Neutral Point of View
Some of the language in this article seems biased so I've flagged it.
In an apparent attempt to persuade others that there is no law imposing Federal income taxes, some tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service refuses to disclose -- or is unable to find -- any laws that impose the legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay Federal income taxes.
A somewhat incidental claim of tax protesters is that because the IRS itself was not created by statute or because the IRS has no legal capacity to "sue or be sued," the IRS must somehow not really be a federal government agency.
Much of the article text seems like it's been taken from an IRS handbook on how to deal with tax protestors.Pixelface 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The quoted language refers to arguments by tax protesters. The article, however, also provides information that counters these arguments. The article discloses both viewpoints, so where is the bias? Yours, Famspear 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Footnote: For those persons new to this area of Wikipedia, a historical note may be of some benefit. The articles on Tax protester, Tax protester arguments, Tax protester history, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments and Tax protester conspiracy arguments came about because, as of 2005 at the latest, large amounts of unverifiable and non-neutral point of view materials were being copied, pasted and dumped en masse in various tax related articles in Wikipedia in apparent attempts by various persons to push various tax protester arguments. Gradually this material was concentrated in the aforementioned articles. However, the rules of Wikipedia require neutral point of view. Obviously in articles that state tax protester positions, neutral point of view requires that Wikipedia also show opposing views. Obviously the article text will to some extent therefore seem "like it's been taken from an IRS handbook on how to deal with tax protestors" -- since the tax protesters and the IRS have diametrically opposed views about what the law is . The articles in question, however, were not prepared to any large degree by IRS employees (a fact to which I can personally attest). The citations in the articles are to statutes, case law, regs, etc. It just so happens that the IRS position coincides to a very great degree with what the Primary authority materials show the law to be. That should come as no surprise to anyone; it's not the result of some massive conspiracy. The IRS has a huge check on its ability to interpret the law just any old way it wants to. That "check" is an army of lawyers, CPAs and other professionals who are paid big bucks to make sure the IRS is treating clients fairly. And that's just part of the picture.
If the article looks "like it's been taken from an IRS handbook on how to deal with tax protestors" there's a good reason for it. For every tax protester argument there is a counter-argument shown in Wikipedia. Both sides should be presented. Yours, Famspear 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I feel that statements such as "In an apparent attempt to persuade others that there is no law imposing Federal income taxes," and "A somewhat incidental claim of tax protesters" and the frequent use of "somehow" are all biased and leaving them out would make the article more neutral.
Perhaps those two quotes above can be restated as:
Some tax protestors claim that the Internal Revenue Service refuses to disclose -- or is unable to find -- any laws that impose the legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay Federal incomes taxes and consequently declare that there is no law imposing Federal income taxes.
Many tax protesters claim that the IRS was not created by statute and that the IRS has no legal capacity to "sue or be sued" and have therefore assumed that the IRS must not be an actual federal government agency.
Just some suggestions.Pixelface 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think your wording on that 2nd quote is an improvement over the current version so I've included it in the article.
On those two quote suggestions, I worded them as such because I'm not a lawyer and I really don't know if the premises are true. I just tried to state the basis of their claim and their conclusions.
On that first quote, how about:
Some tax protesters argue that the Internal Revenue Service refuses to disclose, or is unable to find, any laws that impose the legal obligation to file Federal income tax returns or pay Federal income taxes -- and conclude that there must be no law imposing Federal income taxes.
That background info is interesting. Maybe some of it can be worked into the article.
I've appreciated your input.Pixelface 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the article again and the language seems more NPOV.I notice there is no section focused on "definitions." Milton William Cooper in his paper BATF/IRS -- Criminal Fraud discusses obfuscated language and Appendix G from The Federal Zone written by Paul Andrew Mitchell discusses the definitions of "income", "person", "taxpayer", "shall", and "must" used by the IRS. Although I suppose much of this is covered in the The "income taxes are voluntary" argument section. Perhaps there should be a Definitions used by the IRS section and mention claims made by Mitchell and Cooper.
