jphalter@ihuxb.UUCP (J. Halter) (01/30/85)
<Watch Out> Just a note to those of you reading the articles regarding the unconstitutionality of the income tax system. Last week, there were a number of radio reports about eight Illinois residents being charged with income tax evasion. The report said that these eight people were being charged with felony evasion charges rather than the "failure to report" misdemeanor. Maximum sentences of something like 5 years prison and $500K in fines. The radio report also stated that these eight people were responding to a seminar that they had attended, where they were "convinced" that the income tax system was unconstitutional. The court reminded these individuals that the sponsor of these seminars had since been charged with something like "aiding people in filing fraudulent returns." Hmmm... Two comments: 1). The amount of tax saved by these individuals was on the order of 10-12 thousand bucks. Ask me whether I would rather have the $12,000 or risk $500K in fines and 5 years in jail! Also, I wonder what the legal costs for these people will be. Is that factored in the tax savings? 2). Since the "charges" levelled against the sponser (is this Irwin Schiff?) seem rather mild, it sounds like the IRS has better luck attacking frightened citizens than in prosecuting those who know their rights. That's all.
alpert@nanook.DEC (02/02/85)
Regarding the indictments in Chicago... I don't believe the person who gave the seminar mentioned was Schiff. Schiff's argument is NOT that the tax laws are unconstitutional, but that they are carefully crafted to avoid conflict with the Constitution. In doing this, the authors of the IRS Code (according to Schiff) had to leave out a few minor details, such as mandating income tax returns and making anyone liable for an income tax. To date, despite the fact that the IRS has wanted Schiff's hide for the past decade, they have never attempted to prosecute him for violation of sections 6701 or 7302 of the IRS code. These impose penalties on any individual who advises others to pay less taxes than they are liable for. Section 7302 also makes it illegal to possess any property intended to be used to violate "the provisions of the IRS laws", and provides for the confiscation of such material. Therefore, I would be very surprised if Schiff were involved in this situation. BTW, the "things IRS Won't Tell You" articles have tapered off primarily because we have examined most of the basic points. I'll post updates and items of interest as I receive them (the current Schiff Report has more information on the IRS "Notice of Levy" which I will post shortly). In the meantime, this short piece from a past Schiff Report: ------------- MAKE 'EM PAY! (based on Schiff Report article of January, 1984) ------------- (This piece of information was discovered and used by a resident of Montgomery, Alabama.) All those who are summoned to produce books and records (pursuant to section 7602) are entitled to monetary reimbursement. Section 7610 of the Code covers "fees and costs for witnesses". The public, however, has been thrown off by subsection (b) which states that "No payment may be made... if the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued has a proprietary interest in the books, papers...". This would seem to indicate that if it were *our* books and records that were being summoned (as opposed to material summoned from third-parties) that we are barred from being reimbursed under this provision. However, close inspection of the Code reveals that subsection (b) (where this exception occurs) *only* applies to payments "made under paragraph (2) of subsection (a)". The exception *does not* apply to "fees and mileage" provided under Section 7610(a)(1). In this case, payment was demanded (and received) under this provision. A letter was written to the IRS requesting reimbursement "pursuant to Sec. 7610, paragraph (1) of subsection (a)". In the IRS's reply, the District Director (Philip J. Sullivan) stated that "you are entitled to the reimbursement for witness and mileage fees under section 7610 of the Internal Revenue Code", and enclosed a form to fill out to obtain the reimbursement (form #1157). ======================================================================= === The Schiff Report is published by Freedom Books, P.O. Box 5303, === === Hamden, CT 06518 === ======================================================================= Bob Alpert ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nanook!alpert
dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough) (02/05/85)
In article <926@ihuxb.UUCP> jphalter@ihuxb.UUCP (J. Halter) writes: ><Watch Out> >Just a note to those of you reading the articles regarding the unconstitutionality >of the income tax system. Last week, there were a number of radio reports about >eight Illinois residents being charged with income tax evasion. The report said >that these eight people were being charged with felony evasion charges rather >than the "failure to report" misdemeanor. Maximum sentences of something like >5 years prison and $500K in fines. > >The radio report also stated that these eight people were responding to a seminar >that they had attended, where they were "convinced" that the income tax system >was unconstitutional. The court reminded these individuals that the sponsor of >these seminars had since been charged with something like "aiding people in >filing fraudulent returns." Hmmm... > >Two comments: 1). The amount of tax saved by these individuals was on the order >of 10-12 thousand bucks. Ask me whether I would rather have the $12,000 or risk >$500K in fines and 5 years in jail! Also, I wonder what the legal costs for these >people will be. Is that factored in the tax savings? >2). Since the "charges" levelled against the sponser (is this Irwin Schiff?) >seem rather mild, it sounds like the IRS has better luck attacking frightened >citizens than in prosecuting those who know their rights. > >That's all. READ THIS FIRST: The following paragraphs are really one long question which attempts to summarize the gist of what I read in net.taxes a while ago. Is the following affirmed or denied by the Chicago story? I hope that people who can reply authoritatively will do so on the net. I phrase things as assertions rather than questions because they read more easily: It is unconstitutional to require persons to file income tax returns that might result in criminal liability. The IRS will not pursue a case based SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF MANDATORY FILING to a high level court because the consequences of a decision against the IRS would be devastating. Political considerations dictate that no action will be taken to fix the constitutionality question by means of a constitutional amendment until a devastating decision forces the issue. Any person who declines to file a voluntary tax return, preferring to wait for a lawful assessment, must be very careful to lawfully comply with any lawful directive from the IRS because the IRS will surely attempt to base a case against him on some other ground if he provides any. In particular the IRS would like, for public relations purposes, to associate protesters of illegal taxes with illegal protesters of taxes (the people that shoot at revenue agents) in order to deflect public attention from the real issues. David Hough