Quatloos is a Marxist Front!

[Prof]

LMAO!!!...Sometimes you folks are better, and cheaper, than our local comedy club!!!!

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

The law can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large in Volume 100, starting on page 2085. Various amendments to that law can be found in later volumes. However, to make it easier, the law can be read in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Title 26 establishes prima facie the law. In short, § 6011 and § 6012 require a person to make a return, using the forms prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, if that person has gross income that exceeds the exemption amount.

I want the law, written and passed by Congress that SPECIFICALLY states that I am required, by Federal Law, to file US Form 1040.

Filing form 1040 is a very specific act. I want the specific law that requires doing this very specific act.

So, some of the motley crew are branding me a "criminal" for not filing for 1040....lol

Remember now, a 1040 is signed under "penalties of perjury". So, according to the logic of the status quo in here, I am a "criminal" for not voluntarily giving the federal government information they can use to against me criminally?

Some of you (and not necessarily you Operative,) are a truly twisted bunch. Some of you definitely have a slaves mentality.

"Beam me up Scott, there's no intelligent life down here."

So, if you're so smart, why are you arguing about these issues on a public forum?

You should just QUIETLY continue to ignore the IRC, the judicial decisions interpreting it, the prison sentences of folks like Shiff and Brown. Maybe no one will catch you and challenge your beliefs. If you are caught and challenged, you certainly know by now that your arguments don't work (even if you believe that the Courts are corrupt, you know that the arguments don't work). So, your best course of action is to keep your head down and not draw attention to yourself.

By the way, your boring repetition of arguments that have been raised and rebutted in every federal court (including the Supreme Court of the US, at least by denial of cert. if not expressly) is just that, boring.

And, if you think taxation is slavery, find some place where anarchy is the government model and move there. Governments require taxes -- on income directly or indirectly on other income streams -- in order to provide basic governmental services. Only places without government have no taxes. But, if you can find such a place, move there. Otherwise, in this country, you are nothing but a freeloader. You are also a boring and silly freeloader.

[Nikki]

It is my right to be presented with the law i am being required to follow. Period.

Oh really?

Based on what?

Do you have anytrhing to support that statement that you have that specific right?

If so, please provide a citation. If not, please admit that you made it up.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

This is the kind of crapola we've been talking about. Actually, there is a specific set of statutes and regulations that leads inexorably to the legal result that you are required to specifically file Form 1040 (or a form in that series, such as 1040A or 1040EZ). I can provide those to you later. So, you lose on that point. There actually is a specific law (it's a regulation, combined with various statutes) that literally says, Form "1040." You backed yourself into a corner on that point.

There is a problem with your logic, though, my friend. Your logic is essentially: Unless there is a specific statute or regulation that says "1040," I am not required to file that form. And, of course, that is nonsense. That's what I call an "imaginary rule." Tax protesters are full of these kinds of imaginary rules of law.

hAha...Remember now, a 1040 is signed under "penalties of perjury". So, according to the logic of the status quo in here, I am a "criminal" for not voluntarily giving the federal government information they can use to against me criminally?

I cannot be "required by law" to give the feds info they can use to criminally prosecute me, per the 5th Amendment.

So ace, how do I file Form 1040 without giving the gov;t info they can use against me criminally?

I eagerly await your answer....

[Duke2Earl]

You better keep laughing. My case is made. Not only are you criminal but you are a dumb criminal to boot. Do you actually believe that complete nonsense would impress anyone? But of course you do. You really are that dumb. Good luck, you are going to need it,

[GoldandSilverEagles]

So, if you're so smart, why are you arguing about these issues on a public forum?

You should just QUIETLY continue to ignore the IRC, the judicial decisions interpreting it, the prison sentences of folks like Shiff and Brown. Maybe no one will catch you and challenge your beliefs. If you are caught and challenged, you certainly know by now that your arguments don't work (even if you believe that the Courts are corrupt, you know that the arguments don't work). So, your best course of action is to keep your head down and not draw attention to yourself.

By the way, your boring repetition of arguments that have been raised and rebutted in every federal court (including the Supreme Court of the US, at least by denial of cert. if not expressly) is just that, boring.

And, if you think taxation is slavery, find some place where anarchy is the government model and move there. Governments require taxes -- on income directly or indirectly on other income streams -- in order to provide basic governmental services. Only places without government have no taxes. But, if you can find such a place, move there. Otherwise, in this country, you are nothing but a freeloader. You are also a boring and silly freeloader.

Nor do I ask for any government benefits to free-load off of.

