Tyranny from the IRS

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Who cares if they are tax protesters? Government does not have the right to do what they are doing, especially to her in this case.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

They are tax protesters, so what? They see something is wrong and stand up to it and so what if they write books or whatever, this fight requires money and writing a book etc is a way to spread the message.

The bottom line is simple. They lied on the tax form. They claimed zero income, but they actually made considerably more than zero. That is indeed a crime.

The government is picking on them because of their views, especially the wife.She is refusing to sign a form because is saying it's not true, they are trying to force her, she is standing strong and the government hates it.

If she signs the form she's guilty of perjury, because she claimed zero income, which is a lie. The law requires that the form be signed. The law requires that if you are self-employed and make more than $400 you must file a return. She is in the process of breaking the law. How complicated is that?

I'm aware that the IRS has pulled some pretty shady stuff, and continues to do so. This may be one of those cases. It doesn't necessarily look like it though. Protesting a law is fine. Doing so by breaking it is not.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

An unjust law is no law at all.

So get it changed. I believe the Federal Income Tax to be an unjust law, but it's there and the only way to fix it is to get it repealed.

Everything aside, they are focusing on his wife not being reasonable because they want her in prison, to make a point, to show their power.This is tyranny, plain and simple.

That's possibly true. It's doubtful that it's the whole IRS doing it, simply because there would have to be a stated policy showing up somewhere, and sooner or later an IRS employee would expose it. More likely is that it's a self-important IRS official trying to prove something. More likely still is that these people are breaking the law, and the law must be enforced or else it's, as you say, no law at all.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by vienna

The real problem is people not knowing which fights to pick. If you defend a charlatan, you are not only perpetuating their fraud, you are damaging the very argument you wish to make. There are a great many other persons who are truly being persecuted by various government entities, but, unless some politacally or personal-gain motivated individual or group, say, like the Limbaughs and Sharptons of the world, rush to their "defense", no one ever really raise a hand to help them, unless it's something like the ACLU or other "liberal" group...

When I did my Google search, I just picked two out of the top five hits. I did skim over the others, but I felt those two were a good example of my point. They are not being persecuted because of their "outspoken opposition"; they plain and simple violated the law. As a "future barrister", you should understand the distinction. If you don't like the law change it or change those who make the law...

Additional problems arise from those who make broad, sweeping assertions without proper foundation, reasoning, or researched knowledge...

By the way, thank you for noting my wit. Jealous, much? I will see if there is a "witless protection" program avilable for you...


<O>

Who cares if they violated the law? The laws are unjust, an unjust law is no law at all.The government is picking on the wife now to prove a point, even the judge made a reasonable compromise but the government, in typical tyrannical fashion said no, because they want these people to suffer.

I looked them up and what I see are two people who have been fighting the good fight against an oppressive government.Writing a book etc is how you spread the word and so what if make some money off of it, it's needed to carry on this battle.

Yes, I realize you move to change the law or those who make them but it does not always work.How you change the law iswith a movement and if the law is so unjust, some may choose not to obey it in the meantime to draw attention to the subject.There is a lot of power behind keeping the 16th amendment as is and it's called the IRS.The IRS is a weapon that few in power would want to give up.

The woman owes them no money, she is simply refusing to sign a form and allow them to force her to submit to their will.This is tyrannical behavior would expect from Russia etc, not the US, but it is commonplace sadly.Thanks to people like you, who think it is acceptable.

FYI, the ACLU geneally only helps you if you are poor, non white, or fighting something religious, unless you are a muslim who tried to attack the US.

Jealous? lol right.No, just your "wit" is deflection, because you think trying to be sarcastic makes you funny and original, but it does not.You are just another hack trying to tow the government line because it makes you feel good about yourself.Also, it's personal because I made the post.Grow up, make an argument or SHUT UP. Personal insults, veiled or overt are not called for.

[vienna]

Pathetic, Bubbles, just plain pathetic...


<O>

[vienna]

FYI, the ACLU geneally only helps you if you are poor, non white, or fighting something religious, unless you are a muslim who tried to attack the US.

BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/cit...u-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by vienna

BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/cit...u-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>

Do you even live here? I have real world experience with the ACLU.Generally speaking, they only handle cases involving non whites etc Now, is that their official policy? No but is it generally what they do? Yes. Example, I once met with the local director in my home town who refused to lift a finger to help a white, middle class guy facing some issues with the local police.Maybe a year later, same type of case, it was all over local news, black client and ACLU was helping him.This repeats itself all over the country.Do they help white people sometimes? Yes but generally ? no, unless it has do with religion. Just how it is and is one reason that organization is so reviled by many.The name and it's purpose sounds great, but the left wing loons who run the show there have ruined it, then again if I recall the founder was a communist, so makes sense.Thin they would take up the case of a tax protester? Doubt it, unless they were black, but maybe not even then.

[vienna]

Still pathetic...


<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by vienna

BTW, re: the ACLU and who they defend:


https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/cit...u-amicus-brief

Research is a wonderful thing; try it sometimes - I promise it won't hurt...


<O>

Ok, so they got it right for once, but I will maintain my stance.That is what I said generally speaking, meaning they may get it right sometimes but like I mentioned in other post, they have an agenda and it does not always involve all citizens.

[Sailor Steve]

Too much excitement! Vienna, please tone down the sarcasm. It's not much better than out-and-out insult. Bubblehead, please don't get so wound up. You have to understand that while you may be right about this, you also be wrong.

[vienna]

Sorry Steve, will comply...


<O>

[vienna]

From a Google search (search term:"ACLU defend conservative"):

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/20...ter-their-guns

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/02/us...ted=all&src=pm

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...ervatives.html

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesau...#axzz2joAnNATh

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-con...ms-345008.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/21/us...ndictment.html


There are a whole lot more but I leave that to others to look up...


And this has been argued before - in 2006!:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222262



<O>

[TarJak]

Bubbles, what have you done about this injustice? Have you written to your congressman or senator to get the unjust law repealed? Have you made any attempt to assist the persecuted?

Posting a poorly researched rant on Subsim is the best way to get the law changed? Try doing something about it, if it is such a problem that gets up your nose so much.

[vienna]

^^^ What he said +1 ...


<O>

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Bubbles, what have you done about this injustice? Have you written to your congressman or senator to get the unjust law repealed? Have you made any attempt to assist the persecuted?

Posting a poorly researched rant on Subsim is the best way to get the law changed? Try doing something about the problem if it is such a problem that gets up your nose so much.

That's... that's actually a very good point.

[Bilge_Rat]

The guvernment's view...

MICHIGAN WOMAN ARRESTED FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

WASHINGTON – Doreen Hendrickson of Commerce Township, Mich., was arrested today following an indictment by a federal grand jury for criminal contempt, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced.

Hendrickson and her husband, Peter Hendrickson, filed tax returns for 2002 and 2003 on which they claimed more than $20,000 in fraudulent tax refunds. These returns were based on the frivolous argument set forth in Peter Hendrickson's book, Cracking the Code, that only federal, state and local government employees are liable for the payment of income taxes. In May 2007, as part of a lawsuit against the Hendricksons filed by the department's Tax Division, U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds in Detroit entered a permanent injunction that barred the Hendricksons from filing additional false tax returns. Judge Edmunds also ordered the Hendricksons to file amended 2002 and 2003 returns. According to the indictment, Doreen Hendrickson violated this injunction by failing to file amended 2002 and 2003 tax returns and by filing a false 2008 tax return that was based on the arguments in her husband's book.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

This case was investigated and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Melissa S. Siskind and Jeffrey B. Bender of the Tax Division, with the assistance of IRS-Criminal Investigation.

http://www.justice.gov/tax/2013/txdv13657.htm

nothing to see here folks, move along...

[Bilge_Rat]

the IRS view...

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

(...)

4. Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government.

This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities to withhold tax from “wages.” That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .” This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens. The IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743.
Relevant Case Law:

Montero v. Commissioner, 354 F. App’x 173 (5th Cir. 2009) – the court affirmed a $20,000 section 6673(a) penalty against the petitioner for advancing frivolous arguments that he is not an employee earning wages as defined by sections 3121 and 3401.
Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986) – the court imposed sanctions on the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal and rejected his attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating “to the extent [he] argues that he received no ‘wages’. . . because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) – calling the instructions the taxpayer wanted given to the jury “inane,” the court said, “[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

United States v. Hendrickson, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-5395, 2007 WL 2385071 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2007) – the court permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, who filed tax returns on which they falsely reported their income as zero, from filing tax returns and forms based on frivolous claims in Hendrickson’s book, “Cracking the Code,” that only federal, state, or local government workers are liable for federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal taxes.

Other Cases:
Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985); Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994).

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals...#_Toc350157899

This is not the first time the Hendricksons have been in Court on this issue.

Although I would agree that sending them to jail is a bit harsh. We also have tax protesters in Canada. The courts routinely reject their arguments, but Canada Revenue Agency is content just to enforce the tax assessments and collect the cash. Sending them to jail just creates martyrs to the cause.