Reply:

Thanks for your message. It's always good to hear from people who found the website helpful. The website's main purpose is to steer people away from tax protester arguments, so I'm glad you found it.

Regards,

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. _____,

Section 6011 of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 6011, provides: "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary."

IRS regulation 1.6012–1(a)(6) provides: "Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this paragraph." This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 1960. See 25 F.R. 12109.

Thus, Congress, by statute, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations establishing the forms for tax returns, and the Secretary's regulation establishes Form 1040.

As to the OMB numbers, I don't know the details of how OMB assigns the numbers, but it appears that OMB has assigned a single number, 1545-0074, to many forms and schedules used by the IRS. That number appears, for example, on Form 1040; Form 1040 Schedules A, B, C and D; and on Forms 2106, 2210, 2441, 2555, 4137, 5695, 6251, 8606, 8880, 8889, 8917, 8949, and 8962 -- and that's not even a comprehensive list. These forms and schedules apply to a wide variety of different tax situations. So I don't think there's any special significance to the fact that the same number appears on Form 1040 and Form 2555.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. ______,

I'm afraid you have been picking up your information from unreliable sources. You can't believe everything you read on the Internet. There's a lot of false information out there, and it's important to separate reliable information from nonsense.

The 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Even if it wasn't, the income tax on salaries would still be valid. For full details, please see here.

The notion that all income taxes go to the federal reserve is a myth. The amount of money the government receives from federal income taxes each year greatly exceeds the government's annual interest payments. Moreover, the federal reserve owns only a small percentage of the government's debt. For full details, please see here.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Dear Mr. ______,

Thanks for your message. The page that you link has many different arguments on it, and I'm not sure which you are referring to. But here are answers to some of the wrong arguments on that page:

* Definition of "taxpayer": Yes, it's true, Title 26, section 7701, defines "taxpayer" as "any person subject to any internal revenue tax." But sections 1, 61, 63, 6012, and 6151 subject ordinary Americans to the income tax. Therefore, ordinary Americans are "taxpayers" as defined in the code.

* Constitutional power to tax: The page you link cites the wrong provision of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Congress's power to tax does not derive from the Seat of Government clause, which the page quotes. It derives from the simple provision of Article I, section 8, that says: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . ." That power applies everywhere in the United States, not just in the District of Columbia.

* "Includes": This is the wrong argument most associated with Peter Hendrickson. Yes, there is a provision in the tax code that says that the term "employee" includes federal officials. But it doesn't say it includes only federal officials. The word "include" means "to contain as a part." Section 7701 nails this down by stating that "The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." So while the code makes clear that the term "employee" includes federal officials, that does not exclude its common meaning of ordinary employees of private companies. This has been established in court hundreds of times, including in Peter Hendrickson's own case, where the court said that Hendrickson's argument that the term "employee" is limited to federal officials was "preposterous." This point is explained in detail here.

* One more wrong point on the page you link is that "Federal Reserve Notes" are "NOT money . . . they are 'Debt' paper." If you think that any Federal Reserve Notes you have are not money, but are only "debt" paper, the solution is simple: send them to me. I will be happy to take any Federal Reserve Notes off your hands if you don't think they are valuable.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. _______,

Thanks for your message. The answer to Mr. Cryer's argument is discussed on my webpage here.

It is true that the Internal Revenue Code does not use the word "liable" in describing who must pay income tax. But Congress expressed the same point using different words. Section 6151 of the Code states that whoever is required to file an income tax return "shall pay" the tax. That language makes clear that paying the tax is required for anyone who is required to file a return. Section 6012 requires you to file a return if you have more income than the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction. So if you have more income than that, then section 6012 requires you to file a return, which means that section 6151 requires you to pay the tax.

There is no rule that says that Congress must use a particular word in passing a statute. The English language provides many synonyms and many different ways of saying the same thing. Congress chose to express the point that individuals have to pay income taxes by saying that anyone who is required to file a return "shall pay" the tax. That expresses the point perfectly clearly. There is no requirement that Congress use the particular word "liable" to tell people to pay income taxes. Mr. Cryer just made that up.

Mr. Cryer died in 2012. At the time of his death, he was in litigation with the IRS over his own income tax liability. After his death, the IRS won the case. You can see the decision here. The decision makes clear that Mr. Cryer was "liable," not only for income tax, but for additional penalties for not paying when he was supposed to.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. Actually, the 16th Amendment says nothing about "direct" v. "indirect" taxes. You are thinking of the original Constitution, which does draw a distinction between "direct" and other taxes, and which does require that direct taxes be apportioned.

However, (1) the 16th Amendment provides that income taxes can be imposed without apportionment, so after the 16th Amendment it no longer matters whether income taxes are direct or not, and (2) in any event, the Supreme Court has held that the only taxes that are "direct" taxes are real estate taxes and capitation taxes (i.e. taxes where every person has to pay a fixed amount regardless of income or wealth). The Supreme Court has held that income taxes are not direct taxes, but rather an "excise" or "duty." So income taxes do not have to be apportioned. For more details, see here and here.

Jon Siegel

I suspect that you have been getting your information from unreliable Internet sources. Unfortunately, the Internet contains a great deal of utterly wrong information about the income tax. You should trust the universal consensus of expert opinion on this topic. For details on why you should trust the experts on this topic, please see here.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

_______, Thanks for your message. The Constitution does not, by itself, require anyone to pay income tax. However, the Constitution does empower the U.S. Congress to pass a law that requires people to pay income tax. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to "lay and collect taxes." The 16th Amendment later made clear that Congress can impose an income tax without having to satisfy the "apportionment" requirement that, under the Constitution, applies to "direct" taxes.

So the Constitution does not itself impose an income tax, but it empowers Congress to impose one. Congress exercised this power by passing a law requiring people to pay income tax. That law can be found in Title 26 of the United States Code. Key provisions of the law can be found on my website here.

With regard to whether the 16th Amendment was properly adopted, please see here.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message -- always nice to hear from a fan.

Was this person Larken Rose, by any chance? I had a long debate with him on this topic.

This phrase, which appears in the tax regulations (not the statute) has a history. As far as I have been able to verify, the first precursor of this phrase appeared in Treasury regulations in 1919. (Larken Rose says it appeared as early as 1916, which would make some difference, but he's never verified that for me.) In 1919, the regulation said "Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by the statute and also certain other kinds of income by statute or fundamental law free from tax." The wording was changed later and "fundamental law" was replaced by "the Constitution."

So what does it mean? There are a few possibilities:

* It could be a reference to the holding in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), that "stock dividends" (i.e., dividends that take the form of additional stock, not cash) are not "income" within the meaning of the Constitution, because they just slice up the same corporate pie into more slices, and each stockholder ends up owning the same percentage of the corporation as before the dividend. The Supreme Court didn't decide the case until 1920, but the district court decided it in early 1919, so the regulation could have been inspired by it, assuming the regulation first appeared in 1919, as I believe. (Rose pointed out that the Court held that stock dividends are not income at all, rather than that they are income, but not constitutionally taxable. That's true. But one could imagine that the regulation elided this distinction.)

* It could be a reference to the old doctrine of "intergovernmental tax immunity," under which the federal government could not constitutionally tax certain income derived from states.

* It could be an anticipation of the holding in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), that the income of federal judges is not constitutionally taxable. (This case was later overruled.) This case wasn't decided, even by a district court, until December 1919, but the Treasury Department would have known that it was pending.

It's hard to tell from this distance in time exactly what the phrase referred to. The Federal Register, which provides some more information about regulations, didn't get started until 1936. The first Federal Register notice in which the regulation appears, 1 Fed. Reg. 1802 (1936), contains references to the first two points listed above. See id. at 1815, 1842.

So my best guess is that the regulation got started because of one or more of the reasons listed above and today persists because there's no reason to change it, even though some of the points listed above aren't good law today. It certainly remains true that if a form of income is exempt from taxation by virtue of the Constitution, then Congress can't tax it. So there's no harm in saying so, even though there is hardly anything (if there is anything at all) to which that statement might apply.

Best regards,

Jon

This is very helpful. When you write,

"It certainly remains true that if a form of income is exempt from taxation by virtue of the Constitution, then Congress can't tax it. So there's no harm in saying so, even though there is hardly anything (if there is anything at all) to which that statement might apply."

you echo my thoughts. I couldn't recall there being income specified as tax-exempt in the Constitution, unless we count income from exports, which may not be subject to duties. (But I don't think income is what the framers had in mind here.)

It's amazing that the tax-deniers want to read something significant into that phrase.

By the way, it wasn't Larken Rose or any other famous denier who asked me about the section.

Thanks, also, for clarifying that the phrase is in the regs, not the code. I wondered why I couldn't find it in the code.

