Income Taxes Voluntary or Mandatory ?

[tomedward]

Are income taxes voluntary or mandatory ?

Please provide evidence to support your response.

[Ninjashadow]

Both...in a way. I know that's probably not what you wanted.

Voluntary because you don't have to pay them if you don't want to.

Mandatory because if you don't pay them and get caught you'll either have to pay them or be arrested.

[tomedward]

Originally posted by ninjashadow

Both...in a way. I know that's probably not what you wanted.

Voluntary because you don't have to pay them if you don't want to.

Mandatory because if you don't pay them and get caught you'll either have to pay them or be arrested.

Is anyone required to give the government information that can be used aginst them in a court of law ?

[BillyBob]

Start with the 16th Ammendment. Then do some Google searches, you'll be surprised how that Ammendment has been interpreted.

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Start with the 16th Ammendment. Then do some Google searches, you'll be surprised how that Ammendment has been interpreted.

Nothing would surprise me BillyBob.


syllogism n: deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises.

1.) Individuals who file tax returns voluntarily waive the fifth Amendment protections of their inherent rights
2.) The government cannot require individuals to waive any constitutional protections of their rights.
3.) Therefore the government cannot lawfully (constitutionally) require individuals to file income tax returns.

[BillyBob]

It goes deeper than that! If you find some good info, please post it!

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

It goes deeper than that! If you find some good info, please post it!

I share from my own experience. When I went to the IRS to be audited a few decades ago I asked
the auditor two simple questions, "Can any of the information I give you be used against me in a
court of law?"

The auditor responded, "Yes it can." Then I asked her if I had any legal obligation to give the IRS
information that can be used against me in a court of law ? Not realizing she just concluded the
audit she said, "No."

I posed the same two questions to the auditors supervisor and she responded in the exact same
manner. Admittedly they were unhappy with my knowledge of the truth, but as the Holy
Scriptures declare, “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”
2 Corinthians 13:8

The IRS answered my questions and I simply acted according to their answers. Their law did not
require my testimony.

A few years later I received a Collection Summons to appear for an audit in which I was
instructed to bring my books and records. Again I appeared and was surrounded by six NFL
linebacker sized IRS agents for intimidation purposes I suppose. I wasn’t intimidated and asked
the same two questions I asked at my previous visit, to which I received the same answers.
Apparently the IRS is aware of ones 4th and 5th Amendment rights and my refusal to waive them
was not questioned. I simply left after the auditor told the goons that the audit was terminated.

[BillyBob]

Nice. :up:

So, did you owe them money that they were unable to collect because of those 2 questions you asked?

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Nice. :up:

So, did you owe them money that they were unable to collect because of those 2 questions you asked?

I did not make myself liable for the tax by giving my consent orally or by my signature. No one is
liable for income taxes until they swear (make an oath) under the penalty of perjury on their 1040
that they owe the tax.

If sinners entice thee, consent thou not. Proverbs 1:10
God's prohibition for His children to swear oaths is found in Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12

If you are asking if God provided for my family by my daily labor for the audit years in question,
the answer is yes. Of course the IRS makes the false presumption that I belong to Caesar,
therefore they believe I owe Caesar duties and obligations for privileges and benefits granted, of
which I do not partake.

Since I have been purchased with the precious blood of Christ I belong to Him therefor I am
unable to render unto Caesar the things that belong to God.

"Owe no man anything except a debt of love." Romans 13:8

Yes, they were unable to collect, not because of my knowledge or wisdom but because of my
Father's protection.

[BillyBob]

That is an interesting interpretation of the scripture, it usually gets interpreted that whatever the government says you owe, you should pay. I, however, do not agree.

Sooooo, during those years, did you pay ANY amount of Income Tax?

[I haven't file in over 10 years, but I will likely file a return this year, I received too many 1099's to avoid filing]

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

That is an interesting interpretation of the scripture, it usually gets interpreted that whatever the government says you owe, you should pay. I, however, do not agree.

