I was unusually bored last evening and found an interesting video on Google. It was Aaron Russo's America; freedom to fascism. In it, Russo maintains the 16th amendment wa a fraud hoisted on America by wealthy bankers. There also isn't a specific statute that says we have to pay income taxes and the federal reserve was a ploy too. He does talk to former IRS commissioners, agents, and "tax honesty" individuals. I'm not certain what to make of all this, the people he talks to don't appear to answer him head on which makes me wonder. At the same time, maybe some people just can't be reasoned with.


Questions for debate:

1.)Was the 16 amendment legitimately passed? please provide evidence as to whether it was or wasn't.

2.)What specific statute states that you must pay taxes?

3.)Is the income tax constitutional?, why or why not?

4.)Does the fact that the IRS can charge you with a crime if you make an error on your 1040, contradict your right against self-incrimination?

I think Lee Mroszak would know the most about the video you posted:

In 2005-2006, Mroszak served a year in prison after announcing on the radio that he hadn't paid his taxes in several years. Agents of the Internal Revenue Service heard the broadcast and Mroszak was prosecuted for tax evasion.

I am very liberal and am for peopel contributing to society. At the same time, I do find it interesting that nowhere, is the definitive legal citation ever...well....cited. What gives? And why is it that a ton of people have looked but haven't posted? Have I jammed you all once again?

Russo is a fraud. His "movie" doesn't contain any arguments that have not been comprehensively refuted time and time again.

As further proof of his lies, I point out that he states constantly that his film was shown to audiences "at Cannes" and received huge "ovations", clearly implying a connection with the world-famous film festival. In fact, his film was shown by himself, using an inflatable screen, on a public beach in Cannes, France. Curious onlookers (no more than about 50) gathered around, mostly to wonder why some dude was inflating a movie screen on a beach. http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/facts_refute_russo.asp



Yes. According to the Government Printing Office, the Amendment was ratified by 42 of the 48 states. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/conamt.html

The subject was taken up fairly recently, at length, by the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (1986), cert denied 107 S.Ct. 187. To quote from the decision:

Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.[13]) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

All from 26 U.S.C. (the Internal Revenue Code):

s.1 states that there is a tax imposed on the "taxable income(s)" of people (single, married, etc) in accordance with certain rates, and then gives the tax rates in a table. That's it in a nutshell. The rest of the Code is dedicated to figuring out how to calculate "taxable income"...

s.63 defines "taxable income" as "gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter". Now the question becomes what is "gross income".

s.61 defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;"
... (goes on to a list of a bunch more examples of gross income).

The Supreme Court further explained the meaning of "gross income" in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), when it ruled that "gross income" meant all "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." It is a three-part test still used today.



Yes. See above. Also interesting to note is that the tax deniers' arguments in relation to the 16th Amendment are completely useless because even if the 16th Amendment went away, the tax code would still be Constitutional. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to tax. Since it was decided in Hylton v. U.S. that income taxes are indirect taxes, they would not need to be apportioned among the States. Troubling, though, is that because of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, capital gains taxes would probably be illegal... So the end result of tax deniers' getting the 16th Amendment thrown out would likely be that the middle class would pay vastly more income taxes, as Congress loses the revenue from capital gains, which are mostly paid by the rich.



This is not a fact. The IRS cannot charge you with a crime if you make an error on your 1040. Well, to be precise, they can charge you, they just won't convict you. For starters, the IRS won't even start a criminal proceeding unless (and this is a general rule of thumb) the amount in controversy is more than $10K-$15K (the amount varies by region). Secondly, to prove criminal tax evasion, the IRS must prove that the actions were WILLFUL, not just a simple mistake.

However, just to completely answer your question, no, it does not contradict your right against self-incrimination.

A taxpayer may refuse to answer specific questions or disclose specific information, if such disclosure would be incriminating. The courts have uniformly held, however, that disclosure of the type of routine financial information required on a tax return does not, in itself, incriminate an individual and does not violate one's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 77-83 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Edelson, 604 F.2d 232, 234 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Reed, 670 F.2d 622, 623-24 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1125 (1982); United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449, 451 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 918 (1983); United States v. Warner, 830 F.2d 651, 653-54 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 982-83 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 942 (1983); United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1238-41 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); United States v. Irwin, 561 F.2d 198, 201 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1012 (1977). See also United States v. Green, 757 F.2d 116 n.7 (7th Cir. 1985) (affirming use of jury instruction that reporting income from legitimate activities would not fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege); United States v. Saussy, 802 F.2d 849, 854-55 (6th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 907 (1987); United States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010 (1980) (no valid Fifth Amendment privilege excusing failure to file Form 1040 to cover up false Form W-4 previously filed by defendant); United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir. 1982).

Essentially, tax deniers mistake exactly what the right is. The right to self-incrimination means you cannot be forced to give testimony that implicates them in a crime. Telling someone what your income is does not implicate you in a crime. Even telling someone your incorrect income does not implicate you in a crime. Telling someone you committed murder does.


I hope that answers your questions.