Income Tax is Illegal.

[Pull My Finger]

It’s true. The American public is not legally obligated to file a 1040 to pay tax on their incomes.

(take a deep breath)

“If you… examined (the 16th Amendment) carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.” - James C. Fox, US District Court Judge, 2003

“There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct un-apportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law.” – Charlie Beall, We The People Foundation

The 16th Amendment (Income Tax Amendment) passed (illegally) on Feb. 3, 1913. It was put into place as collateral before the Federal Reserve Act passed on Dec. 23, 1913.

Because the Fed is a private bank that loans money to the Government, the private bankers needed a law in place that would insure the Government could make good on its loans – a tax on your income.

“100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt… All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services tax payers expect from their Government.” - The Grace Commission Report

In 2005 the Government collected over $927 billion in personal income taxes. By comparison, the collection of corporate income taxes (which is legal) amounted to $278 billion.

From roughly 1916 to the mid 1920’s, there were a slew of Supreme Court cases on the topic. In EVERY instance the Supreme Court ruled that “the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.” That ruling has not been overturned to this day.

In more recent state cases, approximately 25 people have been acquitted/found not guilty of tax evasion, because the courts could not provide evidence of the law that requires individuals to pay income tax.

Joe Bannister was forced to resign from the IRS when he asked his superiors to provide evidence of the law. He no longer pays income tax.

John Turner voluntarily resigned from the IRS when he spent over 3 months trying to prove to a citizen that a law existed. He could not find one. He no longer pays income tax.

Sherry Jackson also resigned from the IRS when she entered a $50,000 contest to prove the income tax law. She could not find the law. Nobody won the $50,000. She no longer pays income tax, and joined the We The People Foundation (the group that organized the contest)

Time and again, the 16th has been deemed unconstitutional.

“The constitution is just a ******* piece of paper.” – George Bush, Nov 2005

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” – Bill Clinton, March 1993

“I have unwittingly ruined my government…We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world – no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by… a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. Some of the biggest men in the United States… know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” Woodrow Wilson, 1916. 3 years after signing the Federal Reserve Act

Look it up people…
Peace

 

[Iriemon]

So file a lawsuit on behalf of concerned Americans to repeal the tax code.

Good luck. Peace.

 

[Pull My Finger]

Hi Iriemon,

Unfortunately I'm a Canadian citizen, so it wouldn't mean much coming from me. I'm in the process of checking this out for my country, it's not quite as clear cut...

We the People Foundation, however, has filed a class action suit on behalf of the American people. Check out their site, and sign up. There are a few other organizations doing this as well. I'll see if I can track a couple of them down...

Create a great day!
Peace

 

[Pull My Finger]

Those links I mentioned...

www.wethepeoplefoundation.org
www.nontaxpayer.org
www.tax-honesty.org/index.html
http://stopthelie.com/taxes.html?page_447150=2

Peace

 

[Monk-Eye]

Authority Exists Because It Is Granted By Subservients

"Authority Exists Because It Is Granted By Subservients"

It’s true. The American public is not legally obligated to file a 1040 to pay tax on their incomes.

In 2005 the Government collected over $927 billion in personal income taxes. By comparison, the collection of corporate income taxes (which is legal) amounted to $278 billion.

If you can find a guaranteed pro bono or contingency lawyer, successful in relief of income tax to represent me and keep me out of jail, put down for an individual or class action lawsuit.

The Feds will probably raise taxes on corporations, who will pass it along to the taxpayer as reduced wages. As the number of people is enormous, those at the front of the line get a good head start.

 

[Just Me 2]

It's looks nice on paper but is not the real world. Come the the US, work and don't pay your taxes then when you get arrested show them your information. How fast do you think it would take for you be in the hoosegow? I'll help ya out about 1.2 seconds.

 

[MrFungus420]

Well, let's take a look at the states that ratified the amendment:

1 Alabama Aug 10, 1909
2 Kentucky Feb 8, 1910
3 South Carolina Feb 19, 1910
4 Illinois Mar 1, 1910
5 Mississippi Mar 7, 1910
6 Oklahoma Mar 10, 1910
7 Maryland Apr 8, 1910
8 Georgia Aug 3, 1910
9 Texas Aug 16, 1910
10 Ohio Jan 19, 1911
11 Idaho Jan 20, 1911
12 Oregon Jan 23, 1911
13 Washington Jan 26, 1911
14 Montana Jan 30, 1911
15 Indiana Jan 30, 1911
16 California Jan 31, 1911
17 Nevada Jan 31, 1911
18 South Dakota Feb 3, 1911
19 Nebraska Feb 9, 1911
20 North Carolina Feb 11, 1911
21 Colorado Feb 15, 1911
22 North Dakota Feb 17, 1911
23 Kansas Feb 18, 1911
24 Michigan Feb 23, 1911
25 Iowa Feb 24, 1911
26 Missouri Mar 16, 1911
27 Maine Mar 31, 1911
28 Tennessee Apr 7, 1911
29 Arkansas Apr 22, 1911
30 Wisconsin May 26, 1911
31 New York Jul 12, 1911
32 Arizona Apr 6, 1912
33 Minnesota Jun 11, 1912
34 Louisiana Jun 28, 1912
35 West Virginia Jan 31, 1913
36 New Mexico Feb 3, 1913
37 Massachusetts Mar 4, 1913
38 New Hampshire Mar 7, 1913

Sorry, that's more than 3/4, the requirement for an amendment to pass.

 

[Kandahar]

Some of the anti-tax crowd claim that Ohio wasn't a state at the time, despite having ratified a constitution and having been part of the Union since 1803, because Congress didn't formally recognize it until after the 16th amendment.

It's a silly excuse that has been rejected by the courts numerous times. The people who doubt Ohio's legitimacy need to learn their math anyway. There were only 47 states at the time if we don't count Ohio, and 37 ratifiers. That's still 3/4 by my count.

 

[Pull My Finger]

How do you cut quotes from multiple posts?

Bill Benson has done extensive research on the subject of ratification - Including visiting every state. It's not as easy as just reading a list from Wiki...
The Law That Never Was

Dave Champion is helping people who want to challenge the IRS regarding the illegal income tax. There is definitely a strategy involved, including protecting your assets. Obviously the IRS is going to give you a hard time... some people are even in jail - unjustly.
www.nontaxpayer.org


Your constitution is there to protect the people. The people must make sure to protect the constitution. That is not the governments job, it's yours..


Peace

 

[TheLady]

as Pull my finger said here, the 16th amendment did not give the government the power to charge income tax.

From roughly 1916 to the mid 1920’s, there were a slew of Supreme Court cases on the topic. In EVERY instance the Supreme Court ruled that “the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.” That ruling has not been overturned to this day.

there have been many people who have tried to find the law that states we are required to pay and nobody has found it. my husband went to our local IRS office and asked to see the law and they told him he had to leave or they would call security, weird huh, he wasn't violent or threatening at all, he just asked nicely. so you guys seem to be debating wether or not the amandment was passed legaly, but that is irelevent. you might be interested in watching this movie if you haven't already seen it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=America:+Freedom+to+Fascism

 

[TheLady]

I am curious as to why this thread is in the conspiracy theories section? it is not a conspiracy, its a fact.

 

[Pull My Finger]

I am curious as to why this thread is in the conspiracy theories section? it is not a conspiracy, its a fact.

I also posted it in the 'Economics' section. I only posted it here in case anyone bitched that it was just conspiracy theory.

Personally, I hate the term conspiracy. The word 'conspiracy' has an automatic negative connotation attached. We're all nuts, right? IMO, this is just what the cheerleaders in the mainstream media want...

btw, a conspiracy can still be fact, it's the 'theory' word that gets thrown around all too easily...

Interesting (though sad) about your husband's attempt at obtaining the law from the agency enforcing it...

Peace

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I am curious as to why this thread is in the conspiracy theories section? it is not a conspiracy, its a fact.

Ever heard of the 16th amendment or the revenues act of 1913? **** the Congress had the power to levy taxes even before the ratification of the 16th amendment's ratification.

 

[TheLady]

Ever heard of the 16th amendment or the revenues act of 1913? **** the Congress had the power to levy taxes even before the ratification of the 16th amendment's ratification.

The 16th amendment does not give the government the right to make new tax laws including income tax, and before that amendment they did not have the power to create an income tax, which means they still dont. it is a big scam.
but people pay because they are told they have to and they are afraid of the government. have you ever seen the law that requires you to pay income tax? the actual written law?

From roughly 1916 to the mid 1920’s, there were a slew of Supreme Court cases on the topic. In EVERY instance the Supreme Court ruled that “the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.” That ruling has not been overturned to this day.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The 16th amendment does not give the government the right to make new tax laws including income tax, and before that amendment they did not have the power to create an income tax, which means they still dont.
it is a big scam.
but people pay because they are told they have to and they are afraid of the government. have you ever seen the law that requires you to pay income tax? the actual written law?

Already been over this one with pull my finger but let's go over it again:

They didn't need any new power Congress already had the power to levy taxes, what the 16th amendment did according to the SCOTUS decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 is remove any requirement for apportionment of income taxes (meaning tax on profit or gain from any source) among the states on the basis of population (i.e., regardless of whether the tax was deemed direct or indirect).

And yes I've seen the actual written law it's called the revenue act of 1913:

SECTION II.
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected
and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing
from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the
United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every per-
son residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax
of 1 per centum per annum upon such income, except as hereinafter
provided; and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid
annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of
every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by
persons residing elsewhere.

Subdivision 2. In addition to the income tax provided under this
section (herein referred to as the normal income tax) there shall be
levied, assessed, and collected upon the net income of every individual
an additional income tax (herein referred to as the additional tax) of
1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-
come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum
per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds
$50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon
the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does
not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by
which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed
$250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total
net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per
centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income
exceeds $500,000. All the provisions of this section relating to in-
dividuals who are to be chargeable with the normal income tax, so far
as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with this subdivision of
paragraph A, shall apply to the levy, assessment, and collection of the
additional tax imposed under this section. Every person subject to
this additional tax shall, for the purpose of its assessment and collec-
tion, make a personal return of his total net income from all sources,
corporate or otherwise, for the preceding calendar year, under rules and
regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of
this additional tax the taxable income of any individual shall embrace
the share to which he would be entitled of the gains and profits, if
divided or distributed, whether divided or distributed or not, of all
corporations, joint-stock companies, or associations however created or
organized, formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of pre-
venting the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting
such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or dis-
tributed; and the fact that any such corporation, joint-stock company, or association, is a mere holding company, or that the gains and
profits are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the
business shall be prima facie evidence of a fraudulent purpose to escape
such tax; but the fact that the gains and profits are in any case per-
mitted to accumulate and become surplus shall not be construed as
evidence of a purpose to escape the said tax in such case unless the
Secretary of the Treasury shall certify that in his opinion such accumu-
lation is unreasonable for the purposes of the business. When re-
quested by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or any district col-
lector of internal revenue, such corporation, joint-stock company, or
association shall forward to him a correct statement of such profits
and the names of the individuals who would be entitled to the same if
distributed.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...omeTax1913.pdf

Someone said something about a contest offering $50,000 if they could provide the statute, so where do I pick up my check?

 

[Pull My Finger]

Already been over this one with pull my finger but let's go over it again:

Yes you did, and let's continue...

"in substance, the court holds that the sixteenth ammendment did not empower the government to levy a new tax" the NY times Jan 25, 1916

“If you… examined (the 16th Amendment) carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.”
James C. Fox, US District Court Judge, 2003 (emphasis added)

As I also stated, there were a slew of SCOTUS cases which proved no power to levy income tax...

Stratton Indepence vs. Hobbart
Southern Pacific vs. Lowe
Bauer vs. Kurbough (sp) Empire
Burnette vs. Harmel
Doyle vs. Mitchell

Congress tried to pass an income tax in 1894 - SCOTUS said NO, it's unconstitutional. They tried again in 1913 which is when SCOTUS said "the provisions of the16th Ammendment conferred no new power of taxation"
So let's assume it was properly ratified. If there was no law to tax incomes from 1894 to 1913, and SCOTUS said (post 1913) that “the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.”, where did they 'slide' this law in?

Furthermore, as quoted from a letter from the US Senate:

Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provisions which specifically, and unequivocally require... and individual to pay income tax.

. (that's a period)

And yes I've seen the actual written law it's called the revenue act of 1913:

Check out some of those cases I listed above... The courts clearly outlined the definition of income (according to the constitution) as being a 'gain' or 'profit' or 'increase' arising from corporate activities. This is not 'income' arising from labor (your private property) you trade in exchange for goods or services (usually a paycheck).
And another thing, Sheldon Cohen - Former IRS Commissioner, author of the tax code, and general counsel for the IRS. When he was asked why 'the Supreme Court decisions were silly' he stated: "Because it's inapplicable"

So (by IRS standards) if you are to ignore SCOTUS, then yes, income tax is legal.
Assuming you know that lower courts MUST follow SCOTUS decisions, and after all my rambling, I have one question for you TOT:

Do you think SCOTUS and/or the Constitution is inapplicable?

Someone said something about a contest offering $50,000 if they could provide the statute, so where do I pick up my check?

Contact www.wethepeoplefoundation.org, and send in your proof.
Also, I asked you (quite seriously) to go into your local IRS office and ask for the statute... Did you yet? Let us know how it goes...

Peace

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes you did, and let's continue...


As I also stated, there were a slew of SCOTUS cases which proved no power to levy income tax...

Stratton Indepence vs. Hobbart
Southern Pacific vs. Lowe
Bauer vs. Kurbough (sp) Empire
Burnette vs. Harmel
Doyle vs. Mitchell

Congress tried to pass an income tax in 1894 - SCOTUS said NO, it's unconstitutional. They tried again in 1913 which is when SCOTUS said "the provisions of the16th Ammendment conferred no new power of taxation"

So let's assume it was properly ratified. If there was no law to tax incomes from 1894 to 1913, and SCOTUS said (post 1913) that “the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.”, where did they 'slide' this law in?

LMFAO this is because you don't understand the findings of the court in either the Polack or trhe Brushaber cases in which the SCOTUS found the exact opposite of what you claim they found the only reason they said that if conferred no new power is because they congress already had that power here's the case in question which even deals with your misinterpretation of the findings of the SCOTUS:

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166 (Oct. 3, 1913), enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the Sixteenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, imposing a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified earlier in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.

Later misunderstanding

Although the court stated that income taxes inherently belong in the category of excise tax (indirect tax), Brushaber is sometimes misunderstood by persons who argue that the case stands for the opposite meaning. Since 1913, however, the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled that any Federal income tax is anything but an excise tax, not required to be apportioned as a direct tax, but requiring geographic uniformity.

No income tax enacted by the U.S. Congress (either before or after the Sixteenth Amendment) has ever been apportioned among the states by population. All income taxes enacted after the Amendment have been treated as excises (i.e., have been imposed with geographic uniformity, but have not been required to be apportioned).

The Brushaber court stated, "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 may be imposed on income from whatever source and without regard to any apportionment requirement (by virtue of the wording of the 16th Amendment), an income tax cannot be treated as a direct tax (as income taxes on income from property were so treated in the Pollock case). Essentially, all income taxes after the Sixteenth Amendment are again treated as indirect taxes.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Narph]

Already been over this one with pull my finger but let's go over it again:

And yes I've seen the actual written law it's called the revenue act of 1913:

Someone said something about a contest offering $50,000 if they could provide the statute, so where do I pick up my check?

FACT: There is a Federal Income Tax

FACT: If you are living in D.C. your wages are taxable.

FACT: If you are living in One of the states and get income from Mexico your income is taxable.

FACT: If you are a US citizen and are living and working in Canada your wages are taxable after a allowed deduction.

FACT: If you are a foreigner and you are living and working in one of the states your wages are taxable.

FACT: People don't understand that what most of us consider income is not
taxable. There is no statute or Federal regulation that says that a person living and working in one of the fifty states of the union can have a tax put on his wages. If you have found one and can show it to me I will admit I am wrong promptly.

For a example of law that is more simple that could be misunderstood in the way that the Federal income tax has. I will show a law about firearms.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 5841

§ 5841. Registration of firearms

(a) Central registry
The Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The registry shall include—
(1) identification of the firearm;
(2) date of registration; and
(3) identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm.

FACT: It says all firearms.

So does that mean every pistol, shotgun, and rifle?
No because the word firearm has a legal meaning that is not in the same section of the code nor does it mean what the common definition of firearms is. But if this was all you read and all you where told most of us would come to the conclusion that we have to register all pistols, shotguns, and rifles. This is a simpler version of what has happened with the "Federal Income Tax". If you really want to understand the law I suggest you watch this video that walks you through the Statutes and regulations.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=theft+by+deception

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

taxable. There is no statute or Federal regulation that says that a person living and working in one of the fifty states of the union can have a tax put on his wages. If you have found one and can show it to me I will admit I am wrong promptly.

Right here buddy:

SECTION II.
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected
and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing
from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the
United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every per-
son residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax
of 1 per centum per annum upon such income, except as hereinafter
provided; and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid
annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of
every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by
persons residing elsewhere.