Sooooo, during those years, did you pay ANY amount of Income Tax?

[I haven't file in over 10 years, but I will likely file a return this year, I received too many 1099's to avoid filing]

I pay all taxes that I am required by law to pay. I haven't paid any voluntary taxes since 1983.

Doesn't it concern you that when you file a return you will be required to swear an oath that the Holy Scriptures prohibit ? (Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12)

And since the IRS requires payment in "dollars" and you didn't make any "dollars" for the years in question wouldn't you be bearing false witness upon your sworn statement (1040) ?

[dotcom]

Originally posted by tomedward

Of course the IRS makes the false presumption that I belong to Caesar,
therefore they believe I owe Caesar duties and obligations for privileges and benefits granted, of
which I do not partake.

With the understanding that what you are saying here is Biblical... do you believe other people apart from you belong to Ceasar?

[tomedward]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by tomedward



With the understanding that what you are saying here is Biblical... do you believe other people apart from you belong to Ceasar?

Caesar, of course, is a hypothetical metaphor for the corporation of the United States. Unfortunately most souls are unaware that they are the chattel (property) of the corporation through contractual consent. ( Birth Certificate, Social in-Security, drivers license, marriage license, etc.)

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Romans 6:16

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by tomedward

I pay all taxes that I am required by law to pay. I haven't paid any voluntary taxes since 1983.

What is the difference between the two?



Doesn't it concern you that when you file a return you will be required to swear an oath that the Holy Scriptures prohibit ? (Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12)

What oath?



And since the IRS requires payment in "dollars" and you didn't make any "dollars" for the years in question wouldn't you be bearing false witness upon your sworn statement (1040) ?

The IRS has no idea what I earn, other than the occassional 1099. I will only claim the amount on my 1099s, show a loss for the year and pay nothing to the IRS.

Different method, same result.

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

What is the difference between the two?


What oath?


The IRS has no idea what I earn, other than the occassional 1099. I will only claim the amount on my 1099s, show a loss for the year and pay nothing to the IRS.

Different method, same result.

What is the difference between the two?

Gasoline taxes are required at the pump. If you want gasoline the tax isn't voluntary. Same thing is true with cigarette tax, alcohol tax, sales tax etc. these are required by law whereas the
income tax is a voluntary tax.

"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply...." Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee in 1953.


What oath?

Anything signed under the penalty of perjury is an oath. Why ? What is the definition of perjury ? Lying under oath. Where there is no oath there can be no perjury.

The IRS has no idea what I earn, other than the occassional 1099. I will only claim the amount on my 1099s, show a loss for the year and pay nothing to the IRS.

I didn't say the IRS knows what you earn. I stated that you, just like everyone else, have not made any "dollars".

[BillyBob]

If I haven't made 'dollars', what did I make?

[dotcom]

Originally posted by tomedward

Caesar, of course, is a hypothetical metaphor for the corporation of the United States. Unfortunately most souls are unaware that they are the chattel (property) of the corporation through contractual consent. ( Birth Certificate, Social in-Security, drivers license, marriage license, etc.)

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Romans 6:16

You are very interesting tomedward.

So what solution do you offer to solve this problem or ignorance about "contractual consent"?

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

If I haven't made 'dollars', what did I make?

Don't fret Brother I haven't made any "dollars" either. :nono:
Our Father has blessed us with sustinance but the gods (elohiym)of the United States have cursed us with Federal Reserve Notes.

Isn't it interesting that the government would put IN GOD WE TRUST on a piece of paper (Federal Reserve Note) that promises to pay 412.5 grains of 90% silver, 10% alloy, which is the legal
definition of a DOLLAR, yet no one ever makes good on their promise ? These types of unjust weights don’t conform themselves to the GOD in whom I TRUST.

Note n. A promise to pay a specified amount on demand or at a certain time. Websters Dictionary

A Federal Reserve Note is not a Dollar, it is a note of indebtedness, a promise to pay lawful money, gold or silver, as prescribe by the U.S. Constitution at Article 1 section 10

"No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin [ not paper] a Tender in Payment of Debts." Article 1 Section 10 has never been repealed.

