Talk:Income tax in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Contents

[edit] The meaning of income

I don't think the Conner v. United States discussion is on the mark. The court's ruling in that case has nothing to do with the fact that compensation isn't a wage. Rather, its holding is that the taxpayer must gain something to have income. If I resell a bottle of wine I purchased for $100 at a price of $100, it is absurd to say I have income of $100. Similarly, if my $100k fair-market-value house burns down and I am reimbursed for $100k, it is absurd to say the $100k is income. Moreover, under the 16th Amendment, taxation on such receipts may not be constitutional, because only income may be taxed, and income requires net gain to the taxpayer.

--Rmalloy 03:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Quite right - clarified. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Very true!--BB69 Talk 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)BB69

[edit] Material moved over from the article page for discussion

What is the significance of any of the following? The liabilities for tax evasion are directly created by Congress, not merely sanctioned. BD2412 T 17:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is directly significant because if the IRS can not create any criminal offense or any liability, then they can not collect or say what is an offense. Show the Statute at Large which created a specific LIABILITY for taxes imposed by subtitle A.--bb69 17:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)BB69


2 Am Jur 2d, page 129 (1962)

Administrative Law Section 301. -- Particular applications.

In application of the principles that the power of an administrative agency to make rules does not extend to the power to make legislation and that a regulation which is beyond the power of the agency to make is invalid, it has been held that an administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, and specifically a liability for a tax [fn 2] or inspection fee. [bold emphasis added]

Footnote 2: 2. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959); Roberts v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 176 F.2d 221, 10 ALR.2d 186 (9th Cir. 1949) (... regulations “can add nothing to income as defined by Congress.” citing M.E. Blatt Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 267, 279, 59 S.Ct. 186, 190, 83 L.Ed. 167 (1938)); Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189, 152 ALR 928 (5th Cir. 1944) (... the power to make regulations does not extend to making taxpayers of those whom the Act, properly construed, does not tax); Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Colpaert Realty Corp., 231 Ind. 463, 109 NE.2d 415 (no power to render taxable a transaction which the statute did not make taxable); Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. State Tax Com., 242 Iowa 33, 44 NW.2d 449, 41 ALR.2d 523 (use tax).

Liability for the payment of the sales tax is controlled by statute; it cannot be controlled by rulings or regulations of the board. Acorn Iron Works v. State Board of Tax Administration, 295 Mich. 143, 294 NW 126, 139 ALR 368. Annotation: 139 ALR 380 (“retail sale”).

As the Supreme Court held in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing taxing power -- because the government had always had the power to tax income -— but rather removed any requirement for apportionment of income taxes (meaning profit or gain from any source) among the states on the basis of population. + As the Supreme Court held in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing taxing power but rather removed any requirement for apportionment of income taxes (meaning profit or gain from any source) among the states on the basis of population.

- The modern interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment taxation power can be found in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass 348 U.S. 426 (1955), in which the Court held that Congress had the power to tax any increase in an individuals wealth from any source, and that Congress had intended to impose a tax on all such gains unless they were specifically exempted in the tax code.

  • What, exactly, is questionable about Glenshaw Glass? The Court was crystal clear in its opinion in that case. BD2412 T 17:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What's questionable is the interpretation of the court case instead of posting exact quote from case. If an interpretation is going to be posted then a clarification is allowed as well.--bb69 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)BB69


The following statement from the article is questionable.

"The Court then enunciated what is now understood by Congress and the Courts to be the definition of taxable income, "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Id. at 431."

Chief Justice Warren had completed his theoretical discussion and was moving on to an application of the law to the facts of the case. The description given was not of income in general, but of the damage award under consideration in the case. He was not defining income, merely noting that it would be absurd if "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" were not income.

It has never been necessary that a taxpayer have complete dominion over an accession to wealth, or that it be clearly realized by the taxpayer in order for it to be income to that taxpayer. In UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL, 403 U.S. 190 (1971), a woman was held to have received income for purposes of the income tax despite having an, at best, incomplete knowledge of the income, much less complete dominion over it. Withheld income tax and social security tax are part of an employee's gross income despite his having little dominion over the former and none over the latter.

You need to look elsewhere for the definition of income. Note: The above commentary was inserted by an editor at IP address 152.216.3.5 on 25 January 2006.

