America: Freedom to Fascism

Last updated
America: Freedom to Fascism
Freedom-to-Fascism1.jpg
Directed by Aaron Russo
Written byAaron Russo
Produced byAaron Russo
Richard Whitley
Starring Katherine Albrecht
Joe Banister
Dave Champion
Vernice Kuglin
Rep. Ron Paul
Aaron Russo
Irwin Schiff
Music byDavid Benoit
Distributed byCinema Libre Studio
Release date
  • July 28, 2006 (2006-07-28)
Running time
95 minutes
Director's Cut: 111 minutes
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish

America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 American film by filmmaker and activist Aaron Russo, covering a variety of subjects that Russo contends are detrimental to Americans. Topics include the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags, Diebold electronic voting machines, [1] globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the use of terrorism by the government as a means to diminish the citizens' rights.

Contents

The film has been criticized for its promotion of conspiracy theories, its copious factual errors, and its repeated misrepresentations of the individuals and views it purports to criticize.

Federal Reserve System issues and interviews in the film

The film examines the genesis and functions of the Federal Reserve System. The film asserts that the Federal Reserve System is a system of privately held, for profit corporations, not a government agency, and that the Fed was commissioned to print fiat money on behalf of the federal government, at a fee ultimately paid for by the personal income tax (through service on bond interest). The film also refers to the fact that the United States dollar is not backed by gold, and states that this means the dollar has no real backing other than future income tax payments. Consequently, the film states that Federal Reserve Notes represent debt instead of wealth.

The film argues that the Federal Reserve System manipulates what is sometimes referred to as the business cycle of economic expansion and retraction by putting new notes into circulation to increase the ease of obtaining credit, which devalues the currency, then compounds inflation by increasing interest (prime) rates. The movie argues that this manipulation is responsible for a 96% devaluation of American currency, since it was made possible to increasingly sever the link with gold backing by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The film says that this process of creating new money and adding it to the money supply is known as debasement and is a cause of inflation. In this way, the film concludes that the Federal Reserve System simultaneously controls the supply of money and its value.

The central thesis of the film may be that this monetary policy is the strongest form of governance that has ever existed, and is central to the unconstitutional, global power ambitions of the interests that supposedly control the Federal Reserve System.

The film also asserts that the private interests are controlling the Federal Reserve System, and have been for generations. The film proposes that most Americans are kept ignorant of how the Federal Reserve operates through actions of corrupt politicians and an increasingly centralized media. By using what the film calls legalistic and economic "mumbo-jumbo” terms such as 'monetizing the debt' or ‘adjusting monetary policy for increased fluidity of credit’, these interests, according to the film, conceal the true actions of the Fed behind veils of legitimacy. Interviews are conducted with several organizations and elected legislators who support these views.

An argument made in the film is that there is no reason why the Federal Reserve System should have a monopoly on the U.S. money supply. The film asserts that "America got along just fine before the Federal Reserve came into existence." This leads the film to the question of why the Federal Reserve System was created.

The film contends that the U.S. Congress has no control or oversight over the Fed, and hence has no control over the value of U.S. money. The film argues that Congressional control over the value of money is required by Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The phrase in question (clause 5) states that the United States Congress shall have the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin..."

The film includes a call to action to abolish the Federal Reserve. In 2007, The Boston Globe stated that Congressman Ron Paul, "says he doesn't agree with all the film's arguments, but he says the film had 'a huge impact' on the support his campaign is drawing", [2] a reference to Paul's presidential bid in 2007 and 2008.

Federal income tax issues and interviews in the film

Through interviews with various individuals including former IRS agents, Russo sets forth the tax protester argument that, "there is no law requiring an income tax", and that the personal income tax is illegally enforced to support the activities of the Federal Reserve System.

One of the listed stars of the film, Irwin Schiff, was sentenced on February 24, 2006 to 13 years and 7 months in prison for tax evasion and ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution. [3] In pre-sentencing documents filed with the court, Schiff's lawyers had argued that he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about taxation. [4] Initially, the film portrays Schiff as a tax expert, though his qualifications and those of many other individuals in the film are not mentioned. Later in the film, Russo reveals that Schiff has been imprisoned.

Schiff appears in the film for another reason as well. The filmmaker lampoons Judge Kent Dawson's reaction to Schiff's defense. The film alleges that the judge "denied Irwin the ability to prove to a jury that there was no law requiring Americans to file an income tax return. He denied Irwin the right to attempt to prove to a jury there was no law ... by stating, 'I will not allow the law in my courtroom.'" At 0:48:28 of the film, Russo introduces the judge and his statement.

Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted. Disagreements about what the law is; are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the judge, and only the judge, instructs the jury on the law. [5]

Another listed star, Vernice Kuglin, was acquitted in her criminal trial for tax evasion in August 2003. [6] This means she was not found guilty of a willful intent to evade income taxes. (A conviction for tax evasion requires, among other things, proof by the government that the defendant engaged in one or more affirmative acts of misleading the government or of hiding income.) Kuglin's acquittal did not relieve her of liability for the taxes. [7] Kuglin entered a settlement with the government in 2004 in which she agreed to pay over $500,000 in taxes and penalties. [8] On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that Kuglin's Federal tax problems continued with the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien in the amount of $188,025. The Memphis newspaper also stated that Kuglin has "given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004, Commercial Appeal story." [9]

The preview clip for the film includes assertions contradicted by official government publications regarding the activities and nature of such institutions as the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve System. [10]

Constitutional arguments

Fifth Amendment

Russo's argument using the Fifth Amendment goes as follows:

  • Premise 1: The government can criminally prosecute someone and put one in jail for information one puts on one's 1040 tax form.
  • Premise 2: The fifth amendment says no one can be compelled to incriminate oneself.
  • Conclusion: Since filing a 1040 incriminates oneself, filing a 1040 therefore violates one's fifth amendment rights.

Though the second premise is not completely correct, the main source of error lies in the first premise. If one truthfully reports the amount of one's income, one does not incriminate oneself in the commission of a crime. [11] [12] However, falsely reporting one's income is itself the commission of a crime. Put another way, the fifth amendment protects one from incriminating oneself if testifying truthfully will incriminate oneself in the commission of a crime. It does not offer a provision for lying. [13]

The fifth amendment does, however, allow oneself to avoid disclosing the source of the income if doing so would incriminate oneself in the commission of a crime. [14] While that may be the case, a person is still required to report the amount of all income on his or her federal tax return.

Sixteenth Amendment

The film refers to both article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to impose taxes, and disputes the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment (see Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments), which removes any apportionment requirement.

Some of the premises of the film include:

The filmmaker's personal views on taxes

As of late July 2006, Aaron Russo's biography on his website for the film stated: "The film is an exposé of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor." [15] [16]

The New York Times article of July 31, 2006, states that when Russo asked IRS spokesman Anthony Burke for the law requiring payment of income taxes on wages and was provided a link to various documents including title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code), filmmaker Russo denied that title 26 was the law, contending that it consisted only of IRS "regulations" and had not been enacted by Congress. The article reports that in an interview in late July 2006, Russo claimed he was confident on this point. In the United States, statutes are enacted by Congress, and regulations are promulgated by the executive branch of government to implement the statutes. Statutes are found in the United States Code and regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations . The Treasury regulations to which Russo may have been referring are found at title 26 ("Internal Revenue") of the Code of Federal Regulations , [17] not title 26 of the United States Code. [18] The argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not law, the argument that the Internal Revenue Code is not "positive law," and variations of these arguments, have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a). [19]

The article also discloses that Russo had over $2 million of tax liens filed against him by the Internal Revenue Service, the state of California, and the state of New York for unpaid taxes. In an interview with The New York Times; however, Russo refused to discuss the liens, saying they were not relevant to his film. [20]

Inaccuracies, distortions, and misrepresentations

Quotation of U.S. District Judge James C. Fox

Aaron Russo reads a quote attributed to U.S. District Judge James C. Fox:

If you ... examined [The 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.

The film does not mention the specific court case, which is Sullivan v. United States in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, case no. 03-CV-39 (2003). [21] In the case, the plaintiffs attempted unsuccessfully to prevent the deployment of troops to Iraq. The comments with respect to the Sixteenth Amendment did not constitute a ruling in the case (see Stare decisis) and were mentioned only in passing (see Obiter dictum). The transcript reads (in part):

I will say I think, you know, colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I'm correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment ... And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever...set it aside.

Quotation of President Wilson

Aaron Russo reads a quote widely attributed[ by whom? ] to Woodrow Wilson:

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

This is a well-known conflation of several quotes, only two of which can actually be attributed to Woodrow Wilson. The source of the first two sentences is unknown, and nowhere on record can be found to be said by Wilson.[ citation needed ] The third sentence (although slightly altered in this version) is found in the eighth chapter of Wilson's 1913 book, The New Freedom, [22] and originally reads:

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.