Best regards, _______

Reply:

_______, I read the page you sent me, and it is complete nonsense. Can't you see it's a ripoff? Whoever wrote that is selling a scam. The page claims that most Americans are really "Nonresident Alien Individuals" under the tax code and can get out of paying income taxes by filing an "Affidavit of Revocation of Election," which they sell for $375. It won't work. They're charging $375 for worthless garbage. They're bilking money out of gullible people by selling a fantasy about not having to pay income taxes.

Here's an example of someone who tried this kind of scheme: U.S. v. Nash, 175 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1999). In that case, the defendant decided he was a "Nonresident Alien Individual" and filed "Revocation of Election" forms for 1989-1991. It didn't work. He was prosecuted and convicted of failure to file income tax returns. He went to prison! You can read the case here. That's the kind of thing that happens to people who fall for this nonsense.

I am disappointed that a GW graduate could fall for this kind of scam. A graduate of our fine university should be able to tell the difference between reliable information and nonsense. You should know that you can't believe everything you read on the Internet. You should know that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

When someone sends you an e-mail saying that they've got millions of dollars in a blocked account in Nigeria and you can have 30% of it if you'll help them get it out, do you believe them? I hope not. The web page you sent me has the same level of credibility. It's a scam.

Please read this page to see why you should trust expert opinion on this matter rather than accept the nonsense that circulates on the Internet.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Yes, that's a little confusing, I agree. For a detailed explanation, please see here.

Jon Siegel

Jon Siegel

Reply:

_____, thanks for your message.

I can't give you everything you ask for, because my website is about a limited point that doesn't address most of the points you are raising. My website doesn't take a position on whether the United States government is good or bad, or on whether it has a good monetary system. The point of my website is to address the question of whether U.S. law requires average Americans to pay income taxes. The answer is yes. It is important to get this answer out there because there are a lot of crazy websites that say that the answer is no.

So whether or not you like what the government does with your tax money, and whether or not you think we have a good monetary system, the point I am trying to make is simply that if you are an average American, you have a legal obligation to give some of your money to the government as income taxes.

Having said that, I will add that I think the U.S. government, although flawed in various respects, is one of the best governments on earth. The U.S. government is democratic and the people get to elect their representatives, whereas some other countries are autocracies in which the people have no say. The U.S. has a good Constitution that preserves personal freedoms -- for example, despite your statement that you think our freedoms are being taken away, you obviously feel free to criticize the U.S. government. You don't seem worried that someone is going to arrest you if you say negative things about the government. In some countries you would have to worry about that. And the U.S. is one of the most prosperous and successful countries on earth. We've been going through a rough patch for the last few years, but we're still way more wealthy than most people elsewhere in the world.

I don't have much expertise in the monetary system, but in general I think it's fine. I get paid in dollars and I use those dollars to buy goods and services. Over a long period, inflation erodes the value of money, so that a dollar buys a lot less than it would have fifty years ago, but salaries adjust for that. Prices were a lot lower in the 1960s, but salaries were a lot lower too.

So yes, the U.S. and its government have problems (the national debt being one of them), and it's important to work to fix them, but it's also important to remember the good things about the U.S. I can't think of any other country where I'd rather live.

But all of that is somewhat beside the point that my website makes, which is simply that the law requires payment of income tax. You're not required to like it, and you're not required to like the government either. I'm just answering the crazy assertion that there is no legal obligation to pay income tax. In fact, there is.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. This is a great learning opportunity for your students, and the most important lesson for them is "you can't believe everything you read on the Internet." The Internet is an amazing invention, but it can be used for good or bad purposes. It provides a wealth of valuable information, but it also allows foolish, misguided, and malicious people to post whatever crazy information they want, including a lot of completely wrong information about income tax. I hope your students learn to approach Internet information with appropriate skepticism, to consider the reliability of its source, and to check up on what they read.

I'll answer your tax questions briefly and provide links to longer explanations.

Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "lay and collect taxes." That's what empowers Congress to impose an income tax. The Constitution doesn't require Congress to impose an income tax; it just authorizes one. Congress chose to impose one, and did so, as you note, by passing the Internal Revenue Code. That is indeed the law that requires Americans to pay income taxes.

But is the law constitutional?

The original Constitution required all "direct" taxes to be appportioned. As early as 1880, the Supreme Court held that the income tax was not a direct tax. But in 1895, the Supreme Court held that part (not all) of the income tax was direct, and so was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned. The 16th Amendment was then passed, and it provides that the apportionment requirement does not apply to income taxes. So whether income taxes are direct or indirect no longer matters, because the apportionment requirement no longer applies to income taxes. Details here.

It is true that the Supreme Court later remarked that the 16th Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation." But the key word is "new." The amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but it relieved the pre-existing power of taxation from the apportionment requirement. Details here.

And if you really want to know whether the income tax is a direct tax (even though it doesn't matter anymore), the answer is that, in light of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court held that the income tax is an "excise" or "duty," not a direct tax. Long details here.

As to Eisner v. Macomber and the definition of "income" for income tax purposes, the key lesson is that you can't answer a legal question by reading a stray snippet from a case about something else. You have to take information in context. Eisner was a case about corporate income, so the Supreme Court said some things that make sense in the corporate context. The stray snippet that your student came across doesn't generally define income. Whenever the Supreme Court has provided a general definition of income (including elsewhere in Eisner itself!), the definition has covered income from labor.

Details about the definition of income here (see "Case Answer" heading).

Details about not reading stray snippets of cases here.

The questions of whether the income tax is constitutional even though it is unapportioned and whether it covers income from labor have been to court hundreds of time and the answers have been "yes" every time (since the 16th Amendment was adopted). There is no legitimate debate about these issues. Courts have rejected tax protestor arguments in 100% of cases -- not 90%, not 95%, but 100%. Your students might enjoy reading this case in which the court points out that "Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." I hope your students don't fall for preposterous income tax arguments.

For some final, general thoughts as to why the income tax information on my web pages is more trustworthy than information on tax protestor pages, see here.

Thanks again for your message, and please let me know how things go with your students!

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message.

The justification for using force and ultimately violence in enforcing the tax laws is the same as the justification for using such measures in enforcing any laws -- they may be required for the law to have any meaning.

Suppose force was forbidden. Now imagine that someone commits a tort (e.g., negligently injures you with their car) or breaches a contract. What are we going to do about it? We can have a court politely tell them that they have to pay money in compensation, but if they refuse to obey that judgment, force would ultimately be necessary to collect. If we exclude the possibility of force, court judgments would have no meaning, and therefore the underlying laws would have no meaning.

Naturally, we try methods short of force first. We do tell the defendant he owes the money and we give him a chance to pay without the use of force. But the use of force has to be there as a backstop for defendants who refuse to obey judgments otherwise.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Sure, here you go:

/taxes/NoLaw.htm

For more info, see here:

/taxes/wages.htm

Jon Siegel

These laws only define income. Nowhere in these laws does it define WAGES!!! You failed again :) Read what you send.

Go back and read that again my friend. You have truly disappointed me. The law that you found is not it.
Income is profit, and wages is even exchange.
Here's what you found.
[G]ross income means 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; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends;

This is all about income. You're suposed to show me the wage tax law. Do you think that they're the same?

I don't think you read the second page I linked in my previous message. It points out that wages are included in income because they are part of "compensation for services," as listed in section 61. The courts have confirmed this reading in 100% of cases. The linked page also specifically explains the error in the "equal exchange" argument. So please read it. Here are the two previous links again:

/taxes/NoLaw.htm
/taxes/wages.htm

For a sampling of the hundreds of cases that specifically confirm that wages are income, see the cases cited at the bottom of this page:

/taxes/cases.htm . . .

Jon Siegel

You say you want "the law that has the word wages in it." But Congress did not use the word "wages" in imposing an income tax on wages. Congress is not required to use any particular word in writing statutes; it can use whatever words adequately express its meaning.

Congress made clear that the income tax is imposed on wages. Congress did this in two ways: First, section 61 says that gross income means "all income from whatever source derived." That would include wages even if Congress had said nothing further. Second, section 61 specifically includes "compensation for services," which covers wages.

Look, section 61 doesn't specifically use the words "stock sales." But this form of income is covered because it is part of "all income" and also because it is covered by the phrase "gains derived from dealings in property" in section 61. You can't get out of paying income tax on stock sales just because the specific words "stock sales" aren't in section 61, and you can't get out of paying income tax on wages just because section 61 doesn't use the specific word "wages." Congress is not required to use a specific word just because you want it to.

As I said in my previous message, the question of whether wages are income for income tax purposes has been to court hundreds of times and the courts have said that the answer is yes 100% of the time. Not 90%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%. The issue is not debatable.