Dear editor at 152.216.3.5:
The term "complete dominion" as used by the Court in Glenshaw Glass has a more technical legal meaning than the one you are using. For purposes of U.S. income tax law, the woman in the Mitchell case -- actually the "women" in the case -- did have "complete dominion" over the income realized in their cases -- as that term is used in Glenshaw Glass. Similarly for purposes of taxability under U.S. income tax law, I certainly have "complete dominion" over all my wages -- even the withheld Social Security tax, Medicare tax, and Federal income tax portions I never actually see or touch. The property law concept underlying the tax law discussed here is that property law is "relational." For example, as between me and everyone else in the world, I do have complete dominion over my own wages (including the withheld part) for purposes of Glenshaw Glass. The term "dominion" as used in Glenshaw Glass has a technical legal sense and not the more colloquial sense I believe you are ascribing to it.
And, yes, for purposes of U.S. income tax law, the term "realized" is also something of a term of art. The general rule is that income must be "realized" to be includible in gross income under Internal Revenue Code section 61. (Income doesn't necessarily have to be realized in the form of money, cash, etc., but there generally does have to be a "realization" event before the income can be "recognized" for tax purposes.)
Glenshaw Glass is one of the very first court cases that almost every tax lawyer studies. It is a leading case. The quote from Glenshaw Glass regarding "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" is so pervasively repeated by American legal scholars as an example of a definition of income that, I argue, it is eminently appropriate in the main article in Wikipedia. Famspear 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Glenshaw Glass is almost as good as the Woodsam case. GG also stands for the proposition that ANY ACCESSION to wealth is gross income unless otherwise excluded. Woodsam let in a silly rule that secured loans were not income. If you are able to borrow borrow than the adjusted basis, you have realized the capital gain and have complete use of the money. I.e. buy a house a ten dollars, it goes up in value to a million dollars. Instead of selling, you take a nonfrecourse secured loand of half a million dollars. You have effectively realized a half million dollar gain because you have the cash. Daniel Shaviro has argued for an anti-Woodsam rule. John wesley 13:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC) But then again, he is Haigs-Simon, guy. John wesley 13:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was used before?

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Before the US started collecting a personal income tax, what was (were) the source(s) of funding for the federal government? Are those revenue sources still being used, and how much do they generate compared to income taxes?

Mostly import/export tariffs, I think. I don't have numerical references at my fingertips. -- Beland 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Income Tax doesn't go to provide any governmental services (so to speak). It's used to pay interest on the money the United States barrows from the Federal Reserve (private banks).
And why is that not mentioned AT ALL in this article? Forget that nothing is mentioned at all, as to why the tax is collected now in the first place. Nbbs 10:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, why was the income tax put into play in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.125.36 (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already states the reason that the income tax was "put into play in the first place":

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax [ . . . ]

Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rico

What are the rules for PR? John wesley 15:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added non-compliant tags

This article is compromised by a gigantic libertarian tract that has been dumped in the middle of it. Needs immediate attention.--Nydas 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I have reverted the entire mess that was dumped into the article on 7 May 2006 by a new user (“BobHurt”). Much of the dump appears to have been copied and pasted wholesale from a web log at http://triallogs.blogspot.com/2005/08/larken-day-five_112388333289521432.html -- in addition to being a massive violation of Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Tag removed. Yours, Famspear 19:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another huge text dump

On 7 May 2006, a user named Supremelaw virtually wiped out the article on Income tax in the United States with a huge, POV text dump apparently copied at least in part from http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm or http://home.satx.rr.com/truthamerica/The%20Truth%20About%20The%20IRS.htm. I reverted the text dump. Also, see comments on this talk page regarding another text dump on 7 May 2006, that one by a user called "BobHurt". Yours, Famspear 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

--While I do not agree with the text dump, I think that there should be a section added to the article pertaining to some of the points brought up about the legitamacy of the income tax in the US. There is a movie coming out called "America: from Freedom to Fascism" dealing with this topic and using many credible sources and arguments. [note: Above comment was posted by user Nytemunkey on 13 June 2006]

Actually, there is already an article in Wikipedia for arguments about the validity of the Federal income tax: Tax protester arguments. Yours, Famspear 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering how strong some people's emotions are about the income tax, shouldn't there be a link in the main page to the protester arguments? I think it might help reduce the amount of text dumping into this article; they would see that the alternative views are also presented (not everyone immediately believes/accepts the neutral POV and inclusionist philosophy of Wikipedia). I'm annotating an essay, and came into this page because I couldn't figure out where the discussion of the anti-income tax movement was. Without the link in the main article, I'll have to add a separate link to the protester POV in what I'm writing. I can't do it right now myself because I'm operating under severe time constraints. Maybe I can remember to come back and do it, this is insurance. :) I'd actually prefer that someone else write it, though; legal stuff isn't my forte.--Tygerbryght 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Added a short details tag under "Arguments against income taxation" - probably not the best solution but should address the problem for right now. Morphh (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert apparent copyright violation

On 25 June 2006 certain material was added to the article, much of it apparently copied from http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/decoding.htm

for which copyright is claimed by WorldNetDaily.com

I removed the inserted material. Yours, Famspear 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maximum tax bracket

whats the maximum % of tax that americans pay on income tax? [Question posed by anonymous user at IP 81.149.143.157.]


