http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

He's setting his sights higher...

Very interesting indeed.

It'll either be appealed and overruled, or the section of the government writing these tax laws will simply add the missing parts in.

The issue here is if you work for someone but don't get paid -- should you get taxed on any "earnings". If it's business related, then the labour should be valued at fair market value and taxed accordingly on that amount.

The guy disagrees (and so did the jury,) saying that "it's a constitutional right to not get paid for work you perform."

Umm... ok.

IMO, his kind of people are pure demagogues. He's the typical lawyer, arguing about the letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit. The particular way of taxing that he's fighting is widespread in many (probably most) industrial countries.

The problem with this law is that he may receive something in-kind (as remuneration) but not declare it.

Well, he won a jury trial in Louisiana. That says something.

However, there must be something about his argument that I just don't get.

Well, he won a jury trial in Louisiana. That says something.

However, there must be something about his argument that I just don't get.

Actually, winning a jury trial on something like this means almost nothing. Jurors are FAR from being legal experts.

We can be very assured that once this case moves on up in the courts, that verdict will be overturned. People have been trying to fight income taxes on the basis of being unconstitutional ever since they were first levied. Not a single case has managed to survive - and neither will this particular silly attempt.

Actually, winning a jury trial on something like this means almost nothing. Jurors are FAR from being legal experts.

I agree. I was actually being sarcastic, and taking a jab at Louisiana.

As the basis for that Louisiana joke, I provide three examples:

• Travel guides for New Orleans would remind visitors that in the city, vehicles, and not pedestrians, have the right of way at crosswalks. Around the French Quarter, this was incredibly dangerous. The first night I was there on vacation several years ago, I saw people in cars actually trying to hit pedestrians. Or, at least, that's what it started looking like about the third time I saw a car gun a red light and aim toward the curb.

• Popular legend starting in the late 1980s or early '90s tells that the state legislature, in an effort to improve math scores in the schools, attempted to decree that pi equals 3.0; references on that are hard to come by.

• In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana passed its first ever building code. (Bourne Jr., Joel K. "New Orleans: A Perilous Future". National Geographic, v.212, n.2, August, 2007; p. 60. See http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0708/feature1/text6.html


More than Cajun or incest jokes, these things make Louisiana seem a weird, even backwards place.

And besides, doesn't a jury have a vested interest in the outcome of a case? ("Holy crap, we get a chance to say we don't have to pay income taxes?")

Note on edit: As I looked around for news reports on the story, I kept landing at blogs. One of them finally coughed up the story from the Shreveport Times: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321

Well the southern states have a history of resisting increasing federal power. If they were to pull this one off, it would be a Jefferson style revolution.

Actually, the one thing I like about this is that this one greedy lawyer may have actually figured out a way to stop the Iraqi Bush War.

Hmm ... maybe Bush will confiscate his house.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

He's setting his sights higher...
Amendment XVI (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Whatever.

I don't like it. You folks would do well to much more not like it, too.

"Tax the rich, not the poor" sort of whatever source.

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

Actually, the one thing I like about this is that this one greedy lawyer may have actually figured out a way to stop the Iraqi Bush War.
The most obvious way for Democrats to stop the war is for the Senate's and Congress's Democrat majorities to vote to cut off all funding for the war.

What's to figure?

Democrats haven't the gonads?

Go figure.

G, since you can't even answer the issue in the topic that's actually about the war, what's the point of spreading that crap here?

What's to figure?

You haven't the capacity to figure out the obvious?

Go figure.

What's to figure?
Nuance isn't your forte.

Hell, the obvious isn't your forte.

Read Amendment XVI again.

Read. Don't interpret.

People are watching.

Prove you're up to it.

Oh, G, I don't doubt Amendment XVI. Why did you not bother making that point earlier in the topic? Why wait until I crack a joke?

Beyond that, it's a matter of how the government chooses to structure its tax laws.

Try reading post #3 above; if that doesn't make sense to you, follow it up with #4 and #5.

Something about nuance not being your forte?

Why didn't the judge overrrule the jury verdict? I may be mistaken but I think that this should have been possible. In this case the jury even showed misconduct (by ignoring a constitutional amendment) so at the very least a mis-trial was possible.

Why didn't the judge overrrule the jury verdict? I may be mistaken but I think that this should have been possible. In this case the jury even showed misconduct (by ignoring a constitutional amendment) so at the very least a mis-trial was possible.

You know, it's a dangerous point for me to harp on, but I think I'm going to reiterate the point that we're talking about Louisiana here.

It seems a strange place, and for those Americans not accustomed to the Deep South, it feels damn near a foreign country.

Oh, G, I don't doubt Amendment XVI. Why did you not bother making that point earlier in the topic? Why wait until I crack a joke?

Beyond that, it's a matter of how the government chooses to structure its tax laws.

Try reading post #3 above; if that doesn't make sense to you, follow it up with #4 and #5.

Something about nuance not being your forte?
Well, that was another rhetorical clusterf***.

I'm happy to be gifted confirmation of my thesis. :D

As minor as it needed to be. ;)

I hear a lot of people in these arguments state that it is bullshit and that those who try this are full of shit, but I, personally, would like to see the federal statute that legitimizes federal income tax, rather than simply running on assumption.

Someone show me the laws stating that a US citizen should pay taxes on labor wages earned.

He's the typical lawyer, arguing about the letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit.

That's not what he is doing at all.
Did you read the article?

He is talking almost solely about the spirit of the law and intentions of the laws and constitution.

He is claiming that federal taxes are only legitimate on money coming in above and beyond labor wage earnings (which I have heard before) and that the laws are very specifically written to reflect that wages earned are exempt from federal taxation.

Disagree all you want about whether his arguments are correct (and if you disagree, I'd very much like to see some sources cited) but to say he is arguing about the letter of the law is either misinformed or just dishonest - he is doing the opposite.

The issue here is if you work for someone but don't get paid -- should you get taxed on any "earnings". If it's business related, then the labour should be valued at fair market value and taxed accordingly on that amount.

The guy disagrees (and so did the jury,) saying that "it's a constitutional right to not get paid for work you perform."

Where the hell did you get that? :bugeye:

Someone show me the laws stating that a US citizen should pay taxes on labor wages earned.

We can start with the Income Tax Page (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm) at George Washington University, which addresses income tax myths. First myth: "There is no law requiring you to pay federal income taxes."

In the meantime, I'm reading through the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (a complete mess), and also looking at 26 U.S.C., which is referenced by the GWU Income Tax Page. (Finding the GWU citation in the federal laws is just fun, y'know; after all, our government is well-known for its superior organization and communicative clarity.)

The short summary, though, is given as follows:

Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return. (Income Tax Page (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm))

At any rate, it's a starting point.

(On Edit): And, hey ... if anyone wants to finance it, I'd be happy to go to the National Archives and attempt to do the research all the way back to 1862. I figure it'll cost about a quarter-million dollars. What's that? No takers? Don't worry, I'm not offended. But anyone who wants to go digging all the way back to 1862 is welcome to do so.

At any rate, it's a starting point.

Thank you.

I was just reading the Wiki breakdown of the arguments here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion).
While not exhaustive, it gives some good starting points.