Some one should file a class action law suit against the IRS

Some one should file a class action law suit against the IRS.

Children in the USA who earn or spend money should always be exempt from tax (Income or Sales) as they are not allowed to vote.

No taxation without representation.

Attached: eagles.jpg (259x194, 9K)

Other urls found in this thread:

irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c
youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Pocket money from your parents is not taxable income lil’nigglet

Attached: 01100110101.jpg (764x814, 32K)

You can work a regular, taxed part time job at 16 dum dum

Legally you can file your W4 as EXEMPT if you attend 25 hours or more of classes per week.

But as you might say: most 16 year olds are not aware of this.

I was not really talking about pocket money, however it might apply to the sales tax part of my comment. As far as I know there is no exemption for minors / students that I am aware of for state sales tax.

And there should be.

Again unless you have the right to vote you should not be paying taxes.

I am not black and I was born in 1967.

oops forgot an image...

How about death and taxes.

Attached: 1297806688205.jpg (900x900, 55K)

16yo are not children, Maybe you should mind your word choices next time.
Also, you can get a license and drive at 16, that's using public roads. What about police or firemen assistance, for example? You can benefit from those, even without being 18.

By that logic, convicts shouldn't have to pay taxes either

By the way.
"Dum dum" is a type of ammunition.
I think you meant "dumb dumb"?

Attached: 1298776965750.jpg (1280x800, 687K)

Nope. Convicts willingly forfeited their representation. Not the same.

There's no law demanding you pay taxes.
"Money" as you call it are debt notes based on a system of lies. I'll never understand why you humans can't grasp simple life.

You go be a slave to earn debt, then enter a contract with a foreign bank to willingly pay taxes with this newly acquired debt. Then you bleet on about how it's completely unfair.

Your kind makes absolutely no sense to me.

Taxes are voluntary you muppet look it up.

>There's no law demanding you pay taxes.
1, 6151, 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
Filing a tax return is not voluntary.
Paying tax is not voluntary.

1. I think 18 is the legal age of Majority in most of the USA.

2. They certainly are.
Try and not pay sales taxes to a retailer or income with holding through an employer.

3 I understand what you are saying but I was not really planning to do a Federal Reserve Conspiracy review.

4 The point here is that many many millions of dollars have been taken from the incomes of a lot of Americans who were underage at the time.

As to my fears?
That would be a very complex answer. I am not afraid of much except pain and spiders.

Attached: 1298777572993.jpg (2400x1800, 894K)

See
Also see:
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938) – the Supreme Court stated that “[i]n assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts . . . in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes [either criminal or civil] sanctions.”

United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1986) – the 10th Circuit upheld a conviction for willfully failing to file a return, stating that the premise “that the tax system is somehow ‘voluntary’ . . . is incorrect.”

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646 (8th Cir. 1983) – the 8th Circuit upheld a conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the claim that filing a tax return is voluntary “was rejected inUnited States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983).”

United States v. Hartman, 915 F.Supp. 1227, 1230 (M.D. Fla. 1996) – the court held that, “The assertion that the filing of an income tax return is voluntary is, likewise, frivolous.” The court noted that I.R.C. § 6012(a)(1)(A), “requires that every individual who earns a threshold level of income must file a tax return” and that “failure to file an income tax return subjects an individual to criminal penalty.”

1) statues codes and acts are not law it's contract.
2) irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c even their own website says it's voluntary.

You need a better lawyer. Your representation is garbage.

No, they didn't willingly forfeit anything. They had it taken away. Big difference.

Only if I'm in contract with them. I'm not.

yeah, good luck with that

Cases aren't law they're opinions of judges.

Good Lord you're retarded

Your brain she does no work?

The very link you provided states:
>The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary....

Attached: 1298778340673.jpg (1680x1050, 1.62M)

Found the pedophile

Attached: 1555160903714.jpg (450x600, 47K)

Why don't you go look up how laws are actually passed and leave your court system out of my country. Go back to England we don't want you here you disgusting Jew.

Haha right

They chose to break the law. It is not anyone else's fault that they are a convict.

From your link:
Banat v. Commissioner, 80 F. App’x 705 (2d Cir. 2003) – The 2nd Circuit upheld $2,000 in sanctions against a taxpayer because his argument that “the payment of income taxes was voluntary” was “contrary to well-established law and thus was frivolous.”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993) – the court stated that the “[taxpayers’] claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance” and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,500 “for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protester arguments.”

Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1988) – the court rejected Wilcox’s argument that payment of taxes is voluntary for American citizens and imposed a $1,500 penalty against Wilcox for raising frivolous claims.

United States v. Schulz, 529 F.Supp.2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) – the court permanently barred Robert Schulz and his organizations, We the People Congress and We the People Foundation, from promoting a tax scheme that helped employers and employees improperly stop tax withholding from wages on the false premise that federal income taxation is voluntary.

Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-101, 107 T.C.M. (CCH) 1495 (2014) – the court imposed several sanctions of $25,000 against a taxpayer who argued, amongst other frivolous arguments, that “the Internal Revenue Code does not establish any liability for the payment of Federal income tax.”

You can't force someone into contract no matter what anybody says. You can't force someone to accept a title. You need a better lawyer.

It is just meant to provoke discussion.
Do you have any further opinions?

Attached: 1298777134133.jpg (2048x1024, 419K)

Not even sure who you are talking to?

-OP
(Who is not a Jew or English.)

Attached: 1298775863867.jpg (1920x1200, 435K)

You can't break a law. You can trespass, causing harm, loss, or injury. Breaking a law indicates that the law goes away. I wish they'd educate your generation. Oh well this was a great nation. Glad I'm old I won't have to live long enough to watch it crumble. Enjoy slavery.

You keep bleeting codes written by a foreign entity.

By that standard, you could take away anyone's representation for whatever reason you want.

Children are represented though. Representation does not mean the right to vote, it means having an elected official to represent your interests at a state/federal level, and kids have that
checkmate athiests

He's obviously okay with the chains of his master. He keeps parroting a foreign policy written by a foreign company in England that is completely against our constitution.

You think that Sovereign crap is going to work in a republic?

I mean I am not a corporation or a trademark.
But I am an American. I want this land to really be for the people by the people. I get there is a whole lot of shit and corruption happening. But I don't think Clinton or Trump have any real solutions or desire to implement them.

And apparently you have the option to leave this country to go some where else. Or to accept the Social and Civil contracts tat have been placed on everyone here.

TLDR Stay off my road you commie bastard!

Attached: wickedjoke.jpg (721x515, 56K)

Firstly, you do not need to be in contract for laws to apply to you, secondly:
>The InternalRevenue Codeis the primary statutory basis of federaltax lawin the United States. The Codeof Federal Regulations is the Treasury Department's regulatory interpretation of the Federaltax lawspassed by Congress, which carry the weight oflawif the interpretation is reasonable.
You are incorrect. The tax code is law.
Incorrect. Cases are the judgement of judges based on the law and, as stated, the tax code is law.

No, nobody took it from them. They forfeited it when they knowingly committed a crime. They law existed, and the consequences were clear, and they committed the crime anyway.

>Foreign policy
But it's actually policy in the US.

There are more than one poster / Anons in this thread.

Most of my post have had random images and no "bleeting codes"

-OP

Attached: 1298777063269.jpg (1280x800, 226K)

Except I did not elect them. Who the actual fuck are you? You sound like a freedom hating cockney Jew. Going on about the enemy "federal" parroting the legal societies bullshit that's actually against the Bible. You're a communist hypocrite, you don't deserve the freedom my grandfather fought for. Away with you. You should be ashamed to call yourself an American believing in the bullshit the slave owners scream at you on the television.

It was taken away. They didn't forfeit anything when they committed a crime, there's no universal rule in the U.S. that you loose the right to vote if you commit a crime. It's selectively applied, and therefore completely unfair. Not to mention, there are so many laws right now that everyone breaks them everyday. Have you jaywalked? Have you ever been loud in public? Do you really think you've filled out your taxes completely correctly? It's not whether you've broken the law, it's where you live, whether they decide to apply the law, and it's all done using a system that's not exactly noted for being fair. Not to mention, there's still no excuse for taking away someone's right for representation. That's tyranny.

Nope.
You could have argued as chattel or property of parents?

Attached: 1298777281486.jpg (1440x900, 895K)

Code isn't law you dumb Jew. It's code, the body of a contract. Good Lord you're thick.

kek I'm sorry I triggered you fren
you get a proportional vote that goes to having someone represent you if you're an adult. If you're a child, then you don't vote but that person is still expected to represent your interests.
>communist jew
bro you just posted cringe your going to loose subscriber

Attached: stupid.jpg (450x309, 32K)

>Statutes ... are not law ... contract.
One which you are in if you live in, or were born in, the United States. Good luck arguing that statutes are not law in a court, ever. The tax code is a part of the USC, which is the CODE OF LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.