Subdivision 2. In addition to the income tax provided under this
section (herein referred to as the normal income tax) there shall be
levied, assessed, and collected upon the net income of every individual
an additional income tax (herein referred to as the additional tax) of
1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-
come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum
per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds
$50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon
the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does
not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by
which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed
$250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total
net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per
centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income
exceeds $500,000. All the provisions of this section relating to in-
dividuals who are to be chargeable with the normal income tax, so far
as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with this subdivision of
paragraph A, shall apply to the levy, assessment, and collection of the
additional tax imposed under this section. Every person subject to
this additional tax shall, for the purpose of its assessment and collec-
tion, make a personal return of his total net income from all sources,
corporate or otherwise, for the preceding calendar year, under rules and
regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. For the purpose of
this additional tax the taxable income of any individual shall embrace
the share to which he would be entitled of the gains and profits, if
divided or distributed, whether divided or distributed or not, of all
corporations, joint-stock companies, or associations however created or
organized, formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of pre-
venting the imposition of such tax through the medium of permitting
such gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or dis-
tributed; and the fact that any such corporation, joint-stock company, or association, is a mere holding company, or that the gains and
profits are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the
business shall be prima facie evidence of a fraudulent purpose to escape
such tax; but the fact that the gains and profits are in any case per-
mitted to accumulate and become surplus shall not be construed as
evidence of a purpose to escape the said tax in such case unless the
Secretary of the Treasury shall certify that in his opinion such accumu-
lation is unreasonable for the purposes of the business. When re-
quested by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or any district col-
lector of internal revenue, such corporation, joint-stock company, or
association shall forward to him a correct statement of such profits
and the names of the individuals who would be entitled to the same if
distributed.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...omeTax1913.pdf

You Turner Diary reading mother ****ers are going to pay for your treason I swear to god. Nex ut tyrannus licentia vel nex, pax Americana now, Pax Americana tomorrow, and Pax Americana forever.

 

[Pull My Finger]

You Turner Diary reading mother ****ers are going to pay for your treason I swear to god. Nex ut tyrannus licentia vel nex, pax Americana now, Pax Americana tomorrow, and Pax Americana forever.

Relax. Go have a cream soda or something...:2wave:

 

[Narph]

Right here buddy:

QUESTION: What do you think a Statute is?

QUESTION: What do you think a Federal Regulation is?

FACT: What you posted is not either.

Here is a link to Federal Code where the actual statutes or law is found.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html

Here is a link to Federal Regulations Pertaining to Title 26 this is where the law is explained.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200626

Now if you can find in there where it says that wages in the fifty states can be taxed than you can get the fifty thousand.
Here is vidoe that will save you a lot of time.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023&q=theft+by+deception

Also your link is not working.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

QUESTION: What do you think a Statute is?

It's a law passed by the Congress and ratified by the President of the United States.

FACT: What you posted is not either.

FACT: You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about it is called the revenue act of 1913 it is statutory passed by the congress known legally as:

ch. 16, 38 Stat. 116, the house passed it 281 to 139, the Senate 44 to 37, and was then signed into law by Woodrow Wilson on October 3, 1913.

Revenue Act of 1913 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if you can find in there where it says that wages in the fifty states can be taxed than you can get the fifty thousand.

Again right here:

SECTION II.
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected
and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing
from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the
United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every per-
son residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax
of 1 per centum per annum upon such income, except as hereinafter
provided; and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid
annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of
every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by
persons residing elsewhere.

Now where's my 50 grand?

And it's a link to a PDF here's the link to the HTML:

1913 Income Tax Act

 

[Pull My Finger]

FACT: You don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about

You should really watch the documentary he gave you a link for before claiming he doesn't have a clue. It makes you look.... ..... ..... angry.

Now where's my 50 grand?

Like I said earlier, send in your proof. It's a quick email to these guys. Nobody here can give you the 50 g's so you're barking up the wrong tree. Send in your proof. Let us know what they say.
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org
Have you gone into your IRS office yet and asked for the statute that specifically outlines the average American's obligation to pay income tax?

Peace

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You should really watch the documentary he gave you a link for before claiming he doesn't have a clue.

He just claimed that the Revenue Act was not statutory law, he doesn't have a ****ing clue.


http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/

Have you gone into your IRS office yet and asked for the statute that specifically outlines the average American's obligation to pay income tax?

Why should I? I found it in two seconds looking online.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Like I said earlier, send in your proof. It's a quick email to these guys. Nobody here can give you the 50 g's so you're barking up the wrong tree. Send in your proof. Let us know what they say.
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org

Oh I got this guy by the balls, if he doesn't pay up I'm going to sue his *** his contest actually states that I must do the following:


1) show how to file a federal income tax return without waiving one's 5th amendment rights, and
2) identify what statute in the Internal Revenue Code makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.

1) The court ruled in U.S. V. Sullivan and Garner V. U.S. that you may substitute the term "5th amendment" in place of an item in your tax return.
2) The 1913 revenue act.