For the year 2005 for individuals, the highest Federal marginal tax rate for income tax is 35%. See Progressive tax. In the early 1950s the rate was above 90%. Yours, Famspear 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, this is just "income taxes" and does not add in payroll taxes (7.5% by employee and 7.5% by employer) up to $90,000. It also does not take into account taxes that are passed down through products such as excise and corporate taxes. So the Maximum tax bracket under the income tax system does not equal tax burden. Morphh 02:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it also does not include the effect what some call "double taxation" of shareholder's income -- income taxed at the corporate level and then again when the dividend is paid to the shareholder. (By the way the payroll tax is actually 7.65% for employee and 7.65% for employer, with the $90,000 income limit applying only to 6.2% of each, and no dollar limit on the income to which the remaining 1.45% of each applies.) Yours, Famspear 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the $90,000 limit was for 2005 wages. For 2006, it's $94,200, and it keeps changing with inflation. Yours, Famspear 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Question

Based soley on income tax who would end up with more after taxes, person A who made $326,452 (in the highest bracket 35%) or person B who made $326,450 (33%)? William conway bcc 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Understand that these are marginal rates, so the highest bracket is only applied to the amount of money in that range, not the entire income. In your example Person A is taxed at 35% only for his last two dollars. The answer to your question is Person A will end up with more after taxes, since he had higher income. It looks like you were using last year's brackets, so for this year, with the cut-off at $336,550:
  • Person A nets 336,552 - 97,654 = $238,898 (29.02% of income)
Income dollars x Rate = Tax owed
7,550 - 0 .10 755.00
30,650 - 7,550 .15 3,465.00
74,200 - 30,650 .25 10,887.50
154,800 - 74,200 .28 22,568.00
336,550 - 154,800 .33 59,977.50
336,552 - 336,550 .35 0.70
TOTAL 97,653.70
  • Person B nets 336,550 - 97,653 = $238,897 (also 29.02% of income, because the values are so close to each other)
Income dollars x Rate = Tax owed
7,550 - 0 .10 755.00
30,650 - 7,550 .15 3,465.00
74,200 - 30,650 .25 10,887.50
154,800 - 74,200 .28 22,568.00
336,550 - 154,800 .33 59,977.50
TOTAL 97,653.00
There is an example of this calculation in the article and a further discussion below. Hoof Hearted 14:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The law of diminishing returns and marginal tax rates

An anonymous editor added the material shown below in bolding:

Contrary to a popular belief, there is no point at which one is better off earning less money (excepting, of course, those that believe in the law of diminishing returns). That is, because the marginal tax rate is always far less than 100%, an individual is financially "better off" realizing "more" income than "less" income, even though the marginal tax rate applicable to the highest level of income of that person increases as income increases.

I reverted the edit, for two reasons. First of all, the law of diminishing returns can be roughly stated as being: "As one's effort increases, the marginal benefit of each unit of effort past a certain point becomes smaller and smaller." In an income tax system of progressive taxation -- where the marginal rates increase as one's income level increases -- the realization of higher and higher levels of income does generally result in an application of the law of diminishing returns -- after considering the tax collector's take, the taxpayer gets to keep a smaller and smaller share of each dollar (to use the U.S. example). However, as the article correctly points out, the individual is still financially better off realizing more and more income than in realizing less income. That's just basic mathematics.

Second, the individual's "belief" that, because of the law of diminishing returns (which, again, does in fact apply here) he or she is not better off financially does not change the fact that he or she in fact is better off financially. Again, this is simply mathematics. The only way the individual could be worse off financially is if the marginal tax rate were greater than 100%.

Whether a person feels subjectively that working for those last, extra, heavily-taxed dollars is worth the net marginal overall benefit aside from the financial benefit is a separate question -- one which only the individual can answer. Yours, Famspear 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a footnote to the preceding: In labor economics there is a concept called "the backward bending supply curve of labor". This proposed phenomena suggests that as the marginal utility of income decreases with rising income, and the marginal utility of leisure increases as leisure decreases, rational workers will employ a utility calculus to arrive at the conclusion that they should work less and consume more leisure, therby maximizing their total utility. Besides the obvious difficulty in determining an individual's "supply of labor", and the fact that the marginal utility of income is a function of present and past income (everyone thinks they could comfortably live and achieve true happiness on 110% of their current income), this concept seems to me to be tautological. Claiming that individuals maximize utility is not very helpful if utility is defined as that which we attempt to maximize (a common pitfall many fall into). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_of_labour.

It seems to me that the argument that a high marginal tax rate promotes a sense that the taxpayer "is not as well off" at higher income levels makes more sense by comparing it to the "backward bending supply curve of labor" rather than the "law of diminishing returns".70.144.194.125 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State and territorial income taxes

There is no mention in the section State and territorial income taxes about U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam whose citizens pay no federal income tax. The main article State income tax makes no mention of it either, and does not seem to be an appropriate page for this discussion. --Stux 17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I'll add that in. Please expand if you have more knowledge on it. Morphh (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we make articles for individual state taxes?

It seems like there should be something about it. Perhaps we can have a how to do section on taxes or something also.