You have to stop getting your income tax information at crazy websites run by people who don't know what they're talking about.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Sorry, I'm kind of busy right now so I don't have time to go through your message point by point, but let me address your question, "How can you possibly follow a law you have never seen?"

People constantly follow laws they have never seen. I'm sure you do this all the time. Have you looked up the arson law for the state in which you live? Probably not. But you don't burn down buildings, do you? You are following a law you have never seen.

There are two ways to follow a law you have never seen:

1. Rely on general social understandings. Even though the vast majority of people have never seen any statutory law, they know that it is illegal to steal, kill people, or burn down buildings. Society transmits this information to people in numerous ways. Most people rely on the general social understanding of what is legal and what is not.

2. Rely on expert advice. If you haven't seen a law, you can still follow it by relying on an expert's account of what the law says. This is how people obey the tax law. The vast majority of people have never seen the law, but many experts have seen it, including experts at the IRS. The experts explain the law in tax forms and publications, privately published books and websites, and in software such as Turbo Tax. People follow the law, even though they haven't seen it, by relying on the experts' advice.

So that's how you can follow a law you have never seen.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I am not expert in the Federal Reserve, so I am not able to answer your question fully. However, I looked at the page linked in your message, and based on what I know, I would say that the page contains many severe misconceptions. Here are some of the problems with that page:

* The linked page states that the Federal Reserve "is not related to the government in any way" and is "a PRIVATELY-OWNED, FOR-PROFIT company." The truth is more complex. The Federal Reserve system combines public and private elements. The Fed's Board of Governors is a federal government agency. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks, although they issue stock to member banks, are not really like private, for-profit corporations. Among other things, after paying their expenses and a legally fixed dividend, the Federal Reserve Banks return the rest of their profits to the U.S. Treasury.

* The linked page suggests that government debt is somehow the Fed's fault: it says that the Fed puts the government "into a state of perpetual re-borrowing and interminable debt." But the government isn't in debt because of the Fed; it's in debt because it spends more than it takes in. The Fed doesn't determine how much the government spends; Congress does that. And the Fed doesn't determine how much the government receives in taxes; Congress sets the tax rates. The Fed doesn't even own most of the government's debt; it owns a bunch but the majority is held by individuals (anyone who owns a U.S. government bond), private companies, mutual funds, foreigners and foreign countries, and so on. So it's not the Fed's fault that the government is in debt. Also, abolishing the Fed wouldn't get the government out of debt. To get the government out of debt, we need lower federal spending, higher federal revenues, or both.

* Whatever is right or wrong with the Federal Reserve, I don't see how problems with the Fed could possibly lead to a lawsuit that would yield the "recovery of every dollar that has ever been paid in interest in any loan that has ever been made," as the linked page suggests. Lots of banks are not members of the Federal Reserve System. I don't see how problems with the Fed (assuming they exist) could possibly lead to a court's ordering repayment of interest on loans made by banks that aren't even part of the Fed at all. That's just absurd.

In short, the page has so many obvious errors that I wouldn't trust any of the information on it, and I certainly wouldn't recommend signing up for this lawsuit or sending any money to support it.

Here are some useful links:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_complete.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-holders-of-us-gov-t-debt.html

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I'm afraid you have been getting your information from unreliable sources. There are, not just a few, but hundreds of court cases that are directly on point and that clearly and expressly hold that wages are income. There are zero court cases that hold that wages are not income.

Like all cases cited by tax protestors as "proving" that wages are not income, the cases mentioned on the pages you cite are really about something else, but have a stray sentence in them that can be misconstrued as relating to the taxability of wages. You can't prove a point by taking a stray sentence from a case out of context. You have to look at what the case is about. Whenever the courts have considered the taxability of wages, they have held that wages are income, every time.

These points are explained in detail here.

That page addresses several of the cases you cite and also provides citations to a few of the hundreds of cases that specifically and expressly hold that wages are income. You might try reading this case. There you can see a court ruling on the issue very clearly.

The fundamental error of your position is when you say: "Does it cost you anything to go to work and be able to earn that wage or salary? Nothing? Your labor is worthless, and everything you make is all profit that is lawfully taxable?"

In calculating income, you do not get to deduct the worth of what you sell. You deduct its cost. The "worth" of your labor is irrelevant in calculating income. At most, you would get to deduct the cost of working, and even some work costs aren't deductible. This point is explained in detail here.

Hope that helps.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. Turn back one section, to 26 U.S.C. § 6011:

"When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary."

So Congress authorized the Secretary (of the Treasury) to create the forms, and the Secretary exercised that power by creating Form 1040 (also 1040A, 1040EZ, etc.).

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. The tax code was not written by the IRS; it was written by the United States Congress. That's why it's the law. Please see here.

The 16th Amendment does not say that there shall be no new tax on the American people, nor does it require direct taxes to be apportioned. It says the exact opposite. The 16th Amendment says: "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." I think you are confusing a couple of other wrong arguments about the 16th Amendment. Please see here and here for those arguments and their refutation.

Criminal cases in which a tax protestor is found not guilty typically mean only that the government failed to prove that the defendant knew he was required to pay taxes. The defendant still owes the taxes, which are often collected in a separate civil case. Please see here and here.

You ask me not to be fooled by the rich and powerful. I ask you not to be fooled by fake information on the Internet. The government lies about some things, but the obligation to pay income tax is not one of them. I know this because I am a trained lawyer and I have looked the law up myself.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message.

I believe what happens is this: the IRS has so many returns to process (over 100 million a year) that it can't catch everything right away. The IRS needs to move quickly and get people their refunds expeditiously. So the IRS may start out by trusting the filed return. If you file a return showing that you're owed a refund, the IRS may send it to you and look more closely later.

So while some people may achieve temporary success using Hendrickson's method, the IRS can catch up to these people later and demand that they give back their refunds, plus interest, plus penalties -- and in many cases the IRS is applying a "frivolous return" penalty of $5000. Hendrickson's discussion forum is filled with messages from people who've received such demands and/or penalties from the IRS, sometimes afer initially getting refunds. (Naturally, Hendrickson doesn't note this on his "victories" page.) That's also what happened to Hendrickson himself -- the IRS initially allowed his claimed refund, but later went to court and got a judgment saying he had to pay it back, and he was also criminally prosecuted and convicted.

I've read (see here) that the IRS has now set up its computers to detect returns that use Hendrickson's scam and that it has managed to substantially cut down on the number of erroneous refunds it sends out to people who use that method. Some still slip through, and the IRS tries to go after them later.

There are millions of returns and the IRS can't catch everybody, but it catches enough that there's a good probability that people who use Hendrickson's scam will get caught sooner or later.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. Answers below.

> Please answer me these simple questions.
> 1. Define for me the terms authoritarianism and
> democracy?

authoritarianism: a governmental system in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

democracy: a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

> 2. Are American citizens still living in a
> democratic nation?

Yes, in America power is exercised by the elected agents of the people under a free electoral system.

> 3. Is the Federal Income Tax democratic or
> authoritarian?

Democratic, because it was imposed by the freely elected representatives of the people -- Congress and the President.

> 4. What political structure is the American
> government under the influence?

Democratic; see above.

> I'm anxiously awaiting for your reply!

Hope that helps.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. ______,

Thanks for your message. It's always nice to hear from someone who found the webpages to be useful, and I particularly appreciate your kind remarks about my writing.

With regard your question about Federal Reserve myths, the best page I have found is this one:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html

I can't vouch for everything that the author says, but he seems knowledgeable and explains things well. There is also this official document from the Fed itself:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

It's very good, but not exactly a quick read!

Thanks again,

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. ______,

Thanks for your message. I will get to your specific points in a moment. First, let me make some general comments.

I took a look at your website. Assuming that you are ________ who runs the video studio at __________.com and who talks to us in the video intro to the website, you seem like an intelligent, educated, successful person. That is why I am particularly surprised to find that you have fallen for absurd tax protestor theories.

I'm afraid you have been picking up your income tax information from unreliable sources. An intelligent and successful person such as yourself should know that you can't believe everything you read on the Internet. Unfortunately, people use the Internet to peddle a great deal of utterly false and ridiculous information about the income tax. Some of it is put out there by hucksters and con artists who are making money off it. Other false information is posted by sincere but foolish, gullible, and misguided people. Don't fall for it. Trust the experts.

If I wanted to make a video, I would hire a successful video expert such as yourself. If you want truthful information about the income tax law, you should go to a legal expert—like me. You shouldn't be picking up your legal information by reading what any kook has put up on the Internet.

