Unconstitutional taxation

Absolutely untrue. For decades tax protestors have been developing various arguments, some allegedly based on the Constitution, as to why you do not have to pay income taxes. The courts have roundly rejected all of these arguments. The sad part of following the advice of the tax protestors is that you will be the person facing down civil and criminal tax penalties for taking these positions on your return. Bottom line: pay your taxes and stay out of jail.

Here is a great website that refutes all of the most common "tax protestor" arguments: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

The short answer: no, it's not true.

The people who insist that the government has no right to tax individual incomes, are radicals who simply refuse to accept that the law is what it is. The tax protestors base their arguments on their own interpretations of the law. They stubbornly ignore the fact that it is the courts, and not individuals, who interpret the laws. The arguments of the tax protestors have all been considered, and rejected, by the courts.

People can argue endlessly about whether the government has the "right" to tax individuals. But anyone who does not believe that the government has the POWER to tax individuals, should get in touch with somebody who has spent time in prison for tax evasion. There are plenty of them.

My advice: pay your taxes. And get your tax advice from a CPA, not some kook who tells you to ignore the law.

As all of the other attorneys have noted, the answer is a resounding "no" and you risk federal prosecution for such activities. As a long-time former federal prosecutor who handled such cases, and have witnessed otherwise intelligent people getting involved in such activities, I am amazed that this "urban legend" continues -- particularly when we consider the various services that our government provides to its citizens, and how else they can be funded. Take a look at these hyperlinks from the U.S. Department of Justice's Tax Division that discuss these issues: "Illegal Tax Protestor": at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/readingroom/2001ctm/40ctax.pdf; "Court Enjoins Irwin Schiff and Two Associates:Tax Protestors Barred From Preparing Tax Returns And Selling Tax-Scheme Materials" at www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/03_tax_357.htm. This answer does not, nor is it intended to, create an attorney-client relationship, but is offered solely for information purposes. Since the facts of each case are different, it is important to seek out qualified counsel with whom information can be shared and assessed under an attorney-client privilege so that competent and tailored advice can be provided.

I think Wesley Snipes' recent conviction on tax fraud is a solid example of the court's interpretation of the tax laws. The government's power to tax is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. not only is it a power, but Congress has an obligation to tax and then appropriate funds for the operation of the government.

There is a legal answer and then a philosophical political science answer. I enjoy philosophical debates but, hey, you asked this on a legal website. I assume for this discussion that you mean the U.S. federal government and not any of the other myriad taxing authorities under which you may be subject.

The American revolution was fueled, in part, over excessive taxation. Our founding father's restricted the government's ability to tax. if you read our constitution and bill of rights no where do they state that what you say you read. In fact, Section 8 of the Constitution - Powers of Congress - reads "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The issue with those who argue what you state is typically a clear lack of authority to collect a graduated tax on individual income. Arguments include:
* The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
* The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens, because that would be a “direct tax” prohibited by the Constitution.
* The income tax is a “direct tax” because it is collected from individuals who cannot shift the burden to others.
* The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.
* Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
* Income taxes are not “Duties, Imposts, or Excises” and so must be “direct taxes” that must be apportioned.

The problem with these arguments is that the Supreme Court disagrees. Of course one could argue that court precedent holds no weight but I wouldn't argue that in court.

There is also a theory that if you first renounce your US citizenship THEN you don't have to pay federal income tax. Maybe you should try that approach.