Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S. @IRSnews) ʟ I a R S, LiE United States (#IRS)

I.R.S. ʟ I a R S

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE LIE
——————————————————————
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
authorizes a NON-APPORTIONED DIRECT INCOME TAX (DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX)

Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S. @IRSnews) Frivolous Taxpayer E
………………………………………………..
Unanimous U.S. SUPREME COURT TRUTH
——————————————————————
It is an ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES POWER to LEVY a DIRECT INCOME TAX NOT SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT

[240 U.S. 1 pg.11]

36 S.Ct. 236 (36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236)
60 L.Ed. 493
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________
Note how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
L I a R S base their LIE on Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)

This is one of the IRS’s very convenient LIES, since the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) statement showing the frivolous argument of the IRS’s contention is on PAGE 11, not just hidden somewhere between pages 12-19

Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S. @IRSnews) Frivolous Taxpayer C 2

Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S. @IRSnews) Frivolous Taxpayer

THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 89-PART 2

MARCH 2, 1943, TO APRIL 5, 1943

(PAGES 1459 TO 2940)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1943
_________________________________________________
1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2579) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2579 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2579
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
_________________________________________________
Historically,

our

FEDERAL INCOME-TAX

law

goes back to a

bill

signed by

President Lincoln

on

August 5, 1861
………………………………………………..
Historically, our Federal income-tax law goes back to a bill signed by President Lincoln on August 5, 1861

It was first announced as a war-revenue measure and even at that early date one provision of the act provided for collections by withholding at the source

The act was carried on the statute books for several years
………………………………………………..
In its

early stages

it was definitely

an

EXCISE TAX

or a

DUTY

and so

construed

by the

courts
………………………………………………..
In its early stages it was definitely an excise tax or a duty and so construed by the courts

A most informative statement in regard to the early history of the income-tax law was recently written by Mr. F. Morse Hubbard, formerly of the legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University, and a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department
——————————————————————
Mr. F. Morse Hubbard
——————————————————————
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txhousto/obituaries/Obituaries.RoySmith/H/Hubbard,%20F.%20Morse.pdf
………………………………………………..
Columbia University
——————————————————————
http://www.columbia.edu
——————————————————————
This compilation of information concerning our income-tax law is so well written that I am making it a part of my statement and the record
………………………………………………..
2. THE

INCOME TAX

IS AN

EXCISE TAX,

AND

INCOME

IS MERELY THE

BASIS

FOR DETERMINING

ITS AMOUNT
………………………………………………..
2. THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT

The first Federal income tax law was approved by President Lincoln on August 5, 1861, a little less than 4 months after the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the President’s call for 75,000 volunteers, and less than a month after the Disaster at Bull Run

It was distinctly a war-revenue measure

The act of 1861 (12 Stat. 292) provided for a tax to be levied, assessed, and collected in the year 1862, the tax to be based on income for the “preceding” year, that is, the year 1861
——————————————————————
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=323
——————————————————————
This tax, which was due and payable on or before June 30, 1862, was levied only for that 1 year

In 1862, in order to meet the need for continued war revenues, Congress passed the second income-tax law

This act took effect on July 1, 1862, the day after the tax under the act of 1861 expired
………………………………………………..
The act of 1862

(12 Stat. 432)

which used the word

“DUTY”

instead of

“tax,”

provided that this

DUTY

should be levied, collected, and paid in the year 1863 and in each year thereafter until and including the year 1866 “and no longer” (sec. 92)
………………………………………………..
The act of 1862 (12 Stat. 432) which used the word “duty” instead of “tax,” provided that this duty should be levied, collected, and paid in the year 1863 and in each year thereafter until and including the year 1866 “and no longer” (sec. 92)
——————————————————————
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=463
………………………………………………..
Like the act of 1861 it provided that the

tax

(or DUTY)

collected in each year should be based on the income for the “preceding” year (sec. 91)
………………………………………………..
Like the act of 1861 it provided that the tax (or duty) collected in each year should be based on the income for the “preceding” year (sec. 91)

At the same time it contained a provision for withholding at the source, which will be referred to later on

The general pattern of the act of 1862 was followed in the subsequent income tax laws of this period, namely, the act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat. 223), and its amendments, and the act of July 14, 1870 (16 Stat. 256)
——————————————————————
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=013/llsl013.db&recNum=252
——————————————————————
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=291
——————————————————————
Under each of these acts the tax to be paid in any given year was based on the income for the preceding year, provision was made for withholding at the source, and the tax was to be in effect only for a limited period