I assure you, on my professional word of honor, that the income tax covers wages earned from labor. That is not just my opinion. It is the law, as verified by every court decision issued on the question. Not just most of the court decisions, not even just 99% of them, but 100% of them. This is just not a debatable issue.

For a detailed discussion of why wages are income for income tax purposes, please see this page.

For citations to just a few of the hundreds of court decisions that specifically and expressly hold that wages are income, please see the footnote at the bottom of this page.

Also, please read the rest of that page to learn why court decisions that you may have seen cited to prove that wages are not income are irrelevant.

For an explanation of why income tax does not constitute slavery, please see this page.

Mr. _____, I assume that, in the course of running your business, you probably have occasion to hire a lawyer from time to time. The next time you see your lawyer, why don't you ask him or her whether wages are income for income tax purposes. (Make sure he or she is a real lawyer who is an actual member of a state bar.) I am confident that your lawyer will tell you that the information on my website is correct.

For a detailed explanation of why you can trust the information on my website, please read this page.

I hope you won't devote any more of your time and energy to the income tax protestor movement. . . . It is not a movement for succesful, educated people such as yourself.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. __________,

Thanks for your message -- it's always nice to hear from someone who enjoyed the web pages.

In answer to your question, please refer your friend to 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Section 7201 provides:

"Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

Section 7203 provides:

"Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. . . ."

So these are the statutory provisions that say you can go to jail for evading taxes, not paying taxes, or not filing your return.

You may ask, what's the difference between "evading" taxes (section 7201) and failing to pay them (section 7203)? The answer is that failing to pay taxes (a misdemeanor) can consist of just passively doing nothing when you were required to pay, whereas evading taxes (a felony) requires more than the passive failure to file a return or pay the tax; it requires a positive act of commission designed to mislead or conceal. See Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (1943).

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. _______,

Thanks for your message. It's always good to hear from someone who liked the web pages, and I particularly appreciate your kind remarks.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message.

1. The 16th Amendment was ratified. For details, please see here.

2. Even if the 16th Amendment was not ratified, income tax would not be wholly unconstitutional. In particular, income tax on wages would still be constitutional. Please see here and here.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry you think that I am spreading lies on behalf of the government and that I "know very well" that the income tax applies only to corporations. I assure you, on my word of honor, that I am just presenting the income tax law as it is, based on my having personally looked it up. I am a trained lawyer and I have the expertise to do this. The people spreading lies are the tax protestors, who are either deliberately dishonest or who lack the expertise to understand the law.

You say that only a corporation can legally earn a profit, but that is incorrect. For example, if a private individual buys a home for $100,000 and later sells it for $150,000, that private individual has a profit of $50,000. No corporation involved.

Profit also arises from labor. Profit is just the difference between gross income and expense. If you are employed, you profit from the labor you perform by getting paid more than it costs you to work. After all, if you didn't profit, why would you work?

Look, no one is required to like the income tax, but it is a waste of time to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

_____,

Thanks for your message. Responses below.

> I would like to start by saying if there is such a
> law that requires use citizens to pay income tax
> then why does the IRS refuse to meat with the so
> called tax rebels and show them the law.

The law is posted on the IRS website. See discussion here.

> why is it that in the tax code it self and former
> IRS Commissioners on several time say income tax is
> voluntary.

This is the IRS's way of saying that people pay their taxes even though the government doesn't compute your taxes for you and individually come collect them. Discussion here.

> Can you tell me for fact that the 16th admendment
> was properly ratified?? Have you reserched the Man
> Bill Benson, author of The Law That Never Was.
> Did you know that in that case the government in my
> opinion is unwilling to and unable to prove the 16th
> admendment was ratified.

The 16th Amendment was ratified. The government proved this to a court's satisfaction in Mr. Benson's case. Full discussion here.

> Now you Probly do not care about this but I do for
> one simple reason. I am tired of paying taxes to a
> government who cares little about what we the people
> think and to date give my money to banks that care
> even less about the people.

I am upset about foolish government spending too, but that doesn't excuse failure to pay taxes.

> I see all kinds of people not paying taxes because
> they know the system, or have lots of money for a
> huge defence team. I beleave what I have reserched
> on the net and in law, I know of two cases where so
> called tax dead beats were found inocent of their
> charges becase the prossocution could not show them
> the LAW.

The Internet is filled with false information posted by con artists. Don't fall for it. Trust the experts . . . . Here's why you should trust us.

As to the criminal cases, see here (second point):

> There is alot more cases every year where more
> and more people are winning in court against the
> IRS. What do you have to say to all this.

No, there aren't. The IRS wins 100% of civil cases against tax protestors, and a very high percentage of criminal cases.

> On a personal note I plan on droping out of the IRS
> and plan on telling any and every one what I have
> reserched and found to be in my opinion true.

I would strongly recommend that you not do this. The IRS has stepped up enforcement lately against what it calls "tax defiers." You could get in a lot of trouble. Even if you are not criminally prosecuted, you could end up paying a lot extra in interest and penalties.

> I thank you for your time and hope to hear back from
> you. I look forward to you responce.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. ______,

Thanks for your message and for your kind words. Some comments:

1. I agree that it is a good thing to be skeptical of the government. The government lies sometimes and its claims should be checked out. However, I can assure you that the government is not lying when it says that there is a law requiring average Americans to pay income tax. I have personally checked out this information and it is correct, as is detailed on my web pages. Of course, you don't have to like the income tax, and anyone is free to join the effort of Ron Paul and others to try to get it repealed. But it does exist under current law.

2. I have seen the Russo film. The income tax information in the film is incorrect. My comments on the film can be found here.

3. The claim that 100% of income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt is also incorrect. The correct figure is about 20%. Details here.

And by the way, only a small amount of the public debt is held by the Fed. Most of it is held by private individuals and companies.

4. The 16th Amendment claims are a little more complicated than other tax protestor claims, but the better view is that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Details here.

5. I'm not really expert in the Federal Reserve, but as far as I can tell a whole lot of what is bandied about on the Internet these days with regard to the Fed is mythical -- on a par with tax protestor theories. My understanding is that the Fed helps prevent inflation by taking decisions about monetary policy out of the hands of politicians, who would always be tempted to print more money to pay government debt. Printing too much money causes inflation, so it is a good thing to give the decision about how big the money supply should be to a nonpolitical agency.

There are a lot of scary problems with the economy right now, and the Fed may even be partly responsible for some of them, but I don't think the problems are related to the complaints you're referring to -- particularly to the complaint that we have turned monetary policy over to the Fed. Again, my understanding is that that aspect of the Fed is a good thing.

The current problem to which the Fed has (I think) contributed is the problem that banks and investment houses were allowed to create complicated mortgage-backed financial instruments without adequate regulation. I'm not really expert in all of the Fed's powers, but I do think the Fed could have done something to help prevent that. But that's unrelated to claims like "the fed charges the government interest on the currency we use," or "all income tax goes directly to the fed," or "if it weren't for the fed the budget would be balanced," which as far as I can tell are myths (I definitely know that the middle one of those is a myth, as mentioned above). I don't think abolishing the Fed is the solution to our nation's current problems.

But as I say, this isn't really my area of expertise. You might want to check out this page, by someone who appears to be an expert economist.

Good luck to you and your family,

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I had never previously investigated the questions you ask, so I did a little research. The following should be regarded as a preliminary answer:

1. 26 U.S.C. 6109(a) provides; "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary . . . (2) Any person with respect to whom a return, statement, or other document is required under the authority of this title to be made by another person or whose identifying number is required to be shown on a return of another person shall furnish to such other person such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing his proper identification." Subsection (d) goes on to provide that "The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title."

2. 26 U.S.C. 6051 requires employers who are required to withhold taxes from employees' wages to provide employees with a receipt stating the amount of wages withheld and other information (this is the familiar W-2 form), and subsection (d) provides that a copy of this information shall be provided to the Secretary of the Treasury as an information return.

3. 26 U.S.C. 3402 requires all employers who pay wages to withhold tax from the wages paid.

4. One of the Secretary's regulations, 26 C.F.R. § 31.3402(f)(2)-1, provides that "On or before the date on which an individual commences employment with an employer, the individual shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to his marital status and the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which number shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled. . . . For form and contents of such certificates, see § 31.3402(f)(5)-1." The referenced section 31.3402(f)(5)-1 provides that "Form W-4, 'Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate,' is the form prescribed for the withholding exemption certificate required to be furnished under section 3402(f)(2). A withholding exemption certificate must be prepared in accordance with the instructions and regulations applicable thereto, and must set forth fully and clearly the data that is called for therein."

