The Income Tax

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. Registered User
    Thrall's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    30
    Posts
    260
    Answers
    0

    The Income Tax


    Did most of you know that the modern day income tax is actually unconstitutional and, technically, illegal? I could explain it all to you here, but just watch the film "Freedom to Fascism" on YouTube or read the book "Perfectly Legal". Again, it will just sicken you.

    You are being used. Be aware.

  2. Registered User
    Scrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrall View Post
    Did most of you know that the modern day income tax is actually unconstitutional and, technically, illegal? I could explain it all to you here, but just watch the film "Freedom to Fascism" on YouTube or read the book "Perfectly Legal". Again, it will just sicken you.

    You are being used. Be aware.
    Yet, another reason to vote for Ron Paul in 2008.

    [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ptU2GzwOMs"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]
  3. Registered User
    Thrall's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    30
    Posts
    260
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrat View Post
    Yet, another reason to vote for Ron Paul in 2008.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ptU2GzwOMs
    Heard that. There is a dude who seems genuine. It is hard to tell with politicians, but his voice is speaking the words that need to be said. My only fear is that no one is hearing him.
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,791
    Answers
    0

    I've heard this one many times over.
  5. Registered User
    Dagron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    221
    Answers
    0

    Of course it's unconstitutional, that's why you have to get taxed through your legal entity "BOB B. BOB" instead of YOU "Bob B. Bob". Take a look at your credit cards, banking statements, anything financial, you'll see your straw man's name instead of your own. Pretty creepy.
  6. Registered User
    Thrall's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    30
    Posts
    260
    Answers
    0

    Yeah, it's been mentioned before, but people only seem to give a **** for a little while. And then everyone just forgets and starts watching American Idol. At least Ron Paul wants to do something.

    It is obvious to me we need change, and drastic change at that. We have outlasted Rome this long, but we are headed for a fall unless the runaway government is brought back in line. This is just one tiny piece of the puzzle, but it screws all of us middle class fools who don't have the flow to support Congress' pension plan.
  7. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Smile


    Quote Originally Posted by Thrall View Post
    Yeah, it's been mentioned before, but people only seem to give a **** for a little while. And then everyone just forgets and starts watching American Idol. At least Ron Paul wants to do something.

    It is obvious to me we need change, and drastic change at that. We have outlasted Rome this long, but we are headed for a fall unless the runaway government is brought back in line. This is just one tiny piece of the puzzle, but it screws all of us middle class fools who don't have the flow to support Congress' pension plan.
    Well, technically the Romans had a Republic that lasted about 500 years.(500 b.c -1 a.d.) The United States republic lasted about 150 years from 1787 - (circa 1933-1947) The Roman Empire went another 480 years. The United States Empire about 50 years and counting..., yikes I just don't have another 400 years in me!

    ROMAN REPUBLIC/EMPIRE
  8. Registered User
    Thrall's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    30
    Posts
    260
    Answers
    0

    Well, that was a good lesson, and I have been humbled. That really wasn't the point though.
  9. Registered User
    Thrall's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    30
    Posts
    260
    Answers
    0

    Oh, and when would you say was the point where we first became an empire? I'm kind of curious about that. I am not denying that we are, I'm just curious, as your history is obviously far better than mine.
  10. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Smile


    Quote Originally Posted by Thrall View Post
    Oh, and when would you say was the point where we first became an empire? I'm kind of curious about that. I am not denying that we are, I'm just curious, as your history is obviously far better than mine.
    I am not trying to humble anyone or teach any lessons. I just have been shown some alternative realities then the one that is projected through the mainstream media and educational control systems. I am just saying maybe. The one thing I do know is that the future is not fixed and reality is software not hardware.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

    http://www.raven1.net/rulbysec.htm
  11. Registered User
    Scrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrall View Post
    Heard that. There is a dude who seems genuine. It is hard to tell with politicians, but his voice is speaking the words that need to be said. My only fear is that no one is hearing him.

