search
Tuesday, 2003 August 12, 10:07 — law, tax+privacy

tax matters

Carl Worden writes in Sierra Times:

Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.

I remain puzzled. The first page of the Tax Code has several parallel clauses of this form:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [individuals of defined classes] a tax determined in accordance with the following table: . . . .

Section 63 defines taxable income:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus —

(1) the standard deduction, and

(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.

Seems pretty straightforward. And yet I’ve often heard that (as in this case) the IRS never responds to letters asking what provision of the Tax Code requires individual citizens to report their income and pay tax on it. Why not? Isn’t it part of their job to answer questions about relevant law?

Meanwhile in WorldNetDaily, Neil Boortz reports on H.R.25:

Here are the highlights. If The Fair Tax Act were to become law, the following would happen.

  1. The law establishing the federal income tax would be repealed, both for individuals and for businesses.
  2. A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment would be sent to the states for ratification.
  3. All laws providing for payroll taxes for the funding of Social Security and Medicare would be repealed.
  4. A sales tax would be instituted on the sale of all goods and services at the retail level. This retail sales tax would replace all payroll and federal income taxes.
  5. Government funding would remain at present levels, and no changes would be made to Social Security and Medicare other than the method of funding those programs.

Well, nothing’s perfect.

(Links from Thomas Knapp.)

No comments yet.

Subscribe without commenting

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment