Paul L. Caron
Dean




Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Ron Paul Discusses the Ed Brown Tax Protestor Case

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul discusses the Ed Brown tax protestor case and the right of citizens to stop paying income tax on Neil Cavuto's TV show on FOX TV:

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/08/ron-paul-disc-1.html

Celebrity Tax Lore | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00e3982281f18833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul Discusses the Ed Brown Tax Protestor Case:

Comments

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax LAW. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

Do YOUR homework buddy.

Posted by: Trac | Oct 13, 2007 5:06:19 PM

come on all you big tax bloggers, pull your head out and give me an arugment to my facts I have stated in reference to the Fed Reserve scam.

Posted by: Brock | Aug 23, 2007 6:29:04 AM

oh now nobody is commenting, how convenient.

Posted by: Brock | Aug 16, 2007 3:35:27 AM

the 16th amendment allows direct unapportioned taxation of the peoples labor, even though unconstitutional in it's core. however amendments are just that, amendments. put aside the fact that THREE congressman signed this amendment into action on a dec 23rd xmas holiday. nevermind the fact that thereafter the supreme court ruled the amendment gave the gov't no additional rights to tax than they had before. NEVERMIND that a central banking system owned by private entities was the SOLE REASON for the American Revolution. Instead, look at ONE SIMPLE FACT. There is no law.

If you shoot someone and go to court you are convicted because there is a statute against murder, same with speeding etc. One who grows/sells tobacco is mandated to pay taxes on thier income. One who has foreign business affairs bringing income in is taxed due to particular statutes....however the jury was not shown the statute regulating the amount of personal income tax the average citizen has to pay, or even a statute making the average "laborer" to file taxes with the gov't.

The right to speech, liberty and to reap fruits of ones labor, what happened to this? In this country our labor now belongs to the gov't under the income tax and they allow us to keep a percentage. And simply put there IS NO LAW. If there were, Tom Cryer wouldn't have just been acquitted along with Joe Bannister and soon to be Sherry Peele Jackson. At this day in age, you have to be a big time lawyer or an EX IRS agent to know the actual details to prove it's hoax to the average jury beyond a shade of a doubt they are innocent. Ed Brown didn't have the tenacity or knowledge to tell the jury why he was innocent. It would've been easier if the judge would've allowed the tax code into the courtroom, or any other evidence Mr Brown had read, to prove his innocence. On top of that, the gov't (DOJ) never provided the statue assuming Mr Browns responsibility to pay a personal income tax. THEREFORE, he is guilty until proven innocent. No law, NO TAXES.

So, do some research! Find out how many central banks were in existance and then thrown out by ANDREW JACKSON. When asked his greatest achievment he replied "I killed the bank".

If you knew anything about economics you would naturally question our monetary system to begin with. Gov't passes on ability to make money to a private bank. Private bank prints money out of thin air (instead of being backed by anything, and with lack or regards to the people and inflation) and we borrow it with interest. Then we borrow more to pay off the debt, but that money has interest also. It's a debt machine, and a money maker for the private interests that have been trying since this country was discovered to strangle the economics into a controlled state of a central bank like the long tradition.

Wake up idiots, stop being lemmings and learn for yourself.

Posted by: Brock | Aug 8, 2007 11:57:37 AM

Ron Paul is a blithering idiot. For example, he erroneously believes the 16th Amendment allows the income tax.

Posted by: commentator | Aug 7, 2007 5:55:49 AM

It always amazes me how easy it is for these tax avoidance zealots to misrepresent the state of the law in this country without being challenged by these talking heads.

In an attempt to shed some truth on this subject, I would like to correct a statement repeated several times by the congressman “…that under the tax laws in this country, you are guilty until proven innocent.”

Ed Brown and his wife were convicted of criminal tax fraud and were afforded all the normal presumptions of innocence in their case until proven guilty. A jury of their peers didn’t buy their hogwash arguments regarding the “illegality of the Federal income tax system” and found them guilty of the crime of failing to pay their taxes.

So it is absolute nonsense to represent that greedy anarchists like the Browns are considered guilty until proven innocent when they choose not to pay their Federal income taxes and are tried for their crimes. Like any other criminal defendants, they were considered innocent until judged guilty by their peers.

In my opinion, it’s high time to end this charade (by force, if necessary) and send these two criminals to the prisons they so richly deserve.

Posted by: HonestTaxpayer | Aug 7, 2007 5:39:27 AM