Thursday, August 12, 2004
Here is the case that Gene is looking for:
EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
by Robert Ingle
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
I'm headed to Gainsville FL on Saturday to pick up Gene Chapman. I'm hoping Doug Kenline will ride down with me. We had a good time driving to the Dick Simkanin trial in Fort Worth TX in early January. We'll be leaving bright and early at 6 AM Saturday morning in the Slave Freedom RV. We will meet Gene and David Goodyear for lunch in Gainsville and then head back.
Now I'm going to listen to the Dave Champion radio show.
by Robert Ingle
Monday, March 08, 2004
Larken has unveiled the introduction to his long awaited flash presentation that hopefully will finally rid us of the IRS. Click here to see it. Hopefully, it will not be long before the whole thing is released. We need to go ahead and get rid of this communist nonsense as soon as possible. Actually, we should never have had it at all.
by Robert Ingle
Friday, March 05, 2004
One year ago today, my wife called me as I was on my way to work to inform me that my dad had passed away. It is hard to believe that it has been a year now.
by Robert Ingle
Thursday, March 04, 2004
THIS JUST IN:
BIG WIN FOR IRS IN MARIETTA GA!
The IRS partnership of Richard and Donna Holland edged out team Penrod/Ingle by 2.5 matchpoints at a duplicate bridge game on Wednesday evening at the Ruff n' Sluff bridge club in Marietta.
"The IRS wins again!", exclaimed Donna Holland after a hard fought battle.
See the scores here when they are posted.
In a later interview Robert Ingle had this to say: "I knew going in that we were facing almost insurmountable odds in our head to head battle with the IRS. James and I did our best tonight and came up just a bit short. I look forward to more action in the days to come. We lost a battle this evening, but the war is not even close to being over. Sometimes being the favorite can lead to complacency and a tendency to underestimate ones opponents. Everybody loves an underdog. When all is said and done, I am confident that ultimate victory will be ours!"
by Robert Ingle
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
It's about time I restarted my letter writing dialog with congressman Johnny Isakson, along with Heath Garrett and Margaret Krueger of his staff. When I last left off with them, Heath Garrett, Mr. Isakson's chief of staff in his Atlanta office, had promised me answers to Larken Rose's 6 questions. Actually at the time, I was using a 4 question version that had been included in a letter from Tom Clayton to Barbara Felker, a lawyer at the Treasury in Washington. Ms. Krueger had written the IRS on my behalf in an attempt to get them to answer the same questions.
Here are the questions:
1. Who should and who (if anyone) should not use the rules in 26 USC Section 861(b) and the related regulation beginning at 26 CFR Section 1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine his taxable domestic income?
2. If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the 50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states, do 26 USC Section 861(b) and 26 CFR Section 1.861-8 show such income to be taxable?
3. Should one refer to 26 CFR Section 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the "items" of income he receives (e.g. compensation, interest, rests) are exempt for federal income tax purposes?
4. What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt income in 26 CFR Section 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the domestic income of the average American not on that list?
These are all relevant questions for determining what I owe in taxes, right?
Well, here is the reply I received from the IRS by way of Johnny Isakson's office:
I've heard from the Internal Revenue Service concerning your request for answers to four questions and I am sending you a copy of their response. I hope that you will consider this matter favorably resolved.
If you need assistance concerning another federal matter, please do not hesitate to contact me in writing.
Member of Congress
Taxpayer Advocate Service
401 W. Peachtree St., NW
Stop 202-D, Room 510
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
The Honorable Johnny Isakson
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
6000 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 110
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Attention: Margaret Krueger
Dear Congressman Isakson:
I am responding to your letter of September 3, 2003, on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Robert Ingle. Your inquiry included a letter from Mr. Ingle to Barbara Felker, Chief, Branch 3 of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International), concerning the authority by which the IRS requires an individual to file a federal income tax return.
Responding to letters like this one on a point-by-point basis is difficult because they almost always reflect personal opinions and frustrations with the tax system that we cannot address. However, we can provide the following general information, which may concern the area of law Mr. Ingle is addressing.
