|
Geithner, Killefer, Daschle & Schiff by Jim Davies
February 16, 2009 No,
that's not the name of a distinguished firm of tax lawyers with a German
flavor, and no, Irwin Schiff has not been offered a place in the Obama
Cabinet. That would be the day! He
did once run for President, with a cute little red plastic cowboy hat
adorning the heads of his Libertarian Party supporters, but delegates
instead nominated Harry Browne, who did a very creditable job. Schiff
earlier ran for Sheriff of Clark County, NV, having noted that as that top
law-enforcement officer, he could stop all federal searches and seizures
in those parts (for example in connection with the alleged income tax) by
simply withholding his permission. Voters around Why,
then, do I place him alongside those three unindicted crooks in my title?
Because the four do have one thing in common: all had a bit of trouble
with their respective 1040s. Tim
Geithner, Nancy Killefer and Tom Daschle each had ample advice about how
to complete their tax forms; one of them even used TurboTax. But all three
"forgot" to mention some income they later said they received,
or got confused, somehow, about expenses and taxes concerning the
employment of immigrant household assistants, whether legalized or
otherwise. Hey, I understand! We should not blame them too much, the
wretched Form is horribly complex, and a mere keystroke error can issue
TurboTax the wrong information so that it comes up, naturally, with the
wrong result. "It
is also a known fact that the Internal Revenue Code is a very easily
misunderstood area of law, even misunderstood by trained professionals.
Judges and lawyers admittedly do not know the tax laws." That
was 16 years ago. Nothing
has changed. "Judges and lawyers admittedly do not know the
tax laws." Geithner,
Kelleher and Daschle--hereinafter GK&D--are senior government people
who do not even claim to know the tax laws, but all presumably accepted
the conventional view that the Income Tax has been enacted into law in a
manner intended to rip money off what ordinary people earn: salaries,
wages, no-charge limo services, etc. Schiff,
in contrast, has read the law a great deal, even to the extent of
publishing his findings, as in The Great Income Tax Hoax, now available
here free of charge, and he takes the opposite view that, while
carefully phrased to give the impression of such a tax, for good reasons
it actually imposes no such thing. GK&D
accordingly filled out a 1040 each year but wrote on each certain
numerical inexactitudes, while Schiff declined to volunteer any such
information--or else filed one and roundly declared his income to be zero,
just because the Supreme Court said that for these purposes
"income" means "corporate profit"--of which he had
none. The government did not agree, and that is what the four have in
common. The
big difference comes in how that difference of opinion was resolved.
GK&D had each been offered a Cabinet position, complete with all the
perquisites and handsome salaries, and although K&D declined after
these tax misunderstandings came to light, Geithner accepted. He is now
Treasury Secretary, the I
recently watched a 5-minute
2008 video of Harry Reid, now Leader of the US Senate, being
interviewed about whether it was appropriate to forcibly transfer money
from taxpayers to welfare and other beneficiaries. To my astonishment, and
I think to the interviewer's, the Senator repeatedly denied that taxation
in this country is "forced" at all; he said it was voluntary. He
seemed quite confused about his reasons, but his conclusion is right next
door to Schiff's. His address is not. So
what's an ordinary mortal, not in-line for a Cabinet appointment, to do
next April 15th? Hold one's nose, swear a false oath and send in the
miserable Form while withholding such expensive information as one thinks
the government is unlikely to detect? That's what 140 million will
probably do. The false oath comes in its last line; the filer has to swear
he believes that the foregoing is true, and will normally have made some
entry on some of the lines in the paragraph headed "income."
Schiff still insists that in the context of tax law, that term means
"corporate profit," because the Supreme Court said so; but on
that point I cannot agree. My reason is that, like Congress and the
President, the Supreme or any other court has no power at all to amend the
Constitution--that is granted only to the States (supposing for the moment
that the Constitution has any validity anyway). Since the "income tax
Amendment"--number 16--uses the term "income" but fails
to define it, for anyone to make such a definition would be for him to
try to amend the Constitution. Not allowed; hence the meaning is forever
(or until the States vote on a new Amendment) profoundly obscure. So how
can an honest person swear he believes it includes or does not include
this or that receipt of money? Therefore,
it's not just GK&D. Government has made liars of us all. Except
Schiff; and him, it has made a prisoner. Jim Davies is a retired businessman in New Hampshire who led the development of an on-line school of liberty in 2006, who expects to experience a free society in his lifetime, and who in 2008 wrote the books "A Vision of Liberty" and " Transition to Liberty." |