The articles on state taxes are State income tax, Sales taxes in the United States, and State tax levels. In regard to a "how to do taxes" section, this is outside the scope of Wikipedia. An encyclopedia does not offer "how to" advice. Morphh (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laugenour hoax

A user inserted the following material into the article:

In USA v Laugenour, case number 2:06-CV-00183-GEB-KJM, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Laugenours in docket number 76 gave judicial notice of the "facts of the case" in which the DOJ attorneys admitted to acceptance of incentive money by officers of the court for convicting income tax case defendants. They also admitted to owing back to the people every dollar taken without a procedurally proper summary record of assessment, and they agreed that levies do not apply to the people in the private sector. They also agreed that the IRS agents intentionally put false information in Individual Master Files to make it seem that they owe income taxes when in fact they do not. The DOJ attorneys further admitted to status as common criminals with a pattern of fraud and extortion that exceeds the requirements of criminal and civil racketeering. These facts echo the sentiments of thousands of victims of crimes by IRS and DOJ employees against Americans who refuse to file returns for taxes they believe they do not owe.

The above material is tax protester rhetoric, is false, and has already been exposed in another talk page here in Wikipedia. The Laugenours were parties in the case. As parties, the Laugenours cannot give judicial notice of the facts of the case or of anything else, as explained below.

In the Laugenour case, the taxpayers filed a somewhat mangled version of a request for judicial notice under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The above verbiage is based on the legally frivolous argument that the opposing side's failure to respond to the request somehow constitutes an "admission" of something. As previously noted on the talk page for the article on Income tax, there is a procedure under the U.S. legal system whereby a party can be deemed to have admitted a fact. Unfortunately, that procedure is not found in Rule 201. As explained below, a request by a party under Rule 201(d) does not result in an "admission" of anything. Indeed, a request under Rule 201 results in nothing unless the Court itself makes a ruling.

Rule 201(d) relates to requests made by one party that the Court itself judicially notice a particular fact. To qualify, however, the "fact", must be "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" (Rule 201(b)). Examples of statements of facts of this kind would be: "Albany is the capital of New York" or "the sun generally rises in the east and generally sets in the west" or "spring is followed by summer."

By law, the judicial notice of adjudicative facts, if one is made at all, is made by only the court. The silence or acquiescence of an opposing party (such as a government lawyer) after the filing of a Rule 201(d) request does not result in any kind of "admission" under Rule 201; the silence or acquiescence also does not constitute a ruling by the court. The idea that the absence of a Department of Justice response to the Laugenours' assertions found in a Rule 201(d) request would constitute, by silence and acquiescence, an admission, agreement or confession of the Laugenours' assertions is without legal merit and is indeed legally frivolous. Yours, Famspear 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why collect Income Tax?

Simple Question.

Why do they collect the tax, as of present day?

I'd like to know if someone can add the correct information. (Only seems reasonable asking for a reason to collect the tax, no?)

As it can't be only to pay interest on the money the US barrows from the Federal Reserve. Can it? (being facetious) Nbbs 10:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Found this image and thought it would be good for the article. Here is the Library of Congress link It might fall under public domain but will require a little research to see if it was published in the Washington Star or if copyright was renewed. If neither, then it might fall in the PD. See Clifford Berryman Cartoons - Rights and Restrictions Information Morphh (talk) 0:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate tax

I'm thinking we should have a secton on the corporate income tax. Morphh (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Direct v. Indirect

As Huntsville Alabama attorney Larry Becraft has pointed out on his web site US and state courts have differed widely on whether income tax operates as a direct or indirect tax. He pointed out to me that 19 CFR 351 refers to income tax as a direct tax. Since the courts cannot agree on the classification of the income tax, the courts should decide the matter in favor of the alleged "taxpayer."

68.200.46.69 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Larry Becraft espouses Tax protester arguments or represents people who do espouse those arguments, and Becraft is a highly unreliable source for any information about U.S. Federal income tax. Also, his clients' losses in court are a matter of record.
And 19 CFR 351 has nothing to do with whether a Federal income tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. That citation refers to Part 351 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 351 deals with "Antidumping and Countervailing Duties" with respect to investigations of unfair import trade practices in connection with the international trade administration of the Department of Commerce. Good grief.
U.S. and state courts have most certainly NOT "differed widely" on whether income tax operates as a direct or indirect tax, for the simple reason that state courts are not generally presented with, and do not generally decide, issues involving the validity of Federal income tax, or whether any given Federal income tax is "direct" or "indirect."
Further, saying that Federal income taxes are "direct" is essentially saying that ALL Federal income taxes are direct. It's like saying that "a Chevrolet is a Lumina" -- which really means that ALL Chevrolets are Luminas. It's patently false.
Further, the FEDERAL courts not only do NOT generally disagree among themselves about the classification of the income tax, the Federal courts don't even care. After about February of 1913, the classification of any particular Federal income tax as direct or indirect is legally irrelevant. All this is already covered in the case law -- and in various Wikipedia articles such as the article on the Pollock case, the article on the Brushaber case, the article on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and so on. Yours, Famspear 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear IP68.200.46.69: PS - Is that you, Bob? If it is, where have you been lately? Yours, Famspear 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Another post-script: When I say that the classification of any particular Federal income tax as direct or indirect is legally irrelevant, I am talking about legal irrelevancy with respect to the Constitutional rule about APPORTIONMENT of direct taxes. The point is that because of the 16th Amendment, NO Federal income tax after February of 1913 is required to be apportioned among the states according to population. Yours, Famspear 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Laugenour, Becraft, etc