Under the act of 1864 the tax terminated in 1870, and under the act of 1870 the tax terminated in 1872

The income on which the tax was based was defined as income from all sources, “whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interests, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation (act of 1864, sec. 116)

Thus investment income, as well as other kinds of income, was included in the basis for measuring the tax
………………………………………………..
In sustaining the

Civil War

INCOME TAX laws,

the

SUPREME COURT

held that the

TAX

based on

INCOME

was NOT

a

DIRECT TAX

but was an

EXCISE

or

DUTY

and as such

did not require

apportionment

among the States

Springer v. United States ((1880) 102 U.S. 586)
………………………………………………..
In sustaining the Civil War income tax laws, the Supreme Court held that the tax based on income was not a direct tax but was an excise or duty and as such did not require apportionment among the States

Springer v. United States ((1880) 102 U.S. 586)
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/102/586/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/102/586/case.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=102&invol=586
………………………………………………..
This decision, rendered after the income tax had been thoroughly tested for a period of 10 years, represents a deliberate determination as to the fundamental nature of the tax

The true character of the income tax at the outset was so firmly fixed in the minds of those charged with its administration that for 6 years the Treasury Department held that if a person died at any time between
_________________________________________________
2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2580) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2580 2580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARCH 27
________________________________________________
January 1 of one year and the date his return was due in the following year the income for such year was not subject to tax, even though he may have made a return of income before his death in advance of the due date (T. D. June 9, 1865, 2 Internal Revenue Record 54)
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/058.html
——————————————————————
This rule was not changed until 1867, when it was held that such income was subject to the tax and should be returned by the executor or administrator (T. D. Apr. 6, 1867, 5 Internal Revenue Record 109; T. D. Jan. 1, 1869, 7 Internal Revenue Record 69)
——————————————————————
T. D. Apr. 6, 1867
5 Internal Revenue Record 109
http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/056.html
T. D. Jan. 1, 1869
7 Internal Revenue Record 69

See also Mandell v. Pierce
C. C. D. Mass. 1868
16 Fed. Gas. 576
Mandell v. Pierce
——————————————————————
The change was doubtless prompted by two important considerations; first, the taxes expired by definite limitation within a very few years; and, second, persons whose tax had been withheld at the source would already have paid their tax up to the date of death
………………………………………………..
At any rate,

the change

did not

involve any modification

in the

concept

of the

INCOME TAX

as an

EXCISE TAX

based on

income
………………………………………………..
At any rate, the change did not involve any modification in the concept of the income tax as an excise tax based on income

After a lapse of about a quarter of a century Congress again passed an income-tax law

The act of 1894 (28 Stat. 509,
;
Aug. 27, 1894) provided for a tax to be levied, collected, and paid “from and after” January 1, 1895, “and until the 1st day of January 1900” (sec. 27)
——————————————————————
28 Stat. 509
Aug. 27, 1894
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicb80.pdf
——————————————————————
Like the Civil War acts it provided that the tax should be based on the “income received in the preceding calendar year”
………………………………………………..
Although the

Supreme Court

held this portion of the act to be unconstitutional,

it still

recognized

that the

INCOME TAX

was in essence an

EXCISE TAX
………………………………………………..
Although the Supreme Court held this portion of the act to be unconstitutional, it still recognized that the income tax was in essence an excise tax
………………………………………………..
The

Court

said that a

tax

on

income

from

business,

privileges,

or

employments,

standing by itself,

would be

valid

as an

EXCISE TAX
………………………………………………..
The Court said that a tax on income from business, privileges, or employments, standing by itself, would be valid as an excise tax; but the tax on investment income was held to be invalid because the Court regarded a tax based on income from property as a tax on the property itself and therefore a direct tax which must be apportioned among the States (Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. (1895), 157 U. S. 429; 158 U. S. 601)
——————————————————————
157 U. S. 429
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/case.html
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/157/429
………………………………………………..
(https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/94174/pollock-v-farmers-loan-trust-co/cited-by/?page=2)
——————————————————————
The Court said that to sustain a portion of the tax while declaring the rest invalid, “would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain in substance, a tax on occupations and labor