A 1950 series ten "dollar" bill says right on it's face that “this NOTE is redeemable for LAWFUL money”, a clear admission that a Federal Reserve Notes are NOT lawful money.

Does a piece of paper (Federal Reserve Note), magically become 412.5 grains of 90% silver, 10% alloy, (the legal definition of a DOLLAR), because the U.S. Treasury Department prints the word
"DOLLAR" on it ?

It’s plain and simple the government has stolen the true wealth of American, the money of substance, gold and silver and given us inflationary paper instead ! Paper that isn’t redeemable for lawful money and backed by nothing then writes IN GOD WE TRUST on it.

Based on their fruit it is not hard to figure out what god they trust in is it ?


Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
DOLLAR, money. A silver coin of the United States of the value of one hundred cents, or tenth part of an eagle.
2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a half grains. Of one thousand parts, nine hundred are of pure silver and one hundred of alloy. Act of January 18, 1837, ss. 8 & 9, 4 Sharsw. Cont. of Story's L. U. S. 2523, 4; Wright, R. 162. (412.5 grains of 90%
silver)

American Jurisprudence, Volume 36, §§§§ 8
[T]he term "dollar" means money, since it is the unit of money in this country, and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes [Federal Reserve Notes] or bonds or other evidences of debt. The term also refers to specific coins of the value of one dollar. (27 Ohio Jur pp. 125, 126, §§§§ 3), (United States v. Van Auken, 96 US 366, 24 L ed 852)

When one files a tax return he is swearing an oath that he had "income" (a term admittedly undefined by the IRS) in the form of "dollars" which has no substance in truth nor will the "taxpayer" ever make good on his promise to pay in lawful money. Perhaps there was a good reason Jesus taught His children not to swear any oaths at all !

[tomedward]

Originally posted by dotcom

You are very interesting tomedward.

So what solution do you offer to solve this problem or ignorance about "contractual consent"?

It is Jesus Christ and His truth that is interesting Brother !

I offer no solution other than The Way, The Truth, and The Life. It is only by Our Father's grace that He has opened my eyes to these things. I have found in the course of my sojourn that there
are no answers outside of the Holy Scriptures and a genuine, and sincere relationship with Jesus the Christ. One must by faith leave the bondage of Egypt and cross the spiritual border into the
Kingdom of God.

These contractual chains are very deep and well rooted. They are taught in the public and even "Christian" schools, so called, on a daily basis. They are taught in the "churches" all across
America, and young peoples minds are seared with a hot iron in the universities of higher learning.

What do the Holy Scriptures teach us regarding the old life ?

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17. By faith I believe these words.

Old things are passed away (dead) ? ALL things become new ?

Contractual agreements ?

America is held captivity for the following reason.

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk
therein. Jeremiah 6:16

Old paths ? YHWH’s truth.

[tomedward]

If your tax accountant or lawyer believes you are required to file an income tax return and pay
income taxes, he should have no objection to signing the following statement for you.

This is to certify that I, (Attorney's name), being an attorney knowledgeable in the law, have
advised (your name), that under the income tax laws he is:

1.) required to file an income tax return with the government in which he gives the
government information that can be used against him; and
2.) required to pay such a tax before it is assessed and before he is made liable for
it pursuant to Sections6201, 6203, and 6303 of the Internal Revenue Code.

If your attorney refuses to sign this statement, why should you believe you are legally required to
do either of the two things listed?

"In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that 'If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the
entire system will collapse.' "Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by tomedward
"In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that 'If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the
entire system will collapse.' "Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)

That's my whole point! If enough people just said "NO, I'm not paying any Income Tax" The IRS wouldn't be able to do anything about it!

:banana:

[BillyBob]

Hey Tom, why do your quoted posts have:  in them but they don't show up in your regular posts?

