• Report: #971798

Complaint Review: Internal Revenue Service

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Tue, November 20, 2012
  • Updated: Thu, November 22, 2012

  • Reported By: dannytech1 — Hendersonville North Carolina United States of America
Internal Revenue Service
151 Patton Ave. Asheville, North Carolina United States of America

Internal Revenue Service unnamed IRS agents STOP THE ILLEGAL INCOME TAXATION ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Asheville, North Carolina

*Author of original report: NO ONE! REALLY?

*Consumer Comment: Yawn......

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

The IRS is continually stealing from the American people, I have proof of the ILLEGAL voluntary tax as to who is really made liable for the income tax. The only people that are defined to be made liable can be found in the Title 26 Internal Revenue Code  which applied to specific type of individuals or "persons" specified in the IR Code.

The income tax applied ONLY to non-resident aliens, and U.S. citizens living abroad where a tax treaty exists with the United States( Internal Revenue Code Sections 1441-1443). The only other IR Code section to be found that deals with the issue of who is liable for income tax on the "withholding agent."

7701(a)(16) which defines the term "withholding agent" used in Section 1461. There are many other tax liability sections that apply to "privileged occupation" to those who are involved in the sale or manufacture of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and the manufacture of firearms,"BUT I CAN FIND NO SECTION IN SUBTITLE A THAT APPLIES TO MOST PEOPLE"

Another fraudulent form the IRS is using to steal money from bank accounts peoples property is the infamous "NOTICE OF LEVY" which is widely accepted as a legal document ( which it is not) due to the ignorance of the people accepting it such as the Bank's and other people that will freely give legal documentation to the IRS by this fraudulent form. If you have had a levy applied to your personal assets I urge you to examine the document very closely. And ask yourself why on the back of the form "NOTICE OF LEVY" it states,

SEC> 6331. LEVY AND DISTRANT.
(b) Seizure and Sale of Property-The term "levy" as used in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a levy shall extend only to property possessed and obligations existing at the time thereof. In any case in which the Secretary may levy upon property or rights of property, he may seize and sell such property or rights to property(whether real or personal, tangible or intangible). 

Sounds pretty straight forward and to the point doesn't it. However we all have been to grade school and should know that there should be the letter a before b but its left of this form. Why? Lets see what a represents it must mean something especially if its intentionally left out.

SEC. 6331. LEVY AND DISTRAINT.
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person LIABLE to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property snd rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.

Levy made be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d) ) of such officer, employee, or elected official.

If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

Now does that sound like you. Do not take the words employee or employer as a common meaning due to the fact that in law words CANNOT have a common meaning! I suggest you find out the legal definition to those two powerful words you will find that they are NOT what we think they are.

I could go on for hours with this topic but due to the amount of available space I cannot I strongly urge everyone to study these laws and statutes to find out that the IRS is stealing from most citizens. God Bless You all and find your freedom from this agency and keep them from stealing your hard earned property!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/20/2012 10:08 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Internal-Revenue-Service/Asheville-North-Carolina-28804/Internal-Revenue-Service-unnamed-IRS-agents-STOP-THE-ILLEGAL-INCOME-TAXATION-ON-THE-AMERIC-971798. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Internal Revenue Service

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
1Author 1Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Author of original report

NO ONE! REALLY?

AUTHOR: dannytech1 - (United States of America)

 Thank You for the interest in my post I would however like to point out that stupidity as you call it will only get someone as far as it has gotten you! Due to black outs by the major media you NEVER hear whats really going on! With that said let me give you just a couple of names to look up on google or youtube, Joe Banister former IRS CID AGENT, John Turner former IRS CID agent, Sherry Peel Jackson former IRS agent, William Benson, Whitey Harrel, Lloyd L Long, Bill Conklin( who has 8 victories and 6 of which put him in 6 different law books) Thats just to name a few there are many more I urge you to research it yourself to find them, I will list a few case laws as well as other pertinent information below, once again I am limited to space but i would be glad to educate you more just ask.

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. 

(House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580)

"...the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..." 

(Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17)

Excise Taxes are "...taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges. (Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th Ed., page 680.)" 

(Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151)

"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..." 

(Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, at 502)

"We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the States in order to support their local government."

(Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 154)

"Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create non-statutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the revenue acts..."

(C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Assn., 100 F.2d 18, at 29)

[Quoting Adam Smith's Wealth Of Nations favorably], "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property..." 

(Butcher's Union Company v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 757)

[The Court finds] "...an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that [Fifth] Amendment. Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally for the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor..." 

(Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 172)

"...Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily be interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money." 

(Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1)

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

(Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.

(Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819)

"...Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit..."

(Lauredale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 47 Atlantic 2d 277, at 280)

"...The Government here contends that all gross receipts represent income which must be reported. But gross receipts may or may not represent income, depending on the circumstances... It cannot be said that conversions of capital assets invariably produce income... It appears that the Government makes too broad a claim in asserting that gross receipts invariably measure income or gross income..." 

(United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400)

"...There is a clear distinction between 'Profit' and 'wages,' or compensation for labor. (Quoting Commercial League Association ofAmerica v. People ex re. Needles, Auditor, 90 Ill., p 66), Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word 'profit,' as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment - a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor."

(Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep. 2d, at 868)

"The general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." 

(United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, at 405)

 "...Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint..." 

(Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145)

"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to tax payers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws."

(Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238)

"(P)ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds."

(Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, at 589)

"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the [Fifth] Amendment..."

(Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, at 263)

"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness..." 

(Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648)

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation... He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond
the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State... He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

(Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43)

"The legal right of the taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or to altogether avoid them by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

(Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465)

"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."

(Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F2d 809)

"...The confusion ... arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes... an erroneous assumption... The purpose of the Amendment was... to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes."

(Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 U.S. 1, in 1915.)

"(T)he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. . .
"

(Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112)

"(T)he contention that the (16th) Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax . . . is . . . wholly without foundation. . . " 

(Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 18)
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

Yawn......

AUTHOR: VinnyZ66 - (USA)

If any of what you posted were true, why has NO ONE ever been able to get out of paying their taxes?

A few people have beaten criminal charges by basically claiming that they were too stupid to know the law but NO ONE has ever been able to convince a court that they don't have to pay.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.