How are they ever going to know how much they owe if they can't get the bill in the mail? Sounds like a pretty good excuse to me! :)

HOMERJAY has a point

Communism/Totalitarianism/Marxism. I'm suprised they didn't include Nazism, Fascism and every other -ism people are scared of but have no idea what they mean. I really don't know either, but I know Marx wanted no central government, so that doesn't sound like Totalitarism to me.

My solution to this situation without a Ruby Ridge-style result is this:
1) Subpoena them to appear in court.
2) They don't show, absentia guilty verdict.
3) Seize their land, deed it to the federal Bureau of Prisons.
4) Put up walls around it and get guards there.

@Bay State Darren: They've ALREADY been tried and convicted. In April, they were sentenced in absentia to over 5 years in prison.

But I do like your idea of turning their land into a prison for them. Ha!

Can consumerist note when registration is required on articles? I'd love to read it, but I refuse to sign up for more junk mail.

"'communism in its purist form.'" !?
He hasn't done any reasearch at all as pure communism isn't that bad, and it could never happen, in the pure sense.
I do agree with those people on some level though as I say again, income tax is legalised extortion, and is no different than what the Mafia used to do. I'd almost rather broken legs to locked in my house.

Sorry, Carey, but there can be no appeal of Cryer's acquittal because of the protection against double jeopardy.

@crnk: I know whatcha mean :) [www.bugmenot.com] lets peoples share logins for places so you don't hafta let 'em spam you.

reg

@ Nequam:

There's a difference between the appeals process and double jeopardy. He cannot be tried in the same court system that aquitted him for the same offense without new evidence. That would be double jeopardy. But the state (or the federal government, whoever prosecuted him) can appeal the trial court's judgment to the next level, by questioning a legal issue that was decided at the trial.

@freshwater: you're absolutely wrong. The prosecution can appeal certain rulings made in the course of the trial, but the acquittal itself is untouchable. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978).

@freshwater:
Nequam is correct. An acquittal is an acquittal. No appeal.

How much money is the government wasting just to get these people to pay an income tax?

@lorddave:
Probably less than would be lost if everyone thought they could stop paying taxes and get away with it.

Our income taxes are paid to the Federal Government. The Federal Government uses these taxes to pay down its debts to the Federal Reserve Banks that it has borrowed from (aka "the deficit"). The Federal Reserve Banks are NON-PUBLIC, NON-GOVERNMENTAL, wholly owned by large private banks. You cannot own stock in these banks that OUR TAXES fund and support.

Our Federal income taxes pay for the enrichment of already obscenely rich banks owned by obscenely rich individuals, to the betterment only of those who don't need better, at the sacrifice of those who have spent their entire lives sacrificing.

The Federal Reserve system serves to concentrate wealth in the hands of the already wealthy, and limit cash flow amongst the non-wealthy to bare-minimum, subsistence levels.

Why should the blood, sweat, and tears of the hardworking American people underwrite the debauchery and excesses of the obscenely wealthy? Why do we allow ourselves to be used in this manner? Why don't we claim our birthright - financial and social equality? They don't have a 'right' to our money.

We need to re-charter the Federal Reserve Banks so that their shareholders are the American Public, so that they are controlled by the American Public, so that the profits and dividends are paid to the American Public, and so that the American Public owns its' own money supply. In this way we can begin to escape the wage-slavery that our government has been selling us into for over 100 years.

You don't own the land - you just rent it from the ruling body. For the natives, the ruling body was their gods. For the settlers, it was the various monarch's. For Americans, it's the US government. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't own land and don't work. And then you receive benefits from people who do pay their taxes. Of course, they get to decide how much to give you.

@andrewsmash: I agree, to a point. I still haven't figured out how the Government managed to transfer the ownership of land from Mother Nature to the Government. (I pay taxes - don't get me wrong - but I don't see how land, trees, mountains, etc. can "belong" to the government.)

You don't own the land - you just rent it from the ruling body.

Ok.. don't pay taxes. But, answer this one question for me: Who is going to build the roads and bridges, and who is going to pay for it?

These folks are only trying to find an actual law on the books for having to pay "income tax". Every time a standoff like this occurs, the irs/governement will say something like, "he United States has between 250,000 and 500,000 tax protesters, and not one of them has ever prevailed definitively in court." like this time. There has been cases of people being acquitted on this before. [newsbusters.org] The case of Tom Cryer has explicitly shown this. Every time we pay income taxes, we are empowering the IRS even more. What we need is a revolt. More people like this to do the exact same thing.

In a sense I can almost understand their position, but then again...if they don't want to pay taxes, then I guess they shouldn't be allowed to use any of the services that our taxes pay for (ie roads, mail service, inspected food, etc etc etc infinity.)

I don't like paying taxes either, but I'll take it over the alternative any day.