So, putting it all together:

If you work for an employer, your employer is required to withhold taxes from your wages in accordance with point (3), above. Therefore, in accordance with point (2), your employer is required to file an information return with the IRS showing how much tax was withheld. Therefore, in accordance with point (1), you are required to furnish your employer with your identifying number, which is your Social Security number, if the Secretary's regulations so require. And as described in point (4), the Secretary's regulations do require you to fill out a W-4 form fully on or before the day you start your employment, and the W-4 form requires inclusion of your Social Security number.

So it appears from my research that the answer is yes, if you work for an employer in the United States, you are required to provide that employer with your Social Security number on Form W-4.

In answer to your other question, my degree is in law. You can see my full resume here.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Unfortunately, there are a couple of misconceptions involved in your question.

First, there is no requirement that you "participate in some govt. benefits" in order to be subject to federal income taxation. Federal income tax applies to all income received by U.S. citizens, regardless of whether they receive or participate in government benefits.

Second, even though you live and work within one of the 50 states, you are subject to federal law. The Constitution specifically provides that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." So if you live in, say, Connecticut, you are subject to the law of Connecticut *and* to federal law, and, to the extent that there is any conflict between the two, federal law controls.

So there is no violation of due process involved in withholding income tax from your wages, where that withholding is done according to federal law.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Ten Commandments are not laws within the U.S. legal system. The U.S. legal system distinguishes between religious and secular law. Religious commandments such as the Ten Commandments are not enforceable laws. If they were, it would, for example, be illegal to worship idols or to covet your neighbor's possessions. But these things are not illegal. Indeed, worshipping idols is a constitutionally protected right for someone who does it out of religious faith.

So the fact that something is forbidden in the Ten Commandments does not show whether it is actually illegal. Murder and theft are illegal, not because of the Ten Commandments, but because state legislatures have passed laws prohibiting them.

Mr. Russo was trying to prove that income tax laws do not exist by showing that most Americans have not seen the written laws that require payment of income taxes. This argument is fallacious, because in fact most Americans have not seen the written laws about anything, including basic laws such as the law against murder, theft, or arson. Your suggestion that you have seen these laws because you have read the Ten Commandments merely confirms that you have not seen the written, enforceable laws that actual prohibit murder, theft, or arson in the place where you live. Yet I presume you believe that these laws exist and that you obey these laws.

The point, therefore, is that one does not have to see the actual, written laws about anything in order to believe the laws exist and to obey these laws. Most people do not look up actual laws. Instead, they trust experts to read the actual laws and to provide the public with proper information about what the laws say. If you would like to look up the tax laws yourself, go right ahead; they are on my web pages. But if you are content to believe the experts who tell you that it is illegal to murder, steal, or exceed the speed limit, you should equally trust the experts who have determined that the laws require you to pay your taxes.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Dear "Crouching Lesbian,"

Thanks for your message. I always enjoy hearing from people who have read my web pages, even accidentally.

I'm sorry that you find yourself unable to accept truthful information about the income tax. Some answers to your points appear below.

First, you ask what makes me think I can debunk the myths about income tax. . . . [T]he answer is that . . . I have the training that allows me to look up the income tax law and understand what it means. My expertise makes me a better source of correct tax information that people who have no relevant training and who don't even sign their real names to their messages.

Seriously, if you wanted a house built, wouldn't you hire an architect? Suppose some website said, "All the architects in the country are engaged in a conspiracy of lies! I've never been to architecture school but I know the truth! You should build your house out of bubble gum!" Would you do it? I hope not.

Similarly, if you want to know what the law is, consult a lawyer, not some nutty website.

Second, you are mistaken about the status of the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Code was passed by the United States Congress and is the law. It is positive law. For full details on this point, including the fact that Title 26 is a compilation of the law as passed by the U.S. Congress, please see here.

Third, as to your definitional point, you have, like so many tax protestors, seized on an tiny, obscure piece of tax law and wrongly assumed that it has universal application. I took the time to check the section of the regulations that you cite, and if you do the same, you will discover that 26 C.F.R. 1.469-9(b) provides, "The following definitions apply for purposes of this section". The phrase "for purposes of this section" shows that the definition you have seized on applies only in the limited circumstances covered by the particular regulatory section involved (which covers only "certain rental real estate activities") and cannot be applied universally. By contrast, the sections of the tax code that impose the income tax, which are cited on my website, most particularly sections 1, 61, and 63, are the basic, fundamental, universally applicable sections.

Finally, let me point out that virtually everyone who has any actual training in law agrees with me. This includes all the judges, all the law professors, and virtually all the lawyers in the whole country. Please review this page to understand why this is an area in which you should trust the universal consensus of knowledgeable experts.

For your own sake, I hope you are not basing your actions on the wrongful infomation that you appear to have gathered from absurd Internet sources. You are welcome to believe anything you want, but I hope you are not actually failing to pay income taxes you owe because of dumb stuff posted on the Internet. Do yourself a favor and don't fall for the nonsense. It can land you in considerable trouble. Did you know that many of the people who created these ridiculous Internet sites have done long stretches in prison for their income tax crimes? For information about what actually happens to tax protestors, possibly including some of the very people who created the Internet sites that you appear to have been reading, please see here.

Good luck to you,

Jon Siegel

PS; patiently awaiting proof that IRC and SSA are indeed positive law.

As you have discovered, the IRS often starts out by accepting data provided to it by taxpayers. So if you file documents showing that you owe no tax and are entitled to a refund of everything that's been withheld from your paychecks, the IRS may well give it to you. But often, the IRS eventually catches up with people who try this stunt, and they end up paying it all back plus a lot extra in interest and penalties, and there's also the possibility of going to prison. I can't promise you the IRS will catch up with your particular case -- there are a lot of cases and they can't catch everybody -- but if you keep trying this, you're going to have to spend your life on the lam from the IRS. (Perhaps this is why you're crouching?)

As to your questions, the definition of "positive law" is "enacted law -- the codes, statutes, and regulations that are applied and enforced in the courts." (Black's Law Dictionary) The Internal Revenue Code is positive law because it was enacted by Congress, as can be seen by looking it up in the Statutes at Large -- for details see here.

As explained there, you are confused on this point because you are focusing on the United States Code version of the Internal Revenue Code. It is true that that version, Title 26 of the U.S. Code, has not been enacted into positive law. But the Internal Revenue Code itself was enacted by Congress, it's in the Statutes at Large, and it is therefore positive law. The U.S. Code version is just a more convenient source for looking it up.

No, there isn't a section in the Internal Revenue Code that says "this code is positive law," but that is irrelevant. Law is law, and positive law is positive law, whether or not it has a label expressly saying so. The law against murder does not have a section saying, "this law is positive law" or even "this law is law," but so what?

With regard to the definition of "United States" in code section 7701, I presume you are referring to the tedious tax protestor argument that "United States" is defined to include "only the States and the District of Columbia," and that "State" is then defined in turn "to include the District of Columbia." You therefore draw the obviously fallacious conclusion that the United States includes only the District of Columbia. The conclusion is obviously fallacious because, as the Code expressly states, the term "includes" is non-exclusive. This is obvious from any dictionary, but just in case it isn't, the Code expressly states (section 7701(c)) that "The terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." Therefore, while the Code defines "state" to include the District of Columbia, that does not exclude the other things that are otherwise within the meaning of the term "state" -- namely, the states! So sorry, but you lose on this one.

Your argument that you are a citizen of only Arizona and not of the United States is also incorrect. As the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes clear (just read the first sentence), U.S. citizens have two citizenships, one federal and one state. Every citizen of a state is also a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled. (There are also U.S. citizens who are not citizens of any state, if, for example, they live in D.C. or Puerto Rico.) You say that you "a resident of the Republic of Arizona," but I'm afraid that you actually seem to live in a fantasy world. The state of Arizona is a state of the United States and not an independent Republic. (If Arizona were an independent Republic, its citizen, John McCain, would hardly be eligible to become President of the United States, would he?)

Crouching Lesbian, I continue to suggest that you rejoin the world of normal people. As noted above, I can't promise that the IRS will catch up to you. It is possible that you will continue to get away with your tax scam, and that you will end up saving money by doing it your way. But you are taking a big, big risk. The IRS really does catch up with lots of people who have tried what you are doing, and it hits those people up for big penalties and interest that can end up ruining their lives. If you read the information that proliferates around the Internet on these topics, you can see sad stories of people who tried what you're doing and who ended up losing their houses, being forced into bankruptcy, or having the IRS garnish their wages and seize their bank accounts and other assets. Some of them also go to prison. You're saving a few dollars now, but you're running the risk of having your whole life ruined. It's just not worth it.

