Man wins case against gov after refusing to pay taxes over abortion spending

[A Voice from the Mountains]

He refuses to pay taxes because he opposes abortions. He just beat the feds in court

Michael Bowman, a 53-year-old self-employed computer software developer from Columbia City, Oregon, hasn’t paid his federal income taxes since 1999.

He says it’s because his Christian ideals don’t allow him to pay into a system that funds abortions. In a YouTube video explainer of his defense, he likened paying taxes that then go toward funding abortions to German citizens under Nazi rule who outed Jewish citizens, sending them to their deaths.

And according to The Associated Press, he beat the feds in court this week.

To be clear, Bowman won the battle, not the war he’s fighting with the IRS and the Oregon U.S. District Court, when federal Judge Michael W. Mosman dismissed a felony tax evasion charge against Bowman.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...208905159.html


So this guy used his 1st amendment right of freedom of religion to argue that being forced to pay for abortions was a violation of his religious liberties, as he opposes abortion on religious grounds. And a federal judge was actually reasonable enough to allow that this is actually a solid argument in his defense, and threw out the tax evasion charge against him.

For those who aren't familiar with the history of the US federal income tax, it's actually completely illegal. We've had IRS attorneys actually resign after reading through all of the relevant laws and realizing they don't even have legitimate legal grounds to make ANYONE pay a federal income tax, because the law was never properly ratified and is being enforced unconstitutionally. Of course the administration of the IRS has never cared about, and goes after tax evaders anyway.






Or, translated for those who are fans of big government socialism:




Before the federal government relied on taxes for income, it used to raise its funds mostly through tariffs. It is also possible for the government to raise its money by taxing corporations/businesses rather than individuals. Big corporations such as General Electric often pay NOTHING in federal taxes, by utilizing various loopholes. Start taxing all of those corporations properly and we could reduce individual tax rates substantially.

[genevieve]

Anyone who is self-employed and not living in a federal zone is not required to pay income taxes. Any taxes paid to the IRS would then be VOLUNTARY.

Here's a re-post of an interesting, clarifying document:
REVOCATION OF ELECTION--REDACTED.docx

All rules and regs and codes use words that we take for granted to mean one thing, but the government twists words to their purposes to mean something else. We're a bunch of dupes--aaaaarrrrrrrrgh!--and we're so blasted busy working to make enough money to get along that we don't have enough time to figure out the game.


Thanks for your thread, Voice!

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by genevieve (here)
Anyone who is self-employed and not living in a federal zone is not required to pay income taxes. Any taxes paid to the IRS would then be VOLUNTARY.

That may be true, but it's also true that the federal income tax was never constitutionally ratified at all. That doesn't stop the IRS from coming after you like the criminal mob that they are!

Originally only state governments had the authority to tax income, if they chose to do so. The federal income tax was enacted for the first time in 1913, the same year as the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

[Satori]

The title of this post is a bit off the mark. More like "Man wins a round in court against IRS."

No doubt this is good for him, because as the quoted post indicates, he is not facing "a felony tax evasion" charge. Such a charge is criminal. Presenting possible incarceration and additional monetary penalties. But "a" charge may not be all the felony charges he is facing. I don't know. I have no information beyond this thread. But often there are several tax evasion charges pending at one time. Especially in a case involving tax years going back to 1999. Getting "a" charge dismissed, while good, may not resolve all felony charges. Maybe it does in this case, I don't know.

It appears the case is ongoing, even though a felony case is gone. Civil penalties, coupled with the underlying tax that is "owed" (actually "assessed" is the term the IRS uses), plus interest, can add up to a lot. Especially going back to 1999.

Hope this guy fares well battling the beast or, if you prefer, the creature (from Jekyll Island).