Tax protester administrative arguments

src: www.europeanceo.com

Tax protesters in the United States advanced a number of administrative arguments which state that federal income tax assessments and collection violate regulations imposed by responsible institutions - notably the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in charge of enacting laws passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally include claims that the administrative agency fails to make the obligation to pay taxes, or that its operations are contrary to some other laws, or that the agency is not permitted by law to assess or collect income taxes, to seize assets to meet claimed taxes , or punish the person who failed to file a refund or pay taxes.

Administrative arguments, though related to, are different from common constitutional, law, and conspiracy arguments. The administrative argument presupposes that Congress has the constitutional power to impose a tax on income and laws that have been imposed to influence this imposition, but that administrative bodies charged with enforcing the directives of the law have failed to enact legislation enabling them to do so.

Video Tax protester administrative arguments

Arguments about administration and tax process

Some arguments relate to the regulatory process, IRS employee's authority to demand punishment, IRS authority to confiscate assets, or the validity of the IRS tax form.

Arguments about lack of rules

Some tax protesters have tried to argue that since the Ministry of Finance has announced official regulations for some but not all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, there is no obligation to file income tax returns or pay taxes. The Court uniformly rejects this argument, ruling that the obligations imposed by law are inevitable simply because the IRS or other institutions have not announced the rules under the law, and that the fact that the law provides that a body is authorized to disseminate. a rule does not necessarily mean that agencies are required to do so.

For court decisions about the "lack of rules" argument, see Carpa v. Smith ; United States v. Langert ; Russell v. United States ; United States v. Washington ; United States v. Hicks .

Arguments about the IRS employee's authority to collect fines

Some tax protesters argue that even if the Internal Revenue Code provides a penalty, IRS employees do not have the authority to demand punishment - based arguments in section Internal Revenue Code 6020 (b) (1) which states:

The Secretary's Authority for a refund.

If any person fails to return anything required by the law or internal revenue rules made thereunder at the time specified therein, or makes, intentionally or otherwise, a false or fraudulent refund, the Secretary shall return it from his own knowledge and from the information he can get through testimony or otherwise.

Some protesters argue that this provision indicates that IRS agents have no authority to impose fines unless they have a delegation from the Minister of Finance.

Tax shooters sometimes state that a court ruling that IRS agents have delegated power from the Minister of Finance is a blatant violation of the law, which taxpayers call the evidence that court findings are somehow contrary to what the law says. However, under 26 USC Ã,  ± 6020, 26 USC Ã,7070 (a) (11) (B), and 26 USC Ã,§ 7701 (a) (12) (A) (i) and Treasury regulations at 26 CFR section 301.6020-1 (a) (1), IRS agents do have delegated powers to prepare section 6020 (b) returns (see Craig v. Lowe ). See also Delegate Order 5-2, which specifically delegates this authority to the Internal Revenue Agent, to the Tax Auditor, to the GS-9 Class Official and above, and to other IRS personnel. In Craig, taxpayers argue that only the Finance Secretary himself is authorized under section 6020 to prepare returns for the taxpayer even though the simple language of section 6020 uses the word "Secretary" (without the phrase "Finance"). According to Section 7701 (a) (11) (B), where used in the Internal Revenue Code without the phrase "from the Ministry of Finance," the term "Secretary" means "Secretary of Finance or its envoy " (Italics added). The phrase "or its delegation" is defined as "officer, employee, or agent of the authorized Ministry of Finance... to perform the mentioned or described function...". The court rejected the taxpayers' argument, and ruled that the IRS Revenue Agent "clearly falls" in the Treasury rules cited.

Other protest groups claim the existing law demands income taxes only from federal and resident US officials. Their argument is not dependent on nonassage of the 16th Amendment, but does not recommend it. They have asked the IRS and other authorities to cite a law requiring someone else to pay income tax. This group claims to never receive an answer.

Arguments about the IRS employee's authority to confiscate assets

Some tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service has no authority to seize assets to meet tax claims. For example, the taxpayer website Irwin Schiff refers to the 2005 Federal trial that generates the latest confidence and imprisonment on tax allegations, including the statement: "... Government prosecutors and Judge Dawson intervened to prevent me from proving that all IRS arrests are illegal, and not governed by law. "

In United States v. Rodgers , the United States Supreme Court stated:

Administrative levies, unlike ordinary lawsuits, and unlike the procedures described in Ã, §7403, do not require legal intervention, and it is up to the taxpayer, if he chooses, to go to court if he claims that the amount assessed is not legally owed.