Yes, it's me. I forgot to log in.

Okay. Becraft. You call him a tax protester, but he's an attorney, not a protester, and he defends people who KNOW they have no income tax liability, and who KNOW the income tax is and must be an indirect tax, regardless of what lower courts say.

I want to see your proof that one cannot rely upon his counsel. He loses cases sometimes because of strategy, never because of espousing a falsehood, and usually because corruption and incompetence hopelessly ride the courts (including judges, DOJ, IRS, and selected jurors), as the Laugenour case has proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Our problems with lower courts: they ignore the principles of Anastoff about the critical importance of precedent (not legislating from the bench, but honestly divining the meaning of law, rather than what they wish the law meant).

As for Laugenour's Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts, FRCP 26-37 deem admissions admitted if not responded to within the required time period. Opponent can petition for order to answer, but a non answer constitutes an answer.

For your reference:

Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 - notification of legal responsibility constitutes “the first essential of due process of law.”

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5th Cir. 1977)- “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading,”

Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. D. A. Dorsey, 1932.FL.40867, 149 So. 759 (1932)- "he who is silent when conscience requires him to speak shall be debarred from speaking when conscience requires him to be silent"

United States v. Dalles Military Road Co., 11 S. Ct. 988, 140 U.S. 599, 35 L. Ed. 560; Wiser v. Lawler., 23 S. Ct. 624, 189 U.S. 260; - notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law."

Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906) - Silence constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question and will operate as an estoppel.

Federal Rules of Evidence Article III provides for “Admission by silence” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(d) maintains that the effect of failure to deny constitutes tacit admission Ditto Florida rules of Civil Procedure 1.110(e) and Florida Statute 90.803(6)(c) (which also apply also to Administrative Process.)

Bob Hurt 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bob Hurt: Gee, I thought you were contending, via Mr. Becraft, that the Federal income tax is a DIRECT tax, based on the weird reference to 19 CFR 351 that I exposed above. Now you're saying that Becraft is defending people who know the income tax is an INDIRECT tax. Well, which is it?
You brought up Mr. Becraft, not I. Wikipedia editors are not under some sort of obligation to prove to you that tax protesters cannot rely on Mr. Becraft's counsel, and this talk page is not the proper forum for that anyway. If Mr. Becraft has won a case on a point of law that you think is somehow relevant to the article, let’s hear about it.
The U.S. legal system is not based on "the principles of Anastoff," and courts do not refer to "Anastoff" to figure out how to decide cases. Our legal system came to us from English common law. We have a Constitution, and that's what we follow.
I have already explained the Laugenour case to you on another Wikipedia talk page. The Laugenours did not make proper requests for admissions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They made a mangled attempt at obtaining admissions through a completely unrelated provision - Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence -- for requesting that the court take judicial notice of their preposterous, laughable claims. The court, not surprisingly, declined to do so.
Among the hilarious claims that the Laugenours delusionally and mistakenly thought the court would treat as “facts” are the following, which you yourself posted on a talk page in Wikipedia some time back:
”Every time an IRS or Tax Division attorney from the Unite States Department of Justice makes any sort of demand relative to IRS form 1040, they are committing a felony crime.”
”Many of the people who have worked for the Internal Revenue Service or the United States Department of Justice, many federal judges, federal magistrates, and federal prosecutors have played a role in taking money or property under the false pretense that many millions of Americans and others who happened to be domiciled within the United States or its territories actual owed some sum to the United States Treasury where no procedurally proper assessment verified a valid tax debt, are nothing in the world but common criminals.”
”It is the standard operating procedure of the Internal Revenue Service to falsely state, on the Individual Master File and the Individual Master File's underlying documents, that individuals domiciled in the several states of the United States are actually operating a business in one of the Territories of the United States.”
”Congress has made an alliance with the federal court system to the effect that if the federal judiciary will enforce the collection of the 1040 tax, the federal system can operate extra-legally for the purposes of fraud and extortion.”
”Personnel within the United States Department of Justice have actual knowledge that federal judges and prosecutors receive kickbacks, dividends, and bonuses from Corrections Corporation of America and have a stake in sending people to prison for tax crimes that are never proved.”
”The CID, "criminal investigation division" of the Internal Revenue Service maintains a file on every single federal judge and federal prosecutor to extort compliance with IRS fraud.”
”Gaud P. Maragani and McGregor W. Scott are nothing in the world but common criminals with a pattern of fraud and extortion that exceeds the requisites for criminal and civil racketeering warranting: (a). Inquiry to determine how many U.S. Attorneys, IRS agents, federal judges, federal magistrates, federal clerks, and federal circuit court judges are engaged in this racket, (b). Prosecution of all U.S. Attorneys, IRS agents, federal judges, federal magistrates, federal clerks, and federal circuit court judges involved in the racket to the full extent of the law including five years in prison per count to be served consecutively [after all these are the "keepers of the law"], (c). the United States of America returning all that has been taken from the American people for a so-called 1040 tax, (d). exoneration of all those imprisoned for a so-called 1040 tax issue, (e). compensating all those who have been imprisoned relative to a so-called 1040 tax, and (f). executing each and every U.S. Attorney, IRS agent, federal judge, federal magistrate, federal clerk, and federal circuit court judge whose acts in re: the so-61led 1040 tax were the proximate cause of the death of the target of IRS racketeering [ . . . ]”
The above quotations are not “admissions” made by the government, and they are not “facts” determined in any Federal court anywhere, at any time. They are delusional ramblings by the Laugenours – from material that you yourself posted on another talk page in Wikipedia.
Neither this talk page nor the related Wikipedia article is the proper forum for you to be promulgating tax protester rhetoric, especially materials already previously discredited on other talk pages right here in Wikipedia (including your completely off-topic citations to cases like the Tweel case). Yours, Famspear 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of history sections?