>nope
why nope? that's how representation works.

middle school lunch isnt taxed to the kid.
eat dicks troll fag

Not to mention that the system is a foreign entity. I'm with you. These Communists don't understand that we Americans are done listening to their bullshit propaganda.

>Code is not law.
>TheCode of Laws of the United States of America
Yes it is. You would never win in any court trying to argue that law is contract that you are not part of. If you are subject to United States jurisdiction, the code is law.

unless the contract violates law, or the constitution

Against the Bible?
OK.

Christ said give unto Cesar that which is Cesar's. and As it is on Earth so it shall be in Heaven.

While I certainly don't want to up-sale American
Jurist Prudence? It is the best of the worst. It is a system with elections and redress.

Attached: 3crosss2.jpg (225x225, 6K)

Because they are not represented. If representation doesn't require a vote as you said, then is it fine to abolish voting entirely?

The code IS law.

It is if he goes off campus.
But objection noted.

Attached: 1298777224776.jpg (1440x900, 701K)

What you just said made no sense, given that the connect you are arguing about is the law. What you essentially just said is:
>Unless the law violates the law.

That’s actually a fairly valid point. You sir, get kudos

contracts can violate law, thus negating them.
all im saying

What you speak of is the usc. United States Corporation. I don't work for them. Just because I eat at McDonald's doesn't mean I need to wear their uniforms. You really need to learn your place and why you even need a lawyer to represent you in the first place. Men do not have a voice in the eyes of the legal society. Representing yourself may be a right but if you haven't passed the bar you're actually breaking their code of conduct. Their law. You need a better attorney. Stop listening to these people who claim to understand law when they don't even realize that the word understand means to stand under, not gleen acknowledgement as you assume it means in court. You'd end up in prison pretty quickly if you ever got in trouble by trying to speak at all. My friend did. He's in jail. Don't be so thick and do some research.

kids shouldnt be going off campus

OP here..

I am guessing you are the one posting US codes etc?

I am also guessing you HAVE passed the Bar in some US State?

So let me ask for your opinion.

Why is it that most State and Supreme Court Judges are not elected and serving - terms?

Attached: 1298777937645.jpg (1900x1080, 736K)

If they committed a crime for which the penalty is imprisonment, they forfeited the right. This is a fact. This IS represented in the law. It is not tyranny, you can't be imprisoned for just any reason. The right was not taken away. The right never existed for convicts, and convicts made a choice which caused them to become convicts. The responsibility for them not having the right any more is their own.

Not that user, but the usual argument is that judges should be kept insulated from the political process in order to maintain their impartiality.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's the argument.

Thanks, welcome.
Others here do not agree.

-OP

Attached: 1298777679778.jpg (1440x900, 1.48M)

They're elected by the president or his cabinet. Your president is elected by the electoral college. Which is just that a college, an institution where you send your kids after high school. Do some research it's scary shit. Most lawyers won't talk openly about this but I don't care.

No, I don't think it is fine. But 'fine' isn't really relevant here because that's my opinion. You could have a system in which no one voted but someone still represents them, sure.
To keep away from hypothetical though, I think kids being represented by officials they cannot yet vote for is perfectly reasonable and constitutionally sound

That's is a more recent debate.
In my "day" we "middle schoolers" went where ever the hell we wanted.

Attached: 1298777792029.jpg (3500x2620, 859K)

They are which means if they even rule on a law, not code, they're practicing law from the bench which is why it's all codes statues and acts.

Umm the Electoral college is the House of Representatives.

Go back to lurking.

Attached: 1298777435206.jpg (1800x1200, 768K)

A decent argument to be sure.

I don't think it works.
Especially in regard to "Lifetime" appointments. I am very much against that.

Attached: 1298777764515.jpg (1440x900, 906K)

I speak of the code of law of the United States. It is NOT a contract in the same sense as contract law, which is the misapprehension you seem to be labouring under. If you are in the US, you are under the 'contract'. You do not have a choice in that matter excepting leaving the US. That's it. It's a contract you sign by your presence. It is law. And the tax code is title 26 of the code of laws, making it a law. Meaning yes, laws exist staying you must pay taxes.
The code of law cannot violate the code of law. It can be unconstitutional, but it is not. Supreme court has upheld the USC, in particular the tax code, for longer than anyone has been alive. Tax is law. You must pay. The end.

So you're arguing that convicts never had the right to vote. Nice PreCrime argument, PK Dickhead.