The federal tax law enacted by Congress is contained in Title 26 of the United States Code and is reproduced separately as the Internal Revenue Code (the Code). Under Title 26, the IRS is a part of the United States Department of the Treasury. It was created according to the federal tax law. Generally, Section 7803 of the Code provides that there shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Section 7803 of the Code states the Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Section 7804 of the code states the Secretary is authorized to employ such number of persons, as the Secretary deems proper for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws. Under Section 7802 and 7803 of the Code, the IRS performs administrative and enforcement duties.
Sections 6001 and 6011 of the Code say every person liable for any tax imposed by the Code shall make a return. In addition, Section 6012 of the Code provides that every individual whose gross income equals or exceeds certain amounts shall make a federal income tax return. "Shall" as used in Sections 6001, 6011, and 6012, means "must"; "must" means "to be required to." Who is required by the Code to file a return is explained in the instructions for Form 1040 under the heading "Filing Requirements."
The Sixteenth Amendment, making the income tax constitutional, was ratified in 1913. The Constitution, Article 1, Section 6 through 9, and the Sixteenth Amendment give the Federal Government the right to levy and collect taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment authorized a progressive income tax. The courts have rejected claims that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. The Amendment was ratified by 38 states altogether, and ratification was necessary by only 36.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the requirement that individuals file a federal income tax return does not violate the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927). Judicial precedents clearly establish that failure to comply with the filing and reporting requirements of the federal income tax laws will not be excused based upon blanket assertions of constitutional privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Irwin, 561 F.2d 198 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. Denied, 434 U.S. 1012 (1978); United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. Denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980).
The statutory provisons of the Code that require the filingof income tax returns do not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures by the Federal Government. In Flint v. Stone Tracey Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), the Supreme Court said: "Certainly the Amendment was not intended to prevent the ordinary procedure of requiring tax returns to be made, often under oath."
The positions raised by Mr. Ingle have been the subject of numerous court decisions that have held these postions to be contrary to existing law. See for example, United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340 (7th Cir. 1993), United States v. Jugim, 978 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1992). In addition, the courts have often imposed sanctions on taxpayers who raised these types of arguments in litigation. For example, in Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68,69 (7th Cir. 1986), the court stated:
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. Certain individuals have conviced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.
See also for examole, Connor b. Commissioner, 770 F.2nd 17,20 (2nd Cir. 1985) (The argument that wages are not income "has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions); Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1717 (5th Cir. 1984) ("We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.")
The Government expects voluntary compliance with the federal tax law. This means we expect taxpayers to comply with the law without being compelled to do so by action of a Government agent; it does not mean the taxpayer is free to disregard the law. If an individual is required by law to file a return or pay tax, it is mandatory that he or she do so. Failure to do so could cause the individual to be subject to civil and criminal penalties; including fines and imprisonment. See, for example, Schiff v. Commissioner, T.C.M. 1984-223, aff'd, 751 F.2d 116 (2nd Cir. 1984).
I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please call E. Benson, ID#58-02415 at (404) 338-8088.
(signed by what looks like Sabrina Ray)
Betty J. Allen
Local Taxpayer Advocate
Interesting information but no answers to the actual questions I asked!
by Robert Ingle
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
I've been listening to archives of Harry Browne's radio show lately. For whatever reason, Harry refuses to sign onto the truth about the income tax.
by Robert Ingle
What Saturday do you want me to drive down to pick you up? This Saturday, February 28 or the following Saturday, March 6? Or some other Saturday? You mentioned maybe meeting me halfway which would help tremendously. I believe that would be Valdosta GA or so. If we could do that, then I could probably leave early Saturday morning and we could be in Atlanta Saturday evening sometime. Also, how long do you plan on being here in Atlanta?
I'm looking forward to having you here. Let's talk and iron out some details.
by Robert Ingle
Dear George W. Bush:
We are not friends, so let's just be honest about that up front.