Check out History of taxation in the United States. Should there be a section merger where we take this article's history sections and put it into a history article? There are two possibilities that I can think of offhand: (1) create History of Income Taxation in the United States and use that as a main article where we merge the history sections from this article with the income tax history found in History of taxation in the United States (which I think would be better for an overall organization scheme) OR (2) just merge much of the legal history content from this article into History of taxation in the United States. EECavazos 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for option 2. Morphh (talk) 3:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I already started on the first option, but it'll be easy to create a redirect and move the content to History of taxation in the United States. If you already put much of the content History of taxation in the United States, then it'll be even easier. EECavazos 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I just did the second option, which was easy because I had earlier finished the first option and so I just had to copy and paste. Lets go ahead with the one you prefer. EECavazos 04:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading language

The following language in a link near the bottom of the article is misleading:

Sometimes "protesters" win in court and sometimes lose.

As of early August 2007, no tax protester has ever won in any Federal court case on a tax protester argument. The only "wins" by tax protesters that relate to Federal income tax are a few scattered wins in criminal cases, in the form of acquittal (not guilty verdict), such as Joseph Banister, Tommy Cryer, and so on. A not guilty verdict in a criminal case is not a ruling that the law under which the defendant was charged is somehow invalid. The language in the link seems to give the false impression that some Federal court somewhere has actually ruled in favor of a tax protester argument. As of this date, that has yet to happen even once. Yours, Famspear 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Stated another way, implying that a tax protester argument has ever been upheld in a Federal court is like implying that because some people have been acquitted of murder, the courts in those cases ruled that the law against murder is invalid. Famspear 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole definition was misleading; the IRS does not consider those who disagree with it "tax protestors", only those who both take particular frivolous legal positions and refuse to pay taxes. I've NPOV'ed it further. THF 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the change to the Flat tax description:

"Proposals to abolish the progressivity of the income tax."

I don't know of any flat tax proposal in Congress that would abolish progressivity. They normally have an exemption of income to a certain amount, which creates an progressive effective rate. Some proposals are just a flat tax option and leave the current system in place. Morphh (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding editor THF's comment -- yeah, if either the IRS or the courts considered everyone who disagrees with the IRS on tax law as being "tax protesters," then everyone who litigates a tax case would be considered tax protesters. In fact, tax protesters accounted for less than 10% of all litigated tax cases in a recent year (based on an unscientific survey I took about a year ago). Also, I went ahead and just deleted the definitions; they're duplicative anyway. Famspear 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pros and cons of federal income tax

Actually, there are a lot of cons. They're called tax protesters. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Arthur Rubin: You've con-vinced me. Famspear 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
(This was in response to anon-created and rapidly deleted section in the article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Just so it is out there, I didn't delete it because I didn't think such a section should exist. It was a comment with header that should have been posted here in the talk (and I probably should have moved it here) for discussion and expansion if it is worth including. We also already have a section in the article entitled "Arguments against income taxation". To Arthur's comment above, there is much more regarding "cons" than tax protester arguments, which mainly focus on lawfulness of the U.S. income tax and obligations to pay it. There is certainly arguments against the principles of income taxation and the implementation of the U.S. federal income tax regarding incidence and wealth transfer, social engineering, economic impact, global trade, loopholes, corporate welfare, business decisions, class warfare, transparency, administration, civil rights, compliance cost, and the list goes on... We could write an entire article regarding the pros / cons of the U.S. income tax. Morphh (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thinking it over, there certainly could be such an article, if we can keep the tax protesters out of it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distrubution

why do we have no info about the distribution of federal income taxes? who pays more, who pays less? something to think about. thanks (209.7.171.66 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