Similarly, in the United States v. Baggot , the Supreme Court declared:

The IRS does not need to go to court to assess and accumulate the amount owed; are empowered to collect taxes in non-judicial ways (such as user charges or salaries, 26 U. S.C.§§ 6331, 6332), without having to prove to the court the validity of the underlying tax liability.

After decisions at Rodgers and Baggot, Congress provides limited exceptions to the general rule that court approval is not required for retribution by the Internal Revenue Service. For example, IRS charges in primary residence must be approved in writing by a federal district court judge or judge.

The law authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to seize assets without going to court is 26 USCÃ, § 6331. In the case of Brian v. Gugin , a group of taxpayers (including Mr. Ralph Brian) sued a group of IRS and other government employees (including Ms. Phylis Gugin), because what the taxpayer claimed was a violation of their rights. The following is an excerpt from a court decision in this case:

The plaintiff's reason for their complaint is that the IRS agent is required to have a court order in order to legally seize the property for the tax in arrears. Unfortunately, this is the wrong premise. Title 26 U.S.C. Ã,§6331 authorizes the IRS to confiscate the property of the person responsible for any tax after ten days notice. The plaintiffs are incorrect in stating that §§§6331 and 6321 apply only to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The law specifically states that a person may be levied on his own. 26 U.S.C. Ã,§Ã,§6331 (a) and 6321. The plaintiffs also quoted 26 U.S.C. Ã,§7402 which provides jurisdiction to the district court for issuing orders, processes and appraisals as well as enforcing IRS calls. This section does not require a court order to collect property under Ã,§6331.

"Levies" by definition is a non-judicial process summary that gives the IRS a quick and easy method to meet delinquent tax claims.... [T] he IRS has an option under Ã,§6502 to collect his judgment with either fine charges or litigation...

Thus the IRS agent acts within the authority granted under Ã,§6331 and no court order is required for retribution on Ralph Brian's property. Regarding the constitutional violations alleged by the plaintiff, this court can not find that any constitutional rights allegedly infringed if the seizure attempt is lawful under Ã,§6331.

It is important to note that plaintiff Ralph Brian is not without action under the Internal Revenue Code. If the arrears taxes claimed are not in arrears, the taxpayer may file an action with the IRS for a refund.

In the variation on this argument, some taxpayers argue that section 6331 of the Internal Revenue Code should allow the IRS to simply capture the salary of an elected official, employee, or official of the United States or District of Columbia. This argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court at Sims v. United States . Tax shooters have presented a variation of this argument, which has been decided by the court without legal reward. See, for example, the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at James v. United States . See also Peth v. Breitzmann ; Pawlowske v. Chrysler Corp. ; and Craig v. Lowe . See also the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at Maisano v. Welcher .

At least since 1867, the Federal tax collector also holds the power to sell the property of a delinquent taxpayer to meet Federal tax income taxes, even before physically expelling taxes from the property. See the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Springer v. United States .

The argument that the IRS must follow the Fair Debt Collection Act

At least one tax protester believes that the IRS must follow the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act, also known as the Fair Debt Billing Act. This argument is rejected in Smith v. United States, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declares that taxpayers: "... the prayer of the Fair Debt Collection Act is wholly unfounded, because the law expressly excludes' American officers or employees Any union... insofar as the collection or attempt to collect the debt is in the performance of its official duties' from the definition of 'debt collector'.15 USC section 1692a (6) (C). "

In 1998, Congress changed the Internal Revenue Code by adding a new section 6304, "Fair Tax Collection Practice," which refers to and includes certain rules similar to some provisions of the Fair Debt Billing Practice Act. Office of Inspector General of Treasury for Tax Administration review IRS tax collection practice under section 6304.