Good luck to you,

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. ____________,

The Internal Revenue Code, codified as part of the United States Code, is the law. It was written by Congress, not by the IRS. It is not "internal" to the IRS. For a detailed explanation of this point, please see here.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. Two points:

1. If you read Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution, you will see that it applies only to the states, not to the federal government. The states are forbidden from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, but the federal government is not subject to that restriction.

2. If you really believe that the worth of your money is a negative, the solution is simple: send it to me. I will be happy to accept all of your money. According to your view of things (under which money is a negative), you will be better off if you send your money to me.

If you don't send your money to me (and I am guessing you won't), that proves that you regard your money as a positive, not a negative.

Reply:

____, thanks for your message.

First of all, I have the highest respect for your military service. Thank you for serving our country.

I don't know where you got the figure of 67 million people not paying taxes, but please remember that many people are not legally required to file a return or pay taxes. The most common reason would be that a person does not have enough income to be required to file. For example, most children up to the age of about 16 would not have enough income to be required to file a return. So that by itself accounts for tens of millions of Americans not filing returns.

Please let me assure you that I have not posted the information on my website in order to defend the legal profession. I have posted this information because I want people to be able to see the laws that require most Americans to file income tax returns and pay taxes. There is a lot of false information out there on this subject. Many people are claiming that there is no law requiring Americans to pay taxes and they constantly ask "Where is the law? Show me the law!" So I am showing the law.

I am not claiming that everything the government does is fair and square. Far from it. I agree that the government does some bad things. But lying about the law that requires people to pay income taxes is not one of them. I know this because I have personally looked up the law.

I don't know if you had a chance to review this page on my website, but please take a look at it.

This page explains why you can trust this information and why I feel confident about it.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. The Internal Revenue Code is proper authority because it is U.S. law, having been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Of course such law, to be valid, must also be constitutional. I address a couple of constitutional arguments about the income tax here:

/taxes/16th.htm
/taxes/16thb.htm

You appear to believe that the income tax laws are unconstitutional, but you do not say why. Therefore, I can do no more than refer you to the above pages. You might also check this web page by Dan Evans, who addresses additional constitutional arguments:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. It sounds like your friend is right in the "target market" for my website. I'm glad it helped keep her away from trouble.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks very much for your message. If my website can help members of your congregation avoid getting into trouble with tax protestor arguments, then it will have served its purpose.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I am glad the web pages were useful to you.

Given your views, perhaps you should join those who are agitating for repeal of the income tax? It's a big task, to be sure, but there's already a movement for it. Perhaps you know that Ron Paul, who is running for President, supports repeal.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

_____, Thanks for your message. Yes, I do think jail is an appropriate penalty for failure to pay taxes in some cases. Here are some reasons:

1. The vast majority of tax cases are pursued as civil or administrative matters. There are literally millions of civil tax penalties every year, and hundreds of thousands of tax liens and levies, but only two or three thousand criminal tax prosecutions. You can see the statistics here.

This is because, as a matter of policy, the government reserves criminal prosecution for serious cases. I'm not claiming that the IRS implements this policy perfectly -- I'm sure it makes inappropriate decisions sometimes -- but that is the general rule.

2. Criminal prosecution requires the government to show that the defendant knew he or she was required to pay taxes and wilfully failed to do so. So we're not talking about people who just made an honest mistake on their tax return. Again, this means that criminal tax prosecutions are for serious cases.

3. Millions of taxpayers (including myself) honestly pay the taxes they owe every year. If people deliberately fail to pay their taxes, it hurts honest taxpayers. That is wrong.

4. There has to be some serious deterrent to failing to pay income tax. The IRS has to enforce the tax laws with regard to hundreds of millions of people. The odds that the IRS will catch those who cheat are often low in an individual case, particularly with regard to income that is not independently reported (such as the income of the self-employed). If people were only subject to paying the taxes owed plus interest and penalties, I don't think that would be a sufficient deterrent and there would be a lot more noncompliance than there is. The possibility of a jail sentence is needed to give people a real incentive to pay their taxes.

So yes, I think jail is appropriate in some cases.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Remember, it is up to the government to prove to the jury that the defendant did believe that he had an obligation to pay income tax. If the defendant truly doesn't believe he has to pay, failure to pay is not a crime. The defendant still owes the money (including interest and penalties), but is not subject to criminal punishment.

So how can people such as Ed Brown and Irwin Schiff be convicted, when they believe there is no income tax law? The answer is that the government proved, to the jury's satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brown and Schiff know that there is a law requiring them to pay taxes. The jury must have concluded that Brown and Schiff and similar people are lying when they say they believe they don't have to pay taxes.

I have no idea what really goes on inside the heads of Brown, Schiff, and like-minded others. I wasn't at their trials and I don't know what evidence the government presented. But, under the law, that evidence must have been sufficient to convince the jury that the defendants in fact knew they had to pay income taxes, and that their claims that they believe that they don't have to are lies.

>> Oh, and one more thing. Do you believe that there
>> is such a thing as jury nullification which includes
>> the power of a jury to judge both the facts of a
>> case and the law itself that is in question?
>

In a criminal case, there is no doubt that the jury has the power to engage in nullification by returning a not guilty verdict. Whether juries should do so is a more complex question.

Jon Siegel

This is indeed the crux of the matter, is it not?

Are you aware of a case or cases where the jury has been presented the evidence that people claim to have about the ratification of the 16th amendment, the so-called 861 evidence, and all other theories a man wishes to present? (Surely only a tyrant would determine a given defense "frivolous" if it had never yet been heard by a jury.)

This is what I am most interested in finding out. Has the law actually been put on trial, or is it really like Mr. Russo, Mr. Brown, Mr. Shiff et al allege, where the judges systematically deny these defendants their rights to put the law on trial for judgment by a jury of their peers?

Thanks again, you've been very helpful.

Reply:

Your point is well taken, and I don't really know the full answer. But I can say this:

1. It is not up to the jury to decide what the law is. The judge decides whether the law requires people to pay taxes, and of course all the judges decide that it does, because that is the correct answer. So in this sense "the law" is never put on trial.

2. The jury does decide whether the defendant in a criminal tax case believed that he was obliged to pay taxes. As you say, in order for the jury to make this decision, it would need to have an understanding of the defendant's thinking and so would need some opportunity to hear the defendant's explanation of why he claims he believed there was no such obligation.

3. Tax protestor defendants frequently complain that the judge in their trial excluded all the evidence that would allow them to prove what they believed. I don't really know what happens. I heard from someone who claimed to be personally present at the trial of Larken Rose that Rose was "allowed to go through the entire 861 presentation, with all of the statutes and regulations he wanted." On the other hand, I have heard directly from Rose that Rose feels that the judge excluded all his evidence. So you see there are conflicting stories.

My best guess, based on my assessment of the reliability of the people involved, is that Rose was allowed to make a reasonably full presentation of his 861 argument, but he wasn't allowed to show his video version and wasn't allowed to put in every chart, diagram, and exhibit he wanted, and he has magnified this in his own mind into "the judge excluded everything."

But as I say, I don't really know.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. _____,

Thanks for your message. I never said your labor had no value. What I said is that, for tax purposes, the value is irrelevant. Please review this page:

/taxes/wages.htm

As the page explains, when you sell something, you normally have taxable income if the sale price exceeds your "basis" in the thing sold. But your basis has nothing to do with the value of the thing sold. It has to do with the cost to you of the thing sold.

If we were to apply this concept to the sale of labor (which the tax code isn't really set up to do), we would conclude that you should be able to deduct, from your wages or salary, the cost to you of your labor. But what is that? Did you ever pay anyone anything to own your labor? I certainly didn't and I expect that you didn't either. Therefore, your basis in your labor is zero.

That doesn't mean your labor has no value. It has value, but value is not the relevant figure.

Jon Siegel

sorry, i must be a strict constructionist or a semanticist - because i'm not still not buying it. and of course the anti-elitist in me resents being devalued.

fyi

Reply:

Mr. ______,

You're really not being devalued. Value is just not the relevant figure. Let me put it this way:

If you bought a diamond for $10,000 and sold it some years later for $15,000, your income would be $5,000. That's the $15,000 sale price minus your basis (cost) of $10,000.

But what if you found a diamond in the street and sold it for $15,000? How much income would you have? You didn't pay anything for the diamond. It had no cost to you. So your basis is zero. Therefore, the whole $15,000 sale price would be income, because you have no basis to deduct from it.

That doesn't mean the diamond is valueless! Obviously it is very valuable. But your basis is determined by cost, not value. The value of the thing sold is irrelevant.

The sale of labor is the same. You didn't pay anything to own your labor. Therefore your basis in it is zero. That doesn't mean it has no value. Like the diamond found in the street, it is valuable. But basis is determined by cost, not value.

