Tax Protester Statutory Arguments
Tax protesters in the United States make a number of statutory arguments that the assessment of the federal income tax in the United States violates the statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that the statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within the statutes exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.
These kinds of arguments are distinguished from related constitutional arguments and general conspiracy arguments. Statutory arguments presuppose that Congress has the constitutional power to assess a tax on incomes, but that the Congress has simply failed to impose the tax by statute. Supporters of such arguments may or may not be inclined to contend that constitutional and conspiracy arguments apply as well.
The courts that have been presented with such arguments have ruled them to be spurious, unpersuasive, frivolous, or all three.
Read more about Tax Protester Statutory Arguments: Definition of The Terms "state" and "includes", Arguments About The Legal Obligation To Pay Tax, Argument That Acquittal in A Criminal Tax Case Proves There Is No Law Imposing Tax Liability, Arguments About The Amount To Be Taxed, The 861 Argument, Arguing The Law in Court
Other articles related to "tax protester statutory arguments, tax protesters, tax":
... One contention by some tax protesters is that a taxpayer should be allowed to introduce, as evidence in court, copies of statutes, cases or other materials to persuade the jury about what the law is ... Examples of applications of this rule in tax controversies are United States v ... In a criminal tax case, a taxpayer is allowed to present evidence about what the taxpayer believes the law to be—but only in an attempt to demonstrate, as a defense ...
Famous quotes containing the words arguments and/or tax:
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)
“To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men.”
—Edmund Burke (1729–1797)