Paper Act Subtraction Argument (OMB control number)

One of the taxpayers' conflicts is that they are not responsible for filing refunds or paying taxes because, they argue, Form 1040 or some other form of Federal tax, or related instruction, or Regulation of the Minister of Finance, does not contain "OMB control number" (number issued by the Office of Management and the US Budget under the Document Reduction Act.) The court has rejected the OMB control number argument, mainly for two reasons: (1) With respect to Form 1040 itself, Form 1040, US Individual Income Tax Refund, contains OMB control number, and includes the number for each tax year since 1981; and (2) in accordance with the court's decision (listed below), the absence of OMB control number on the tax form (or instruction), or in taxation laws, will not eliminate the mandatory legal obligation to file tax returns or pay taxes.

The rules for OMB control number under the Deduction Act specifically mention mandatory tax obligations, providing (in part):

Ã,§ 1320.6 Public protection.

(a) Apart from other legal provisions, no person shall be liable for failure to comply with the collection of information subject to the terms of this section if:

(1) The collection of information is not shown, in accordance with Ã, § 1320.3 (f) and Ã, §1320.5 (b) (1), the current OMB control number assigned by the Director in accordance with Act...

(e) The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section does not preclude the imposition of a penalty on a person for failing to comply with the collection of information imposed on a person with statute - eg 26 USC Ã,§6011 ( a) (legal requirements for people to file tax returns)...

Additionally, the Document Reduction Act itself states (in part): "... this sub-section shall not apply to the collection of information... during the conduct of... any civil action by which the United States or any officer or agent thereof is a party... or... an administrative or investigative action involving an agent against a particular individual or entity. "

The Court has ruled that there is no legal requirement that the IRS tax form bears the OMB control number in order for the taxpayer to be legally required to file a Federal tax return and pay the related taxes, and there is no requirement for OMB numbers for the taxpayer to be properly convicted of a tax crime - because this is a tax liability imposed by law and therefore can not be avoided by the presence or lack of OMB control number on the tax form.

OMB control number and the Lawrence box

Some tax protesters argue that the criminal defendant Robert Lawrence succeeded with the OMB control number argument when his case was dismissed by a federal court in 2006. According to court records, the IRS agent had calculated Mr.'s tax liability. Lawrence discovered their mistake had been made - based on information gleaned from Lawrence's own tax return, on the taxpayer's tax base on certain properties that Lawrence sold. With respect to certain properties that taxpayers have sold, IRS agents find that they have a tax base more than they originally anticipated - hence, lower profits or even losses, and thus lower taxes. IRS agents brought their blame to the attention of government lawyers, who then demanded that the charges be handed down.

Lawrence then asked the court to order the government to reimburse the legal fees. The court decided to oppose it.

He then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - to try to get a reversal of a court's refusal to order the government to compensate him for the legal costs he had incurred. In the Court of Appeal, Lawrence argues that he should be replaced because the government's actions against him have been "irritating, reckless, or in bad faith." He raised the argument of the PRA/OMB control number - an argument he also raised at the trial level.

In March 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the OMB argument. The court also rejected his request for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred. The following is an excerpt from the Court's decision:

According to Lawrence, the 1995 Document Reduction Act (PRA) requires the Internal Revenue Service to display valid Office and Budget (OMB) numbers on Form 1040.... Lawrence believes that PRA by its terms prohibits the government from imposing criminal penalties on citizens for failure to complete forms in which the request for information in question is incompatible with PRA. Lawrence never explained how this argument is even relevant to three charges involving tax evasion, but even for the other three counts, it must fail... Summary Lawrence is an attempt to prove that PRA can provide a legitimate defense to criminals. cost. But Lawrence acknowledges on the oral argument that no case of this series establishes such a proposition, and in fact Lawrence quotes no caselaw from such a jurisdiction as to hold. Instead, the government refers to many cases that support its position that PRA does not present a defense against criminal activity for failure to file income tax... Lawrence does not provide an explanation of how government behavior can be irritating, reckless, or in bad faith when there is no law against it. "

Cases Wunder

In the case of the United States v. Wunder , the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit states:

Although the defendant constructed a complex argument as to why section 3512 [of title 44 of the United States Code, relating to the Document Reduction Act (PRA)] must apply to this case,... we are unable to see how the 3512 section is relevant. This section, in its sole discretion, applies only to requests for information made after 31 December 1981. The taxable years herein are 1979, 1980, and 1981. Clearly, the tax returns for 1979 and 1980 will not be affected by PRA. As for the 1981 returns, it displays the appropriate control number, and the regulation does not need a number because the requirement to file a tax return is mandated by law, not by regulation. The defendant is not punished for violating the rules but violates the law requiring him to file an income tax refund.... The Paperwork Reduction Act, therefore, does not apply to legal requirements, but only to the form itself, which contains the corresponding numbers.

