Is a citizen of the United States of America legally obligated to pay
federal income tax? What does the Internal Revenue Code say about it?

haplo127...

There have been many spurious attempts to answer this question
in the negative, based on what seem to be simple concepts, such
as the idea that the term "shall pay" which is everywhere in 
the tax laws (see the search results following), is actually
phrased in legal terminology which should be interpreted to 
mean: "MAY pay", rather than "WILL pay".
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22income+tax%22+%22shall+pay%22

The following page has an extensive list of such concepts:
http://www.ottoskinner.com/b-loophole.html

"Chapter 7 - WHY SOME PEOPLE GO TO JAIL - page 189"

    "Flawed arguments." 
"1. W-4 form.
 2. Tax is direct tax.
 3. Sixteenth Amendment not properly ratified.
 4. Fifth Amendment.
 5. Wages are not "income".
 6. "Shall" means "may".
 7. Tax is voluntary.
 8. Not an "employee" as defined.
 9. 6020(b).
 10. Term "includes".
     State Citizen.
     What is a "return" ?
 11. Public Salary Tax Act.
 12. Zero tax returns.
     "income" means corporate profit.
 13. OMB Numbers.
 14. Zip Codes.
 15. Not Positive Law.
 16. 6331.
 17. Victory Tax.
 18. Lawful Dollars."


The IRS Tax Code states, regarding individuals, for example:
(c)
"Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads 
of households)"
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
(other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the 
head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married
individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in 
accordance with the following table:"  (table follows)

...from the searchable Tax Code, courtesy of John Walker, who
maintains the FourmiLab site:  http://www.fourmilab.ch/  at:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-A-I-1.html

This seems pretty straightforward. However there is one
source for information on this topic which is based on 
elaborate inquiry into the bases of the income tax. 
The research done is thoroughly documented, and, to a
large degree, tested by the author, who has challenged
the IRS to invalidate his findings. His name is Larken
Rose, and his website, and the downloads available there
will take you a fair amount of time to digest, since
his findings are based on a comprehensive analysis of 
some very complex laws. A summary, from his front page:
http://www.taxableincome.net/  states the following:

"'Conventional wisdom', even when provably incorrect, is 
a very powerful thing.  People often find it uncomfortable 
to question things they have always taken for granted.  
The sky is blue; one plus two equals three; and most 
Americans owe federal income taxes.  Everyone knows that."  

"Contrary to what "everyone knows," the truth of the matter
is this: Congress could not, and did not, impose a tax on 
the income of most Americans, because of the strict limits
on federal power imposed by the Constitution.  Instead, 
they imposed a far more limited income tax, applicable 
primarily to income from certain types of international 
and foreign commerce, but wrote the law in such a way 
that it could easily be misinterpreted.  The law itself 
is perfectly valid and constitutional; it is simply being
misrepresented and misapplied by the tax professionals 
and government officials.  As a result, tens of millions 
of Americans now make payments to the IRS based on the 
false assumption that they are just paying "their taxes."
In reality they are being defrauded via the myth that 
the income of most Americans is taxable."

"Of course such a claim at first sounds absurd, but the
evidence does not lie.  Here is a very brief summary of
the issue:"

1) The federal income tax is imposed upon "taxable income"
(not all income). 

2) "Taxable income" generally means "gross income" minus 
deductions."

3) "Gross income" is generally defined as "all income from
whatever source derived," including compensation, interest,
rents, dividends, etc"

"Up to this point, the tax professionals agree. It is what
comes next that they are either unaware of, or unwilling 
to accept when they see it in plain English in the law books."

4) Certain sections of the law specifically describe in which
situations income from inside the United States is taxable."

5) While those sections show income to be taxable when it 
derives from certain kinds of international and foreign 
commerce, they do not show the income of United States 
citizens living and working only in the 50 states to be 
taxable."

"Amazingly, points 4 and 5 above are specifically and 
repeatedly stated in the federal income tax regulations,
yet most tax professionals simply refuse to believe it.
As if that were not bad enough, there is yet another,
completely independent way that the regulations prove 
the truth."

6) The regulations show that the types of income listed
in the general definition of "gross income" (such as 
compensation, interest, rent, etc.) are in some 
situations excluded for federal income tax purposes."

7) The income tax regulations give a specific list of 
those types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which
are taxable), and while that list includes income 
derived from certain types of international and 
foreign commerce, the income of the average American
is not listed as being non-exempt (i.e., taxable)."

There is link to a free download of the full report,
available in .doc .pdf, and .zip formats, or you can
view it in your browser, from this page:
http://www.taxableincome.net/report/index.html

It is a well-written and researched exploration of the
origins of the income tax, and the misconceptions which
have come to surround it. It is fascinating reading for
anyone interested in history and the law.

There is also a video, available for sale, which adds
the benefits of visual aids to the explanation of this
complex topic:
http://www.theft-by-deception.com/

Of course, as a researcher, I cannot recommend following
a particular course of action, or provide legal advice.
I can only point you to resources and suggest that you
decide for yourself.


Searches done, via Google:

"income tax" "shall pay"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22income+tax%22+%22shall+pay%22

"shall means may"
://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22shall+means+may%22


If you need further assistance before rating this answer,
please feel free to post a request for clarification.

sublime1-ga

sublime, i do appreciate your objectivity. :)
however, i personally believe that #8 "not an employee as defined" is
correct. even if all the others have giant, gaping holes in them, the
fact remains that "income tax" applys to foreign corporations,
"employees" of the federal government, and nationals only. once again,
though, i appreciate the objective, open-minded answer.

richard. i see and comprehend the court case u quoted. it doesn't
apply to the "not an employee as defined" argument. all these...'gross
income' all 'gains, profits, and income derived ... from professions,
vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in
property, whether real
or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in 
such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the
transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or
profits and income derived from any source whatever.' they only apply
to the foreign corporations, federal government "employees", and
nationals.  also, u criticize sublime for offering un-read
information...did YOU read Larken Rose's research? i spent 5 hours one
nite pouring over it and it quotes many court cases as well as plenty
of revenue codes. even so, it is relatively obvious that i am not an
"employee". and besides, in 1895, the supreme court ruled that income
taxes are unconstitutional. i don't see the problem here.
here are several links that might be relevant.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/taxationtale.htm
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/display/0,,i1%3D42&genericId%3D23099,00.html
http://chansen.tzo.com/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/Christian/DrKentHovindsTaxLetter.htm

and for politicalguru...u could at least spell my name right. as for
going to jail... it won't happen. either i'll file the suit BEFORE i
quit paying, or i'll deem it not worth my trouble and simply continue
as though i was one with the ignorant masses.

feel free to respond. i'd really like to lose this argument. :)

In general I consider it bad form to criticise a fellow-researcher's
answer, but this is a special case.  The Internet is chock-full of
nonsense about the US tax law, and it is irresponsible for Google
Answers to quote this material without giving it a proper critical
reading.

You asked whether a citizen of the United States of America legally
obligated to pay federal income tax, specifically under the provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code.

By way of background, please recall what you learned in Middle School
about how laws are adopted and enforced under the US system that
separates powers among the legislative, judicial and executive
branches.  Congress passes laws (of which the Internal Revenue Code is
one), the Executive Branch enforces laws (that's the Internal Revenue
Service) and if you or I feel that a law is being enforced improperly
or contrary to the US Constitution, we take our case to the federal
courts, up to and including the US Supreme Court, so that the Judicial
Branch can have the final say.

So it is not you or I who decide how to interpret the words of the
Internal Revenue Code.  The proper reading of the Internal Revenue
code as it applies to your question was long ago determined by the US
Supreme Court.

Here it is in the Court's own words: 
"Sec. 22[a] of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 680, 686, 26 U.S.C.A.
Int.Rev.Acts, page 669, includes among 'gross income' all 'gains,
profits, and income derived ... from professions, vocations, trades,
businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real
or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in
such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the
transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or
profits and income derived from any source whatever.' The broad sweep
of this language indicates the purpose of Congress to use the full
measure of its taxing power within those definable categories."
 Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=309&invol=331

The answer to your question lies in the fact that the Internal Revenue
Code, as adopted by Congress and interpreted by the federal courts,
broadly defines the gross income of a U.S. citizen or resident (Code
Section 61), and only narrowly defines the various exclusions,
deductions and losses that the law allows.
Income Tax Policy 
https://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=33316

Now there are plenty of websites that will explain why, according to
their logic, the Internal Revenue Code is defective, the IRS is
over-reaching, and so forth.  What you want to do is see if these
sites can link you to any federal court cases, preferably at the
Circuit Court of Appeals or US Supreme Court level, that concur with
their point of view.  I think you will find that the Tax Protestor
websites take the shape of a ring--each giving its unique reading to
the Code and citing other protest sites, but not citing any of the
federal court decisions that are the proper authority in this area.

Here's a typical link into the Tax Protest Ring (easily found by
searching Google for "Larken Rose").  Do you see how it goes
round-and-round?
Web Sites to Check Out
http://www.givemeliberty.org/education.htm

But don't take my word for the above...please use these pages as
pointers to the various cases that tell what the tax law, as
interpreted by the federal courts, really means:

THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

THE TAX PROTESTOR MOVEMENT: Proof that P.T. Barnum Was Right
http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/feb96.html

Tax & Trust Scam Bulletin Board
http://www.taxprophet.com/hot/Trustscam.htm

Anti-IRS Theories a/k/a Tax Protestor Junk
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm

I hope you find this helpful.
Google Researcher
richard-ga

Richard - Way to go, An excellent (and right) comment. 

Hiplo - if you need any referrence to these court decisions (which
reject those claims), just ask. I would hate to see you in jail :-)

The employee arguement is refuted thusly:

ARGUMENT: "The income tax applies only to government employees."

Like the argument about whether the United States includes the states
of the United States, this argument depends on a misunderstanding of
the word "includes."

I.R.C. section 3401(c), which relates to withholding of income tax
from wages, defines the word "employee" as follows:

"For purposes of this chapter, the term 'employee' includes an
officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or
any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The
term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation." I.R.C.
section 3401(c).

Notice the word "includes"? As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the
use of "includes" does not exclude anything otherwise within the
meaning of "employee," so "employee" includes what you would normally
think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily
think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local
governments.

What have the courts said about the claim that only government
employees are subject to income tax?

"Similarly, Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C.
§ 3401(c) the category of 'employee' does not include privately
employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is
obvious that within the context of both statutes the word 'includes'
is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to
certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others."
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).

"To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no 'wages' in 1983
because he was not an 'employee' within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. §
3401(c), that contention is meritless. Section 3401(c), which relates
to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of 'employee'
includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and
corporate officers. The statute does not purport to limit withholding
to the persons listed therein." Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d
813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986).

"Petitioner's assertion that he is not a person required to pay tax as
he is not an officer, employee or elected official of the United
States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or of a
corporation, is wholly meritless." United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d
524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981).

"[P]laintiff's claim that only public officials can be taxed is
completely frivolous and without merit." McAffee v. United States, 84
AFTR2d ¶99-5536(N.D.Ga. 1999) (sanctions imposed in the amount of $500
for filing a frivolous claim).

"The term 'person' under the Internal Revenue Code is not, as the
Turners would have it, limited to a person employed by the federal
government." United States v. Turner, 86 AFTR2d ¸2000-5290, No. Civ.
99-00817 SOM/FIY (U.S.D.C. Hi. 3/10/2000).

In Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-476, the petitioner alleged,
among other things, that he "is not an employee of the Federal or
state governments, is not engaged in a revenue taxable activity of
alcohol, tobacco or firearms and therefore not subject to any exise
[sic] tax...." The court concluded that the petition "is nothing but
tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish...."

ahhhh...now i see. thank u mara. :)
so in that case, this would be an unconstitutional taxing system. did
you have any information on the 1895 court decision i mentioned?

haplo.  Thank you for asking this question.  I frequently peruse
“google answers” to find this question.  I t always seems to ferret
out employees of the IRS, tax attorneys, (that we desperately need to
defend laws that don’t exist) and CPA’s (whose #s would diminish if
the current, unconstitutional tax code were eradicated).  The only
other category left is sheeple that still believe the Federal Reserve
belongs to “we the people” and it is their patriotic duty to feed it. 
I would guess that most continue due the media being complicit with
the Feds and scaring them into submission with all of the stories
involving “tax cheats,” especially around April 15th.

The problem that exists is interpretation.  It appears there are no
problems with the tax laws that have been legislated except for the
intentional complicated nature in which they are written (define is). 
Thanks ex-pres.  This is done so when the lawyers that write the laws
while they are in congress can use the loosely written words any way
that suits their current judicial needs, after they are ousted from
office.  By the way, does anyone else see a conflict of interest? 
Judges compensated with federally collected tax dollars interpreting
the IRS code.  Reminds me of the old saying “the fox watching the hen
house.”

I have read countless pages of arguments on the subject and there is
one question that never gets answered.  And there are rewards posted
all over the internet for this.  “Show me the specific law that makes
most citizens of the United States liable for the federal income tax?”
 I assume (I hate using that word) since no one has claimed these
monies, the law hasn’t been found yet.  I know I’m looking ‘cause I
could use the loot.  : )