    The media has been bashing Ron Paul heavily but his popularity is increasing thanks to the good ole' internet. Best thing anyone can do is spread the word of Ron Paul.
  12. Registered User
    T-Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    15,602
    Answers
    0

    I live in the highest taxed State in the nation. Not a good thing..
  13. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    It doesn't matter that it's illegal and wrong, because all everyone is going to do is cry about it. Some who genuinely ponder their decisions will vote for someone who stands for great things, but the ignorant will always outrule the wise.
  14. Gold Member
    moklepaul's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    29
    Posts
    765
    Answers
    0

    I live in Canada. I pay double the tax you do, or more.
  15. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    You live in Canada and pay double everything.
  16. Gold Member
    moklepaul's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    29
    Posts
    765
    Answers
    0

    Yup
  17. Gold Member
    TheCrownedOne's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,363
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by moklepaul View Post
    Yup
    Sorry, bro Hey, why not move down here with us? It's warmer down here
  18. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
    I live in the highest taxed State in the nation. Not a good thing..
    Hehe, my state has a flat tax. Nevada would be so much nicer though. They have NO state income tax. None. Nada. Zip. You gotta love it when you have an industry that makes so much money it pays for everything in the entire state.

    Ever seen what the property taxes are like in Vegas? a couple hundred bucks a year on a $400,000 house.


    Anyway, so you live in Vermont? They have a tax cap of 9.5% which is the highest in the country. They also have big sales taxes, with 9% on prepared food, and 10% on all alcohol sales.
  19. Gold Member
    spatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    879
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrall View Post
    Did most of you know that the modern day income tax is actually unconstitutional and, technically, illegal?
    How goes it, fellow Libertarian
  20. Registered User
    Jumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    48
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrall View Post
    Did most of you know that the modern day income tax is actually unconstitutional and, technically, illegal? I could explain it all to you here, but just watch the film "Freedom to Fascism" on YouTube or read the book "Perfectly Legal". Again, it will just sicken you.

    You are being used. Be aware.

    Ridiculous. This has been litigated numerous times. People that are so easily drawn in to believe in crazy conspiracies and junk like this are frightening. Hey look, if you really believe it then don't pay your income tax and let us all know how that works out for you.
  21. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper View Post
    Ridiculous. This has been litigated numerous times. People that are so easily drawn in to believe in crazy conspiracies and junk like this are frightening. Hey look, if you really believe it then don't pay your income tax and let us all know how that works out for you.

    Our government relies on Income Tax so heavily at this point, it could be the most Unconstitutional thing ever and the Supreme Court would STILL uphold it simply for the fact that to remove it would cause sheet and utter chaos.
  22. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,419
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
    I live in the highest taxed State in the nation. Not a good thing..
    dirty jerz?
  23. Registered User
    Jumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    48
    Answers
    0

    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.
  24. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper View Post
    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.
    Excellent point. That kinda knocks the OP's argument down doesn't it.

    No the ones that are unconstitutional are the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, and the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.


    They needed an ammendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, I always wondered why they could just outlaw other drugs on a whim.
  25. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper View Post
    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.
    This is the biggest scam ever!

    The 16th Amendment was never ratified by the required 2/3 majority of states!!!

    They(executive branch of government) just acted like it did and started to collect taxes.

    The taxes are supposed to be apportioned (balanced).

    We are all supposed to pay the same amount !

    It should be like $100 each ! ...not 20% of our income !!!

    ...and that is only for limited federal actions,..like a war!

    Here is another point of contention "income" is not defined in the constitution!!!

    Income is generally regarded as money made from a business venture.

    When you "go to work" you are trading your time and labor(personal property) for money. This is a simple barter agreement and is not technically income!

    Now, go back to work!!!
  26. Registered User
    Jumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    48
    Answers
    0

    On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned federal income taxes.

    Note that 42 states ratified this ammendment. There were 48 states at that time.

    Read the ammendment again.

    It specifically says "without apportionment" in the ammendment.

    It specifically says "incomes, from whatever source derived" in the ammendment.
  27. Registered User
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    dirty jerz?
    I thought he was talking about Connecticut
  28. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Mass_69 View Post
    I thought he was talking about Connecticut
    But Vermont has the highest income tax.

    Connecticut isn't bad at all as far as taxes go.
  29. Registered User
    Mass_69's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,550
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian View Post
    But Vermont has the highest income tax.

    Connecticut isn't bad at all as far as taxes go.
    I was just making a joke, as you're right as far as income tax, CT isn't the worst.

    As far as overall taxation, CT definitely is not good. I think we get taxed for farting...

    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...sForTaxes.aspx
  30. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper View Post
    On February 25, 1913, the Republican Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned federal income taxes.