[dotcom]

Originally posted by tomedward



I offer no solution other than The Way, The Truth, and The Life. It is only by Our Father's grace that He has opened my eyes to these things. I have found in the course of my sojourn that there
are no answers outside of the Holy Scriptures and a genuine, and sincere relationship with Jesus the Christ.

Now you are becoming more interesting than I thought. An average American, with average education knows federal income taxes are unconstitutional. Now you are telling us the Lord has revealed this to you! Where have you been?

Ever heard of the 16th Amendment?

You seem to offer a problem, but you are hiding behind the scriptures to come up with pragmatic solutions. I will ask you again.

Fact: Federal Income Taxes are unconstitutional.
You are telling us to go and read the Holy Scriptures to solve the problem? Is that correct?

In other words what is the benefit of discovering federal income taxes are unconstitutional without pragmatic solutions?

[tomedward]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by tomedward
Now you are becoming more interesting than I thought. An average American, with average education knows federal income taxes are unconstitutional. Now you are telling us the Lord has revealed this to you! Where have you been?

Ever heard of the 16th Amendment?

You seem to offer a problem, but you are hiding behind the scriptures to come up with pragmatic solutions. I will ask you again.

Fact: Federal Income Taxes are unconstitutional.
You are telling us to go and read the Holy Scriptures to solve the problem? Is that correct?

In other words what is the benefit of discovering federal income taxes are unconstitutional without pragmatic solutions?

The average American is wrong dotcom. Income taxes are not unconstitutional since anything that is voluntary can never be unconstitutional. The income tax laws (Title 26 USC), are very cleverly written and imply a mandatory nature when in fact they do no such thing. If you were required by law to give information that can be used against yourself in a court of law that would be repugnant to the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

"Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."
Chief Justice John Marshall,
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137 (1803)

Therefore the "Code" was written to decieve those who take little thought concerning the power of words, to wit:

Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1) (A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross
income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -
(i) who is not married (determined by applying section........

Section 6012 does state that returns "shall be made," but "shall," as used here, does not mean "mandatory" in the legal sense. A key to understanding the governments success in misleading the
public involves the Codes use of the words "shall" and "must" in place of the word "required."

The public naturally believes that the words "shall" and "must" in a statute, operate as a command, but when these words are applied to the public in connection with federal statutes, the
words take on a different meaning. Here are the conclusions of our black robed Wapners.

The word "shall" in a statute may be construed to mean "may," particularly in order to avoid a constitutional doubt.
Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Fox River Heights Sanitary Dist.

If necessary, to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, "shall" will be deemed equivalent to "may."
Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp.

"Shall" in a statute may be construed to mean "may" in order to avoid constitutional doubt.
George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay

It is clear that the word "shall," when used in statutes, means "may," especially when the constitutionality of a statute is at stake. This construction must be used throughout the Internal
Revenue Code in order to preserve its constitutionality. In terms of Section 6012, if "shall" is construed to be mandatory, it would cause the entire IRS Code to be unconstitutional, since the Code would be in irreconcilable conflict with the Fifth Amendment.

That's also why you don't ever have to worry about the IRS rewriting the code to "require" compliance! There can be no mistake. These serpents knew exactly what they were writing.

BTW Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income.

Although the word "required" is used in the Title only that which is written in the body of the law has effect.

In addition there is much to be discovered concerning the term "Person", which I am not.

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Hey Tom, why do your quoted posts have:  in them but they don't show up in your regular posts?

Being a newbie here I'm not quite sure what you mean. Please explain. Perhaps when I was editing my posts I didn't realize the need for what I thought was mumbo jumbo () and I deleted the mess.

[tomedward]

Originally posted by BillyBob

That's my whole point! If enough people just said "NO, I'm not paying any Income Tax" The IRS wouldn't be able to do anything about it!

:banana:

You got that right BillyBob. Problem is people live in fear.

