Well guys…just when I think the Government is “looking out for the little working guy and gal”, we get shafted again! Thanks to a reporter MUCH smarter than me, I am now aware of the following: That tax “refund” many of us are getting is not a refund at all; it’s an ADVANCE against next years taxes, NOT a refund on what you have already paid. In other words, say you are to recieve $300 dollars. IF you receive a REFUND next year, that $300.00 will be deducted from it. If you OWE next year, you will owe $300.00 more than you would have ordinarily. Oh well…at least for today the $300.00 will help with my supplements…
Actually, that’s not quite correct. The $300 that most individuals who are employed full-time will be getting is, in fact, a refund. And, it counts as income, just like the refunds that many people get every year after income taxes are filed. You will be required to claim it as income on your taxes for 2001 (the ones that get filed in April 2002). When you file your taxes next spring, if you made $25,000 (gross) in 2001 you would, instead, have to claim that you made $25,300 due to your $300 refund that you will get this summer. The tax refund is income because you are getting the money back and it has, technically not been taxed yet, just as if that extra $300 came from playing the stock market, winning the lottery, or selling the old Methoxy-7 on ebay (to make room in your kitchen for the new formula). Pretend that the $300 you’ll be getting is just the second installment on the refund that you got last spring, it works the same exact way. Make sense? Good. :o)
And so many people voted for Bush! Yeah, he’ll cut our taxes. Things will be better for the working man. Whatever! You see how he screws us over! I’m glad I didn’t vote for him, but it sucks that we have four years of his bullshit to deal with. And there are many issues he doesn’t need to screw with. That bastard!
Thanks, Wadely! So…not quite as BIG a hit as I thought next year…but not really a “gift” either. Thanks for making it clearer!When I first read about it, I was really disappointed…
income tax is unconstitutional anyway. I have no problem w/a sales tax but income tax is wrong and unconstitutional on many levels. anyone ever read “The Federal Mafia” by Irvin Shift(sp?)?
I find it hard to get excited that the thief who stole $100 from me later returns and decides to give me 50 cents back, proclaiming himself a just and generous thief who works for the good of the people he steals from. Not that I will be getting 50 cents back this year, due to a quirk in the way the refund system works.
My advice is to not depend on refunds and to seek out low-risk means of “theft evasion”. Use an offshore bank account (or one that doesn’t require your SSN), work as a contractor instead of as an employee, and whenever possible, deal in alternative currencies, such as e-gold.
Mufasa, I read that same article, and yeah, I was disappointed. I don’t want to borrow against my next tax refund. We need real tax relief, not phony tax relief. Maybe someone will clarify the issue on that same website later.
the correct answer is as follows
The lowest tax rate has been reduced starting in 2001 from 15 percent to 10 percent. The check is the difference in what the taxes would have been at 15 percent and the new 10 percent rate. That was applied retroactively to your 2000 income taxes. That means that everyone who payed in at the 15 percent rate or higher gets the difference back. It is clearly a reduction in the burden the govt places on the working men and women of america. Not enough but a start.
how about we just eliminate the federal incometax?
Theft is completely unacceptable at any level. Eliminating the federal income tax would be a good start, but would not suffice, nor would it effect lasting change, as states would quickly raise sales tax to the level that people will bear without revolting (a maxim the founding fathers recognized).
I do not wish any of the “services” the government provides me, indeed, I would pay money to eliminate many of them (such as the “service” of imprisoning people who choose to ingest or inject taboo substances into their bodies), nor, even if I wished them, would I agree to pay the prices the government forces me to pay. So I view the whole of the government as illegitimate, seeing taxation as indistinguishable from theft, and I heartily support any (peaceful) efforts to reduce the size and/or power of the thief/nanny/tyrant known as government.
i can understand you guys not liking the federal income tax. We have dug ourselves into a hole, where it is neccessary. A great way to lower it, would be to finally pay off our damn debt (remember the “surplus” last year). However, it atleast is NOT unconstitutional. Heytey and others please read amendment 16.
I stopped paying federal income tax three years ago. There is no statute that requires any US citzen living in the 50 states to pay income tax. The 16th amendment does not make me or any of you liable for the tax. Neither is there any liability spelled out in Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code).
The IRS for years now has and still is using Title 27 (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) regulations to enforce Title 26 (Income tax) statutes. If you people only knew how you are being defrauded!
The income tax is on life support. Dying a slow death. IRS "enforcement" (they have no enforcement authority--they are an administrative agency, not a police force) has more or less stopped. Levies and seizures have all but dried up.
Yes, I read The Federal Mafia by Irwin Schiff. Followed his zero return strategy. Got back over $3,000 from Utah, but ended up paying it all back plus penalties and interest. That doesn’t work. The IRS illegally “changed” my return. They have absolutely no authority to do so. Then tried to fine me $500 for a “frivolous” tax return. To date they’ve only gotten $200 from me in a levy. That’s all.
