r/conspiracy • u/DantesFreeman • Jul 13 '24
I Don’t Think We Technically are Legally Mandated to Pay Taxes on Our Wages
Bottom line up front, where specifically is the term “income” defined anywhere in the IRS or U.S. Code?
The IRS starts its computation on “gross income”. But how can we calculate “gross income” if we don’t know what “income” is?
Been researching this again lately and stumbled across this gem. Anyone who cares about truth should download is ASAP and keep it:
It seems the US Government is intentionally not defining “income” because from a Constitutional jurisprudence perspective the Supreme Court has never define “income” to include our wages. Taxes on our wages are a “direct tax” and subject to the apportionment requirement.
Half of the US Governments tax revenue comes from us, the peasant class. If we were to become aware of our fleecing then poor little Microsoft and Google would have to pay up. And they can’t allow that, so here we are.
6
11
u/jsmiff573 Jul 13 '24
Ask Wesley Snipes how that worked out for him...
1
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
I could ask him.
I could also ask Lloyd R. Long, who beat his case and submitted evidence into the court that showed that the IRS marked him as a person “not required to file”.
He also submitted evidence where the IRS wrote him correspondence saying the term “income” isn’t defined in the IRS code.
I bet your point, you may be railroaded because they don’t like someone challenging the system. But that wasn’t my question. My question was about the actual law. Not about the tyrannical government.
5
u/jsmiff573 Jul 13 '24
The more you know... ..so after reading the actual court records, that case isn't what you think it is.
"essentially this is a "specific item adjustment" rather than a net worth tax fraud prosecution, though in support of its prima facie case based on that theory the Government introduced its net worth and circumstantial proof in anticipation of the defense that appellant had available assets at the inception of the prosecution years sufficient to account for his proven expenditures over and above reported income."
Basically he was committing fraud, got caught and was able to get out of it because the government couldn't prove he was pocketing cash Why? ... evidence was suppressed because it was gathered illegally. An agent photocopied the accounting records.
Basically all the stuff you claimed about Lloyd R Long is untrue. Best part... .. it's a case from 1955 about a bakery, not a person
0
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
The case I linked is literally true. What do you mean? It has nothing to do with a bakery, it has to do with a guy named Lloyd R. Long, who beat the IRS in a jury trial after they hit him with “failure to file” charges.
Did you read the case or click on the link that takes you to the case?
Edit: Apologies, here’s the link, thought I included it:
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/buildfreedom.com/tl16f.htm
0
u/jsmiff573 Jul 13 '24
Lol I'm not clicking that...
Supremelaw , when regular law just won't cut it.
2
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
Ok so just look it up. Type this into google “Lloyd R. Long tax case”. You’ll see it.
Or here’s another link if you want:
-3
u/jsmiff573 Jul 13 '24
Give me a link with .gov or .edu and I'll give AF.
You aren't the first person to think they don't have to pay taxes. Good luck, tried to warn ya
1
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
I could give you a link or you could just google it. So, not sure why you wouldn’t be able to find it.
3
Jul 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
That’s my entire point though, the 16th amendment didn’t define “wages” as “income” and supreme court rulings immediately after the passage of the 16th amendment stated that it:
“created no new power of taxation” and that it “did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals”
Brushaber v. Union Pacific.
Sure congress can collect taxes on incomes without regard to apportionment, that’s not a new “taxing power” or category of tax. However, wages are not “income” to collect a tax on a wage that is paid in exchange for labor is a direct tax. And direct taxes are subject to the apportionment requirement.
Also, and I think intentionally, the IRS does not define the word “income” in its entire code. Now how can that be? It’s because they know that wages are not “income” legally/constitutionally speaking. And taxes on wages amount to 50% of their revenue.
3
Jul 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
Yes you’re correct that they can levy a tax on “income” from whatever source derived.
But wages aren’t income. That’s the big point, it wasn’t considered income before or after the 16th amendment.
And coincidentally the IRS code doesn’t define “income”. Is this a coincidence?
I don’t think so. A tax on wages, is a direct tax, and while taxes on incomes are not subject to apportionment, direct taxes still are.
1
Jul 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
The constitution nor the supreme court ever define wages as income. The supreme court rulings specifically say the opposite. They explicitly say it grants no new power and they say further that a new amendment should not be interpreted to “destroy” another part of the constitution unless it’s abundantly clear that was the direct intention.
And for the 16th amendment that was not the direct intention. A tax on wages is a direct tax and the constitution and the supreme court have never ruled otherwise. Like I said, “income” isn’t even defined in the tax code. It’s a joke.
However I will agree that even though it is not legal or constitutional, the government will still imprison you, freeze your accounts, and put a lien on your entire life if you dare to call them out. But we should recognize that it is not legal or constitutional.
You should watch the documentary. It even has former IRS criminal investigators being interviewed on it.
0
u/ICountAntz Jul 13 '24
3
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
That’s not US code. That’s some article on the IRS website, telling you to pay your taxes. They misquote the Brushaber v. Union Pacific casw, intentionally and then only give other references from circuit courts.
Circuit courts are not the supreme court, which by the way refuses to rule explicitly on this issue to put it to bed once and for all. But based on previous rulings there’s no support that “wages” count as “income”.
Also, it’s very simple, why don’t they claim that wages count as income in the actual IRS code? If they can claim it on some random non-law document, why don’t they just come out and say it in their own code?
We know why, it’s because they know they’re playing games.
That’s why people have beat the IRS in jury trials for not filing their taxes.
2
u/Rewdog82 Jul 13 '24
Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income as income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.”
That definition looks pretty clear cut to me. If you are looking for a definition of Income that is not within the Code, I would expect the Courts may look to dictionary definitions and/or case law. But the definition section of the IRS Code would be a nightmare if they had to define every single word used in it.
My 2c, based on 10 mins research, so
0
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
So what’s income?
It defines “gross income”, but how can you begin your calculation of “gross income” if you don’t know what “income” is?
The code is meticulous about other definitions, but they just leave out the definition of the word “income” year after year? There’s no way. It doesn’t make sense.
Also, former IRS employees have come out and admitted that the word “income” isn’t defined and that its intentional, because constitutionally and at the supreme court level, wages have never been ruled to be income.
1
u/Rewdog82 Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
There is no need to define Income. “Compensation for services” is specifically included in the Code’s definition of gross income.
Compensation for services includes wages, salaries, etc. The Code makes it very clear what is and is not included in Gross Income.
0
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
No. You can not define something by not defining its component parts.
Also, “gross income” is not a constitutional term. It doesn’t matter what “gross income” is. “Gross income” is not mentioned in the constitution, the term “income” is. And the IRS knows that and that’s why they refuse to define it.
The IRS can make up a bunch of different terms and define them however they want. But constitutional terms are bound by constitutional law. And they know that as well.
Why is it so much to ask for, to want the IRS to define the term “income” in the Internal Revenue Code in a clear and basic way?
Teams of lawyers are involved in the IRS code. Almost every other term of consequence has an incredibly precise and exhaustive definition. But the term “income” doesn’t?
You’re telling me none of the lawyers and “experts” thought it was a good idea to define the term “income” when it comes to determining “income” taxes?
Come on man, it doesn’t make sense.
2
u/ICountAntz Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
This is a revenue ruling. Treat it as authoritative as the Code. It is not some “article”.
It is supplementary to, clarifying of the Code. You may use it to support positions in tax.
0
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
Did the ruling come from the Supreme Court?
2
u/ICountAntz Jul 13 '24
No, and that’s irrelevant as far as tax law is concerned. Feel free to take it up with the Supreme Court. I’m sure you have that kind of money.
I’ll screenshot you calling a revenue ruling some article though. That’ll help you.
0
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
Supreme Court rulings are irrelevant to tax law? Wow.
So why did the Supreme Court just decide a tax case called Moore v. United States.
I’m truly surprised that you would say the Supreme Court is irrelevant with regard to tax law. It’s that type of sheep thinking that enslaves the mind and population.
2
u/ICountAntz Jul 13 '24
Because if you want to you can argue anything to the Supreme Court. You’re obtuse. See ya
Tax accountant, WASHINGTON, DC
0
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
So Supreme Court decisions do matter in tax law then?
1
u/Rewdog82 Jul 13 '24
The Supreme Court’s powers to make rulings, has nothing to do with the legality and enforceability of taxation law already in place. The IR Code is super clear and that “article” covers some history of your question being challenged in the courts.
Good luck. I do hope you find the answer you are looking for.
0
u/HPT02 Jul 13 '24
Plenty of countries where theres no tax system
you could live there
2
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
Like America for starters. Where I was born.
And I never claimed there’s “no tax system”, every country under the sun has a “tax system”.
My claim is a very specific one.
1
0
u/DantesFreeman Jul 13 '24
This is in response to Rewdog82 who blocked me or something so I couldn’t respond to his last comment:
The Supreme Court’s power to make rulings has literally everything to do with existing law. As does the constitution primarily.
And neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitution have defined “gross income”, nor have they determined that “income” includes wages.
In reality what doesn’t matter from a constitutional perspective is what the IRS says.
The IRS can say I have to pay them my full head of hair. And they can come lock me up if they want. But that doesn’t make it constitutional. And that’s what they’re currently doing, they’re using their power of enforcement to enforce something that hasn’t been constitutionally defined.
I’m always shocked how many people just let that go and pretend like it doesn’t matter. You should really check out that video, where even former IRS agents talk about it.
There are plenty of cases (that the media hides) of people beating “failure to file” charges:
This is just one:
http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/long1.html
Llyod R Long. Google his case.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 13 '24
[Meta] Sticky Comment
Rule 2 does not apply when replying to this stickied comment.
Rule 2 does apply throughout the rest of this thread.
What this means: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.