"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"

"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"
aka "Miss Victory"

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Taxes in the News around Indiana & Beyond

Many of us believe that a bonafide tax revolution is taking place not only in Indiana, but around the country.

Some of the articles cover rallies in Indy. The INDIANA TEA PARTY is a mobile event. We'll bring it to any city in Indiana who will organize a rally. We'll also help with press releases and the publicity and bring a delegation from the capitol to help. Just call us. 317-938-8913




Johnson Cty

Plenty Pix-Black Sunday Photo Essay

Peru In

Muncie/ poor



Allen Cty Dems

Shelby Cty

Rental Property Association Blog

Terre Haute


Post Tribune (Sun Times Group)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

My apologies for the lengthy post.

It's not only property taxes that people are protesting - the voluntary federal income tax is taking a beating as well. here's a few tidbits from the We The People Foundation:

July 19, 2007

Withholding On The Ropes?
U.S. Unable To Prove It’s Not Voluntary

The United States appears to have bitten off more than it can chew when it sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year in an effort to shut down "Operation Stop Withholding."

In the lawsuit, the Government accused WTP of operating an unlawful "abusive tax shelter" in violation of IRC Sections 6700 and 6701, citing the organization's efforts to urge individuals to terminate their W-4 wage and salary withholding agreements.

In response to the lawsuit served on Schulz on May 3, 2007, Schulz filed a motion to have the case dismissed on the ground that Operation Stop Withholding is not only fully protected by the First Amendment (including the Petition clause), it is protected because We The People organization is educating People about the withholding laws as they are currently written and which expressly provide that such agreements are voluntary.

The Government's lawsuit has asked the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting WTP’s efforts to educate Americans about the legal termination of private withholding agreements. WTP's efforts rely on "black letter" law which clearly establishes that Withholding Agreements (W-4s) are voluntary and that a worker can -- at any time -- terminate his W-4 by simply notifying the company that he no longer gives his permission to the company to withhold from his pay.

The Government finds itself in a very tough spot.

and this:

What follows are a just a few of the legal citations that the Government has been confronted with and has failed to rebut:

26 CFR § 31.3402 (p)-1 "Voluntary Withholding Agreements". (a) An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding.....shall furnish his employer with Form W -4 (or equivalent) for withholding.
Read it for yourself.

Pursuant to 26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2), either a company or a worker may terminate the withholding agreement (or its equivalent) at any time, by furnishing a signed, written notice to the other. Read it for yourself.

Pursuant to 26 USC § 3402(p)(3)(A), 5 USC §5517 and 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1), all ordinary American workers have the right to refuse to consent to enter into a voluntary withholding agreement and can voluntarily refuse to have amounts taken from his/her pay for federal and/or state taxes, social security, other governmental insurance programs or welfare programs.

“Protected Individuals” as per 8 USC §1324a cannot be compelled to submit any specific government documents or to disclose a social security number as a condition of being hired by or maintaining their status as a worker. Most American workers qualify as "Protected Individuals" under the law.

The landmark decision of EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting CA3-92-0169T U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, held that companies cannot discriminate against applicants or workers for failure to obtain or disclose a social security number.

No law requires a worker to file a Form W-4 (or its equivalent). In U.S. v. Mobil Oil Co., 82-1 USTC para. 9242, U.S.D.C. ND Tex. Dallas 1981 CA. 3-80-0438-G, the court ruled that an Entity does not even have to send a W-4 Form or other employment forms to the Internal Revenue Service unless served with a judicial court-ordered summons to do so.

Pursuant to IRC §6041(c), a worker is only required to furnish a name and address upon demand of a company for whom he seeks to work. No social security number is required by statute.

...here's more:

Within weeks of the decision in Schulz II, the IRS began serving a series of third-party summonses against Schulz, rather than bring Schulz to Court to enforce the original Summons. Each third-party summons has resulted in a new lawsuit by Schulz against the IRS.

In November, 2006 the IRS felt the teeth of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Schulz II when it served an administrative Summons on a New York bank demanding Schulz's personal bank records. Read our 11/8/06 web article.

After Schulz filed a lawsuit against the IRS to quash the Summons, on November 6th a federal judge issued an injunctive order enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the bank Summons. During pre-trial pleadings, the primary investigator for the IRS was caught perjuring herself to the District Court regarding the alleged basis for issuing the Summons. This case is currently awaiting the disposition of that Court.

The Federal Reserve banks are probably going ballistic over these facts being made public, and they're probably going to be taking panicked measures to restrict information from going public. For example, a new law goes into effect next week in NYC that requires a permit to videotape in public and requires $1,000,000 of insurance coverage. This law was announced a month after a patriotic group in NYC confronted David Rockefeller on camera, asking him to explain the statement in his autobiography where he declares that he's proud of his efforts to eliminate US sovereignty in favor of a single global system. The video was posted on Youtube, which also provided the title of the autobiography and the page number where Rockefeller makes his statement.

If the knowledge that federal income taxes are voluntary reaches critical mass, the political leverage and finances used by people like Rockefeller will reach a crashing halt. They're already creating laws to prevent individuals from videotaping in New York in order to protect their ideology. They'll spend billions to make sure that the public remains clueless regarding income taxes.

But one thing is certain - I'm sure that they already have plans to cover their losses in the event that the general public threatens a revolt.

FYI - if I were the Federal Reserve banks and my largest revenue source was in jeopardy, I'd probably be working with my favorite lawmakers in an effort to replace the federal income tax with something that seems more appealing and that isn't unConstitutional. I'd strike pre-emptively, before the revolt started, and I'd sell it as a tax that's "fair". I'd still get my revenue. The people would simply pay me when they made purchases rather than paying me directly out of their paychecks.

Revolution averted and the tax money continues to flow into my coffers as it pays the interest on my loans to the government. That would be my plan.

Take some time and read the following piece for a concise explanation of how the tax code doesn't impose a tax on individual income. It's an eye-opener:

Taxable Income