Patrick Case

In the case of the United States v. Patridge , the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms tax evasion beliefs, and rejects the argument of the taxpayer's OMB control number, with these words:

Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Document Reduction Act. Form 1040 contains the control number of OMB, as well as other forms normally distributed by IRS to taxpayers. That this figure has been constant since 1981 does not mean that OMB has neglected its duty. Section 3507 [of the Document Reduction Act] requires periodic review, not periodic changes in control figures. Patridge [the taxpayer] does not offer any reason to think that the necessary review has not been done. The control number on Form 1040 appears on the OMB website as the current number; if this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer who says so to set a proposition. The OMB did not review Form 1040 between the 1995 and 1996 tax year irrelevant; nothing in the 1995 amendments [for the Document Reduction Act] says that all existing agreements become invalid or that all forms must be re-submitted.

In the same case, the Court of Appeal rejected the taxpayer's argument that the Document Reduction Act could block tax evasion beliefs:

How all this can hinder the conviction for tax evasion is a mystery. Patridge avoids taxes by shifting his earnings among the trusts in an effort to hide it from the IRS. The crime does not depend on the content of any form. Avoiding a person's taxes is illegally independent of information that is made or not provided. Consider another example: The Clean Air Act requires companies to reduce certain emissions using the best available technology, and report those emissions to the EPA. Errors in the EPA form may prevent the business from any penalty for bad information but will not license it to emit unlimited pollution. The Document Reduction Act does not alter any substantive obligations.

Another case involving OMB control number

Despite the presence of OMB control numbers on Form 1040 and despite the regulatory language 1320.6 (e) above, tax protesters have repeatedly demanded some variation of the "OMB control number argument" with no results. See McDougall v. Commissioner (argument of taxpayer - that Form 1987 1040 fails to display the OMB control number - rejected by the Court, by Court stating that Form 1987 1040 does contain OMB control number, in the top right corner of the form, the argument of taxpayer - that Form 1040 has no Privacy Act and notice of Working Document Reduction - was rejected by the Court, with the Court noting that the statement appears in the instructions for the form and further noting that failure to comply with the Document Reduction Act will not invalidate the IRS form, because "the mandate to collect information Federal income tax comes from Congress "); United States v. Barker (taxpayer argument - that IRS form must carry the valid control number of the Management and Budget Offices to apply - rejected); Salberg v. United States of America (argument of taxpayers - that although Form 1040 of 1981 contains OMB control number, the form is invalid because it does not contain expiration date - rejected, court rules even if the law requires expiration date, date "1981" on the form will qualify as an expiration date); United States v. Cavins (taxpayers convicted of tax evasion argue that the indictment should be discarded because Form 1040 is inconsistent with the Document Reduction Act: the argument rejected by the United States Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit Court states: "The OMB control number is clearly displayed at the top of each form.If Form 1040 displays the control number required by Ã,§ 3512, 'nothing else is required.' "); United States v. Dawes (taxpayer argument - that tax rules and IRS instruction books must contain OMB control number - rejected); Lonsdale v. United States of America (the taxpayers argument - that the IRS related forms related to calls, liens, or charges should contain OMB control numbers for valid calls, liens or charges - denied); Karkabe v. Commissioner (taxpayer argument - that Form 1040 does not display a valid OMB control number, and that Form 1040 is "pirated" and "illegal" - rejected by the court). Pate v. Commissioner (The argument of the taxpayer OMB's control number - that the Document Reduction Act "may by some means exclude compulsory penalties for failing to file tax returns and paying taxes" - was ordered not to give, with the US Tax Court stating that " the requirement to file a tax return and impose a penalty for failing to do so constitutes 'a legislative order, not an administrative request', "and that the Working Paper Reduction Act" does not provide "escape" from a penalty for failing to file a tax return " taxes - that under Pond v. Commissioner , the 1995 amendment to the Document Reduction Act "questioned" certain established judicial precedents - was rejected).

