www
jamesphogan
com
Bulletin Board
Rants, Raves, Interesting Science & Awful Puns
October 2, 2004

IRS Questions

Not Even Legal?

The income tax structure of today's typical Western nation-state is quite an ingeniously thought-out device for preserving the social order. Not only does it buy off the revolutionary potential at the bottom of the pyramid with the Middle Class's money, but in restricting excess capital accumulation on the latter's part, it prevents their effective rise to challenge the elite at the top. Also, of course, it provides the wherewithal for supporting such follies as layers of worthless bureaucracy at home, and aggressive interference in the affairs of others abroad. Yet according to an authority who has researched and written massively on the subject for more than thirteen years, the whole operation to siphon the pockets of U.S. citizens and then rake in a cut of whatever they might have managed to hang on to at the end of it all has no legal or Constitutional basis.

[[ Before reading on, be aware that a caveat follows at the end of the piece ]]

Paul Andrew Mitchell, author of The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of the Internal Revenue hosts a site entitled 31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service that should provide much food for thought, if not repay careful scrutiny. Some sample extracts:

Question 1.
Is the Internal Revenue Service (?IRS?) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No. . . .

Question 2.
If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico . . .

Question 3.
By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?
Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union . . .

Question 13.
What is a ?Withholding agent??
Answer: [. . .] One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W-4 ?Employee?s Withholding Allowance Certificate.? In plain English, by signing a W-4 workers designate themselves as ?employees? and certify they are allowing withholding to occur. If workers do not execute a valid W-4 form, a company?s payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks. . . .

Pay particular attention to the term ?Employee? in the title of this form. A properly executed Form W-4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were ?employees? of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.

Question 28.
Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?
Answer: No . . .

[[ Fascinating stuff, isn't it? I found it so too, and thought it interesting enough to share. Then, in October, 2005, a year after posting it, I heard from Peter Griffith, who has researched the subject extensively and warns that the field is filled with pitfalls for the unwary and a stalking ground for tax scammers who collect high fees for dispensing advice that turns out to be worthless. The short answer seems to be that regardless of legal technicalities or how different parties might try to interpret the Constitution, the success rate of those who have invoked such bases to challenge the tax laws in court runs at precisely zero. For those who would like an insight to the other side of the story, a good place to begin, Peter suggests, would be The Tax Protestor's FAQ by Daniel B. Evans at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html ]]

My own view is that, ideals aside, while some limited government is needed in the real world, which has to raise necessary revenues somehow, dipping into private incomes is neither necessary, desirable, nor the most efficient way of going about it. All of a society's institutions, such as schools, hospitals, businesses, government agencies, depend on each other in that they all need an educated and healthy population, essential services, the rule of law within secure borders, and so forth. Although money has become the religion of this culture, moneymaking should not be the prime purpose of every organization. The organizations that are concerned with creating a society's wealth are its businesses, which function on behalf of society as a whole, since all of society contributed to providing the conditions that made them possible. Therefore, those are the points at which government should extract the revenue to carry out its functions. The businesses distribute the load via their price structure, and everyone pays their share automatically. I see two huge benefits in doing things this way:

1. Taxation officials deal only with tax professionals. Company tax accountants are not defending their personal wealth and have no more incentive to cheat on the returns than on the office rent or the utility bill.

2. The annual ordeal and degradation of the individual is avoided, and privacy is respected. You paid your taxes every time you wrote a check or settled a bill. What's in your bank account is yours in full, and where it came from is nobody else's business, including the government's.

But then, if the real purpose of the system were intimidation and social control, then I suppose none of that would be here nor there, would it?
 
Content © The Estate of James P. Hogan, 1998-2014. All rights reserved.

Page URL: http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=190