The Tax Court has upheld an IRS collection action against a tax protester who raised only frivolous arguments in his section 6330 hearing and behaved disrespectfully before the court, imposing a $25,000 penalty for raising frivolous arguments and warning him that he faces additional sanctions if he conducts himself similarly in a future proceeding.
"Citations: Kevin M. Moore v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2007-200; No. 17901-06L"
How is it possible that a tax protestor has never one a case, but the protests continue?
Posted by: not a tax protestor | Jul 24, 2007 12:16:07 PM
the 16th ammendment did not leagalize direct taxes like the "income tax".
In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared that certain income taxes -- taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act -- to be unconstitutional unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.
This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on income from labor (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population.
this shit isnt hard to find out. it literally took me 1 google search to back up what i have read other places(including articles written by constitutional lawyers).
Posted by: zach | Jul 24, 2007 12:29:51 PM
I would be happy to take Mr. Brown through the law that requires him to pay Federal income tax. But what’s the point? Delusional anarchists like him will simply deny the legitimacy of any legal authority I present to him because it doesn’t square with his miserly refusal to pay his fair share of taxes.
How can anyone who is as well off as Mr. Brown, but wants to stick everyone else with paying for all the services he enjoys as an American citizen, be considered a patriot? Let’s label Mr. Brown what he really is—a greedy traitor!
Posted by: Concerned Citizen | Jul 25, 2007 9:58:17 AM
I would take most of these comments more seriously if the posters knew how to spell...
Posted by: John A | Jul 25, 2007 12:42:15 PM
Concentrate on the flat Earth idea. Much more plausible.
Posted by: Sorry, No. | Jul 25, 2007 7:38:39 PM
you readers that chastise the Browns about not paying their share are zombies. If they pay their income tax, does that change anything for you at all?? you still pay the same amount. The only reason for an income tax is to control the masses! through the code they can penalize or reward certain behavoirs. People that think it is about producing revenue are just blind!!I am sure that the Browns would be more than happy to pay all taxes "if it were legit" They are making a stand that should be applauded by all!! they are not protesting all taxes...only the income tax.
Posted by: rob | Aug 1, 2007 6:46:22 PM
you readers that chastise the Browns about not paying their share are zombies. If they pay their income tax, does that change anything for you at all?? you still pay the same amount. The only reason for an income tax is to control the masses! through the code they can penalize or reward certain behavoirs. People that think it is about producing revenue are just blind!!I am sure that the Browns would be more than happy to pay all taxes "if it were legit" They are making a stand that should be applauded by all!! they are not protesting all taxes...only the income tax.
Posted by: rob | Aug 1, 2007 6:51:25 PM