It really has to be this way. If you deducted the value of the thing sold, you would never have any income from anything! In any normal, free market transaction, on the day you sell something, its value is equal to the sale price. So if you could deduct the value, your income would be zero. That can't be how it works. You deduct the cost, not the value.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Mr. _____, the very case you cite, Brushaber, says:

"the [Sixteenth] Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided"

thus showing that Pollock is no longer good law. (p. 18)

The case also says, on the same page:

"the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. . . . in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."

So Congress may impose an income tax and the income tax is not subject to the requirement of apportionment.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I only wish I was collecting money from showing people the law! I'd be happy to pay tax on it. Maybe I could charge the IRS a cut of the tax it gets from people who pay up after reading my website . . . hmmm, unfortunately, not very likely.

Anyway, thanks again.

Just remember, the federal income tax is legal and backed by the Constitution. It's how it's being, and has been misapplied, by the IRS. I'm only sorry that you wasted a good education to become part of the matrix. I suppose you also believe that the Federal Reserve System is Constitutional also?

I'm currently listening your conversation with Larken Rose on Soapbox Radio. I can tell that you've been doing all of your research on the IRS website. You even copy and paste their section on Tax Protestor Myths into your website. This shows how little research you've done on your own account. Not sure if you're aware of the current situation with Tom Cryer, so I thought I'd supply this link for your educational enrichment.

http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/#stake

I'm sure that even someone taking your position will agree that this is not just some tax evading kook. I would submit that he is far more qualified to address this issue than even you.

You're also quite naïve to believe that just because people like Larken have been put into prison, amounst others, that that in itself proves that there is a law. All this proves is that the notion that American's rights are being taken from them, and corruption in the government is destroying the Constitution, is a reality. If you truly believe that our government, especially our current administration, has never lied to the American people, you are in denial.

One other comment. I couldn't help notice in your discussion with Larken, you sounded quite condescending. As a person dedicated to education, I ask that you think outside of the conventional wisdom and use your OWN mind instead of relying on IRS propaganda, as well as what you've been taught in public schools since you started going to school. Just don't believe that slavery is a thing of the past, as it's still alive and well today.

Too bad. As to your other messages:

* There are many people who claim to be offering money for proving that the law requires people to pay income tax. But on close examination, these offers usually turn out to be bogus. Often they say that to win, you have to disprove something that is obviously true, such as that "under the Constitution, Congress passes the laws." With particular regard to Mr. Brown's offer, there are two problems -- first, you have to be the first to show him the law, and I presume someone else has already done so, and second, he says that the law can't be Title 26. Well, that is the law, so it is impossible to collect on his offer.

* I have not cut and pasted from the IRS website. Everything on my website is based on my original research. I have looked directly at the tax law itself and at the accompanying regulations.

Thanks again for your messages. I'm sorry that you couldn't just have been an honest person from the beginning and said what you actually believed, instead of starting off with sarcastic statements that are the opposite of what you believe.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. If, as you say, everything I say on my website is correct, then you do have income:

/taxes/wages.htm

The statement on your website that income "is the exercise of federal privilege, which is measured, for purposes of determining the tax, by the receipts brought in by that exercise" is contrary to section 61.

Jon Siegel

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I really am a law professor and I never worked for the I.R.S., although I did work at the U.S. Department of Justice before I went into teaching.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code is law. The U.S. Code is a compilation of statutes passed by the United States Congress. Every section in Title 26 was passed by Congress as law.

Reply:

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 became law on October 22, 1986, by Congress's passage of Public Law 99-514. Some more information is available here.

The code has been amended many times since then, each time by law passed by Congress.

So the code really is law.

Reply:

But it's in the Statutes at Large. Volume 100, starting at page 2085. I'm looking at it right now. Public Law 99-514, "An Act To reform the internal revenue laws of the United States." Check it out for yourself.

Look, I'm sorry, but Congress really did pass this and it really is law. Why don't you try a different argument? There's no point arguing that Congress didn't pass something when it obviously did, as anyone can check by looking it up in the books.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. The tax code is a statute, or to be more precise, a set of statutes. The statutes were passed by the United States Congress. Congress chose the name "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" as the name for the set of statutes. So there is no distinction between the code and statutes. Please see this page for the particular statutes that require payment of income taxes.

I hope that helps. I can't comment on your argument regarding Supreme Court decisions because you don't specify which decision you have in mind.

Reply:

Thanks for your kind message. If you had friends trying to convince you that there is no law requiring payment of income taxes, you are right in the "target market" for my web page. I'm glad you found it to be helpful.

February 1, 2007:

Dear Mr. Siegel,

If I asked you to tell me how you liked the movie, The Grinch that Stole Christmas," and you told me it had a great ending. The Grinch turned nice and everybody was singing. That would not tell me very much and I would wonder if you really understood the meaning of the story.

That's about how your criticism of Aaron Russo's Freedom From Fascism sounded. I was sincerely looking for some good advice about what was claimed in that film, and to tell you the truth, after reading your criticism of it, and the page you made in regard to IRS tax code, I can only surmise that Aaron Russo is right on target. I noticed that you are a professor of law. I am wondering if you are differentiating between what is a code and what is a law. I am only a grandmother with a high school education, so I expect my email will probably mean even less than 25 minutes of that film, but I would really like to know if you have had a chance to watch the entire film yet. After examining the information you have laid out, I feel like you have really missed some major stuff.

I would appreciate seeing the actual law, not the "policies" or "codes" of an entity called the IRS. If you have the number of the law, I would like to see it, but only after you have viewed that incredibly important film at least twice... one time through the eyes of a skeptic, and a second time, through the eyes of an optimist... someone who might be thankful that we might actually be free of the bondage of the income tax after all. How wonderful that would be. Would it not? Whose side are you on?

Sincerely, ___________.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry I don't have time to view the whole film right now -- I have a lot of deadlines in my work. Perhaps I'll have time to get to it in a month or so and if I do I'll post a fuller review.

But in the meanwhile, you asked for "the number of the law." I presume you mean the law requiring payment of income taxes. The relevant laws, complete with numbers, can be found on my web page here:

/taxes/NoLaw.htm

These really are laws -- they were passed by the Congress of the United States. They are not creations of the IRS. They are part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, because that's the name chosen by Congress for this set of laws.

Please take a look and see what you think. And congratulations on your grandchildren -- I'm sure they're wonderful.

Thank you very much for your prompt response. I certainly understand you must be very busy and appreciate that you have taken the time to respond to me. I will check back with you one of these days to see if you had had a chance to post another message on this after viewing the film. I will double check the site you referred me to as well. I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but it appears that you are saying that the code was created in 1986. I'll tell you I had been paying income taxes many years prior to that.

Well, I don't mean to open a can of worms when you are busy, so I will say I will get in touch with you one day in the future, and if you get any time to work on this, it would be appreciated as I am very interested in making sure I have my facts straight when I talk to people about such things.

Thank you, ________.

And I'll see what I can do about that film. Maybe check back April 15! That would be an appropriate day.

[Note: a full review of the film is now posted.]

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I think looking up the laws yourself is an excellent idea. One problem, though, is that looking up legal information can require some specialized training. It's not always so easy to find everything. But the laws themselves are the easiest part. If you have access to a law library, you should be able to find the laws themselves without too much trouble.

The laws themselves are part of the UNITED STATES CODE. It's published by the U.S. Government Printing Office. Just ask a librarian where the library keeps the United States Code, or, alternatively, a version called the "United States Code Annotated," which has the laws plus additional information such as notes of court decisions (that's published by West Group, a major legal publisher). Either version is a large, multi-volume set. The tax laws are in Title 26, which is basically the same as Volume 26. Within the volume, the laws are arranged by section number, so you can look up individual sections that are cited on my web page by number.

If you want to get really ambitious and look up cases cited on my web page, you can ask where the library keeps the "Federal Reporter." This is a little harder to use. Cases are cited by volume number and page. For example, my citation to "United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991)," means you need to find volume 941 and look for page 598 within that volume. But just to make it more complicated, note that "F.2d" means the Second Series of the Federal Reporter (there are three series of the Federal Reporter so far), so you need to find volume 941 in the Second Series.

Good luck. Please let me know whether you are able to find the tax laws and convince your friends -- I'd be interested to hear.

And by the way, I agree that government officials should courteously show the tax laws to anyone who asks to see them.

January 24, 2007:

I was reading your Income Tax page and I'm confused about one issue. On your page you said that the tax law says you're only required to pay federal income taxes if you're required to file a tax return, right? Well I heard that you don't have to file a tax return because it's a violation of the "paperwork reduction act". So if you're not required to file a tax return as per the paperwork reduction act, wouldn't that mean you don't have to pay federal income taxes as well?

