I think this theory you put forth is widely held, but it isn't based on anything like evidence.
First, there is direct contradictory evidence on the Department of Injustice web page regarding the arrest of Dick Simkanin which I posted earlier. (Hey, do your own archive hunt.) The DoJ jerk says that the tax rules are not voluntary.
Second, I don't think the term "voluntary" means what you suggest it means. You seem to think that once a person volunteers for something poorly understood, they are stuck with that choice. But, what you are proposing is not in the common law tradition of contracting. Yes, voluntary is an important criterion, so is knowledge and competence.
The four things in the subject header for this message are the four things that are looked for in common law agreements. If you enter into an agreement but you don't know what you are getting into - if some essential disclosure was withheld from you - you are not engaging in a contract. Typically, fraud violates the "knowingly" criterion. What they don't tell you is important.
Yes, willingness is important - but if you find out something about the deal later, you may withdraw your willingness.
Competence means that you have proper credentials for contracting. In most jurisdictions this means you aren't a minor child or certified imbecile. In previous generations it might have eliminated women, wives, or slaves, but those aren't widely viewed as deficits these days. Well, I guess a slave would be deficient for contracting, but most countries don't have much slavery except for tax slavery. In this regard, I think competence might be a valid objection.
Finally, there has to be consideration - an exchange of value. One person putting up money isn't a valid exchange. He has to get acceptable value in return.
So, this whole theory of "voluntary compliance" is just a bunch of nonsense. If it isn't based on law, it isn't proper. At best it is fraud, and that just isn't very good.
There is no actual law stating the the income tax is mandatory.
That's not true either. That's what many call "patriot mythology." There is a law stating that the income tax is mandatory for taxpayers. However, that same law, when you trouble yourself to read it, says that a taxpayer is someone living in one of the territories of the USA, such as the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico.
So in effect, he has volunteered to withhold the "tax"
Since he used an agency - an accounting firm - as the DoJ admits, I think he has an out here. The accounting firm advised him to withhold, and when he researched the deal himself he found out that there wasn't any law behind this advice. I think he has a valid option to reject this notion that his behavior was "voluntary."
Basically, what the DoJ has said is: pay taxes and withhold them from your employees, or we will come to your home and arrest you. We won't charge you with any crime, so you'll end up being our caged rat. If you resist in this process, we'll kill you.
and has "volunteered" to fill out the forms which admints responsibility
No, someone else, an accounting firm, filled out these forms.
and has also "voluntarily" paid it to the IRS.
Nonsense. It is voluntary if there is fraud. You don't want to admit that the IRS is defrauding employers. Putting "voluntarily" in quotes makes it clear that you understand that it isn't voluntary at all.
So going back to get the funds will cause a problem
It causes a problem because thieves don't like to give back their ill gotten gains. There is nothing more to it.
becasue he has signed his name admitting responsibility
Again, this business of a signature admitting responsibility is nonsense. Fraud voids the concept of a contract. He admits nothing if he was defrauded. Fraud and coercion are both valid claims against a "confession."
in the first place and in the eyes of the IRS he has probably filed a false refund claim.
Look you here, I'm not at all interested in what thieves think.
Once you disclose and sign you become responsible.
Nonsense. You are saying that the IRS is allowed to defraud anyone without law. The IRS agents swear an oath to uphold the constitution which says that nobody can be deprived of property without due process of law.
Get real.
The real world is that the IRS steals from taxpayers and the courts are run by judges who are paid by tax dollars collected by the IRS.
The IRS words everything they have and say as voluntary although this is a very subtle thing designed to gloss over that fact.
It isn't very subtle. Nor is arresting someone and throwing him jail even though the prosecution can't come up with a bill of particulars - identifying the law broken.
Fighting them on this is not easy.
That must be why you aren't doing it. Neither am I, for that very reason. Dick Simkanin is, which is why I mentioned it here.
Either way he will go broke paying for a proper defense unless she happens to be loaded.
Thanks for the donation. http://101468.e-gold.com/
Regards,
Jim
--- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