The final sentence (beginning with "We are no longer..."), although again slightly altered from its original version, can also be found in The New Freedom (ninth chapter), and in its original context, reads:

We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

That quotation, in this 1913-published book, was referring not at all to the Federal Reserve System, as this film alleges, but instead to the situation that preceded it and that Wilson was attacking: the "trusts" and "monopolies."

Quotation of Mussolini

Similarly, Russo uses a quotation that has for some time been attributed to Benito Mussolini: [23]

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

Probably, the complete quote in Italian is:

"il corporativismo è la pietra angolare dello Stato fascista, anzi lo Stato fascista o è corporativo o non è fascista" [24]

Translation:

"corporatism is the corner stone of the Fascist nation, or better still, the Fascist nation is corporative or it is not fascist"

Quotation from President Bill Clinton

The film displays a quote:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." Bill Clinton, March 11, 1993

What Clinton actually said (on March 1, 1993 [25] ) was:

We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist.

Quotation from Judge Kent Dawson

Russo includes in text the following from a case against tax protester Irwin Schiff: [26]

Irwin Schiff: "But the Supreme Court said ..."

Judge Dawson: "Irrelevant! Denied!"

Irwin Schiff: "The Supreme Court is irrelevant???[sic]"

Judge Dawson: "Irrelevant! Denied!"

This is followed by Russo's verbal statement:

"Here we have a federal judge railroading an American citizen by saying Supreme Court decisions are irrelevant."

The first line of Schiff's statement in full is "But the Supreme Court said in the Cheek decision". In what follows, Dawson was stating that the Cheek v. United States decision was irrelevant to the particular argument that Schiff was trying to make at the time and not that Supreme Court decisions in general are irrelevant.[ citation needed ]

First Amendment

In the film, it is stated:

On August 31, 2005 federal judge Emmet Sullivan ruled the government does not have to answer the American people's questions, even though it is guaranteed in the First Amendment.

The text of the first amendment is as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Claim that the film was shown at Cannes

Russo's promotional materials state that the film was shown at Cannes in France, implying that it was screened as part of the prestigious Cannes Film Festival. The film's web site states:

America: Freedom to Fascism Opens to Standing Ovations at Cannes!
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading.

According to a New York Times article by David Cay Johnston on July 31, 2006, however, the film was not "on the program" at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival itself; Russo actually rented an inflatable screen and showed the film on the beach at the town of Cannes during the time of the film festival. [ dead link ] [20] The New York Times article states: "Photographs posted at one of Russo's Web sites depict an audience of fewer than 50 people spread out on a platform on the sand." [20]

Subsequently, it was exhibited in theaters in select U.S. cities. [27]

Reception

A review by The New York Times stated that "examination of the assertions in Russo’s documentary, which purports to expose 'two frauds' perpetrated by the federal government, taxing wages and creating the Federal Reserve to coin money, shows that they too collapse under the weight of fact." [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxation in the United States</span> United States tax codes

The United States has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2020, taxes collected by federal, state, and local governments amounted to 25.5% of GDP, below the OECD average of 33.5% of GDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1913 amendment

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.

Tax noncompliance is a range of activities that are unfavorable to a government's tax system. This may include tax avoidance, which is tax reduction by legal means, and tax evasion which is the illegal non-payment of tax liabilities. The use of the term "noncompliance" is used differently by different authors. Its most general use describes non-compliant behaviors with respect to different institutional rules resulting in what Edgar L. Feige calls unobserved economies. Non-compliance with fiscal rules of taxation gives rise to unreported income and a tax gap that Feige estimates to be in the neighborhood of $500 billion annually for the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Irwin Schiff</span> American activist (1928–2015)

Irwin Allen Schiff was an American libertarian and tax resistance advocate known for writing and promoting literature in which he argued that the way in which the income tax in the United States is enforced upon individuals as a tax on one's time or wages, is illegal and unconstitutional. Judges in several civil and criminal cases ruled in favor of the federal government and against Schiff. As a result of these judicial rulings Schiff was in a hospital prison serving a sentence of 162 months at the time of his death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Income tax in the United States</span> Form of taxation in the United States

The United States federal government and most state governments impose an income tax. They are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. Most business expenses are deductible. Individuals may deduct certain personal expenses, including home mortgage interest, state taxes, contributions to charity, and some other items. Some deductions are subject to limits, and an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) applies at the federal and some state levels.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed the conviction of John L. Cheek, a tax protester, for willful failure to file tax returns and tax evasion. The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, negates willfulness, even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. The Court also ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense.