"Fear is the key element for the IRS in achieving its mission. Without fear, the IRS would have a difficult time maintaining our so-called system of voluntary compliance ...". "Given the
opportunity, the IRS will take the easy way out and grab whatever it can... the IRS does not really care about you and what your future....... may be".

Santo Presti, former IRS Criminal
Investigation Agent and author of "IRS In Action"

[dotcom]

Originally posted by tomedward

The average American is wrong dotcom. Income taxes are not unconstitutional since anything that is voluntary can never be unconstitutional. The income tax laws (Title 26 USC), are very cleverly written and imply a mandatory nature when in fact they do no such thing. If you were required by law to give information that can be used against yourself in a court of law that would be repugnant to the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

tomedward,


Many people have gotten into serious problems with the IRS about federal income taxes that is why when you make it biblical care must be of paramount importance. Here is one story:

The Union Leader March 11, 2003

IRS Arrests Tax Protester

Auburn Man Says Federal Tax Laws Unconstitutional


by Carol Robidoux, Union Leader Staff



Last Friday, self-proclaimed tax protester Steven A. Swan of Auburn was arrested by IRS special agents at the Auburn Post Office on 18 counts of violating federal income tax laws he's convinced are unconstitutional.

Swan has, for years, been holding seminars to teach others why he believes the federal income tax is unconstitutional and why people shouldn't have to file annual returns.

Last March, the IRS raided Swan's home at 73 Chester Road and confiscated 22 boxes of documents. And on Friday, he was arrested and charged with "corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws."

Swan was also charged with aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns for his customers from 1996 through 2001, and of willfully making false amended income tax returns for himself for 1993 and 1994.

He was arraigned in U.S. District Court in Concord where he pleaded not guilty to all charges. He said last night that he plans to defend himself in court on May 6.

If convicted, Swan will face three years in prison and $250,000 for each of the 18 counts against him.

"Am I worried? Any time the government indicts you, you have to be worried. But one thing that I can rely on is that, before I can be found guilty, they have to prove I believed there was a law," Swan said.

Swan says he still believes income taxes are unconstitutional, only his theory has changed since he began his crusade against the IRS seven years ago.

Back then he was a new follower of the theories of another well-known tax protester, Irwin Schiff of Nevada, who was a Libertarian candidate in the 1996 New Hampshire Presidential primary.

Schiff said--and still believes--people shouldn't pay taxes because there's no law that says you have to. Swan promoted that belief for five years before he discovered what he says is the real intent of the 16th Amendment: to tax the wealthy.

"At first I was still a follower of Schiff's and I believed as he does, that paying tax was voluntary. But then I realized some of his theories were incorrect. After the IRS came and searched my home last year, I realized the last theories of his were also incorrect," said Swan.

"That's when I filed a suit against him, and launched a Web site refuting his information and to warn others," said the former real estate agent.

Swan filed a lawsuit against Schiff last May in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas that's still pending, seeking $1 million in personal damages for his problems with the IRS, which he blames on Schiff's "misinformation."

Schiff, contacted by the Union Leader last night on his way home from giving a zero-income tax seminar in California, said Swan has made his own trouble.

"He would have to be an idiot to claim I misled him and it tok him five years to figure it out," Schiff said.

"Now that he's told the government that all the returns he filed, based on my theory were incorrect, he has to admit in court that he filed false documents. Why didn't he amend them if he knew they were wrong?"

Schiff said he stands by his zero-income tax beliefs, despite Swan's suit.

"His lawsuit is nonsense. Steve's been a crybaby and a mooch his whole life. I've been filing zero-income tax returns for 13 years, and no one's come for me. So no, I don't feel sorry for him. He made his bed, now let him sleep in it."

[tomedward]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by tomedward



tomedward,


Many people have gotten into serious problems with the IRS about federal income taxes that is why when you make it biblical care must be of paramount importance. Here is one story:

The Union Leader March 11, 2003

IRS Arrests Tax Protester

Auburn Man Says Federal Tax Laws Unconstitutional


by Carol Robidoux, Union Leader Staff



Last Friday, self-proclaimed tax protester Steven A. Swan of Auburn was arrested by IRS special agents at the Auburn Post Office on 18 counts of violating federal income tax laws he's convinced are unconstitutional.