Reply:

Thanks for your message. The problem with this theory is that the tax return requirement does not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act. I have to admit I've never investigated this argument in detail, because it seems too silly, but here's my understanding: the PRA provides that government forms that request information must bear a "control number" assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. If there's no OMB number, then you don't have to fill out the form. But Form 1040 does have an OMB number! It's right there in the upper-right-hand corner of Form 1040. Same for Form 1040-EZ and other IRS forms. So there's no violation of the PRA.

January 24, 2007:

In your correspondences about the income tax you stated...."Have you ever seen the actual laws that prohibit murder, robbery, or arson?"

I can say that YES I have seen these laws and are often cited in prosecution of these types of criminals.

I can also say that I have researched the tax code and cannot find the statute that puts the wages of any human being subject to a tax.

Your arguments are vague and convoluted to the point of not making any sense. There are several ex-IRS agents who are knowledgable of the law and they all state that there is no law.
There have been several court cases that have won by defendants who ask the question...show me the law. According to the US Supreme court, the 16th ammendment does not give the
government any new taxing authority.

All we as US citizens want is to be shown the law.

Reply:

Thanks for your message.

>In your correspondences about the income tax you stated...."Have you
>ever seen the actual laws that prohibit murder, robbery, or arson?"
>
>I can say that YES I have seen these laws and are often cited in
>prosecution of these types of criminals.

Really? What state are you from? Perhaps you could quote me the statutes the prohibit murder, robbery, and arson in your state. I would be interested to learn whether you have seen the actual statutes. If so, good for you, but I think you are in a very small minority.

>I can also say that I have researched the tax code and cannot find the
>statute that puts the wages of any human being subject to a tax.

Well, the statutes are right on my web page:

/taxes/NoLaw.htm

Please take a look.

>Your arguments are vague and convoluted to the point of not making any
>sense.
>There are several ex-IRS agents who are knowledgable of the law and they
>all state that there is no law.
>There have been several court cases that have won by defendants who ask
>the question...show me the law.
>According to the US Supreme court, the 16th ammendment does not give the
>government any new taxing authority.

The 16th amendment did not give a new taxing authority, but it allowed the existing authority to be used to tax incomes, without regard to the previous requirement of apportionment.

>All we as US citizens want is to be shown the law.

Again, it's on my web page. See the link above.

[Note: No further word received yet from this correspondent.]

Nov. 21, 2006:

Hi, I just read your tax page and I am curious of your opinion. Have you seen Aaron Russo's film America, Freedom to Fascism? If so what are your thoughts? Are you still holding to what you state on that page?

Sincerely, _____.

Reply:

Thanks for your message -- it's always nice to hear from people who have read my web page.

I haven't had time to view the full Russo film that you called to my attention -- it's nearly two hours -- but I did watch the first 25 minutes or so, and here are my thoughts.

This film appears to consist of the usual wholly mistaken arguments. Most of the arguments I saw are already covered on my web page.

The film opens with a brief reference to the 16th Amendment argument. This is covered on my web page.

Then, in the part of the film I watched, Russo interviews ordinary people on the street and asks them if they have ever seen the actual law that requires them to pay taxes. They all say no (or don't answer).

Well, of course they haven't seen the income tax law. Most people are not lawyers. Most people have never seen any actual law. Most people wouldn't know where to look for any actual law even if they wanted to. And even most lawyers don't spend their time looking up the actual statutes that we all obey in our everyday lives.

Have you ever seen the actual laws that prohibit murder, robbery, or arson? I bet if you asked 100 random people whether they have ever seen these laws, at least 98 of them would say no. Does that mean that these laws don't exist? Does that mean it's a fraud to tell people that they can't murder each other or burn down buildings? Of course not. Whether ordinary people have seen the actual statutes about anything is irrelevant.

Russo interviews some former IRS agents who have joined the tax protestor movement. Any big government agency with tens of thousands of employees will at some point employ some foolish people. The fact that some former IRS agents are tax protestors is not persuasive.

Some of these former agents say that the IRS has "refused" to say which laws require people to pay taxes. Russo pursues this point at length, but it's false. The IRS has specified the relevant laws in its publication "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments." This publication can be viewed on the IRS website. Here's the URL:

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc139431515

If anyone wants more info on this point, it's available on numerous web pages, including mine.

It may be true that the IRS doesn't do as good a job as it should of responding to inquiries about this point. If I were in charge of the IRS I would certainly have a standard form answer that I sent to everyone who asked to see the laws that require payment of income taxes. Apparently, if the tax protestors are to be believed, the IRS doesn't do this. But the answer is on the agency's website for anyone to see.

Russo also shows some people making arguments that the income tax is a bad and unnecessary way for the government to raise money. These are policy arguments that have nothing to do with the legal question of whether current statutes require the payment of income taxes.

Finally, Russo shows interviews with people he refers to as the "tax experts." I didn't recognize everyone he showed, but he included Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff. Considering that they have both been criminally convicted of tax evasion, I think it's fair to say that they -- and by implication they other people that Russo interviews -- are not "tax experts." If Russo wants to interview some people who actually know something about the income tax code, there are professors available at every law school who would be happy to speak to him on camera -- heck, I'd be happy to do it myself.

That's as much of the film as I watched. Judging from the part I saw, the film appears to be a collection of the usual claptrap. If there's some specific argument later in the film that you think is compelling and is not covered on my web page, let me know.

Sept. 15, 2006:

Good day Prof. Siegel. My name is ____ _____. I am a 2L at St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami, Fl. and I am taking the time to write you concerning your website (/taxes/IncomeTax.htm) I would like to thank you for taking the time to explain this topic to the general public, as well as to a very grateful law school student. We have recently read Cheek v. United States in our Crim Law I section and I had serious questions about the authenticity about the requirments to pay income tax. As you point out, many websites and films (most notably Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism), make it appear as if our income tax system and the I.R.S. in general are a fraud committed upon the American people. As a law student, I felt it my obligation not to take the Prof's word for it and do my own research into the topic. At first, I must admit I bought into these arguments, since I was unable to locate a court decision stating that American's must pay an unapportioned tax on their labor (income tax.) Similarly, the arguments made by the 'anti-tax' crowd play upon the language of some Supreme Court decisions to make it appear as if the Court ruled that the 16th Amendment granted no new powers upon the Congress to tax the people. In a way, and please correct me if I am wrong, they are right. Those ruling did not per se grant Congress a new power to tax, but rather removed the requirement of apportionment, thereby allowing Congress to institute the 'income tax'. I wonder Prof., why these ex-IRS agents and the like have risked their careers and personal reputations whilst making these actively false and misleading statements to an otherwise unsuspecting population. In any event sir, please keep up the outstanding job, and thank you again. P.S. please forgive the informal nature of this communication. . . . my Legal Writing Prof. would KILL ME if she saw this thing!

Reply:

Thanks for your message -- it's always good to hear from people who have read the material on the website. I'm glad it was helpful. And you're right about the 16th Amendment -- as you say, it just removed the requirement of apportionment.

Sept. 6, 2006:

Greetings,

I'm a Clemson University economics student who recently stumbled into the Internet's vast resource of "income tax hoax/fraud" web sites while conducting research for a public sector class. Allow me to say first that I believe any proper form of protest would involve first paying my taxes, and then pursuing any questions of fact. I am dubious of all claims of any factual nature on the Internet. Nonetheless, I am curious as to the truth of two claims in particular, and I am hoping you can help clarify them:

1. The first is that the 16th amendment was falsely ratified. A gentlemen by the name of Bill Benson claims that he has investigated the records of state congresses and can show that the necessary 36 states (of 48 at the time) did not properly ratify the amendment. I would complete dismiss such a claim if it were not for the briefs on his site (http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com) that he claims to have filed in an attempt to establish the facts concerning ratification.

2. The second claim is that no agency, including the IRS, can coerce individuals to file information collection papers (such as the 1040) because the Paper Reduction Act requires all government forms to be issued a valid control number by the OMB. Apparently the IRS 1040 displays an invalid control number. (The source of this claim was a press release from http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm)

I apologize if these requests for clarification are redundant. I did my best to diligently look through your web site for any information on these claims but was not able to find anything.

Thanks very much in advance for your time,

_____ _____.

Reply:

Thanks for your message. I will answer the question about the 16th Amendment on my webpage. It will take a week or so to prepare the answer. I'll let you know when it's posted.

The other question, I think, is not worth adding to the website. I haven't investigated the point thoroughly, but I believe the answer is simply that Form 1040 does have an OMB control number.

You might check out Dan Evans' income tax website, which addresses the question (although I can't vouch for his answers):

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Reply 2:

The answer to your 16th Amendment question is now posted.