@RebekahSue: What bugs me more is that I do not own the air above or the dirt bellow. :)

@Televiper:
How about business!? If they want me to drive to their business, then they can pay for the road repair. Raise taxes on them, charge higher sales tax on non-essential goods, and voila! After all, laying concrete over concrete, at the tax-payers expense, is a losing battle anyway.

@PEGGYNATURE: There is no "law" specifically saying you must pay taxes, although the government would like us to believe there is. and here's where the fun comes in, our federal taxes don't pay for roads, inspected food, etc they pay back interest to the federal reserve, which is NOT a government agency. i suggest checking out the documentary "America: Freedom to Facism" it deals with the question of whether there is a law requiring you to pay your taxes.

#Televiper

I forget the exact breakdown, but I was surprised to learn that 'income tax' doesn't pay for roads, bridges, and a lot of other things you would expect it to pay for.

Personally I think a VAT/sales driven tax system would be best for the country, both in terms of tax revenue and allocating burden where it belongs. Those who make the most money should pay the most taxes, but it should be the same percentage as those who make little. Don't tax food at all on a national scale, but everything else should be taxed reasonably. Luxury items should be taxed a little more heavily. There is a difference between saving up for a Geo Metro or Ford Focus and on a lark traipsing down to the local Bentley dealer for a new weekend driver.

Gasoline taxes pay for the roads...and "other" things. Social Security tax pays for our retirement....and "other" things. Medicaid, medical and "other" things. Other as in keeping the pork barrel full.

As a independent contractor, I have never had trouble with using tax right-offs to reduce my taxes to nothing, or some low amount that I hardly miss. The problems with taxes is that most people don't know how to use them to your benefit. Fools go to H & R block and let those idiots handle it.

Just remember, taxes do change each year, so you can always find some new tax rule to exploit to your advantage, just like the government does.

@mcpiper, etc;
Oh, give me a break! The so-called tax "experts" that the film bases it's "reasoning" on are themselves tax cheats and frauds who have been found by the courts to be wrong, wrong, WRONG, and wound up in JAIL for it. C'mon, anyone who tries to argue that a duly enacted constitutional amendment is unconstitutional will LOSE their case. And anyone who is foolish enough to get their ideas about tax law from them is self delusional. Ask a burgler about property law next. ;-)

@Candyman: Finally, a voice of reason. This thread was going into tinfoil hat country for a little while there.

The income tax simply pays interest to the Federal Reserve, that is all it is used for.

For those condemning the Browns, can any of you answer a single question for me:

Why does the IRS refuse to actually show the law that requires private citizens to pay a tax on the remuneration they receive for engaging in a private contract?

A quick reading of the IRC reveals a very specific and precise definition of income, and that definition does not apply to ordinary working Americans.

I have a few tax protesters as family members and I have known others over the years and I can tell you most of them are a bunch of NUTS! Most of them do not file or pay taxes simply out of GREED. Not for standing up for some "Greater Cause". They do not want to pay in but all of them do not mind the rest of us paying so they can enjoy the benefits this country has to offer.

@legotech: Thanks for the link! I just found a new bookmark.

One thing I wonder about these "income tax is illegal and/or unconstitutional" people is how many of them are genius attorneys or legal scholars? If income tax laws were always void as they claim, did every attorney, especially tax attorneys, Constitutional and legal scholar for decades not ever notice? A handful of semi-anarchists, albiet a few are lawyers, notice this gaping hole in the law, but decades of America's top lawyers and jurists never do, especially around April 15 of every year? That means F. Lee Bailey, Clarence Darrow, Melvin Belli and their peers and other colleagues have sat down every year, done their tax return, written checks for the IRS, and did all this with their legal skills not functioning. If income tax was legally invalid, tax-paying attorneys would have fought and defeated it almost immediately.

Tax protesters do seem kinda nutty. Mostly anti-government militia survivalist types.

I think most normal people just hire crafty tax lawyers to help minimize the taxes they owe.

;-)

@RebekahSue: "I agree, to a point. I still haven't figured out how the Government managed to transfer the ownership of land from Mother Nature to the Government."

Individuals mix their labor with the land, thus giving them the right to "own" the land (Locke) and then they band together to avoid the State of Nature and form the government/Leviathan and give it taxing power (Hobbes). At least in Anglo-American political theory. :D

"..officials have cut off power, Internet, house phone, cellphone, television "

How do you "cut off" television and cellphone service? Broadband jamming equipment? I don't know just how isolated they are, but wouldn't that affect a LOT of other people

@RebekahSue: They own it because they say so. They have lines on a map that say you pay or they put you in a place where soap on the ground represents a date with your cellmate, Bobo. If another government moved that line a little you would be paying so that you aren't the girlfriend of Jose in prison. Nothing changes except the guy behind you.