    Note that 42 states ratified this ammendment. There were 48 states at that time.

    Read the ammendment again.

    It specifically says "without apportionment" in the ammendment.

    It specifically says "incomes, from whatever source derived" in the ammendment.
    Thanks for the advice I did re -read and did notice my errors.

    Amendment XVI

    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.


    First, An amendment to the US Constitution requires 3/4ths ratification of states not 2/3rds as I had stated.

    There were 48 states and Philander Knox did proclaim that the Amendment was "in effect" not ratified.

    There is still debate about the legitimacy of the states ratifying the 16th Amendment because of differences in the versions of the actual document, which invalidates any proposed amendment. Many states changed the language of the text to the point of changing its actual meaning!!!

    13 States at the time did not legitimately ratify the Amendment!

    The states could just go back and vote again with proper documents but that has not happened as of yet!

    The power of congress to apply direct taxes to wages of Americans has been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme court

    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916)

    from The Law That Never Was

    The Brushaber decision determined that since the provisions of Article I of the Constitution were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, BOTH specify that Direct taxes MUST BE APPORTIONED (to the state governments for collection). The Court ruled that:

    "Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors--merely an equal exchange of funds for services."

    "the command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by a consideration of the source from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class."

    and:

    Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..."

    Since the income tax is "without apportionment" by virtue of the wording of the 16th Amendment, it cannot be a DIRECT TAX, because direct taxes MUST still be apportioned. So, the income tax is still an INDIRECT TAX.

    According to the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment does nothing except move the Income Tax out of the Indirect classification of duties (imposed on foreign imports), and into the Indirect classification of excises (imposed on privileges and commodities).

    BUT IT IS STILL AN INDIRECT TAX, NOT A DIRECT TAX WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, AS DECEPTIVELY CLAIMED BY THE I.R.S.

    The Brushaber decision concludes by referring the reader, for the definition of excise taxes, to the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) decision, handed down five years earlier. So, the Court knew what it was doing !


    Here is some interesting information on the subject the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment.

    USCONSTITUTION.NET

    16th Amendment
    In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

    Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).

    from gpoaccess.gov

    Two years later the Court decided Eisner v. Macomber,\18\ and
    the controversy which that decision precipitated still endures.
    Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment in
    the earlier cases, i.e., that the purpose of the Amendment was to
    correct the ``error'' committed in the Pollock case and to restore
    income taxation to ``the category of indirect taxation to which it
    inherently belonged,'' Justice Pitney, who delivered the opinion in the
    Eisner case, indicated that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment
    was merely to ``remove the necessity which otherwise might exist for an
    apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income"


    from The Law That Never Was

    Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment-

    The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

    This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.

    After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "ineffect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

    Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".

    Alleged defects in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment

    After investigating the history of the 16th Amendment, the following defects were found in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment by the 48 states then existing, three-fourths or 36 of which were needed to ratify it:

    01 - Not ratified by state legislature, and so reported

    02 - Not ratified by state legislature, but reported as ratified

    03 - Missing or incomplete evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified

    04 - Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution

    05 - Other violation of State Constitution in ratification process

    06 - Other procedural irregularity making ratification doubtful

    07 - Approval, but with change in wording, accepted as ratification of original version

    08 - Approval, but with change in spelling, accepted as ratification of original version

    09 - Approval, but with change in capitalization, accepted as ratification of original version

    10 - Approval, but with change in punctuation, accepted as ratification of original version


    So, ultimately when you pay your federal taxes you do so as a volunteer!

    In fact they make it easy for you because most people volunteer to have taxes automatically with held from their paycheck(W-2)
  31. Registered User
    Jumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    48
    Answers
    0

    Respectifully, come on man, really. I don't think any of us want to pay income taxes, but it was ratified and certified. It is now part of the constitution. It has not been overturned by the Supreme Court. I say again, if you believe otherwise then don't pay and see what that gets you.
  32. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper View Post
    Respectifully, come on man, really. I don't think any of us want to pay income taxes, but it was ratified and certified. It is now part of the constitution. It has not been overturned by the Supreme Court. I say again, if you believe otherwise then don't pay and see what that gets you.
    Where are we going ???

    I'll say again the federal tax is voluntary, but the system works because it is enforced by threats and intimidation. It is supported by people like yourself when you say " don't pay and see what that gets you"

    There have been many people arrested for failure to pay income tax and they were eventually released when the plaintiff(IRS) could not show the law in court!!!

