Reply:

Mr. ____________,

The Internal Revenue Code, codified as part of the United States Code, is the law. It was written by Congress, not by the IRS. It is not "internal" to the IRS. For a detailed explanation of this point, please see here.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. Two points:

1. If you read Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution, you will see that it applies only to the states, not to the federal government. The states are forbidden from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, but the federal government is not subject to that restriction.

2. If you really believe that the worth of your money is a negative, the solution is simple: send it to me. I will be happy to accept all of your money. According to your view of things (under which money is a negative), you will be better off if you send your money to me.

If you don't send your money to me (and I am guessing you won't), that proves that you regard your money as a positive, not a negative.

Reply:

____, thanks for your message.

First of all, I have the highest respect for your military service. Thank you for serving our country.

I don't know where you got the figure of 67 million people not paying taxes, but please remember that many people are not legally required to file a return or pay taxes. The most common reason would be that a person does not have enough income to be required to file. For example, most children up to the age of about 16 would not have enough income to be required to file a return. So that by itself accounts for tens of millions of Americans not filing returns.

Please let me assure you that I have not posted the information on my website in order to defend the legal profession. I have posted this information because I want people to be able to see the laws that require most Americans to file income tax returns and pay taxes. There is a lot of false information out there on this subject. Many people are claiming that there is no law requiring Americans to pay taxes and they constantly ask "Where is the law? Show me the law!" So I am showing the law.

I am not claiming that everything the government does is fair and square. Far from it. I agree that the government does some bad things. But lying about the law that requires people to pay income taxes is not one of them. I know this because I have personally looked up the law.

I don't know if you had a chance to review this page on my website, but please take a look at it.

This page explains why you can trust this information and why I feel confident about it.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. The Internal Revenue Code is proper authority because it is U.S. law, having been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Of course such law, to be valid, must also be constitutional. I address a couple of constitutional arguments about the income tax here:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16th.htm
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm

You appear to believe that the income tax laws are unconstitutional, but you do not say why. Therefore, I can do no more than refer you to the above pages. You might also check this web page by Dan Evans, who addresses additional constitutional arguments:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. It sounds like your friend is right in the "target market" for my website. I'm glad it helped keep her away from trouble.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks very much for your message. If my website can help members of your congregation avoid getting into trouble with tax protestor arguments, then it will have served its purpose.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I am glad the web pages were useful to you.

Given your views, perhaps you should join those who are agitating for repeal of the income tax? It's a big task, to be sure, but there's already a movement for it. Perhaps you know that Ron Paul, who is running for President, supports repeal.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

_____, Thanks for your message. Yes, I do think jail is an appropriate penalty for failure to pay taxes in some cases. Here are some reasons:

1. The vast majority of tax cases are pursued as civil or administrative matters. There are literally millions of civil tax penalties every year, and hundreds of thousands of tax liens and levies, but only two or three thousand criminal tax prosecutions. You can see the statistics here.

This is because, as a matter of policy, the government reserves criminal prosecution for serious cases. I'm not claiming that the IRS implements this policy perfectly -- I'm sure it makes inappropriate decisions sometimes -- but that is the general rule.

2. Criminal prosecution requires the government to show that the defendant knew he or she was required to pay taxes and wilfully failed to do so. So we're not talking about people who just made an honest mistake on their tax return. Again, this means that criminal tax prosecutions are for serious cases.

3. Millions of taxpayers (including myself) honestly pay the taxes they owe every year. If people deliberately fail to pay their taxes, it hurts honest taxpayers. That is wrong.

4. There has to be some serious deterrent to failing to pay income tax. The IRS has to enforce the tax laws with regard to hundreds of millions of people. The odds that the IRS will catch those who cheat are often low in an individual case, particularly with regard to income that is not independently reported (such as the income of the self-employed). If people were only subject to paying the taxes owed plus interest and penalties, I don't think that would be a sufficient deterrent and there would be a lot more noncompliance than there is. The possibility of a jail sentence is needed to give people a real incentive to pay their taxes.

So yes, I think jail is appropriate in some cases.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Remember, it is up to the government to prove to the jury that the defendant did believe that he had an obligation to pay income tax. If the defendant truly doesn't believe he has to pay, failure to pay is not a crime. The defendant still owes the money (including interest and penalties), but is not subject to criminal punishment.