We'd need a source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The statutory rates for the Income tax are listed under "Year 2006 income brackets and tax rates". If your talking about effective rates, tax incidence, tax avoidance, etc - that can be very involved and because of the complexity of the tax code can differ significantly from family to family. Also for this article, you'd have to limit the study with regard to the income tax and exclude other taxes like payroll (SS & Medicare), which 80% of American's are reported to pay more of. It would also exclude things like excise, capital gains, gift taxes, estate taxes, etc. Would it include the individual State's income tax? Strictly listing the Federal Income Tax may give a very limited picture when considering tax distribution and burden. I think the National Bureau of Economic Research did a study on this and reported that we average around 40% of our income in taxes overall.[1] However, something like this may be better for Taxation in the United States. Morphh (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think anon was looking for information of the distribution of income tax with respect to income; i.e., the top 10% of taxpayers by income represents 85% of the income but 91% of the tax (numbers chosen at random), rather than the rates. That would require sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for income taxation

Despite the prominence of arguments against income taxation in the United States, courts have repeatedly affirmed its Constitutionality. Most famously, Justice Holmes of the Supreme Court, no modern "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination, said in 1904 that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" and to most people the stated ambition of "anti-tax" pundits to eliminate taxation would eliminate commonly enjoyed amenities (such as freeways, support for education, and even national defense) which undergird, and create the framework for, a strong market.

The main reason for the increase of taxation from the end of the Second World War was probably to create a fairer distribution of income, and a middle class society, not a society divided sharply between rich and poor, for such societies were seen prior to World War II to be incubators of political extremism of the left and right. Also, Keynesian economic theory, popular through the Seventies used taxation to create incentives for social goals.

Since most anti-tax absolutists, who preach the elimination of taxation and consequently the reduction of government to a size such that it could be (in the words of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist) "drowned in the bathtub", support national defense, there is a question as to their sincerity.

The real goal behind private funding of anti-tax propaganda while the arguments for taxation are seldom repeated may be to merely increase the regressivity of the tax system, its tendency to take the largest "bite" out of wage income at lower levels, thereby forcing the people least able to afford heavy taxation to bear the heaviest load, while corporations (as observers including Ralph Nader have pointed out) pay disproportionally small taxes, and, in some cases, no tax at all in many tax years.

Pro-tax proponents point out that this is "regressive" not only mathematically but also historically, since it hearkens back to 18th century France, with its First Estate of the nobility protected from taxation, and its Third Estate of middle class and commoner forced to finance the numerous wars of that era (notably, France's intervention in the American Revolution) through money payments raised by corrupt and inefficient tax "farmers", and, from the penniless, forced labor (the corvee).

This regressivity increases the collection and surveillance pressure on small taxpayers who are bearing the disproportionate burden, including modern day tax farming in the form of privatized collection of back taxes and unrealistically high requirements for tax credits intended to relieve the pressure on low income taxes, notably the Earned Income Credit.

Indeed, in Britain at the end of the Thatcher era, the "poll tax" was a severely regressive head tax which affected people of low income disproportionally, and produced riots, helping to end Thatcher's Prime Ministership. The logic of "anti-tax" crusade creates new taxes to finance government actions, taxes which if unpayable on a small income will of course go unpaid.

In France of the 18th century, and according to some historians, ancient Rome, and in the USA today, "anti-tax" ideology never eliminated or eliminates taxation. It merely displaces the burden onto social classes less able to pay, producing the end of effective government in both Rome, and France.
I wanted to discuss this recently added section by 219.77.96.202 as it seems to be an argument for taxation, and not "income" taxation - in particular it should be about U.S. income taxation. The section in arguments against income taxation are directed at U.S. income taxation. So I have a problem with adding this to this article. Perhaps Taxation in the United States but some of the statements need sources as I see a lot of what I think is original research or just plain POV statements. Morphh (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder

Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-review notice

I think we're close to submitting Tax protester constitutional arguments for Featured Article status. Please help in the peer-review of this article to get it ready for submission. Thanks Morphh (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computation needs to be updated

The brackets for the computation need to be updated to the brackets used in the 2008 table. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total Revenues

What is the total revenues from income tax in the US? What total amount of income is it assessed against? --86.144.20.95 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get some numbers for this.. I've seen them. Off the top of my head, I think the net tax base for the personal income tax is something like 9 trillion, with a collection of around 1 trillion in revenue. About nother 1 trillion is collected from payroll taxes and probably something like 500 billion for Corporate taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise. I'll find some sources and try to include it in the article soon. Morphh (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Timeline