Swan has, for years, been holding seminars to teach others why he believes the federal income tax is unconstitutional and why people shouldn't have to file annual returns.

Last March, the IRS raided Swan's home at 73 Chester Road and confiscated 22 boxes of documents. And on Friday, he was arrested and charged with "corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws."

Swan was also charged with aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns for his customers from 1996 through 2001, and of willfully making false amended income tax returns for himself for 1993 and 1994.

He was arraigned in U.S. District Court in Concord where he pleaded not guilty to all charges. He said last night that he plans to defend himself in court on May 6.

If convicted, Swan will face three years in prison and $250,000 for each of the 18 counts against him.

"Am I worried? Any time the government indicts you, you have to be worried. But one thing that I can rely on is that, before I can be found guilty, they have to prove I believed there was a law," Swan said.

Swan says he still believes income taxes are unconstitutional, only his theory has changed since he began his crusade against the IRS seven years ago.

Back then he was a new follower of the theories of another well-known tax protester, Irwin Schiff of Nevada, who was a Libertarian candidate in the 1996 New Hampshire Presidential primary.

Schiff said--and still believes--people shouldn't pay taxes because there's no law that says you have to. Swan promoted that belief for five years before he discovered what he says is the real intent of the 16th Amendment: to tax the wealthy.

"At first I was still a follower of Schiff's and I believed as he does, that paying tax was voluntary. But then I realized some of his theories were incorrect. After the IRS came and searched my home last year, I realized the last theories of his were also incorrect," said Swan.

"That's when I filed a suit against him, and launched a Web site refuting his information and to warn others," said the former real estate agent.

Swan filed a lawsuit against Schiff last May in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas that's still pending, seeking $1 million in personal damages for his problems with the IRS, which he blames on Schiff's "misinformation."

Schiff, contacted by the Union Leader last night on his way home from giving a zero-income tax seminar in California, said Swan has made his own trouble.

"He would have to be an idiot to claim I misled him and it tok him five years to figure it out," Schiff said.

"Now that he's told the government that all the returns he filed, based on my theory were incorrect, he has to admit in court that he filed false documents. Why didn't he amend them if he knew they were wrong?"

Schiff said he stands by his zero-income tax beliefs, despite Swan's suit.

"His lawsuit is nonsense. Steve's been a crybaby and a mooch his whole life. I've been filing zero-income tax returns for 13 years, and no one's come for me. So no, I don't feel sorry for him. He made his bed, now let him sleep in it."

Now you are telling us the Lord has revealed this to you! Where have you been? People get into tax trouble all the time dotcom. This is nothing new. Steven A. Swan's premise that the income tax is unconstitutional is incorrect. As I stated previously how can anything that is voluntary be unconstitutional. Mr. Swan is simply wrong, period, and your response leads me to believe that apparently you didn't even read my last post. Did you ? All the proof you need to determine the voluntary nature of the income tax is right there before your eyes. You did not reprove anything I had to say based on the decisions of the courts. If you want to have an intelligent conversation regarding these issues you must examine the evidence put before you and comment, not throw me a bone about some guy going to court because he thinks the income tax is unconstitutional, the very thing I just disproved by a preponderance of the evidence.

"An individual taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his/her books and records for examination.....under the Fifth Amendment ....and Fourth Amendment."
IRS Handbook for Special Agents

As far as Biblical arguements go, and there are many, It all boils down to who you belong to, Christ or Caesar. The Holy Scriptures teach me that I was bought with the precious blood of Christ, therefore I have no allegiance to Caesar nor can I render that which is God's unto Caesar.

I am enjoying our fellowship over this issue dotcom just in case you may think differently. I love the truth and hope to bring blessing and edification by it.

God bless Brother