Thread: Private citizens not required to file Fed Income Tax??

I've heard this type of thing now and again and never paid any attention to it. Recently I spent a small amount of time reading and watching things about how some apparently maintain that there is no LAW stating that private citizens need to pay Federal income tax on their wages. Then why does virtually everyone including me pay fed income taxes on wages? I'm a bit skeptical. I would dismiss this all together were it not for a small but absolute number of court cases in the U.S. where private citizens (non-governmental employees) have been acquitted of tax fraud charges because prosecution was never able to produce any actual law on the federal level that requires private citizens to pay fed income tax on their wages. A recent case that's pretty easy to find on the net is of one "Whitey" Harrell in Illinois. Apparently the case was brought against him on the state level for not paying state taxes. Illinois law stated that anyone required to pay federal taxes was required to pay Illinois state income tax. In the case, the jury agreed there was no law at the federal level therefore Mr. Harrell was acquitted on the state charges. My understanding is that there have been similar cases in other states where a people have also been acquitted of tax dodging for the same reason?

Even if someone told me that this is true, I would still pay taxes at this point in my life. Why? IF it's unlawful for the government to collect fed income tax on private citizen wages, that wouldn't or doesn't stop the government from charging a citizen, taking assets, throwing them in jail, etc. I have a family to support.

So, is that all hogwash???

Chris L

Originally Posted by Chris L

So, is that all hogwash???

Chris L

Not all of it, but the part about not having to pay federal income tax for the sole reason of having US citizenship is

The little bit I know of what may or may not be true doesn't point to U.S. citizenship but to private (non-governmental employee or elected official) U.S. citizens and their wages.

Chris L

Originally Posted by Chris L

The little bit I know of what may or may not be true doesn't point to U.S. citizenship but to private (non-governmental employee or elected official) U.S. citizens and their wages.

Chris L

ah, I see. well, if that is true then that will not be good for the federal budget at all

The question then becomes is it cheaper to pay "protection" money to the government or to pay for a federal court and lawyer to defend your right to not pay those taxes.

I have read some cases where people who did not pay federal taxes were excluded from federal programs and the like.

So if you are asking well interstate highways are federal your right and I am sure that some judge somewhere would throw a book a the poor soul who trespassed on federal land with no rights to do so just to make an example of him/her. Federal parks, FEMA, Student Loans, etc.

Basically they have have you by the jewels and its a put up or shut up kinda world.

I don't know about individual state tax laws but the IRS has a huge amount of info about frivolous tax arguments. Here's an exerpt:
"The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.) Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983)."

Originally Posted by clrobert60

I don't know about individual state tax laws but the IRS has a huge amount of info about frivolous tax arguments. Here's an exerpt:
"The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.) Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983)."

Good info. The bit I've read does address this and again, it could be hogwash, but apparently a citizen who completes a W-4 and has wages withheld is from the IRS' perspective implying liability. In a way it makes sense, the IRS is saying "If you're completing a W-4 for withholding, why would we, the IRS not assume that you may not be liable to pay taxes? You, Mr or Mrs citizen are TELLING us that you are liable to pay taxes!" By paying taxes, whether or not you're required to do so (my ultimate question in this post) a citizen is acknowledging that they're a taxpayer and from the IRS' perspective then, subject to IRS tax code.

Chris L

Originally Posted by clrobert60

I don't know about individual state tax laws but the IRS has a huge amount of info about frivolous tax arguments. Here's an exerpt:
"The Law: The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.) Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.
In discussing section 6151, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ‘shall’ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the . . . tax, a duty which he chose to ignore.” United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983)."

Who exactly is required to file a tax return? My understanding of tax protester's arguments is that the crux of the issue lies in who is or is not required to file.

Chris L

Originally Posted by Chris L

By paying taxes, whether or not you're required to do so (my ultimate question in this post) a citizen is acknowledging that they're a taxpayer and from the IRS' perspective then, subject to IRS tax code.

Chris L

Originally Posted by Chris L

Who exactly is required to file a tax return? My understanding of tax protester's arguments is that the crux of the issue lies in who is or is not required to file.

Chris L

Go here and look for Charts A, B, and C. According to the IRS instructions, if you meet any of certain conditions then you must file a return. If Congress has given the IRS authority to make those claims then in my non-legal and simple mind, that satisfies the conditions of the 16th amendment to the US Constitution (assuming of course that amendment was legally ratified and all that)

Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Apparently those who allege that they and many others are exempt from charts A, B or C acknowledge that the IRS Code sets forth clear guidelines about who must file, but if I understand their argument with my limited capacities it's on some sort of Constitutional level and their real or imagined exemption from filing federal taxes precedes and nullifies their liability per the IRS code.

Here's an analogy of what I think a tax protester's argument is (I'm not a tax protester and just had a little extra time to let me fingers and my mouse wander recently):

The game of golf has specific rules and requirements that golfers are bound by. All golfers if "playing by the rules" must abide by and be subject to Golf's written regulations. It's not a legal requirement for someone to play golf so the rules of golf can be absolutely clear and concise and could even be 7,000+ pages of golf regulation (apparently the IRS code is that large) applicable to the golfer (ALL golfers must.........). Someone who is not required to play golf would assert that golf regulation is not applicable to them.

Bad analogy I'm sure, but it's tax time and I had questions, so I posted.

Chris L