Employers and banks just hand it over to them without question. The IRS operates under “color of law” Virtually everything they do concerning income taxes is bogus. They don’t even sign their letters. That should tell you something.
There is so much more to this; more than I could possibly fit in these posts. People need to wake up and smell the coffee. You're being had. And the income tax doesn't go to support the army or navy or provide services. It goes mainly to pay interest on the debt. A debt which is mathematically impossible to pay back.
The issues briefed below will serve as the evidence in support of other statements and questions presented for review filed by Petitioner. Most are issues that should be readily addressed and resolved at an administrative level but cannot be due to agency silence.
Any reference to a statute, “§”, section, CFR, regulation, Code, IRC, or Tax Code, made herein, shall be construed to mean and include Title 26 USC and the provisions contained therein, or promulgated thereunder, and to no others, unless expressly indicated to be otherwise. All issues except issue (G) apply equally to the self employed and the employee.
ISSUE (A) AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, SUBJECT TO CHAPTER ONE OF THE TAX CODE, PETITIONER CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER CHAPTERS 2 OR 21 OF THE CODE.
(A)1 Only chapters 2 and 21 of the Code impose Social Security (See § 1401(a), (b); § 3101(a), (b)). Code § 7655 makes a very peculiar statement about these two chapters, that they apply to the United States Possessions, failing to mention the United States. Provisions relied upon are lengthy, please refer to Appendix F when necessary.
§ 7655 Cross References
(a) Imposition of Tax in Possessions.-
For provisions imposing tax in possessions, see-
(1) Chapter 2, relating to self-employment tax;
(2) Chapter 21, relating to the tax under the Federal Contributions Act.
(A)2 When examined side by side, a certain group of provisions (statutory scheme) prove that this statute should be strictly construed.
(A)3 The definitions of the term “citizen” in chapters 2 and 21 expressly exclude the U.S. Citizenship of the Petitioner (See § 1402(b), 3121(e)). Neither of these definitions use the term “includes” when excluding the U.S. Citizen and including a citizen of [U.S. Possessions]. Only when proceeding to regulations under these statutes does one find the term “includes” (See 26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1(b)). The importance of this is, if the term “includes” is used in a “definition”, the Respondent feels free to enforce said statute as if it were an “inclusion”, and not as a “definition” as Congress has proclaimed it to be.
§ 1402(b) …An individual who is not a citizen of the United States but who is a resident of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa…
§ 3121(e) An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered… as a citizen of the United States.
26 CFR 31.0-2(a)(1) The terms defined in the provisions of law contained in the regulations in this part shall have the meaning so assigned to them.
26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1(b) …The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
(A)4 Even the use of the term “includes” in said regulation loses such semantic leeway because of the language of 26 CFR 31.0-2(a)(1) which says that the definitions in this part (26 CFR part 31) "shall have the meaning so assigned to them.” It makes no mention of U.S. Citizens in 26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1(b), it means what it says.
(A)5 Chapter 1 of the Code is said to apply to Citizens of the United States (Petitioner, See 26 CFR 1.1-1©). Petitioner charges that chapter 2 is for the U.S. Possessions only, by virtue of a strict interpretation of all applicable provisions (See § 7655, 1402(b), 3121(e); 42 USC 411(b)(2)). This would mean that the subject Citizens (U.S. Citizens) under chapter 1, and chapters 2 and 21 (Puerto Rican) are non-resident alien to one another and that Petitioner cannot be both subject citizens.
(A)6 In chapter 1, § 879(a)(2) instructs a self employed non-resident alien partner to go to chapter 2 to figure [his] taxes. It is because chapter 2 is for those who are non-resident alien (U.S. Possessions) to the chapter 1 Citizen (Petitioner, U.S. Citizen).
(A)7 Only two chapters address income from self employment or independent contracting; chapters 1 and 2. A chapter 2 regulation serves the same purpose as § 879(a)(2) (See (A)6, supra). Regulation 26 CFR 1.1402(b)-1(d) clearly states that a non-resident alien individual (to chapter 2 citizenship) will never be subject to chapter 2, but may be subject to “income tax provisions” on the income from self employment (chapter 1, § 83(a)). The only other provisions possibly applicable to this person who will not owe chapter 2 tax, must be in chapter 1, the Petitioner’s chapter.
(A)8 Code § 7651(5)(A) equates § 3811 of the [IRC] with chapters 2 and 21 (Social Security). The IRC of 1954 has no § 3811, but the 1939 IRC does.
