I’m paying income taxes, and will keep doing so. Rose does seem like a nutcase, but there are slicker presentations than Rose’s which I’ve blundered into. It doesn’t seem like you’ve answered John’s points, just rehashed what anyone can get from the IRS. Maybe you can shed some light here.

1) Is the TC just administrative? Meaning it does not have authority to define or interpret the law?

2) If that’s the case, then your left with Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States, which is about taxation on insurance bought by Canadians, and does not directly address 861, nor does it seem 861 was an argument of the plaintiff. I’ve been looking for a DIRECT argument against this application in court cases, but I just don’t see it.

3) Is there any court case that actually establishes the 861 as frivolous directly? Every one I’ve looked up is either about another (truly frivolous) issue, or doing a circular reference to other court cases that do the same. You might point to Rose’s, but given his uber-Gabbyness, I’m going to have to write that one off.

There it is in its entirety.

You stated,

“The defendants were acquitted because the juries found that the facts presented did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was violated.”

The law was not violated? These individuals did not pay or file tax returns. And they admitted it! And the “juries found that the facts presented did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was violated?” It sounds like you have just admitted that these juries could not find a law that made these “tax protesters” liable to pay and file income taxes.

You stated,

“Juries find facts, they do NOT define or interpret the law.”

Well you’re wrong again as these following cases prove:

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
John Jay, 1st CHIEF JUSTICE U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”
Harlan F. Stone, 12th CHIEF JUSTICE U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge . . . ”
U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139. (1972)

As you stated,

“This will be my last response to you. If you don’t get it by now, you never will.”

I can see why you made such a statement, you have been wrong in your rendering of law.

If you don’t know, the case against Tommy Cryer was the government against a lawyer. I guess Mr. Cryer, an attorney really did not know what he as taking about.

Well it was great talking with you. Keep the fraud alive

The cases you cited were jury cases.

The defendants were acquitted because the juries found that the facts presented did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was violated.

Juries find facts, they do NOT define or interpret the law.

A jury acquitted O.J . of double murder.

Using your “logic, that would mean it’s legal to kill your wife.

This will be my last response to you.

If you don’t get it by now, you never will.

I could write a two volume treatise on this stuff but what would be the point?

You’d still claim that there is no law authorizing the income tax.

Did you ever stop to think that Congress could pass such a law tomorrow if they so choose?

The reason they don’t do it is because its not necessary. The law is on the books and the Courts have upheld it . . . repeatedly, over and over again, ad nauseum.

Also, please tell me why thousands of tax attorneys, tax CPAs, tax judges, Congressional tax writers and intelligent financiers continue to pay income taxes if the income tax was clearly “illegal?’

Oh, that’s right, we are all part of the conspiracy.

Come on, man.

Do yourself a very big favor and run away from this tax protester claptrap like Usain Bolt being chased by a Cheetah.

People have tried this for decades and it hasn’t made even a dent in our tax system.

You’re gonna find yourself rooming with Wesley Snipes you keep this up.

Well those cases are from the US Tax Court which is not a court of law, its an administration court. Lets get some real cases like

U.S. v. Vernice Kuglin
U.S. v. Joesph Banister
U.S. V. Robert Lawrence
U.S. v. Tommy Cryer
U.s. v. Robert Kahre

All were charged with income tax evasions, failure to file and pay and all were acquitted because the government could not prove it case against these individuals. The DOJ attorney’s could not should the law that made these individuals “liable” nor could they disprove or refute anything about Section 861 that it should not be used by citizens living and working in the United States.

This destroys your position of,

“It is an old tax protester trick (conspiracy theorists use it, too) to perpetually raise new questions after the old ones have been answered.”

And your statement:
“The courts have repeatedly cited the law that imposes an income tax on U.S. Residents”

Well the government just could not find those “repeatedly cited laws.”

Your using of the following regulation is not law:

“Treasury Regulation § 1.1- 1(b) states that, “[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.”

Were the Secretary of the Treasury is nowhere conferred the authority to legislate or make law or exceed the scope of the statute at 26 U.S.C. §1 that imposes the tax:

“When enacting §7206(1) Congress undoubtedly knew that the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, so long as they carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statutes. Such regulations have the force of law. The Secretary, however, does not have the power to make law, Dixon v. United States, supra.” [United States v. Levy, 533 F.2d 969 (1976)]

So I guess the same say can be said of the government and lawyers as, It is an old government trick to tell individuals that this is “frivolous” and “without legal merit” to believe that you are not liable or that you can look at Section 861.

The answer to your questions can be found in my post, in the links I included therein and in the myriad court opinions on the subject.

It is an old tax protester trick (conspiracy theorists use it, too) to perpetually raise new questions after the old ones have been answered.

The courts have repeatedly cited the law that imposes an income tax on U.S. residents.

In fact, they have probably cited it as much or more than any other law they have ever cited.

READ THE CASES!

The search of various words such as “liable,” came up with “zero” applications to citizen’s living and working in the United States. In other words, we could not find a law, which we would be “liable” for such taxes. Even though the Government has repeatedly told us that everyone is “liable” for income taxes. Yet, the government has, just like the search of the USC, never cited the law that makes citizens living and working in the United States “liable” for any such taxes. And again, the government tells us that it is “frivolous” and “without legal merit” when we ask for a citations that they and the United States Code cannot display.

And as for Section 861– do the same search for “taxable income” sources, gross income and such and it leads to Section 861 and nowhere else. Yet the courts say it is “frivolous” and “without legal merit” to use these sections? Why? If the USC leads us here?