    So, if you can afford to do a little jail time you don't have to pay either!

    It just takes balls !
  33. Registered User
    Zero Tolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,328
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrat View Post
    Yet, another reason to vote for Ron Paul in 2008.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ptU2GzwOMs
    Ron Paul gets my vote... For many reasons...

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com
  34. Registered User
    Jumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    53
    Posts
    48
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Where are we going ???

    I'll say again the federal tax is voluntary, but the system works because it is enforced by threats and intimidation. It is supported by people like yourself when you say " don't pay and see what that gets you"

    There have been many people arrested for failure to pay income tax and they were eventually released when the plaintiff(IRS) could not show the law in court!!!

    So, if you can afford to do a little jail time you don't have to pay either!

    It just takes balls !
    Like I said brother, if that is what you believe then go for it.
  35. Registered User
    Zero Tolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,328
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrall View Post
    Heard that. There is a dude who seems genuine. It is hard to tell with politicians, but his voice is speaking the words that need to be said. My only fear is that no one is hearing him.
    There are very powerful people with a lot of money that don't want us to know about him. I'm almost certain that every internet poll after a debate has been heavily in favor of him. Like more than 50% saying he won the debate with the next politician getting 15%...
  36. Registered User
    Zero Tolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,328
    Answers
    0

    Holy cack! How long in prison? If it's not butt-f! penetentary I'll consider it to avoid paying taxes for the rest of my life. Half my hard-earned income goes to the IRS. And then when I spend what I have left, THAT's also taxed... Then there's the tax on my home. $10k a year. What else? Hell. A little jail time might be worth this!

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Where are we going ???

    I'll say again the federal tax is voluntary, but the system works because it is enforced by threats and intimidation. It is supported by people like yourself when you say " don't pay and see what that gets you"

    There have been many people arrested for failure to pay income tax and they were eventually released when the plaintiff(IRS) could not show the law in court!!!

    So, if you can afford to do a little jail time you don't have to pay either!

    It just takes balls !
  37. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Zero Tolerance View Post
    Holy cack! How long in prison? If it's not butt-f! penetentary I'll consider it to avoid paying taxes for the rest of my life. Half my hard-earned income goes to the IRS. And then when I spend what I have left, THAT's also taxed... Then there's the tax on my home. $10k a year. What else? Hell. A little jail time might be worth this!
    If half your income goes to the IRS, your accountant is an idiot.

    You get taxed on purchases but you have ZERO state income tax (since you live in Florida).

    Your tax on your home is a write off.

    Instead of going to prison, get a better acountant.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  38. Registered User
    Zero Tolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,328
    Answers
    0

    All in all, I'm still curious about how long these people are spending in prison. I've never heard that before - that people are going to prison only to get released because the IRS has nothing to stand on...
  39. Running with the Big Boys
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,604
    Answers
    0

    Post


    Quote Originally Posted by Zero Tolerance View Post
    All in all, I'm still curious about how long these people are spending in prison. I've never heard that before - that people are going to prison only to get released because the IRS has nothing to stand on...
    Most of these case end with some kind of settlement because

    a) most people don't have the balls or money to sit in a jail for 2 year during the appeals process

    b) The IRS(private) can only convince the courts(public) to handle the expense of a unjust prison sentence for so long.

    A good topical example is the case of Wesley Snipes!

    You may also want to research the case of Ed Brown

    CURRENT ED BROWN CASE
  40. Registered User
    spunkles182's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    183
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Zero Tolerance View Post
    All in all, I'm still curious about how long these people are spending in prison. I've never heard that before - that people are going to prison only to get released because the IRS has nothing to stand on...
    Dont believe everything you read on the internet.

    Tax evasion: This is a felony and a conviction can carry a prison sentence of up to five years and/or fines up to $100,000.

    Failing to file a tax return: This is a misdemeanor and can result in a maximum prison sentence of one year and/or fines totaling up to $25,000 for each year for which no return was filed.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. State Income tax..... Internet Sales tax
    By RedwolfWV in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 12:13 PM
  2. The American Tax System Explained
    By RobInKuwait in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 09:10 AM
  3. Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution
    By EasyEJL in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 08:41 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2007, 08:12 AM
  5. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 05-27-2003, 06:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in