I am quite capable of taking care of myself without asking the feds to wipe my @ss, thank you very much.

i have no problem paying all taxes I am required by law to pay.

[Famspear]

"Show me the law, show me the law."

YOUR DAMN RIGHT!

Why don't you ask Edward Lewis Brown to show you the law.

Nobody is required to "show you the law," pal. You are already aware that the law exists.

Wrong! No one has ever shown it to me, pal.

Contrary to what you people seem to think, there is absolutely no legal requirement that you be shown the law in order for you to be legally required to file a Form 1040 for a tax year in which your gross income exceeds the applicable amount prescribed under the statute and related administrative pronouncements.

You must be an irs agent? Am I right? You sound like irs agents I've dealt with in the past.

If your gonna claim I am required to file 1040, per law, then you'd better be damn well prepared to show me the law you are claiming I have to follow, if and when I DEMAND to see it.

It is my right to be presented with the law i am being required to follow. Period.

Wrong again, pal. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANYONE SHOW YOU THE LAW. You are AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE LAW.

You can legally be found guilty of any federal tax crime without having been "shown the law" as long as you are AWARE THAT THE LAW EXISTS. The very fact that you are posting in this Quatloos forum could be used as evidence AGAINST YOU in a criminal case on the point that you are AWARE of the existence of the law.

The point is that all this is being provided to you as a courtesy. If you are indicted for a federal tax crime and you argue that you did not voluntarily, intentionally violate a "known legal duty," because no one ever cited the specific statute and regulation sections to you, the jury can still legally find you guilty EVEN IF NO ONE EVER PROVIDED YOU WITH A CITATION. The law does not require that you be "aware" of the specific code or regulation; the law only requires that you be aware of the EXISTENCE of your duty.

Further, your "actual belief" that you do not have that duty is not necessarily a defense, under the Cheek doctrine. A jury could legally find you guilty if your "belief" is not an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused the complexity of the tax law.

Now, as long as you asked: The specific law that requires that you use Form 1040, etc., is actually in a Treasury regulation (not a statute). And yes, regulations are also "laws." The regulation is 26 C.F.R. sec. 1-6012-1(a)(6). That's not the ONLY provision that you have to read to -- there are lots of statutory provisions as well. But that's the one that mentions the "1040."


EDIT:

Now, for an example of someone who tried to make this kind of stupid argument in court -- in this case, the argument that the taxpayer may not be penalized for tax evasion unless the taxpayer knows that section 7201 is the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code that criminalizes the conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has rejected this argument as frivolous, and has stated:

[ . . . ] a person may be convicted of tax offenses only if he knows that the [Internal Revenue] Code requires him to pay. The jury was so instructed, and its verdict shows that it found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Patridge [the taxpayer] knew that he had to pay taxes on what he made from his business. It is scarcely possible to imagine otherwise: the system of offshore trusts, and the fictive "loans," show that Patridge was trying to hide income that he knew to be taxable. Why else all this folderol? Yet Patridge, in common with many other people who know what the law requires, could not say just which provisions of the Code make income taxable and prevent evasion. For that matter, many tax lawyers (and most judges) could not rattle off the citations without glancing at a book. This shortcoming of memory (perhaps, for Patridge, a deliberate avoidance of knowledge) prevents criminal punishment, [the lawyer for Patridge] insists.

But why would this be so? No statute says it; no opinion holds it. [ . . . Section] 7201 makes only "willful" tax evasion criminal. An act is willful for the purpose of tax law [ . . . ] when the taxpayer knows what the Code requires[,] yet sets out to foil the system. Knowledge of the law's demands does not depend on knowing the citation[,] any more than ability to watch a program on TV depends on knowing the frequency on which the signal is broadcast.

United States v. Patridge, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,806 (7th Cir. 2007).

[Nikki]

Oh joy

No new election will be needed after all.

[Duke2Earl]

No, I'm not going to give you cites. If you were truly interested in that you could find them yourself easily. But I am going to give some better advice than you deserve. You do have a right to remain silent. If you had even a quarter of a brain you would use that right. If you had any brain at all you would realize that your only chance is to stay under the radar and hope that squashing you like a bug is more trouble than it's worth. But of course, you aren't that smart. Rather you go on internet sites and freely admit your guilt of federal crimes. Really smart move. Good luck with that.

[The Operative]

LMAO!!!...Sometimes you folks are better, and cheaper, than our local comedy club!!!!

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

The law can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large in Volume 100, starting on page 2085. Various amendments to that law can be found in later volumes. However, to make it easier, the law can be read in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Title 26 establishes prima facie the law. In short, § 6011 and § 6012 require a person to make a return, using the forms prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, if that person has gross income that exceeds the exemption amount.

I want the law, written and passed by Congress that SPECIFICALLY states that I am required, by Federal Law, to file US Form 1040.

Filing form 1040 is a very specific act. I want the specific law that requires doing this very specific act.

See, this is exactly why we denigrate tax protesters. The law passed by Congress as the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is located in the U.S. Statutes at Large. It begins exactly where I said it does. Title 26 of the U.S. Code is treated as evidence of that public law until someone convinces a court that Title 26 does not accurately reflect the collection of income tax acts passed by Congress.

§ 6012 states "[r]eturns with respect to income taxes ... shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount ..."

§ 6011 states "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary."

Treasury Regulations, Subchapter F, Sec. 301.6011-1 states "(b) The Internal Revenue Service may prescribe in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance the information or documentation required to be included with any return or any statement required to be made or other document required to be furnished under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations."

There you have it ... the law says if a person has gross income that exceeds the exemption amount, that person has to file a return. The law also says the Secretary of the Treasury can prescribe the forms used to file a return. Using that authority, the Secretary has established regulations delegating that authority to the IRS and the IRS created the 1040 and other related forms and the instructions so people may file those required returns.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Wrong again, pal. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANYONE SHOW YOU THE LAW. You are AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE LAW.

That's a mighty arrogant statement to make, and it contains a major flaw.

How can I sign under "penalties of perjury", and file a document that I (supposedly) believe I am required by law to file, ...IF.... I've never seen said law?

I have never seen any law requiring me to file form 1040.

[Famspear]

Wrong again, pal. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANYONE SHOW YOU THE LAW. You are AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE LAW.

That's a mighty arrogant statement to make, and it contains a major flaw.

How can I sign under "penalties of perjury", and file a document that I (supposedly) believe I am required by law to file, ...IF.... I've never seen said law?

I have never seen any law requiring me to file form 1040.

No, it's not an arrogant statement. And it contains no "flaw." It's the law.

Didn't you read what we wrote? You don't need to have SEEN THE LAW to be AWARE of the existence of the law. There is no law that says you have to have SEEN THE LAW in order to be AWARE of the law. Are you this dense -- so dense that you cannot tell the difference between "seeing" the law and being "aware" of the law?

You tax protesters are constantly making up your own imaginary rules. Well, guess what, pal.... The law doesn't care. The court does not care. The jury probably will not care either.

[Famspear]

When I read these kinds of stupid tax protester arguments -- like the argument that you cannot be guilty of violating a law unless you have actually "seen" the actual statute or regulation -- I am reminded of something I once read about the law on the automatic stay in bankruptcy.

Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a penalty can be imposed on a person for a willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 USC 362. Essentially, this means that if you are AWARE of the bankruptcy and you engage in certain prohibited attempts to collect a debt owed by the debtor (without first obtaining relief or permission from the court), you have acted willfully -- even if you had no formal notice of the bankruptcy.

In other words, if a drunken person on the street tells you that the company has filed bankruptcy -- and you attempt to collect the debt in violation of the automatic stay (without getting permission from the court), you have WILLFULLY violated the stay, even though you honestly believed that the drunken person was unreliable, even if you honestly believed the information the drunk gave you was incorrect. There is no requirement that you have been shown any official papers or notices in order for you to be AWARE of the bankruptcy.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

See, this is exactly why we denigrate tax protesters. The law passed by Congress as the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is located in the U.S. Statutes at Large. It begins exactly where I said it does. Title 26 of the U.S. Code is treated as evidence of that public law until someone convinces a court that Title 26 does not accurately reflect the collection of income tax acts passed by Congress.

§ 6012 states "[r]eturns with respect to income taxes ... shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount ..."

§ 6011 states "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary."

Treasury Regulations, Subchapter F, Sec. 301.6011-1 states "(b) The Internal Revenue Service may prescribe in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance the information or documentation required to be included with any return or any statement required to be made or other document required to be furnished under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations."

There you have it ... the law says if a person has gross income that exceeds the exemption amount, that person has to file a return. The law also says the Secretary of the Treasury can prescribe the forms used to file a return. Using that authority, the Secretary has established regulations delegating that authority to the IRS and the IRS created the 1040 and other related forms and the instructions so people may file those required returns.

Alright Mr. "Operative", tell me this:
How can I be required by law to sign and file a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g with the US Federal government that can be used to prosecute me criminally?

