Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





Well that's better than the 'mail fraud' = federal crime angle from 'The Firm'.
Amazing, the fallout will also be interesting.
VERY creative legal work. I am impressed and inspired.
Maybe some people can stop declaring themselves a Church to circumvent taxes now, hehe.





I allowed myself to speculate wildly on the possible ramifications if this detailed Constitutional and legal research were to actually result in changes to IRS procedures to bring them into arguable compliance with the Constitutionally Acceptable definitions of 'taxable income' codified in 1916-17. This would mean that US citizens living within the 50 US states would no longer be required to pay tax on money received as a result of their labor or services. However, this WOULD mean that aliens residing within the USA would be subject to US tax on their labor and services, as would US citizens living outside of the 50 US states (i.e. Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam etc. plus all foreign countries). What an ironic turn of events that would turn out to be ! I wonder if 10 million mexicans would still want to sneak across our border if 1/3 to 1/2 of their earnings within the USA had to be paid to the US gov't in order to finance social welfare programs for US citizens !
In all probability, if the Constitutional issues surrounding taxation of the labors and services of US citizens residing within the 50 US states do in fact ever wind up being clarified, and if the 1916-17 definitions of 'taxable income' wind up being confirmed as the only acceptable definitions within the wording of the US Constitution, in all probability the US gov't will be forced to replace its current 'income tax' i.e. direct tax on the labors and services of US citizens regardless of where they reside, with some other form of tax. In all probability this will turn out to be a consumption tax / value added tax / sales tax - an approach that I would not object to. This would certainly piss off a lot of retirees though, who would suddenly find that their 401k withdrawls are to be taxed at say a 20% rate.
However, so far this is only one court case involving one individual ...
~
~
Last edited by Melonie; 06-11-2006 at 08:15 PM.



I'm not an attorney, but I wonder if Oscar Stilley could perhaps file a class action over the following? I found several links to the same article from January of this year.Originally Posted by Melonie
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/011006dnbusirs.64b2df7a.html
It does seem to me this might have the potential, in the hands of the right attorney(s), to rachet up the legal/financial pain for the U.S. federales. Especially since this denial of due process affected 120,000 people, vs. one individual. Just speculating about what might occur in the near future.
It's a shame federal elections aren't held in April.
People are busy spending those "refunds" in November. (It is their money, they should never have had to ask for it to begin with. Complexity in the system should be removed to aid with pre-calculating withholdings.)





Well, the 'original' case brought to the Supreme Court on the topic, 'Brushaber', resulted in the refund of all tax withholding money to all US citizens in 1917 !!!I'm not an attorney, but I wonder if Oscar Stilley could perhaps file a class action over the following? I found several links to the same article from January of this year.
Again, I don't expect that the congress or the IRS are going to make any 'moves' unless they are forced to by the Supreme Court ... and the 9 SC justices still have a minority of 'strict constructionists' and a majority of .... well, lets just say supporters of decisions / programs which require the spending of lots of tax money.
Bookmarks