The angry attacks you speak of may in fact be well deserved. It is a shame that they are originating from people who are as much if not more responsible for the mess we are all in than you are.
No I will not send you any money and I very strongly resent your asking. No I will not help you identify people foolish enough to vote for you. I voted for Harry Browne in 2000. I'm glad that you think my vote mattered. I do not consider myself to be a part of your grassroots team -- I've never made phone calls, mailed brochures, put up signs, or knocked on doors for you. I feel sorry for any idiots who have nothing better to do with their time.
I will not be talking about you with my relatives, friends at work, at coffee shops, or over the back yard fence except to say that you might be an extortionist, but only if they ask.
Goals are good. Have you considered the goal of ordering your subordinates at the IRS to start obeying the law as written? America would become safer, more prosperous, and better if you would do that. If you would simply meet that challenge, America could finally begin the healing process from a century of communist pillage.
When was the last time our armed forces defended America? I believe it is highly questionable whether your invasion of Iraq was legal. What have you done to liberate Americans from tyranny at the hands of your subordinates at the IRS? Until you have done everything you can do about that, please do not waste your time trying to impress me with your liberation feats. How many of my rights have you stripped from me in your quest for a secure homeland?
I found work when I was unemployed but you do not deserve any credit for it. Why don't you go ahead and return ALL the money to the people who earned it before it was stolen from them deceptively? They earned it so they should keep it and do whatever they want to do with it. I will not rest until we have restored our economy to a truely free market one and removed the communist IRS/Federal Reserve cancer from it. Only then will our land be truly capable of healing.
Where in the Constitution have we given the federal government authority to be involved in education? Where in the Constitution have we given the federal government authority to be involved in the perscription drug business?
Where in the Constitution have we given the federal government authority to be involved in faith-based matters?
I believe that the Democrats running for President are right to oppose your policies, but unfortunately they are doing so for all the wrong reasons. What kind of philosophy is "optimistic, compassionate conservatism"? You are deluded if you think you are making a positive difference in anyone's life but your own.
The only way I can think of right now for you to make our country stronger, safer, more prosperous, and better for every single American is to order your subordinates at the IRS to obey the law and recommend that Congress give the Federal Reserve its walking papers and return to honest money.
I wish you took you oath to defend the Constitution seriously. That is your first and foremost responsibility, but unfortunately like most other professional politicians, you fall way short of the mark. If you were truly focused on the people's business, the IRS and the Federal Reserve would be permanently out of business.
If you need my help, then you are in trouble, because I do not feel so inclined. Again, NO I WILL NOT SEND YOU ANY MORE OF MY MONEY AND I GREATLY RESENT YOUR ASKING FOR IT. Why don't you simply send your minions at the IRS to mug me on a dark alley somewhere?
I will choose this method and let you hear it from me today: GET LOST! Keep on dreaming. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE MY SUPPORT, ACTIVE OR OTHERWISE!
You are not my President! Go tell it to the CFR. If you think you've seen our resolve and courage, think again! Once we get rolling on exposing the United States Government as the MONUMENTAL FRAUD that it is, you will see plenty of character, but I doubt you will see much compassion for professional politicians like you.
If you really mean what you say about defending the peace and protecting the weak, ORDER YOUR SUBORDINATES AT THE IRS TO OBEY THE LAW AND STOP ROBBING AND HARRASSING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! You better believe we are confident in ourselves and in ideals bigger than ourselves. I know that I know that I know what I know about the IRS and its lawlessness. I intend to see to it that my children do not have to put up with this nonsense as I've had to my entire life.
How do you expect to lift whole nations by spreading freedom while you ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE OPPRESSION OF YOUR OWN FELLOW CITIZENS? Our best days lie ahead after we EXPOSE THE IRS AND FEDERAL RESERVE AS THE COLLOSAL FRAUDS THAT THEY ARE!
Again, we are not friends. I know its obligatory for a professional politician, but please refrain from using God's name in vain. Why would God want to bless a people who have so obviously refused to abide by His law.
by Robert Ingle