Came across this timeline for filing tax returns and paying taxes - would it be of any value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.51.16 (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Arguments

A libertarian viewpoint proposes the existence of a natural right to "enjoy all the fruits of one's own labor" (previously protected, some libertarians claim, by the Ninth Amendment). Taxation of income is argued to be an infringement on that right. Under this argument, income taxation offers the federal government a technique to radically diminish the power of the states, because the federal government is then able to distribute funding to states with conditions attached, often giving the states no choice but to submit to federal demands. The FairTax legislation before the U.S. Congress repeals the income tax in favor of a national sales tax with a rebate that would "untax" purchases up to the poverty level. The Americans For Fair Taxation plan is to first pass the FairTax and then to focus grassroots efforts on HJR 16, sponsored by Congressman Steve King (R-IA), that proposes a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment.

I took these out. The first paragraph is actually two arguments. One, that taxation is theft, thus its illegitimate. Two, that giving significant taxation powers to the federal government perverts federalism. Neither is specific to an income tax in particular.

The second paragraph shows that the FairTax is one alternative to the income tax but offers no arguments why it is superior to the income tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.99.242 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the first paragraph makes the argument of general tax theft but one regarding tax on labor, which is specific to income taxes and the Ninth Amendment being specific to the U.S. So I've added this back in - I don't think it is irrelevant. I reordered the point regarding the FairTax (added it after discussion of consumption taxes) and reduced it down to a single sentence. I think it is relevant to state there is a consumption tax bill in congress to replace the income tax. Arguments for and against the FairTax proposal are in that article, which is wikilinked. This is by no means a complete section. I expect at some point an entire article could be written regarding arguments against the U.S. income tax system. Morphh (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding about libertarian principles all taxation is thought to reduces one's ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labor. Consumption taxes increases the price level of goods and services. Property taxes make property less desirable, ect. Anyway my point about federal taxation powers still holds. Any type of consumption tax or property tax large enough to replace income tax revenue of the federal government would suffer the same flaws —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.99.162 (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graph Appears Wrong

Regarding the graph showing income tax as a percentage of taxable income, how come the rate rises to 15% at around $5,000, when the first $8,025 are taxed at 10%? Comrinec (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you're confusing the second marker as $10,000 and not the $100,000 stated. I don't believe the graph has enough detail for that income range to show you the difference between $5,000 & $8,000. Morphh (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"I suspect you're confusing the second marker as $10,000 and not the $100,000 stated."

Doh! Comrinec (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


The graph is wrong. Taxes are higher (or equal) for each income level for someone filing as married, but it shows those taxes as lower. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

U.S. taxes as a percent of income (effective tax rate) in 2008 for single and married filing jointly. The filing status of married filing separately is not included, which can result in a marriage penalty.
U.S. taxes as a percent of income (effective tax rate) in 2008 for single and married filing jointly. The filing status of married filing separately is not included, which can result in a marriage penalty.
The image appears to be a graph of the effective tax rate using the income tax brackets for Single and Married filing jointly. I believe you are looking at married filing separately. It is a graph of the first two columns in the 2008 table. It does not violate OR as it creates no new synthesis of data. It is the data, just in a graph form, which I think is completely fine if we describe what is presented. Morphh (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the image here under discussion, with what I think would be a description of the data. Morphh (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
See? It's wrong. The red line should be above the black line east of $65,725. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
See what? Married Filing Jointly. If we describe it in the caption, there is no issue. Morphh (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But that's an apples and oranges comparison. If I file jointly, I'll move northeast on the graph because my spouse has income. It's plainly confusing outside readers -- google marriage penalty and wikipedia, and you'll find someone citing this graph as "evidence" that there's no such thing as the marriage penalty, when it's purely the invention of the designer of the graph divorced from the reality of the tax code. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Describe it in the caption then that this does not include Married filing separately and potential marriage penalty effects. This is an issue of describing the data in a neutral way, not the data itself. Morphh (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand though that presenting only part of the data, may give the wrong impression. I do think it would be much better to include all tax brackets. I'll see if I can recreate the image including all data. Morphh (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to recreate the image with little luck given the time I have at the moment to work on it. Perhaps someone could e-mail Dejo. Morphh (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the actual Internal Revenue figures?

I've noticed that while the IRS is all too happy to cut down whole forests for books of tax codes explaining how much money you owe them, I can't actually find data on how much money is collected each fiscal year by them. This is public domain information, is it not? Seems kind of important for being so obfuscated. --76.224.65.89 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP76.224.65.89: I'm not sure what you mean. It took me less than 2 minutes to find this on the IRS web site:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html

I'm sure if you spend more than 2 minutes, you can find more.

Yours, Famspear (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The figures listed there are for fiscal year end September 30, 2006. Looks like the IRS took in about 2.5 trillion dollars that year. Famspear (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)