IMHO, the Browns are a couple of whackjobs. Nobody likes taxes, and it would be nice to think that you could simply not pay them, but it doesn't work that way in reality.

The Browns are certainly wealthy enough and could easily have afforded to pay their taxes, but they chose not to..and I think it was more a case of personal greed than conscientious objection. I mean, it's easy to not pay your taxes and then when you're called on it to proclaim "Well...you know..we really don't believe in taxes, that's why we didn't pay them.." Very convenient.

I mean, hey..it's a free country..go ahead and protest and don't pay your taxes and see what happens. As a resident of NH, I find the Browns more along the lines of annoying weirdos than patriotic heroes. At this point, Ed Brown would like nothing more than to start another Ruby Ridge incident, but so far the Feds haven't indulged him.

If you don't want to pay any taxes, don't make any income or accumulate any property and live in a cave. If you buy into the system by working, accumulating money, investments, and property, then you have to play the rest of the game too. You can't just say "Well, I don't like THAT part of it" and then refuse to play the game. Chances are the other players are going to be a little upset about it. Granted, most people find ways to cheat (writeoffs, offshore accounts, hedge funds, etc)..which actually seems to be acceptable (and even expected)...but completely refusing to play isn't.

CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER: The IRS has absolutely nothing to do with the FBI. The IRS has their own law enforcement branch, called the Criminal Investigation Division. They're IRS agents with a badge and gun. Unlike the FBI, they don't mess around, nor do they screw up -- they're actually very sharp and intelligent. I've worked with them on numerous cases and have been impressed each time. Wish I could say that for other 3-letter agencies.

In this case, it appears the Browns took this to the courts, which is why the FBI's apparently involved. Damn shame. I'd much rather work with the IRS-CID agents.

The federal income tax system needs to be abolished. Given, running a nation isn't free, but there's plenty of much much much simpler ways to accumulate money. I personally wouldn't mind a 10% federal sales tax on everything if it meant everybody got to save money by throwing out the entirety of the income tax system.

@roothorick: "I personally wouldn't mind a 10% federal sales tax on everything if it meant everybody got to save money"

Everybody wouldn't. Sales taxes are regressive in that they fall disproportionately hard on the poor, and rates would tend to go up for the bottom 1/5 of society even at so low a rate as 10%.

@zolielo: You actually do own the all the airspace above you - you just don't have the right to use it as you wish. You have that right up to a certain altitude, after which the FAA has an eminent domain easement for air travel. :)

What you do own all of, with no easements that weren't disclosed you to you upon purchase or you agreed to after the fact is the earth below you. Assuming you own your house and the land its on, you own and have control over all of the land below your home, as far down as the center of the earth - that's the prevailing legal theory, of course. :)

@Plaid Rabitt -

Ha! You think anyone in this country owns land? Tell me this, what happens to that land "you own" if you stop paying property taxes on it?

We're a nation of land renters. No one owns.

@scamcorp:

Here's the law requiring you to pay income taxes:

Title 26 of the US Code, which is a law passed by Congress (most recent revision was Public Law 99-514, passed in 1986).

[docs.law.gwu.edu]

@FLConsumer: UHH so incidents like the Jewish mother was a by the book above board raid by IRS agents? How much did that shining example of IRS enforcement end up costing that family, not to mention US Taxpayers?

IRS agents if anything are MORE out of control than any other domestic enforcement group.

@Plaid Rabbit:
"you own and have control over all of the land below your home, as far down as the center of the earth"

Unless you don't have the mineral rights for that land. Then you don't have full control of it.

As far as the tax protesters, I sympathize with them, as I think there is a lot of waste in government that should be trimmed, lowering the tax burden on everyone. However, I don't think protesting is the way to do it. I myself support the Fair Tax, but there are several other options out there that are feasible and could be made to work. Unfortunately, I foresee paying the same income tax that I pay today until my dying day.

@slackerwire:

According to the Internal Revenue Code, (paragraph 61):

. . . [G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust. . . .

@Alvis: I take it you've never had any of your utilities shut off due to non-payment before. Unfortunately I haven't been so lucky!

Any company can terminate your service if you haven't paid it. The government probably obtained some injunction for the power, cable, gas companies requiring them to terminate service for The Browns.

It's really quite simple, to be honest.

You know those kooks who go around not paying their taxes and saying there's no law to make them?

you mean our Founding Fathers?

@freshwater: Nope, all crimes that derived from a single or connected events must be tried at the same time.

Otherwise you could go on trial for murder, get aquited and then have the DA run the line on you all the way down to assult.

@mac-phisto: I'm pretty sure their objection was that they didn't get to MAKE the laws taxing them, not that they objected to taxation laws qua taxation laws or that there were no such laws.