[Brandybuck]

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

It took me all of thirty seconds to find the law online that requires me to file a tax return. What's your problem, no one ever bother to show you how Google works?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

No, it doesn't state "Form 1040" precisely, but so what? Since you are very clearly required to file, what form are you using instead? Plain paper? Electronic?

[Famspear]

Dear Gold and Silver:

As you can see, a variation on your argument that you have some sort of right to be "shown the law" -- the actual citation to the actual statute or regulation -- has been ruled to be a legally frivolous argument. That means that if you ever try to raise that argument in a federal tax case involving your own tax liabilities, you could have monetary penalties imposed on you for even trying to raise the argument. That's how stupid the argument is.

You, like many of your ilk, simply read tax protester literature on the internet and then repeat it. Your tripe is full of these kinds of imaginary "rules" that you people make up all the time: there must be some law somewhere that says that I cannot be held responsible unless someone "shows me the law." These imaginary rules exist only in your mind, and in the minds of others like you.

Oh, but you want "respect" for your own "POV," as I believe you put it.

And my question to you is: Why do you think others should "respect" your point of view? All you're doing is making up your own imaginary rules about what you THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE, and then falsely claiming that your imaginary "rules" are somehow part of the law. They're not. And that is not honesty on your part. So why do you think that others should respect your point of view?

[GoldandSilverEagles]

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

It took me all of thirty seconds to find the law online that requires me to file a tax return. What's your problem, no one ever bother to show you how Google works?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

No, it doesn't state "Form 1040" precisely, but so what? Since you are very clearly required to file, what form are you using instead? Plain paper? Electronic?

Please answer my reply to Operative which is directly above your post.

[The Operative]

Alright Mr. "Operative", tell me this:
How can I be required by law to sign and file a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g with the US Federal government that can be used to prosecute me criminally?

The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a person's right against self-incrimination. The requirement to file an income tax return does not violate the 5th amendment.

[Famspear]

Alright Mr. "Operative", tell me this:
How can I be required by law to sign and file a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g with the US Federal government that can be used to prosecute me criminally?

The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a person's right against self-incrimination. The requirement to file an income tax return does not violate the 5th amendment.

Gold, lots of people have tried to make your argument.

THINK, fella. T-H-I-N-K.

Think about what you are saying.

You obviously have never read the United States Supreme Court decision in the Garner case or, if you did, you've forgotten it.

[Famspear]

If I am in fact breaking the law, as you claim, then please show me the law, that Congress wrote, showing clearly that I am required by law to file a 1040..

It took me all of thirty seconds to find the law online that requires me to file a tax return. What's your problem, no one ever bother to show you how Google works?

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

No, it doesn't state "Form 1040" precisely, but so what? Since you are very clearly required to file, what form are you using instead? Plain paper? Electronic?

Please answer my reply to Operative which is directly above your post.

You've already received your answer. The statutes and regs have been cited to you. The regs even specifically use the term: form "1040."

Gold, if you want respect, you are going to have to start acting in a way that justifies respect.

[Famspear]

From "another place on the internet":

In some cases, individuals may be legally required to file reports that call for information that may be used against them in criminal cases. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a taxpayer could not invoke the Fifth Amendment's protections as the basis for refusing to file a required federal income tax return. The Court stated: "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making[,] he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld."

In Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) the defendant was convicted in connection with a conspiracy to fix sporting contests and to transmit illegal bets. During the trial the prosecutor introduced, as evidence, the taxpayer's Federal income tax returns for various years. In one return the taxpayer had showed his occupation to be “professional gambler.” In various returns the taxpayer had reported income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution used this to help contradict the taxpayer's argument that his involvement was innocent. The taxpayer tried unsuccessfully to keep the prosecutor from introducing the tax returns as evidence, arguing that since the taxpayer was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, he was being compelled to be a witness against himself. The Supreme Court agreed that he was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns, but ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination still did not apply. The Court stated that "if a witness under compulsion to testify makes disclosures instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself."

''Sullivan'' and ''Garner'' are viewed by some legal scholars as standing, in tandem, for the proposition that on a required Federal income tax return a taxpayer would probably have to report the amount of the illegal income, but might validly claim the privilege by labeling the item "Fifth Amendment" (instead of "illegal gambling income," "illegal drug sales," etc.).

EDIT: In other words, Gold, if you're worried that you might incriminate yourself on a federal income tax return, that's not a legally valid excuse for not filing the return, or for lying on the return. If you earned $100,000 in illegal drug sales, simply report the income and label it "FIFTH AMENDMENT."