So how can people such as Ed Brown and Irwin Schiff be convicted, when they believe there is no income tax law? The answer is that the government proved, to the jury's satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brown and Schiff know that there is a law requiring them to pay taxes. The jury must have concluded that Brown and Schiff and similar people are lying when they say they believe they don't have to pay taxes.

I have no idea what really goes on inside the heads of Brown, Schiff, and like-minded others. I wasn't at their trials and I don't know what evidence the government presented. But, under the law, that evidence must have been sufficient to convince the jury that the defendants in fact knew they had to pay income taxes, and that their claims that they believe that they don't have to are lies.

>> Oh, and one more thing. Do you believe that there
>> is such a thing as jury nullification which includes
>> the power of a jury to judge both the facts of a
>> case and the law itself that is in question?
>

In a criminal case, there is no doubt that the jury has the power to engage in nullification by returning a not guilty verdict. Whether juries should do so is a more complex question.

Jon Siegel

This is indeed the crux of the matter, is it not?

Are you aware of a case or cases where the jury has been presented the evidence that people claim to have about the ratification of the 16th amendment, the so-called 861 evidence, and all other theories a man wishes to present? (Surely only a tyrant would determine a given defense "frivolous" if it had never yet been heard by a jury.)

This is what I am most interested in finding out. Has the law actually been put on trial, or is it really like Mr. Russo, Mr. Brown, Mr. Shiff et al allege, where the judges systematically deny these defendants their rights to put the law on trial for judgment by a jury of their peers?

Thanks again, you've been very helpful.

Reply:

Your point is well taken, and I don't really know the full answer. But I can say this:

1. It is not up to the jury to decide what the law is. The judge decides whether the law requires people to pay taxes, and of course all the judges decide that it does, because that is the correct answer. So in this sense "the law" is never put on trial.

2. The jury does decide whether the defendant in a criminal tax case believed that he was obliged to pay taxes. As you say, in order for the jury to make this decision, it would need to have an understanding of the defendant's thinking and so would need some opportunity to hear the defendant's explanation of why he claims he believed there was no such obligation.

3. Tax protestor defendants frequently complain that the judge in their trial excluded all the evidence that would allow them to prove what they believed. I don't really know what happens. I heard from someone who claimed to be personally present at the trial of Larken Rose that Rose was "allowed to go through the entire 861 presentation, with all of the statutes and regulations he wanted." On the other hand, I have heard directly from Rose that Rose feels that the judge excluded all his evidence. So you see there are conflicting stories.

My best guess, based on my assessment of the reliability of the people involved, is that Rose was allowed to make a reasonably full presentation of his 861 argument, but he wasn't allowed to show his video version and wasn't allowed to put in every chart, diagram, and exhibit he wanted, and he has magnified this in his own mind into "the judge excluded everything."

But as I say, I don't really know.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. _____,

Thanks for your message. I never said your labor had no value. What I said is that, for tax purposes, the value is irrelevant. Please review this page:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/wages.htm

As the page explains, when you sell something, you normally have taxable income if the sale price exceeds your "basis" in the thing sold. But your basis has nothing to do with the value of the thing sold. It has to do with the cost to you of the thing sold.

If we were to apply this concept to the sale of labor (which the tax code isn't really set up to do), we would conclude that you should be able to deduct, from your wages or salary, the cost to you of your labor. But what is that? Did you ever pay anyone anything to own your labor? I certainly didn't and I expect that you didn't either. Therefore, your basis in your labor is zero.

That doesn't mean your labor has no value. It has value, but value is not the relevant figure.

Jon Siegel

sorry, i must be a strict constructionist or a semanticist - because i'm not still not buying it. and of course the anti-elitist in me resents being devalued.

fyi

Reply:

Mr. ______,

You're really not being devalued. Value is just not the relevant figure. Let me put it this way:

If you bought a diamond for $10,000 and sold it some years later for $15,000, your income would be $5,000. That's the $15,000 sale price minus your basis (cost) of $10,000.

But what if you found a diamond in the street and sold it for $15,000? How much income would you have? You didn't pay anything for the diamond. It had no cost to you. So your basis is zero. Therefore, the whole $15,000 sale price would be income, because you have no basis to deduct from it.

That doesn't mean the diamond is valueless! Obviously it is very valuable. But your basis is determined by cost, not value. The value of the thing sold is irrelevant.

The sale of labor is the same. You didn't pay anything to own your labor. Therefore your basis in it is zero. That doesn't mean it has no value. Like the diamond found in the street, it is valuable. But basis is determined by cost, not value.