We cannot believe that such was the intention of Congress” (158 U.S. 601, 637)
——————————————————————
158 U.S. 601
637
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/601/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/601/case.html
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/158/601
………………………………………………..
(https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/94239/pollock-v-farmers-loan-trust-co/cited-by/)
——————————————————————
So the entire portion of the act relating to income tax was declared invalid. 1
——————————————————————
1 It must be remembered that the Court was not appraising economic theories, but was construing provisions of the Constitution

The first related to the power of Congress:

“To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” (art. I, sec. 8, subdiv. 1)
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
——————————————————————
The second was the provision that:

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken” (art. I, sec. 9, subdiv. 4)
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
——————————————————————
Thus the Constitution made a distinction between “taxes” on the one hand, and “duties, imposts, and excises” on the other

Uniformity was required in the case of the latter, whereas apportionment according to population was required only in the case of “taxes”

The only taxes generally regarded as “direct” were poll taxes and taxes on property

The only direct taxes which had been imposed by Congress prior to 1894 were taxes on lands, houses, and slaves

See Foster and Abbott, A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax under the act of 1894, pp. 27 ff
——————————————————————
Foster and Abbott, A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax under the act of 1894, pp. 27 ff
——————————————————————
The

Court

had no difficulty

in

classifying

a

TAX

on

INCOME

as an

EXCISE TAX
………………………………………………..
The Court had no difficulty in classifying a tax on income as an excise tax

Its objection to the act of 1894 was doubtless based on the theory that a tax on rents was not in reality an

income tax but was a direct tax on lands and buildings (See Foster and Abbott, op. cit., pp. 117-118)
………………………………………………..
There are still those who think that in this case the Court went further than necessary in treating a tax based on income from property as a tax on property itself, and that in any event the excise-tax principle should have been applied to rents and other investment income, as was done under the Civil War acts

In other words, the making and holding of investments, while perhaps not technically a business, is, at least, a kind of activity or privilege which can properly be subjected to an excise tax measured by reference to the income derived therefrom

That investment income may be included as a part of the basis for measuring an excise tax was recognized by Congress in the act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112)
——————————————————————
August 5, 1909
36 Stat. 11
112
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/231/399/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/231/399/case.html
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/179/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/179/case.html
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/189/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/189/case.html
——————————————————————
This act provided

“That every corporation * * * shall be subject to pay annually a special

EXCISE TAX

with respect to the

carrying on

or

doing business

by such corporation, * * * equivalent to 1 percent upon the entire

net income

over and above $5,000 received by it from all sources during such year, exclusive of amounts received by it as dividends upon stock of other corporations * * * subject to the tax hereby imposed; * * *”
………………………………………………..
This act provided “That every corporation * * * shall be subject to pay annually a special EXCISE TAX with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporation, * * * equivalent to 1 percent upon the entire net income over and above $5,000 received by it from all sources during such year, exclusive of amounts received by it as dividends upon stock of other corporations * * * subject to the tax hereby imposed; * * *”

Certain corporations, such as religious, charitable, and educational organizations, etc., were specifically exempted from the tax

The tax imposed by this act was really an income tax in that it was based on net income, but was given the correct designation of “EXCISE TAX”

It was imposed with respect to carrying on or doing business; and it should be noted that the basis was net income from all sources, except dividends from other corporations subject to the tax

Such dividends were excepted not because they constituted investment income but because they represented income which had already been taxed

The sole text of taxability under this act was whether a corporation was engaged in business

If it was so engaged, then all the income (except dividends), including investment income as well as strictly business income, was used in measuring the tax
………………………………………………..
The

Supreme Court

held that the fact that the

tax

was measured by

net income,

and that

income

from nontaxable property or property not used in business was included in computing

net income,

did not prevent the

tax

from being construed as an

EXCISE TAX

which

did not require

apportionment
………………………………………………..
The Supreme Court held that the fact that the tax was measured by net income, and that income from nontaxable property or property not used in business was included in computing net income, did not prevent the tax from being construed as an excise tax which did not require apportionment

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. et al. ((1911) 220 U.S. 107)
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/107/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/107/case.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=220&invol=107
——————————————————————
So far as the objections raised in the Pollock case are concerned, the principle applied to corporations under the act of 1909 with the approval of the Supreme Court might have been extended to individuals engaged in business

