Where is the Law ?

Yes, there is a law concerning income taxes and it is codified as Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Title 26 is "prima facie" law which means it is evidence of the actual or positive law passed by Congress. Title 26 can be read online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup... or at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.h...

It is long, dry and complicated, but it is all there. To read the actual income tax laws passed by Congress, you have to read the U.S. Statutes at Large which, to the best of my knowledge, are not available online. You can read them at a Federal Depository Library however. There are probably several in your state. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html

The film, "America: Freedom to Fascism" is unfortunately filled with conspiracy theory nonsense. I suggest you go to http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html and lookup almost every point in the film. I also recommend that you try and verify different quotes from the film from RELIABLE websites.

BTW, the book, "The Law that Never Was" by Bill Benson has been completed refuted. Also, no court has EVER accepted any of the arguments brought forth in that book. Here is a court case that discussed the book. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated,

[QUOTE]

"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.

“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so."

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted.

[END QUOTE]

A few sentences later in the same decision, the court continues, "Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review."

[END QUOTE OF CASE]

Judge Fox's statement was in the context of giving an example. He was not making a statement of fact. The comments made by Judge Fox were made in passing, without judicial review, and in a case that had nothing to do with the 16th amendment. In the end, the Judge also said that he didn't think any court would ever set it aside.

The Federal Reserve act was properly passed by Congress and does not require a Constitutional amendment. While the Federal Reserve Act was passed on Dec. 23, 1913, according to the Congressional record, the bill passed the house by a count of 298 to 60. 358 members voted out of 435, that's pretty good attendance. That's probably better attendance than the current House of Representative gets on most days. The Senate passed the bill with a vote of 43 to 25. That's 68 members voted out of 96. Again, that is good attendance.

Finally, the quote by Woodrow Wilson that the film says he made in 1919 is false. First, there is no record anywhere that Woodrow Wilson said the first part of that quote. The rest of the quote is taken from Woodrow Wilson's book, "The New Freedom". However, "The New Freedom" was published in 1913! Also, the book is actually a compilation of speeches he made on the campaign trail during 1911 and 1912. He was really discussing corporate monopolies and not the Federal Reserve (which didn't exist yet) or the banks. You can read "The New Freedom" for yourself at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

BTW, the Federal Reserve is independently audited every year. Those audits and more are part of the Federal Reserve annual report to Congress.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongres...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongres...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongres...

Look at all I have written refuting many points in the movie, "Freedom to Fascism" and that's only the first five minutes of it.

To summarize, there is a law concerning income taxes. If you earn more than the standard deduction, you must file tax returns. Wages from a job are income. Income is NOT limited to corporate profits. The Federal Reserve is not some great conspiracy. BTW, Sherry Peel Jackson, one of the people interviewed in the film, was charged earlier this year with "willful failure to file" covering four years. Her trial lasted two days, Oct. 29th and 30th. The jury deliberated for 45 minutes. GUILTY on all counts.

Yes, it was easy.

EDIT: What part of "PASSED BY CONGRESS" didn't you understand? The U.S. Statutes at Large are the record of the LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. THAT IS LEGISLATIVE LAW. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 16th amendment provide all the power Congress needs to enact income tax laws. BTW, you need to read the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) does not forbid an income tax. Additionally, an income tax is an INDIRECT TAX in a Constitutional sense.

EDIT 2: The TP FAQ explains things fairly well concerning direct or indirect.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#individual

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wages

EDIT 3: BTW, you can ignore the absolutely ridiculous argument that wages are not income. The income tax does apply to wages and many courts have reiterated the fact that WAGES ARE INCOME. Let me explain. An income tax is a tax on an increase in income or a gain. A gain is defined as the difference between what you paid for something and the selling price. Gain is not the difference between what something is worth and its selling price. For example, Let's say you find a diamond ring in your backyard that is worth $4,000. You sell it to your neighbor for $3,000. Do you have a loss or a gain? You have a gain because you have $3,000 more than before you found the ring. If your neighbor then sells the ring for $3,700, your neighbor has a gain of $700 or the difference between what he paid for the ring ($3,000) and what he sold it for ($3,700). While a wage is an exchange for your labor, you paid $0 for your labor. Therefore, any money you receive in exchange for that labor is a gain to you.

In Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), the court stated, "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions."

Yes there is.

This "there's no law" bs is a myth promulgated by tax protestors.

The entire law on taxes can be found at the link below. I've actually linked to Section 1, since that's the section that actually imposes income tax.

"That is statute(court made law)"

You are completely wrong.

A Statute is, by definition, a law passed by a representative body (Congress, for Federal Statutes, the State Legislatures for State Statutes)

"Where is the Congresional Law. The Congressional Act that created this unapportioned Tax..."

The law was last comprehensively revised and passed by Congress on October 22nd, 1986, as Public Law #99-514. It has been amended - by Congress - at least once every year since. 26USC is the current summary of the law as it stands after all current amendments.

"...that the Bill of Rights forebids"

The Bill of Rights does no such thing. The reference to "Direct taxes" is found in Article 1, Clause 3 of the constitution itlself, not in the Bill of Rights. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..."

There were conflicting court rulings as to whether income taxes were, or were not, a "Direct tax", so the whole question was made moot by the passage of the 16th Amendment, which specifically authorizes income taxes.

Richard

Yes you are correct there is no law that says an individual citizen of the US must pay an income tax on there wages. Wages do not have a tax liability, in order for something to have a tax liability it must be profit. With wages there is no profit, wages are an equal trade of your labor for money. Interests you receive does have a tax liability. Some taxable income have exemptions, wages have no exemptions because they are not taxable income to begin with.

The 16th amendment has little to do with this, it only allows the government to create an agency such as the IRS and have it collect taxes on income, but it still must follow the only options the constitution allows for taxes, either a direct tax or a indirect tax and it must follow the law associated with how each is levied. The person who stated the income tax is a indirect tax is correct. If a persons wages was considered to have a tax liability under the tax law it would be a direct tax, which in its form would be unconstitutional.

The IRS tax code referring to income only pertains to taxable income and it states clearly what is considered taxable income and a citizen of the US earning wages within the US has no tax liability, therefor its not calculated in a persons income to determine tax liability.

So yes after most all wage earners add up all there tax liability, then subtract there legal deductions, they would owe 0 income tax. Most wouldn't even have enough taxable income to even have to file a return according to the tax law.

I watch the new episodes of Law & Order: SVU.

The law is black and white--very clear. I never understand this argument that "there are no laws that say you have to pay income tax".

Yes there is a law, as posted by the rest of the users,...it might not be "fair" but yes there is a law.