Lindsey K. Springer, a proponent of the Control Law/OMB Control number control, raised the issue in her own federal criminal tax case. His argument was rejected by the court, and the jury found him guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, three tax evasion, and two counts of deliberate failure to file a federal income tax return.

The OMB control number argument and variation of this argument have been formally identified as the reckless Federal tax returns for the purpose of a $ 5,000 tax fine imposed on the Internal Revenue Code 6702 (a) section. In Cargill v. Commissioner , a $ 8,000 fine was imposed on Judy Cargill's taxpayer under 26 USC Ã,§ 6673 in connection with his appeal in which he insisted on making the OMB control number argument after being told that the argument was frivolous.

Maps Tax protester administrative arguments

Arguments on IRS status

Some taxpayers argue that the IRS is not a government agency, or that the IRS is not mentioned in law, or that the IRS has no authority in the absence of an internal revenue "districts" formed, or that the IRS has no authority outside the District of Columbia.

The argument that the IRS is not a government agency

Many taxpayers claim that because the Internal Revenue Service itself is not made by law and because the IRS does not have the legal capacity to sue or be sued, the IRS is not a federal government agency. Some claim it is the belief of Puerto Rico. Others claim that the IRS does not legally exist. The court uniformly rejects such arguments. As described below, "Internal Revenue Service" is referred to in the laws and regulations as "agents", as "bureaus", and as "administrative units" of the US Treasury.

Although the IRS, as a bureau within the Treasury, is not created by law (and no law requires that the IRS, as a bureau within the executive department, "be made" by law), the United States Supreme Court, in Chrysler Corp v. Brown , specifically refers to the Revenue Act of 1862, "Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the current legislation of the Internal Revenue Service can be traced". (The 1862 Act creates the office of the Internal Revenue Commissioner.)

Because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the IRS itself (along with many other Federal agencies) does not, as a general rule, have the capacity to "sue and sue" - a separate concept of whether the IRS is a US "government agency." See, for example, Thompson v. The Ministry of Finance, the Internal Revenue Service and the United States of America, where the court declares that the "Ministry of Finance" and "Internal Revenue Service" are "federal agencies within the United States Government." Federal agencies can not be sued in their own name except as far as Congress can specifically allow such clothing ". Also, "Congress does not make provisions for lawsuits against the IRS or the Treasury, so these bodies are not the right entity for the lawsuit.Where the taxpayer is authorized to sue on matters arising from the actions of the IRS, the United States is the right party defendant "(from Devries v. Internal Revenue Service).

The United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit has dismissed the argument that the Internal Revenue Service was not legally made. The court also rejected the argument that the IRS is an agent of the "International Monetary Fund".

Similarly at Collins v. Internal Revenue Serv. , a Federal District Court stated:

The United States is of the opinion that the two defendants named, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and Revenue Officer P. Blackard are not the right party for this action. The United States argues and has given the authority to point out that the IRS, as a division of the Treasury, is an agent of the United States. Although the plaintiff denied that the IRS was an agent of the United States, the applicable authority did not support his argument. Therefore the IRS is protected by sovereign immunity and can not be challenged without the permission of Congress, which has not happened yet. Accordingly, the IRS is not an appropriate party to this lawsuit. Likewise, Blackard's defendants are protected by sovereign immunity and are not an appropriate party to this lawsuit. Therefore the Court dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's claim against the IRS and P. Blackard. In addition, the United States is the only party to this action. Therefore, the United States was replaced as a defendant.

In Hawks v. Commissioner , the US Tax Court ruled the argument (1) that "there is no organization in the Ministry of Finance known as the Internal Revenue Service"; (2) that the IRS "is not an agent of the United States"; and (3) that the IRS is "organizations that violate the law", becomes reckless. In the United States v. Bell , the argument that "Internal Revenue Service is an unregistered agent from Puerto Rico and not properly registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act" is ruled frivolously.

The argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not specified in law

Some tax protesters claim that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in the law. The imprisoned tax protester, Irwin Schiff, believes that the Internal Revenue Service is not mentioned in Subtitle A (a subtitle that specifically handles income tax) from the Internal Revenue Code.

"Internal Revenue Service", however, is mentioned in many laws. For example, the "Internal Revenue Service" is mentioned in Sub Ait of the Internal Revenue Code (see, for example, 26 USCÃ,§ 42 (m) (1) (B) (iii); 26 USC Ã,§ 51 (g) 26 USC Ã, §Ã, 170 (f) (11) (E) (iii) (II), and 26 USCÃ, Ã,  § 501 (p) (7)). Overall, the Internal Revenue Code contains at least 200 specific references to "Internal Revenue Service" (including references in section headings, subsections, etc.). Many parts of the Internal Revenue Code contain some references to "Internal Revenue Service" (eg, thirteen mentions in 26 USC Ã,§Ã, 6103, ten mentions in 26 USC Ã,§Ã, 6110, eighteen designations in 26 USCà , §Ã, 7430, and thirty three separate mentions in 26 USCÃ,§7803).

At least nineteen references to "Internal Revenue Service" are found in titles 2, 5, 12, 23, 31, and 42 of the United States Code. For example, 5 US 500 (c) refers to "Internal Revenue Service" as an "agent" of the Ministry of Finance. According to the official website of the US Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service is a bureau within the Department.

In section 1001 (b) (2) (A), parts 1001 (b) (3), parts 1001 (b) (5), and section 1001 (b) (6) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act from 1998, the IRS was repeatedly fixed by Congress as the "administrative unit" of the US Treasury.

The official US Treasury Rule provides (in part):

The Internal Revenue Service is a Department of Finance bureau under the direct direction of the Internal Revenue Commissioner. The Commissioner has a general oversight of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agent where these functions are run.

"Internal Revenue Service" is also listed as a "component" and "agent" of the US Treasury Department in the official government regulation for "Ethical Standards for Employees of the Department of Finance". The report of the House Committee that accompanied the Internal Revenue Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, specifically refers to the IRS as one of the "institutions within the Ministry of Finance."

The argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not an agent of the United States government, the argument that the IRS is a private sector company, the argument that the IRS is an agent of several states or territories without the authority to regulate internal income law, and variations of these arguments, is officially identified as a recklessly legally fed Federal tax return for the frivolous $ 5,000 tax penalty charged under the Internal Revenue Code 6702 (a) section.

Arguments about lack of internal revenue districts

Some tax protesters have argued that because the IRS district internal district or district director was abolished in accordance with section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Services Reform Act of 1998, the taxpayer should no longer be liable for federal income taxes or should not be prosecuted for federal crime tax. These arguments have been ruled out in the context of civil taxes, in Barry v. Commissioner and in the context of a federal criminal tax, in the United States v. Barry .

Arguments on the Internal Revenue Service authority outside the District of Columbia

Another argument put forward by tax protesters is that under section 72 of title 4 of the United States Code, the IRS has no authority outside Washington, DC The argument was rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at Hughes v. United States by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington in In re Myrland , by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v Springer , and by US District Court for South Dakota District at United States v. Kuyper .

src: www.washingtonpost.com

See also

• History of tax protesters in the United States
• Taxation in the United States

src: www.thenation.com

Note

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

External links

Sites that present taxpayer arguments :

• "31 Questions & Answers about IRS revision 3.3" - Presents the arguments of Paul Andrew Mitchell, on IRS, income tax, 14th and 16th Amendments, and other topics, in the form of 31 questions presented and answered by Mitchell.
• "Streaming 'Theft with Fraud' and 'Evidence 861,' by Larken Rose" - Argument of the Larken Rose tax protester, presented in the form of streaming video.
• "BATF/IRS - Criminal Fraud" - The text document by Milton William Cooper illustrates various alleged conspiracies about the Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. One claim is that the reference in 31 USC, 1321 (a) (62) to "Puerto Rico special funds (Internal Revenue)" proves that the IRS is a "pure trust" of Puerto Rico.
• "WhatisTaxed.com" - - Mines tax code and regulatory data for "deleted revenue", "excluded earnings", "deductions", etc.

Source of the article : Wikipedia