In that way investment income of most individuals as well as of corporations could doubtless have been brought under the terms of the act

And the field of income could have been completely covered by applying the principle that the ownership and management of investment property is an activity or privilege with respect to which Congress may impose an excise. 2
——————————————————————
2 That such is the case is clearly indicated by the recent provision in the Revenue Act of 1942 which allows deductions for expenses incurred in the management of investments (sec. 121)

The retroactivity of this provision suggests not merely the declaration of a new policy but the recognition of a fundamental principle
——————————————————————
However that may be, Congress chose to remove all doubt by an amendment to the Constitution

The resolution embodying the proposed amendment (S. J. Res. 40, 36 Stat. 184; 61st Cong., 1st sess.) was deposited in the Department of State on July 31, 1909, a few days before the act of 1909 was approved by the President
——————————————————————
S. J. Res. 40
36 Stat. 184
61st Cong.
1st sess.
——————————————————————
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html
——————————————————————
The amendment was duly ratified and became effective as the sixteenth amendment on February 25, 1913 (Secretary of State’s Certificate of Adoption, 37 Stat. 1786)
——————————————————————
February 25, 1913
37 Stat. 1786
………………………………………………..
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=57
——————————————————————
The sixteenth amendment authorizes the taxation of income “from whatever source derived”-thus taking in investment income-“without apportionment among the several States”

The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or excepted subjects but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes held on income whether it be derived from one source or another” 3
——————————————————————
3 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. ((1916) 240 U. S. 1); William S. Peck and Co. v. Lowe ((1918 247 U. S. 165); Eisner v. Mccomber (1920) and 252 U. S. 189)
——————————————————————
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
1916
240 U. S. 1
………………………………………………..
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
======================================
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
——————————————————————
William S. Peck and Co. v. Lowe
1918
247 U. S. 165
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/165/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/165/case.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=247&invol=165
——————————————————————
Eisner v. Mccomber
1920
252 U. S. 189
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/189/
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/189/case.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189
………………………………………………..
(https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/99541/eisner-internal-revenue-collector-v-macomber/cited-by/)
………………………………………………..
(https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1087772/eisner-v-macomber/cited-by/)
——————————————————————
So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax

It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income

The income tax is therefore, not a tax on income as such

It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce

The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. 4
——————————————————————
4 If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax (See Foster and Abbott, op. cit., p. 85)
——————————————————————
The purpose of the income tax is to raise revenue in the year of its levy

It is a method by which some of us make annual payments on account of the governmental expenses and the public debt of all of us-contributions to a common fund to preserve the blessings of liberty

The great French political philosopher and jurist, Montesquieu, stated the fundamental principles of taxation as follows:

“The revenues of the State are a portion that each subject gives of his property in order to secure, or to have the agreeable enjoyment of, the remainder” (Spirit of Laws, book XIII, chap. 1)

The income tax is now a permanent part of our tax structure, and is designed to provide for such contributions, or payments, year after year, indefinitely

The tax “for” any given year is the tax which is to provide revenue for that year

Strictly speaking, then, the “1942 income tax” was the tax payable in 1942; and the “1943 income tax” is the tax payable in 1943

The amount of the payments for any year is determined by applying certain rates to a specified basis

Both of these factors are matters of legislative policy

Congress may fix any rates which are not confiscatory and may adopt any basis which is reasonable

Hitherto the previous year’s income has been used as the basis

But the basis, as well as the rates, may be changed at any time

In these matters of policy, the Constitution, both before and since the Sixteenth Amendment, has left to Congress practically unrestricted freedom of choice.
5
——————————————————————
5 “If the income is merely the measure of the tax, it is clearly quite immaterial whether the income that is adopted as a measure is that of the past, or of the present, or of the future, provided only it is practically ascertainable” (Foster and Abbott,
op. cit.)
_________________________________________________
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS FIRST SESSION VOLUME 89-PART 2 MARCH 27 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGE 2581) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1943 pg. 2581 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 2581

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Debunks-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-2014
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

Introduction
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

Section I (A to C)
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-A-to-C
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

Section I (D to E)
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

Section II
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-II
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

Section III
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-III
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

Section IV
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Anti-Tax-Law-Evasion-Schemes-Law-and-Arguments-Section-IV
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
_________________________________________________

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s