Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Ferd, watch the vid. That will answer your question!  |
Originally Posted by Ferd
no, the legality of U. S. Income taxation.
Ferd, watch the vid. That will answer your question!
Actually the video made a false claim and proves you are wrong.
Read the tax laws,. We do not get law from youtube.
Are you going to read Cornell law review for truth? Tax law uses the eXpression Internal revenue code. It is legislation from congress.
“
Quote:
Secret” IRS Tax Liens You May Not Even Know About
Internal Revenue Code 6321 says an IRS tax lien is automatic, whenever the IRS decides you owe them money and you don't pay. This initial IRS tax lien doesn't exist on any paper filed in your local courthouse. You can think of it as a kind of “secret” IRS tax lien, that is allowed by law or statute, which is why it's called a “statutory lien.” There's no public record of a statutory tax lien. But it is very real
|
.
the law even allows for the IRS to legally attach assets if they think you owe and haven't filed.
Lot of folks go to youtube and listen to second hand hearsay) from 3rd parties and don't go for facts and truth.
Here is the criminal tax manual.
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/index.htm
8.02 GENERALLY
The Supreme Court has stated that section 7201 includes two offenses:
(a) the willful attempt to evade or defeat the assessment of a tax and (b)
the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of a tax. Sansone v.
United States, 380 U.S. 343, 354 (1965). Evasion of assessment entails
an attempt to prevent the government from determining a taxpayer's true tax
liability. Evasion of payment entails an attempt to evade the payment of
that liability. See United States v. Hogan, 861 F.2d 312, 315
(1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.
1984). Although Sansone has been cited for the proposition that
evasion of payment and evasion of assessment constitute two distinct crimes,
see, e.g., United States v. Hogan, 861 F.2d at 315,
several circuits have recently rejected duplicity challenges to indictments
by holding that section 7201 proscribes only one crime, tax evasion, which
can be committed either by attempting to evade assessment or by attempting
to evade payment. See United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 682, 686
(9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Dunkel, 900 F.2d 105, 107 (7th Cir.
1990), judgment vacated, 498 U.S. 1043 (1991), ruling on duplicity
issue reinstated on remand, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Masat, 896 F.2d 88, 91 (5th Cir. 1990), appeal after
remand, 948 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, although the First
Circuit initially expressed some skepticism concerning whether Masat
and Dunkel were consistent with Sansone, see United
States v. Waldeck, 909 F.2d 555, 557-58 (1st Cir. 1990), it subsequently
relied on Dunkel in rejecting a duplicity claim: "No matter how one
resolves the semantic question, moreover, it is beyond reasonable dispute
that the indictment charged [defendant] with a single, cognizable crime, and
that the jury convicted him of the same crime. See United States
v. Dunkel, 900 F.2d 105, 107 (7th Cir. 1990)." United States v
So when they say there are no laws and the court cases refer to laws, we know someone isn't truthfull.
It would be dishonest to see a speech by a juror and use that as evidence.
The legal system in America doesn't work that way.
Hybrid Mode
