Friday, February 8, 2008

The Sad Aftermath

Faithful readers, I know you regard my musings on income tax protestors as an eccentric distraction from things you actually care about, but I can't help but give one more warning to those thinking about falling for bizarre tax theories in light of the latest development in the case of those champion tax kooks, Ed and Elaine Brown. The two have been incarcerated since last October, after a sneak raid by the feds ended their 8-month standoff, which they spent holed up in their New Hampshire home, proclaiming that there was no law requiring them to pay taxes and that the federal court in which they had been convicted was a "fiction."

Reality is perhaps a little clearer from inside a prison cell. Yesterday, the government to which that fictional court belongs conducted the second of two auctions of the Browns' property in an effort to raise money to pay off their tax arrearages. (The linked story says that the Browns owe more than $2 million in back taxes, but what I recall from their trial is that they owe back taxes on $2 million in income. So probably they owe something like $600,000 in taxes, although who knows what the total is with interest and penalties.) A 2-pound bar of gold went for $32,000 (roughly market price -- that's $1000 an ounce), and their coin collection, cars, and other items brought the total raised to about $100,000.

So to anyone thinking of falling for crazy tax protestor theories, just bear in mind what it can lead to -- not only can the government throw your ass in jail, once that's done it can sell your stuff. Not a happy sight.


se7ensnakes said...

There is no individual income tax law. A law must refer to a subject, not assume a subject. For example which of these accusations are valid:
1) you murdered.
2) you murdered a cockroach.
3) you murdered Nicole Simpson.
the first accusation has no subject.
the second accusation has an invalid subject.
the third accusation has a valid subject.
The IRS assumes the accusation by stating that it is an income tax, taxable income, income from whatever source, but there is no law that states that 1) the income tax is a direct tax
2) the income tax is an excise tax.
Using the words of the constitution.
each of these two types of classes have different subjects.
If you claim that the income tax is direct then you come directly in odds with the opinion of the supreme court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916) where it is very clear that the income tax is an indiret tax in the nature of an excise tax.
So where is the law that clarifies the subject of the income tax, in relation to the brushabver v union pacific opinion?

se7ensnakes said...

Am not a tax protestor
i am just not a dumb cow