IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

[fcastle]

Opinions?

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

[mike]

I will agree that by cutting taxes we would have to do away with a bunch of unnecessary government programs, but it may also cost us ones we need. The government that governs best, governs the least IMO with the exception of basic needs, like infrastructure, military and such, do we need laws for lighted stairwells, probably not, but we do live in one of if not thee best country in the world, if he doesn't want to pay taxes, he can go to a country that is ripe with poverty and disease and sue them. One less lawyer here IMO

[fcastle]

I see your point, but I didn't read it quite that way. I liked his Walmart example. Why does it give them reductions for their expenses, but not for most of ours? I thought that at least that made sense.

[madajb]

I always like it when when these guys win a victory, it does make for some interesting reading.

However (from the link above):
"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.

I mean, I don't know what Constitution he has, but contains a Sixteenth Amendment which says something like this:
"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."

No doubt, make all the legal arguments you want as to what "income" actually is, and hey, if you can actually prove in court that there is no U.S. law requiring paying an income tax, I'm all for it.

But to claim that there is no Constitutional basis for it? Well, that's just plain silly and squarely lands you in nutjob land.

-ajb

[fcastle]

I wouldn't mind paying the taxes if I could deduct my expenses. Room and board, carpayment (up to a certain amount). Basically deduct what it takes for me to live from my income reported.

[madajb]

I wouldn't mind paying the taxes if I could deduct my expenses. Room and board, carpayment (up to a certain amount). Basically deduct what it takes for me to live from my income reported.

Given that most American households live beyond their means, that doesn't seem like the best deal for the government.
heh.

-ajb

[Tom (aka Godzilla)]

Well, it was a jury trial, not an appeals court...so there's part of your problem right there. 'Cause jurors these days are people without a good enough excuse.

[fcastle]

Given that most American households live beyond their means, that doesn't seem like the best deal for the government.
heh.

-ajb

True, I wouldn't include credit card debt, which would have an effect on how people spend if they couldn't write it off. It wouldn't work if you could write off your:

Rent/Mortgage (you get some sort of break on the mortgage anyway right?) on primary residence only, no writeoff on rental or income property.

CarLoan (one per person of driving age.)

grocery allowance (avg amount based on household number)

Medical Insurance (since I still have to pay into Medicare anyway) They sort of let you do this w/flexpay in some places, but you have to set it aside at the start of the year, so you have to have a condition or something to make it worthwhile.