And being imprisoned in a lot of cases has to do with how much money you have. There's been a bail reform movement over the last few years that's intended to address that up to 60% of people in local jail are there because they can't afford bail, and they're often forced to accept a plea bargain because otherwise they'll lose their job, be unable to pay rent, and so on. So freedom, and therefore representation, is based on how much money you have. Same is true with affording a decent lawyer, instead of a public defender who sometimes has mere minutes to spend an single client. And having to pay representation is something the Founders were clearly opposed, because they wrote things like no poll tax into the Constitution.

There is no equivalent passage in the Constitution that says you forfeit the right to representation, ever. It's the law in some states, but despite your pretense that it's universal, it's not. Many states have no such restrictions, and the specifics vary.

Even ignoring all that, it's still tyranny.

Yeah, the Supreme Court in particular needs term limits. Though it needs to be 12-20 years, in order to prevent one party from packing the court too often.

your mommy and their daddy votes
you'll understand when you get older KID

That's bullshit, man. The Electoral College is one of Trump's online schools.

>term limits.

you mean congress
we need them now

I think that if they have no power to influence their representation then they should be exempted from taxes, in the same way that the 13 colonies did when they founded the nation. The colonies WERE represented in that someone some for them in England (just like children) but they had no day in what was being said or by whom.

Thus the phrase "no taxation without representation".

Read thread first then reply.

Attached: 1523944967394.jpg (1080x1072, 162K)

They represent their special interest groups outside my personal interest. If they ever came to my house they'd meet a rifle and a copy of the Constitution as I instructed them to leave. I'll die free before I ever become a slave. I'll take a trial by my peers, I have a list of them at the ready. It's my right and no matter what you can't take it from me. I know my peers, do you? Do you have people who are willing to speak up for you personally? I do. They'll just nullify anything you say in court and I'll be home eating dinner with them in church. I trust and know my neighbors. A house divided cannot stand. Those other people do not represent me. I'll remain silent while you look the fool in court then I'll press charges with a claim of indignant illagetimate pleading, if it please the court, that you're trying to use them as a personal weapon against me, a man present with his peers.

Attached: +ralph+pootawn.png (295x214, 79K)

While we're doing that, we need some kind of at-large representation. Geographic districts are actually useful because it is true that all politics is local, but we need a way to elect people who represent widely distribute groups, as well.

You're right, the Electoral Collage is an art project from Hillary's naked hippy days. Something about menstrual blood, blackface, and rolling around naked on shag carpets.

>as they are not allowed to vote.
by that rationale, you would also have to exclude illegal immigrants, felons, and those too lazy to register to vote.

Attached: 1429013088664.jpg (791x1051, 402K)

>Thinks 'your peers' means your friends / people you know.
Nope. Your right does NOT allow you to have people who are potentially biased in your favour or against you on the stand. Thus nobody can know you in your jury. You cannot elect your own jury.

Your waifu can't vote. No representation without existing.

I asked you to go back to lurking.

Now I invoke Twain.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool? Than to open ones mouth, and dispel all doubt.

I already discussed Sovereignty. Welcome to the Republic of the United States.

We do not have "Kings".

Now you mention Church?
There? (And all over this silly Universe) He IS King. But HE sits in the throne. Not YOU or I.

To play nice on this playground called Earth we have to agree on Rules and Laws so we are all on the same page If green doesn't mean GO and red soesn't mean stop there are going to be a lot of accidents at the Intersections with Signals.

We have to agree on a lot of stuff to get along.
Are you willing to try?

Attached: 1297806364905.jpg (300x414, 12K)

tl;dr

Attached: yoda.png (693x531, 356K)

Attached: 1516225573943.gif (212x176, 925K)

You do realize that is one of the actors who eventually played emperor palpatine. (Sam Witwer)

He is very good at playing an asshole

>you need a better lawyer

Not a single judge has ever sided with one of you "taxes are voluntary" kooks.

I pay SS but no income tax

Hardly any of these manchildren pay any income tax.
All of these fags piping about "muh tax dollars" don't contribute a damn thing. It's billionaires and corporations that pay most of it. Doctors and some mid level business owners pay a little. These shitposters don't pay anything.

Bump

Attached: 1298777335574.jpg (1680x1050, 1.05M)

I pay no income tax

You must be the devil...

fuck off faggot no one cares what children think

Apparently you do?

Attached: 1298778939499.jpg (1000x800, 138K)

>This entire fucking thread
youtube.com/watch?v=QCozh_vbYdM