IRS – Tax Resolution Video | Bills.com
http://www.facebook.com/bills.com Bills.com how you can resolve your tax debt to the IRS. Jim Brown for http://www.bills.com reviews IRS tax resolution options, including installment agreements and offers in compromise.
According to Jim Brown, VP of Freedom Tax Relief, you must be in compliance with the IRS before you can apply for tax relief. In order to be in compliance, you must file the last six years worth of returns. From there, a tax settlement firm will negotiate with the IRS to create a five-year installment agreement. If you are unable to pay the tax owed, they can negotiate for an offer in compromise to pay the debt and remove tax liens from your record. Watch this tax resolution video to learn more. Visit bills.com for more personal financial information and advice.
Duration : 0:1:57
tell the IRS TO …
tell the IRS TO LICK MY BALLS AND THE FED CAN EAT MY ASS
And I told you! …
And I told you! Section 1 of Title 26. That is the exact, precise law. Would you like me to get you the Public Law number?
its been almost a …
its been almost a week an you still haven’t answered my question what is the law code that you violate when you dont pay a federal income tax?
wrong thats the …
wrong thats the title it explanes what the title is ok you know how you get a speeding ticket an they say you violated this law code (what ever it maybe where you live) thats what im asking for your section 1 of title 26 only says what it is an there is no enforcement also i would really like to recommend you to watch “theft by deception” it breaks down the hole title 26 it detail but its an hour an a half long… enjoy
Try section 1 of …
Try section 1 of Title 26, “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:” followed by a table specifying the tax rates on various income amounts. If you are married, you are covered by the similar provision at section 1(a).
that maybe so but …
that maybe so but you still have yet to give me a law code that says you have to pay a federal income tax you’ve addressed everything but the law code im not talking about section 61 or title 26 im talking about the law code that enforces that amendment
Who told you that?? …
Who told you that???? That’s ridiculous. Check Websters for the definition of “amendment”. So, my friend, does that mean that the 14th amendment, which provides for equal protection, does not apply to the former slaves? Becuae, guess what, the 3/5ths clause in the body of the Constitution, which states that they are to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for congressional apportionment pursposes, is still there. It hasn’t been removed.
Article. I. Section …
Article. I. Section. 2. “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years”
this has yet to be removed from our Constitution so there for you can’t add something that goes agents this and also you have yet to give me the law code that say you have to pay
To say the income …
To say the income tax is voluntary is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the law, without the need for legal action against taxpayers. When confronted by claims that income taxes are voluntary, courts readily explain that the payment of income tax is mandatory, not optional: Appellants claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938).
The short answer is …
The short answer is that, while the Supreme Court did hold that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, the amendment relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the previous problem with the income tax was removed and the income tax is now constitutional.
Tax protestors love …
Tax protestors love to quote some old Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment “conferred no new power of taxation.” Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. This conclusion is false.
26 crf ch.1
“the …
26 crf ch.1
“the purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the internal revenue bulletin is to promote correct and uniform application of the tax laws by internal revenue service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE” so there for you dont have to pay
no new power of …
no new power of taxation. So if they didn’t have it then, and they didn’t get it, they don’t have it. There is no constitutional base for a tax on wages for Americans living and working in the fifty states of the union. Period, end of argument.”
“It’s actually very …
“It’s actually very simple. Congress tried to enact an income tax in 1894 the Supreme Court said that is unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional, its unconstitutional. They tried again in 1913 and the Supreme Court said the 16th amendment conferred
“In substance, the …
“In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax.”
New York Times
January 25, 1916
“Based on research….by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which….requires….an individual to pay an income tax.”
Letter from Senator Daniel Inoway to Tom Selgas of Tax Honesty.
Stanton v. Baltic …
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916) (Entire text of ruling)
“…by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged..”
so there for if you didn’t pay taxes before the 16th amendment you dont have to after it
The Internal …
The Internal Revenue Code does not define income. Technically correct, but irrelevant. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income, from which taxable income is calculated, as all income from whatever source derived and gives a number of examples of the types of income included in gross income in section 61, including compensation for services (i.e., wages, salaries, and other forms of earned income).
still haven’t seen …
still haven’t seen a code till you can give me the code your wrong
This issue has come …
This issue has come before the federal court system numerous times, including the supreme court. Each time, the courts have upheld the validity of the ratification of the 26th Amendment AND the Income tax. End of story. It’s the law. Period.
ok wheres your …
ok wheres your proof? everywhere i look everywhere i see i always see an hear no so give me the law code that states that a person has to pay taxes on there wages
1). Yes it does.
…
1). Yes it does.
2). Yes it was.
Both of these issues have been reviewed by the courts many times and have been upheld by them. End of story.
no where in “Title …
no where in “Title 26″ does it say that a person has to pay taxes on there wages the “16th Amendment” was NEVER LEGALLY ratified do some research theres TONS of vids on youtube an TONS of websites court cases an Gov. documents saying that the “Federal Income Tax” is an illegal tax
Prove you wrong??!! …
Prove you wrong??!! *lol* It’s called the tax code, Title 26, and the 16th Amendment. I know you’ll try to parse words and say it doesn’t apply, but the courts have consistently held that position to be wrong. You are the one who needs to prove ME wrong.
really? prove me …
really? prove me wrong
Bullshit
Bullshit