§ 7651(5) Virgin Islands.-
(A) For purposes of this section, the reference in section 28(a) of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to “any tax specified in section 3811 of the Internal Revenue Code” shall be deemed to refer to any tax imposed by chapter 2 or by chapter 21.
1939 Code § 3811 Collection of Taxes in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.
(a) Puerto Rico
(b) Virgin Islands
(A)9 This reveals that, when the IRC of 1954 was written, 1939 IRC § 3811 was simply split into chapters 2 and 21 of the Code. The tax imposed under chapters 2 and 21 is, and always has been, strictly for imposition in U.S. Possessions and not in the fifty freely associated compact States (“Countries”). Any and all property collected by the Respondent under authority of either of these two chapters, and proven to rightfully belong to the Petitioner, should be returned immediately, as Due Process requires.
(A)10 Concurrence with the Petitioner on this issue requires that 26 CFR 1.1401-1(a), which provides the mechanism whereby chapter 2 Social Security is added to the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Code (U.S. Citizen), be declared null and void for its conflict with Congressional intent.
Under Issue (A):
Congress has provided for many particular definitions in the Code. When a statute is a "definition,” can it be applied as an “inclusion”, can the provisions to which the “definition” applies be applied to things not listed in the “definition”?
(a) When a “definition” contains the term "includes,” can it then be enforced as an inclusion? (See § 3401©)
Respondent claims that the Petitioner is of the citizenship defined in § 1402(b) and § 3121(e), in addition to being of the Citizenship defined in 26 CFR 1.1-1©. Can the Petitioner place § 3121(e) on a passport as a claim of citizenship? Are these three the same citizen? What is the Congressional intent?
Under the Law applicable to Social Security taxes and administration, does the Petitioner have standing capacity to apply for or possess a Social Security card or number (See 26 USC 1402(b), 3121(e); 42 USC 411(b)(2))?
wow mufasa that was a lot of shit, and i am not sure what it means. Generally i can understand laws a bit…
I’m a little confused by one of the earlier posters that mentioned income tax refunds have to be included as income for the next year?? Is this true? Man, I feel sorry for you Americans. The way refunds work here is that the gov’t was taking too much money from you throughout the year (you were basically giving them an interest free loan) and thus owes you that money back. Income tax refunds do not get taxed as income for the next year! And BTW, neither do our lottery winnings. (I’m a Canuck…)
how about the simple fact that I can not be forced to incriminate myself yet I have to signe a document saying what I owe?
I too am Canadian. The United States of America’s Constitution is the second most important political document ever written (the first being the Confedarate Constitution). Libertarians will tell you that taxes are theft, Foundationalists will tell you they are unconstitutional (as is the illegally ratified 16th amendment) and economists (of any merit) will tell you the represent a deadweight economic loss (assuming that the government is 100% efficient no less). This is all true, but Americans have a constitution for them (not the governmnet) that they can use to fight for liberty. In Canada, we are slaves (and truly the most reprehensible slaves “House Niggers”, for our sense of entitlement to government services), and it is time we all wake up and see the Collosium around us, welcome to Rome gentlemen. Nothing has changed in the last 2500 years, the ruling model of sword and slavery is alive and well. Simply exchange the term government for master, and you will see how much our elected officials really represent us. We need to get out of debt? I never borrowed a nickle of that debt. Just be glad we live in the belly of the beast, if we were in Serbia, Panama or a million other places, our omnicient governmet(s) would be dropping bombs on us for our own good. Texas or Lousiana should succeed and become a free nation. You will have to excuse the rant here, it’s a sensitive topic.
“In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means – to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” 
See Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 408-09 (1977). Also, “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher...” See Chandler v. Miller, U.S.S.Ct. No.96-126 (1997); Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504, 523 (1995)(dissent); Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984)(dissent at fn.21); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980)(dissent at fn.15); U.S. v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 745 (1980)(dissent); U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 358 (1974)(dissent); Gelbard v. U.S., 408 U.S. 41, 68 (1972); Alderman v. U.S., 394 U.S. 165 at fn.2 Fortas, J. concurring and dissenting; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 480 (1966); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961); Elkins v. U.S., 364 U.S. 206, 223 (1960); Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)(dissent).
 Seattle, WA, King County Superior Court, # 99-2-11541-4SEA, 8/25/00, judge Palmer Robinson: “You have no constitutional right to be treated fairly.”
A) how was the 16th amendment illegally ratified, i am currious if anyone has a good history lesson. B)the 5th amendment as best i know applies to criminal not civil matters.
Check out constitution.org and look around. Also, keep in mind the constitution has been used as a shit rag by the federal government for some time. This really started getting bad with Lincoln (they guy was not some skinny Santa Claus like the public school books say) and every amendment after and including the 14th is questional at best (in terms of legallity). More common voting rights are good (article 15 I think) but prohibition and income taxes are just the master shortening the leash.