Law stating that basic pay should be higher than any allowances?

Why if there is no law stating that we have to pay income tax ......?

• .... do some people who have gone to court over it loose their case. I believe Willie Nelson was one of them. Yet others who don't pay taxes and go to court win theirs That doesn't make sense to me.

• Answer:

  I'm going to answer your question in parts, so hopefully it will make things clear for you. First, there is a law concerning income taxes. It is codified in the U.S. Code as Title 26. Regardless of what you believe or what you have been told, the U.S. Code IS LAW. Some of the U.S. Code is "positive" law which means the exact text in code was the exact text of the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a President. Other parts, like Title 26, are "prima facie" law or evidence of the laws passed by Congress. All of the various tax bills passed by Congress and signed into law are codified in the U.S. Code which then becomes evidence of the original law. The courts use the U.S. Code as evidence of the law. If there is any argument that a section of U.S. Code does not accurately reflect the intent of the law passed by Congress, the court will refer to the U.S. Statutes at Large where the exact wording of the laws passed by Congress are contained. Here are a couple of court cases concerning the validity of the Internal Revenue Code. "Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable." United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986). "Congress’s failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan’s rights by enforcing it." Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985). Second, some people who go to court who are charged with murder are convicted or lose their case and others win their case or are acquitted. It's the same thing with the tax laws. There are various crimes associated with the tax laws. Many of them specify "willfulness" as part of the crime. For example, willful failure to file charges. The prosecution has to prove that an individual WILLFULLY failed to file their income tax returns. If the individual can convince the jury that they had a good faith belief that the law did not require them to file income tax returns, then the jury should acquit. This is one instance where ignorance of the law IS a defense. However, if a person does get acquitted in a criminal case, that still does not eliminate the taxes they owe. The government does and will still collect overdue taxes and penalties. Finally, nothing in the Constitution says that taxes can only be on businesses. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states, in part, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." The 16th amendment states, "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." Anyway, wages you receive for work is a "gain" to you. Gain is the difference between what you pay for something and what you sell it for. It is not the difference between what something is worth and what you sell it for. You pay nothing for your labor and you sell it for the amount your employer pays you for it. Let's take an example. If you find a diamond ring in your backyard worth $4,000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $3,000. You have a gain of $3,000 or the difference between the amount for which you sold the ring ($3,000) and the amount you paid for the ring ($0). If your neighbor then sells the ring to a store for $3,500, his gain is $500. His gain the difference between what he sold the ring for ($3,500) and what he paid for the ring ($3,000). Does that clear things up for you?