Also, in the Tax protestor articles, I have seen no mention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Milton William Cooper claimed that the BATF and the IRS are the same organization. I've written about it in the Milton William Cooper article. According to the BATF article on Wikipedia, the Bureau of Internal Revenue was renamed the Internal Revenue Service in the early 1950s, and the ATTU division within the IRS was the forerunner of the ATF. It also says Nixon created a separate BATF in 1972. Cooper claimed that taxpayers are being taxed on income derived from " importing narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, or firearms into the United States, or one of its territories or possessions, from a foreign country, or from Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or into the Virgin Islands from the Cayman Islands. "
Perhaps the BATF/IRS--Criminal Fraud link should be a subsection in the Milton William Cooper article, or maybe a new article should be created for it. The link by Paul Andrew Mitchell (31 Questions & Answers about the IRS which comes after "Some claim it is a Puerto Rican trust.") is only referred to once in the Tax protestor statutory arguments article. If the tax protestor statutory arguments article is to be NPOV, then I think it should include more claims by Milton William Cooper and Paul Andrew Mitchell. Or maybe those should be put in subsections of the author pages, or placed on their own page, I don't know.
Perhaps a section on Puerto Rico should be included, since both Cooper and Mitchell discuss it. In The Federal Zone , Mitchell claims that federal municipal law governs U.S. Territories like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, but federal municipal law does not extend into any of the 50 States of the Union. And he claims that the income tax statutes in the Internal Revenue Code are federal municipal law. There's more info here .
In short, I suggest we add 3 new sections to the article:
- Definitions used by the IRS
- BATF
- Puerto Rico (or perhaps 'The Federal Zone')
I really don't know what the IRS or the courts have said about the above topics. Perhaps those topics are irrelevant.
I think the views of Paul Mitchell and Milton William Cooper should be represented on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if they should be included in this article, or in subsections of their bio pages, or turned into their own articles. Paul Andrew Mitchell doesn't have a bio page on Wikipedia yet; I'm not sure how notable he is, but he did write the book The Federal Zone and founded http://www.supremelaw.org/. I'll have to search for news about him. Cooper is deceased, but Mitchell has a Yahoo and Gmail email address.
Just some thoughts. Pixelface 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Upon looking at the Tax protestor history article, it looks like Paul Andrew Mitchell redirects to Mitch Modeleski. Pixelface 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've flagged the article again. There are references to the tax code as "law." The tax code is not a piece of legislation. This shows a clear bias towards supporters of the income tax. To the point below: is it not better to provide a neutral point of view rather than preventing two biased opinions? Michaelmcneil
Text removed
I have removed the following from the OMB control number section of the article:
The links cited in the references point to .pdf files, one being the court calender, and the other being the government's motion to dismiss. Nothing in either document suggests that this defense was even raised, much less that it was the basis for the dismissal. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Wesley Snipes
For anyone who is interested, actor Wesley Snipes has be
Premises Liability Lawyers, Birmingham Alabama
Premises liability involves a propery owners' duty to maintain safe conditions for others on their property. If someone you know was injured and may have a premises liability claim ...
Premises Liability Lawyers
Dothan, Alabama; Houston, Texas; Huntsville, Alabama ... Premises Liability Lawyers Office locations nationwide ... Premises liability cases involve a personal injury sustained ...
Premises Liability Lawyers in Las Vegas, Nevada | The Cochran Firm
The premises liability lawyers at the Las Vegas, Nevada office of the Cochran Firm will put their ... Birmingham, Alabama; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Detroit, Michigan; Dothan, Alabama
Premises Liability - Personal Injury Lawyer
Property owners and managers have the legal duty to keep their premises safe for the public. When this duty is not met, injuries and fatalities can occur.
Birmingham Alabama Product Liability Lawyer - Jefferson County AL ...
Free Consultation - Niedenthal Law Firm - Birmingham Alabama Product Liability Lawyer - Jefferson ... injury in car accidents, 18-wheeler or truck accidents, and premises liability.
Birmingham Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys Wettermark, Holland ...
The personal injury lawyers at Wettermark Holland & Keith have years of experience representing the victims of premises liability (slip & fall) injuries in Birmingham Alabama and ...
Premises Liability Lawyers - Assaults and Negligent Security Lawsuits
Premises Liability Lawyers . Slip and fall injuries are the most common premises liability claims. ... Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; California; Colorado ...
Premises Liability Lawyers – Dangerous Unsafe Environment ...
Welcome to Premises Liability Lawyers (Premises Liability ... State Listings - Lawyers. Alabama | Arkansas | Arizona | California | Colorado | ...
Athens Premises Liability Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys, Law ...
Find Athens Premises Liability Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys, Law firms - AL - Premises Liability lawyers in Athens Alabama
Gulf Shores Premises Liability Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys ...
Find Gulf Shores Premises Liability Lawyers, Attorney, Lawyer, Attorneys, Law firms - AL - Premises Liability lawyers in Gulf Shores Alabama