James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the receipt of money obtained by a taxpayer illegally was taxable income even though the law might require the taxpayer to repay the ill-gotten gains to the person from whom they had been taken.

A tax protester, in the United States, is a person who denies that he or she owes a tax based on the belief that the Constitution of the United States, statutes, or regulations do not empower the government to impose, assess or collect the tax. The tax protester may have no dispute with how the government spends its revenue. This differentiates a tax protester from a tax resister, who seeks to avoid paying a tax because the tax is being used for purposes with which the resister takes issue.

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax is a 1985 book by William J. Benson and Martin J. "Red" Beckman which claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the income tax amendment, was never properly ratified. In 2007, and again in 2009, Benson's contentions were ruled to be fraudulent.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of conspiracy arguments asserting that Congress, the courts and various agencies within the federal government—primarily the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—are involved in a deception deliberately designed to procure from individuals or entities their wealth or profits in contravention of law. Conspiracy arguments are distinct from, though related to, constitutional, statutory, and administrative arguments. Proponents of such arguments contend that all three branches of the United States government are working covertly to defraud the taxpayers of the United States through the illegal imposition, assessment and collection of a federal income tax.

<i>Murphy v. IRS</i>

Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, is a tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void, by the Court on December 22, 2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision, finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3, 2007.

Tommy Keith Cryer, also known as Tom Cryer, was an attorney in Shreveport, Louisiana who was charged with and later acquitted of willful failure to file U.S. Federal income tax returns in a timely fashion. In a case in United States Tax Court, Cryer contested a determination by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that he owed $1.7 million in taxes and penalties. Before the case could come to trial, Cryer died June 4, 2012. He was 62.

The 861 argument is a statutory argument used by tax protesters in the United States, which interprets a portion of the Internal Revenue Code as invalidating certain applications of income tax. The argument has uniformly been held by courts to be incorrect, and persons who have cited the argument as a basis for refusing to pay income taxes have been penalized, and in some cases jailed.

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "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", was never properly ratified, or that the amendment provides no power to tax income. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification, despite its admission to the Union on March 1, 1803, more than a century prior. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

Tax protester arguments are arguments made by people, primarily in the United States, who contend that tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld lobbying restrictions imposed on tax-exempt non-profit corporations.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of administrative arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates regulations enacted by responsible agencies –primarily the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)– tasked with carrying out the statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally include claims that the administrative agency fails to create a duty to pay taxes, or that its operation conflicts with some other law, or that the agency is not authorized by statute to assess or collect income taxes, to seize assets to satisfy tax claims, or to penalize persons who fail to file a return or pay the tax.