It really has to be this way. If you deducted the value of the thing sold, you would never have any income from anything! In any normal, free market transaction, on the day you sell something, its value is equal to the sale price. So if you could deduct the value, your income would be zero. That can't be how it works. You deduct the cost, not the value.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. _____, the very case you cite, Brushaber, says:

"the [Sixteenth] Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided"

thus showing that Pollock is no longer good law. (p. 18)

The case also says, on the same page:

"the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. . . . in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."

So Congress may impose an income tax and the income tax is not subject to the requirement of apportionment.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I only wish I was collecting money from showing people the law! I'd be happy to pay tax on it. Maybe I could charge the IRS a cut of the tax it gets from people who pay up after reading my website . . . hmmm, unfortunately, not very likely.

Anyway, thanks again.

Just remember, the federal income tax is legal and backed by the Constitution. It's how it's being, and has been misapplied, by the IRS. I'm only sorry that you wasted a good education to become part of the matrix. I suppose you also believe that the Federal Reserve System is Constitutional also?

I'm currently listening your conversation with Larken Rose on Soapbox Radio. I can tell that you've been doing all of your research on the IRS website. You even copy and paste their section on Tax Protestor Myths into your website. This shows how little research you've done on your own account. Not sure if you're aware of the current situation with Tom Cryer, so I thought I'd supply this link for your educational enrichment.

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/#stake

I'm sure that even someone taking your position will agree that this is not just some tax evading kook. I would submit that he is far more qualified to address this issue than even you.

You're also quite naïve to believe that just because people like Larken have been put into prison, amounst others, that that in itself proves that there is a law. All this proves is that the notion that American's rights are being taken from them, and corruption in the government is destroying the Constitution, is a reality. If you truly believe that our government, especially our current administration, has never lied to the American people, you are in denial.

One other comment. I couldn't help notice in your discussion with Larken, you sounded quite condescending. As a person dedicated to education, I ask that you think outside of the conventional wisdom and use your OWN mind instead of relying on IRS propaganda, as well as what you've been taught in public schools since you started going to school. Just don't believe that slavery is a thing of the past, as it's still alive and well today.

Too bad. As to your other messages:

* There are many people who claim to be offering money for proving that the law requires people to pay income tax. But on close examination, these offers usually turn out to be bogus. Often they say that to win, you have to disprove something that is obviously true, such as that "under the Constitution, Congress passes the laws." With particular regard to Mr. Brown's offer, there are two problems -- first, you have to be the first to show him the law, and I presume someone else has already done so, and second, he says that the law can't be Title 26. Well, that is the law, so it is impossible to collect on his offer.

* I have not cut and pasted from the IRS website. Everything on my website is based on my original research. I have looked directly at the tax law itself and at the accompanying regulations.

Thanks again for your messages. I'm sorry that you couldn't just have been an honest person from the beginning and said what you actually believed, instead of starting off with sarcastic statements that are the opposite of what you believe.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. If, as you say, everything I say on my website is correct, then you do have income:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/wages.htm

The statement on your website that income "is the exercise of federal privilege, which is measured, for purposes of determining the tax, by the receipts brought in by that exercise" is contrary to section 61.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I really am a law professor and I never worked for the I.R.S., although I did work at the U.S. Department of Justice before I went into teaching.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code is law. The U.S. Code is a compilation of statutes passed by the United States Congress. Every section in Title 26 was passed by Congress as law.

Reply:

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 became law on October 22, 1986, by Congress's passage of Public Law 99-514. Some more information is available here.

The code has been amended many times since then, each time by law passed by Congress.

So the code really is law.

Reply:

But it's in the Statutes at Large. Volume 100, starting at page 2085. I'm looking at it right now. Public Law 99-514, "An Act To reform the internal revenue laws of the United States." Check it out for yourself.

Look, I'm sorry, but Congress really did pass this and it really is law. Why don't you try a different argument? There's no point arguing that Congress didn't pass something when it obviously did, as anyone can check by looking it up in the books.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. The tax code is a statute, or to be more precise, a set of statutes. The statutes were passed by the United States Congress. Congress chose the name "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" as the name for the set of statutes. So there is no distinction between the code and statutes. Please see this page for the particular statutes that require payment of income taxes.

I hope that helps. I can't comment on your argument regarding Supreme Court decisions because you don't specify which decision you have in mind.