References

  1. ↑ Lee, Nathan (2006-07-28). "'America: Freedom to Fascism' Makes a Mess of the Mess We Are in". The New York Times . Archived from the original on October 1, 2011. Retrieved 2006-08-03.
  2. ↑ Lisa Wangsness (2007-09-27). "Paul's their all". Boston Globe. at .
  3. ↑ The sentence resulted from convictions on multiple counts of filing false tax returns for the years 1997 through 2002, aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns filed by other taxpayers, conspiring to defraud the United States and income tax evasion. Schiff is currently serving his sentence.
  4. ↑ In Schiff's objection to the prosecutor's presentence report, Schiff's lawyers stated that Schiff "suffers from severe mental problems" (see p. 2, Defendant Schiff's Objections to the Presentence Report, docket entry 373, Feb. 14, 2006, United States v. Schiff, case no. 2:04-cr-00119-KJD-LRL, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada), and cited the results of a competency examination of Schiff conducted by Dr. Daniel Hayes to the effect that Schiff's conduct was "being driven by his mental illness." (p. 2, Id.).
  5. ↑ For examples of application of this rule in tax cases, see United States v. Ambort, 405 F.3d 1109, 2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,453 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bonneau, 970 F.2d 929, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,385 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Willie, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,409 (10th Cir. 1991).
  6. ↑ United States v. Kuglin, docket entry 39, case no. 2:03-cr-20111-JPM, United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Div. (dated Aug. 8, 2003, entered Aug. 13, 2003).
  7. ↑ David Cay Johnston, "Mistrial Is Declared in Tax Withholding Case," Nov. 27, 2003, The New York Times, at .
  8. ↑ Kuglin v. Commissioner, United States Tax Court, docket no. 21743-03; 2004 TNT 177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004), as cited at ; and Daily Digest, Memphis Daily News, April 30, 2007, at .
  9. ↑ Daily Digest, Memphis Daily News, April 30, 2007, at .
  10. ↑ Regarding Federal income tax, see Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, the Sixteenth Amendment, and various provisions of Title 26 of the United States Code defining gross income and taxable income, imposing the tax on the taxable income of individuals and imposing obligations to file the related tax returns, including 26 U.S.C.   § 1, 26 U.S.C.   § 61, 26 U.S.C.   § 63, 26 U.S.C.   § 6012, 26 U.S.C.   § 6151, 26 U.S.C.   § 6651, and 26 U.S.C.   § 7203. At one point in the film (playback time 1:33:37) an individual named Edwin Vieira asserts that "The definition of income in the Constitution was given in the Eisner versus Macomber case. And it turns on gains or profits that are made from some activity. So the Supreme Court has rules. Income is not wages. It's not labor. It's gain from corporate activity." The Vieira quotation does not disclose the fact that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that wages are not income or that income means only gain from corporate activity. The terms "wage" and "salary" do not appear in the text of Eisner v. Macomber , 252 U.S. 189 (1920).
  11. ↑ United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 83 (2d Cir. 1979)
  12. ↑ United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263, 264 (1927)
  13. ↑ United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 97 S.Ct. 1823, 52 L.Ed.2d 231, No. 74-635 (1977) "...the Fifth Amendment privilege does not condone perjury. It grants a privilege to remain silent without risking contempt, but it 'does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury.'"
  14. ↑ United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 917 (1979).
  15. ↑ "America: Freedom to Fascism". Archived from the original on 2006-08-13. Retrieved 2006-07-31.
  16. ↑ No Federal court at any level, either before or after the year 1913 ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has upheld this argument. See tax protester arguments about taxation of labor or income from labor.
  17. ↑ "Available CFR Titles on GPO Access". Archived from the original on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2006-07-31.
  18. ↑ The Internal Revenue Code is a set of statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress, not a set of administrative regulations. According to the United States Statutes at Large (published by the United States Government Printing Office) the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the predecessor to the current 1986 code, was enacted by the Eighty-Third Congress of the United States with the phrase "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled" and was "approved" (signed into law) at 9:45 A.M., Eastern Daylight Time, on August 16, 1954, and published as volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large. Section 1(a)(1) of the enactment states: "The provisions of this Act set forth under the heading 'Internal Revenue Title' may be cited as the 'Internal Revenue Code of 1954'. Section 1(d) of the enactment is entitled "Enactment of Internal Revenue Title Into Law", and the text of the Code follows, beginning with the statutory Table of Contents. The enactment ends with the approval (enactment) notation on page 929. The '54 Code was also separately codified as title 26 of the United States Code and, according to CCH, Inc., a publisher of legal materials, all amendments to the 1954 Code (including the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which changed the name of the '54 Code to "Internal Revenue Code of 1986") have been made in the form of Acts of Congress. The table of contents for the United States Code at the website for the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School lists title 26 of the United States Code as the "Internal Revenue Code", as does the table of contents at the website for the U.S. Government Printing Office "United States Code: Browse". Archived from the original on 2005-09-30. Retrieved 2005-09-22.. See also positive law and the United States Code.
  19. ↑ 26 U.S.C.   § 6702, as amended by section 407 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (Dec. 20, 2006). See Notice 2007-30, item (2), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (March 15, 2007). [Note: As of late September 2007, the linked page at the Cornell University Law School web site for section 6702 does not yet reflect the increase in the penalty amount from $500 to $5,000.]
  20. 1 2 3 4 Johnston, David Cay (2006-07-31). "Facts Refute Filmmaker's Assertions on Income Tax in 'America'". The New York Times . Retrieved 2006-08-03.
  21. ↑ "Transcript of March 23, 2003 Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in Sullivan v. United States" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-08-19.
  22. ↑ Wilson, Woodrow. The New Freedom: A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People. Public domain.
  23. ↑ "PublicEye.org – Fascism: Corporatism v. Corporations". Archived from the original on 2009-01-29. Retrieved 2007-02-14.
  24. ↑ Somma, Alessandro (2005). I giuristi e l'Asse culturale Roma-Berlino: Economia e politica nel diritto fascista e nazionalsocialista. Klostermann. ISBN   9783465034469.
  25. ↑ William J. Clinton: Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at the Adult Learning Center in New Brunswick, New Jersey
  26. ↑ United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004)
  27. ↑ Douglas, Edward (2006-07-28). "Also in Limited Release". Your Weekly Guide to New Movies for July 28, 2006. ComingSoon.net. Archived from the original on 10 August 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-03.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.