Reply:

Thanks for your kind message. If you had friends trying to convince you that there is no law requiring payment of income taxes, you are right in the "target market" for my web page. I'm glad you found it to be helpful.

February 1, 2007:

Dear Mr. Siegel,

If I asked you to tell me how you liked the movie, The Grinch that Stole Christmas," and you told me it had a great ending. The Grinch turned nice and everybody was singing. That would not tell me very much and I would wonder if you really understood the meaning of the story.

That's about how your criticism of Aaron Russo's Freedom From Fascism sounded. I was sincerely looking for some good advice about what was claimed in that film, and to tell you the truth, after reading your criticism of it, and the page you made in regard to IRS tax code, I can only surmise that Aaron Russo is right on target. I noticed that you are a professor of law. I am wondering if you are differentiating between what is a code and what is a law. I am only a grandmother with a high school education, so I expect my email will probably mean even less than 25 minutes of that film, but I would really like to know if you have had a chance to watch the entire film yet. After examining the information you have laid out, I feel like you have really missed some major stuff.

I would appreciate seeing the actual law, not the "policies" or "codes" of an entity called the IRS. If you have the number of the law, I would like to see it, but only after you have viewed that incredibly important film at least twice... one time through the eyes of a skeptic, and a second time, through the eyes of an optimist... someone who might be thankful that we might actually be free of the bondage of the income tax after all. How wonderful that would be. Would it not? Whose side are you on?

Sincerely, ___________.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry I don't have time to view the whole film right now -- I have a lot of deadlines in my work. Perhaps I'll have time to get to it in a month or so and if I do I'll post a fuller review.

But in the meanwhile, you asked for "the number of the law." I presume you mean the law requiring payment of income taxes. The relevant laws, complete with numbers, can be found on my web page here:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

These really are laws -- they were passed by the Congress of the United States. They are not creations of the IRS. They are part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, because that's the name chosen by Congress for this set of laws.

Please take a look and see what you think. And congratulations on your grandchildren -- I'm sure they're wonderful.

Thank you very much for your prompt response. I certainly understand you must be very busy and appreciate that you have taken the time to respond to me. I will check back with you one of these days to see if you had had a chance to post another message on this after viewing the film. I will double check the site you referred me to as well. I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but it appears that you are saying that the code was created in 1986. I'll tell you I had been paying income taxes many years prior to that.

Well, I don't mean to open a can of worms when you are busy, so I will say I will get in touch with you one day in the future, and if you get any time to work on this, it would be appreciated as I am very interested in making sure I have my facts straight when I talk to people about such things.

Thank you, ________.

And I'll see what I can do about that film. Maybe check back April 15! That would be an appropriate day.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I think looking up the laws yourself is an excellent idea. One problem, though, is that looking up legal information can require some specialized training. It's not always so easy to find everything. But the laws themselves are the easiest part. If you have access to a law library, you should be able to find the laws themselves without too much trouble.

The laws themselves are part of the UNITED STATES CODE. It's published by the U.S. Government Printing Office. Just ask a librarian where the library keeps the United States Code, or, alternatively, a version called the "United States Code Annotated," which has the laws plus additional information such as notes of court decisions (that's published by West Group, a major legal publisher). Either version is a large, multi-volume set. The tax laws are in Title 26, which is basically the same as Volume 26. Within the volume, the laws are arranged by section number, so you can look up individual sections that are cited on my web page by number.

If you want to get really ambitious and look up cases cited on my web page, you can ask where the library keeps the "Federal Reporter." This is a little harder to use. Cases are cited by volume number and page. For example, my citation to "United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991)," means you need to find volume 941 and look for page 598 within that volume. But just to make it more complicated, note that "F.2d" means the Second Series of the Federal Reporter (there are three series of the Federal Reporter so far), so you need to find volume 941 in the Second Series.

Good luck. Please let me know whether you are able to find the tax laws and convince your friends -- I'd be interested to hear.

And by the way, I agree that government officials should courteously show the tax laws to anyone who asks to see them.

January 24, 2007:

I was reading your Income Tax page and I'm confused about one issue. On your page you said that the tax law says you're only required to pay federal income taxes if you're required to file a tax return, right? Well I heard that you don't have to file a tax return because it's a violation of the "paperwork reduction act". So if you're not required to file a tax return as per the paperwork reduction act, wouldn't that mean you don't have to pay federal income taxes as well?

Reply:

Thanks for your message. The problem with this theory is that the tax return requirement does not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act. I have to admit I've never investigated this argument in detail, because it seems too silly, but here's my understanding: the PRA provides that government forms that request information must bear a "control number" assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. If there's no OMB number, then you don't have to fill out the form. But Form 1040 does have an OMB number! It's right there in the upper-right-hand corner of Form 1040. Same for Form 1040-EZ and other IRS forms. So there's no violation of the PRA.

January 24, 2007:

In your correspondences about the income tax you stated...."Have you ever seen the actual laws that prohibit murder, robbery, or arson?"

I can say that YES I have seen these laws and are often cited in prosecution of these types of criminals.

I can also say that I have researched the tax code and cannot find the statute that puts the wages of any human being subject to a tax.

Your arguments are vague and convoluted to the point of not making any sense. There are several ex-IRS agents who are knowledgable of the law and they all state that there is no law.
There have been several court cases that have won by defendants who ask the question...show me the law. According to the US Supreme court, the 16th ammendment does not give the
government any new taxing authority.

All we as US citizens want is to be shown the law.

Reply:

Thanks for your message.

>In your correspondences about the income tax you stated...."Have you
>ever seen the actual laws that prohibit murder, robbery, or arson?"
>
>I can say that YES I have seen these laws and are often cited in
>prosecution of these types of criminals.

Really? What state are you from? Perhaps you could quote me the statutes the prohibit murder, robbery, and arson in your state. I would be interested to learn whether you have seen the actual statutes. If so, good for you, but I think you are in a very small minority.

>I can also say that I have researched the tax code and cannot find the
>statute that puts the wages of any human being subject to a tax.

Well, the statutes are right on my web page:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

Please take a look.

>Your arguments are vague and convoluted to the point of not making any
>sense.
>There are several ex-IRS agents who are knowledgable of the law and they
>all state that there is no law.
>There have been several court cases that have won by defendants who ask
>the question...show me the law.
>According to the US Supreme court, the 16th ammendment does not give the
>government any new taxing authority.

The 16th amendment did not give a new taxing authority, but it allowed the existing authority to be used to tax incomes, without regard to the previous requirement of apportionment.

>All we as US citizens want is to be shown the law.

Again, it's on my web page. See the link above.

[Note: No further word received yet from this correspondent.]

Nov. 21, 2006:

Hi, I just read your tax page and I am curious of your opinion. Have you seen Aaron Russo's film America, Freedom to Fascism? If so what are your thoughts? Are you still holding to what you state on that page?

Sincerely, _____.

Reply:

Thanks for your message -- it's always nice to hear from people who have read my web page.

I haven't had time to view the full Russo film that you called to my attention -- it's nearly two hours -- but I did watch the first 25 minutes or so, and here are my thoughts.

This film appears to consist of the usual wholly mistaken arguments. Most of the arguments I saw are already covered on my web page.

The film opens with a brief reference to the 16th Amendment argument. This is covered on my web page.

Then, in the part of the film I watched, Russo interviews ordinary people on the street and asks them if they have ever seen the actual law that requires them to pay taxes. They all say no (or don't answer).

Well, of course they haven't seen the income tax law. Most people are not lawyers. Most people have never seen any actual law. Most people wouldn't know where to look for any actual law even if they wanted to. And even most lawyers don't spend their time looking up the actual statutes that we all obey in our everyday lives.

Have you ever seen the actual laws that prohibit murder, robbery, or arson? I bet if you asked 100 random people whether they have ever seen these laws, at least 98 of them would say no. Does that mean that these laws don't exist? Does that mean it's a fraud to tell people that they can't murder each other or burn down buildings? Of course not. Whether ordinary people have seen the actual statutes about anything is irrelevant.

Russo interviews some former IRS agents who have joined the tax protestor movement. Any big government agency with tens of thousands of employees will at some point employ some foolish people. The fact that some former IRS agents are tax protestors is not persuasive.

Some of these former agents say that the IRS has "refused" to say which laws require people to pay taxes. Russo pursues this point at length, but it's false. The IRS has specified the relevant laws in its publication "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments." This publication can be viewed on the IRS website. Here's the URL:

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc139431515

If anyone wants more info on this point, it's available on numerous web pages, including mine.

It may be true that the IRS doesn't do as good a job as it should of responding to inquiries about this point. If I were in charge of the IRS I would certainly have a standard form answer that I sent to everyone who asked to see the laws that require payment of income taxes. Apparently, if the tax protestors are to be believed, the IRS doesn't do this. But the answer is on the agency's website for anyone to see.

Russo also shows some people making arguments that the income tax is a bad and unnecessary way for the government to raise money. These are policy arguments that have nothing to do with the legal question of whether current statutes require the payment of income taxes.

Finally, Russo shows interviews with people he refers to as the "tax experts." I didn't recognize everyone he showed, but he included Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff. Considering that they have both been criminally convicted of tax evasion, I think it's fair to say that they -- and by implication they other people that Russo interviews -- are not "tax experts." If Russo wants to interview some people who actually know something about the income tax code, there are professors available at every law school who would be happy to speak to him on camera -- heck, I'd be happy to do it myself.

That's as much of the film as I watched. Judging from the part I saw, the film appears to be a collection of the usual claptrap. If there's some specific argument later in the film that you think is compelling and is not covered on my web page, let me know.

Sept. 15, 2006:

Good day Prof. Siegel. My name is ____ _____. I am a 2L at St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami, Fl. and I am taking the time to write you concerning your website (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm) I would like to thank you for taking the time to explain this topic to the general public, as well as to a very grateful law school student. We have recently read Cheek v. United States in our Crim Law I section and I had serious questions about the authenticity about the requirments to pay income tax. As you point out, many websites and films (most notably Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism), make it appear as if our income tax system and the I.R.S. in general are a fraud committed upon the American people. As a law student, I felt it my obligation not to take the Prof's word for it and do my own research into the topic. At first, I must admit I bought into these arguments, since I was unable to locate a court decision stating that American's must pay an unapportioned tax on their labor (income tax.) Similarly, the arguments made by the 'anti-tax' crowd play upon the language of some Supreme Court decisions to make it appear as if the Court ruled that the 16th Amendment granted no new powers upon the Congress to tax the people. In a way, and please correct me if I am wrong, they are right. Those ruling did not per se grant Congress a new power to tax, but rather removed the requirement of apportionment, thereby allowing Congress to institute the 'income tax'. I wonder Prof., why these ex-IRS agents and the like have risked their careers and personal reputations whilst making these actively false and misleading statements to an otherwise unsuspecting population. In any event sir, please keep up the outstanding job, and thank you again. P.S. please forgive the informal nature of this communication. . . . my Legal Writing Prof. would KILL ME if she saw this thing!

Reply:

Thanks for your message -- it's always good to hear from people who have read the material on the website. I'm glad it was helpful. And you're right about the 16th Amendment -- as you say, it just removed the requirement of apportionment.

Sept. 6, 2006:

Greetings,

I'm a Clemson University economics student who recently stumbled into the Internet's vast resource of "income tax hoax/fraud" web sites while conducting research for a public sector class. Allow me to say first that I believe any proper form of protest would involve first paying my taxes, and then pursuing any questions of fact. I am dubious of all claims of any factual nature on the Internet. Nonetheless, I am curious as to the truth of two claims in particular, and I am hoping you can help clarify them:

1. The first is that the 16th amendment was falsely ratified. A gentlemen by the name of Bill Benson claims that he has investigated the records of state congresses and can show that the necessary 36 states (of 48 at the time) did not properly ratify the amendment. I would complete dismiss such a claim if it were not for the briefs on his site (http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com) that he claims to have filed in an attempt to establish the facts concerning ratification.

2. The second claim is that no agency, including the IRS, can coerce individuals to file information collection papers (such as the 1040) because the Paper Reduction Act requires all government forms to be issued a valid control number by the OMB. Apparently the IRS 1040 displays an invalid control number. (The source of this claim was a press release from http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm)

I apologize if these requests for clarification are redundant. I did my best to diligently look through your web site for any information on these claims but was not able to find anything.

Thanks very much in advance for your time,

_____ _____.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I will answer the question about the 16th Amendment on my webpage. It will take a week or so to prepare the answer. I'll let you know when it's posted.

The other question, I think, is not worth adding to the website. I haven't investigated the point thoroughly, but I believe the answer is simply that Form 1040 does have an OMB control number.

You might check out Dan Evans' income tax website, which addresses the question (although I can't vouch for his answers):

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Reply 2:

The answer to your 16th Amendment question is now posted.