What laws prove tax protesters are wrong? Tax protesters are frequently penalized for raising the &quot;frivolous&quot; argument that the individual income tax is not mandatory but voluntary. Can anyone provide the specific provision of the tax codethat states that the income tax on individuals (not businesses) is mandatory and not voluntary? I have not found it myself, but I would like to have it to reference when I am approached with this topic in conversation.
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution says: &quot;The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.&quot; Congress has exercised that power and the main controlling law is in the United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part I - Tax on Individuals. You can read it yourself at: US Tax Code There are multiple possibilities based on your situation, which you did not specify, but, for example there is this: As far as mandatory, vs. voluntary, the code also gives the Internal Revenue Service the power and authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code: 26 U.S. Code § 7608 - Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers It also has numerous sections on the penalties for failing to obey the code, which I will not quote here, but which you can easily find for yourself. So in answer to your question: The US Constitution gives Congress the power to levy income taxes on individuals. The USC lists specific taxes and amounts levied. The USC gives the IRS the power to enforce the Internal Revenue Code. The USC provides for specific fines and other remedies for violaters.
If the space were owned by a charitable organization, the money left by each individual would be a charitable gift reduced by the fair market value of the food taken, and the proceeds would not be taxable income for the organization because it is tax exempt. As an individual, treating it as income subject to a deduction for cost of production (not including your labor), but with the loss not being deductible as there isn't an intention to profit, would probably be the correct treatment as that treatment is what is usually what is applied to a &quot;pay what you can&quot; arrangement that apart from the price, resembles a business transaction. If no money were collected, it would probably be characterized as a gift by you to the persons taking it, which if less than $16,000 per person per year for all gifts made to that person, would be exempt from gift taxation. You could argue for bargain sale treatment, with the value of the produce taken net of the money left as a gift, and that would be a potentially arguable position if the money left is less than the value of the produce taken. But this characterization would probably not hold up if the amount of money left exceeded the out of pocket cost of growing the produce, in which case treating it as a low value sole proprietorship would be much more defensible than treating the money left by people as a gift to you. Generally speaking, when one person makes a gift and another person makes a counter-gift in a related action, treating each donation in isolation as gifts is not an appropriate tax treatment. I'll see if I can find authority, but, of course, cases with such tiny amounts in controversy almost never result in formal appellate decisions or regulatory action, so any binding authority wouldn't be four square on point factually, which matters in the law where reasoning by analogy and logic often doesn't produce the legally correct result.
This is an important question that affects consumer advocacy, blog-based-journalism, political speech and spending, and probably other things. People disagree about what the answer is. This podcast episode features both sides of the argument. Professor Volokh holds the view that the freedom of the press is "freedom to print", "freedom to use the printing press". Freedom of the press is the freedom of everybody to use the printing press. Assessing the grammar of the clause, he argues that this points in the same direction. The text says "freedom of speech or of the press". He points out that speech is not a group of people. It would be odd to treat "speech" as an activity, but to treat "press" as a group of people given the parallel construction. This side of the argument is described more in this article by Prof. Volokh. Professor West argues that there is a defined group of people called "the press" that deserves protection under this clause. This article explains Prof. West's position in detail. The main point is that "An expansive definition of the press means virtually complete overlap between press and speech and thus no meaningful way to interpret the Press Clause." If "press" means simply the right to publish speech, then it becomes redundant because courts have held the right to publish speech is given under that "speech" portion of the clause. Justice Stevens's concurrence in Citizens United also argued for "some kinds of identity-based distinctions" regarding whether a person is a member of the press. Each side can give examples of the term "the press" being used at the time of the First Amendment that is consistent with their favored interpretation. I think to get the best idea of the two sides to this question, you should read Citizens United (including all dissents and concurrences), read the two articles linked above, and listen to the podcast episode.
If you filled out the form, did not specify "Exempt" below 4(c), and did not specify high enough deductions that you would have nothing withheld, then the employer should follow the rules, withhold a specific amount of money, and pay it to the government, as reported on your W-2. If an employer willfully fails to withhold and pay the required taxes, they are liable for criminal and civil sanctions. This page from the IRS provides a phone number to complain about an employer not correctly withholding federal income and employment taxes.
One possible reading of this clause is: The tenant is required to pay for the preparation of a forfeiture notice, even if ("notwithstanding that") the forfeiture doesn't actually happen ("forfeiture is avoided")--but the tenant doesn't have to pay for the notice if the forfeiture doesn't happen for the following reason ("avoided otherwise than by"): because the court said so ("by relief granted by the court"). In other words: if the Court says the forfeiture notice is bogus, the tenant doesn't have to pay for it. Otherwise, he or she does.
A government can pass laws which cannot be fully enforced, or even widely enforced. Such laws are nonetheless legally valid, unless repealed by the legislature, or struck down by the courts in accord with the procedures in the particular country's laws. In common law countries, it is often a defense to a criminal charge that a law is impossible to comply with, but this only arises when there is an attempt to enforce the law, and it is in fact impossible for that defendant to comply with that law. If the defendant can comply, it is not relevant that other defendants might not be able to. If taxes were assessed that totaled more than all the legal money in circulation, the government might increase the money supply. Or it might not try to collect in all cases, or not collect the full amount. Otherwise many taxpayers might enter bankruptcy. In other cases of impossible laws, the results would depend on just how enforcement was attempted. The government cannot magically give people the ability to do things they cannot. A law requiring everyone to fly by flapping his or her arms would not secure compliance. It might put a lot of people in jail if people were arrested for not flying by hand. A law requiring everyone to register with a government agency before stepping outside would be foolish, and perhaps unenforceable under current conditions (but perhaps would be sensible in a Moon colony). Such a law would be legal (although it might fail a &quot;rational basis test in the US) but an attempt to enforce it widely would lead to confusion or perhaps resistance. Most governments are not so foolish as to pass laws that cannot be complied with by large numbers of people, even if they have the legal power to pass such laws. A government that passed such a law might become unpopular, or even be overthrown. In some cases in history, laws that could not be complied with by particular groups were used as ways to persecute those groups.
There is a saying that you can't sue city hall: that is applicable here. Governments enjoy sovereign immunity, and cannot be sued for their errors of judgment unless they specifically allow it. Safety regulations are an example of a situation where the government hold all of the power and shoulders none of the responsibility. If a government forbids sale or use of a substance on some grounds (could be safety, could be economic impact, could be something about preventing the moral decay of society), and the grounds later turns to be false, you cannot sue the government because of lost business opportunities. Generally speaking, that which is not prohibited is allowed, so there would have to be an affirmative duty for the government to prevent all forms of harm. If there were such a legal duty, there is a miniscule legal foundation for suing the government for shirking its duty. That is not a completely hypothetical possibility, in that the state of Washington imposes a constitutional duty on the legislature to provide public education, and the Supreme Court has done things to enforce this duty (the contempt of court fines are up in the realm of $80 million). Since there is no jurisdiction that imposes a duty on the government to absolutely prevent all harm, you won't be able to sue the government if they fail to outlaw a thing that is eventually proven to harm someone.
Doesn't help, does hurt. Say you charge a discounted rate of $75. That adds $75 to your taxable income. Say you charge a full rate of $100 and take a $25 charity tax deduction. That nets out to adding $75 to your taxable income, same outcome, except the $25 is in peril, due to the complexities of the tax law. For instance: Charity deductions give no tax benefit at all until you achieve $12,000 of itemized deductions (from donations and mortgage interest, certain state taxes, certain medical expenses etc.) Deem that unfair (we at charities certainly do!) but the fact is, it's because you already get a $12,000 standard deduction as a 'gimme'.* If you're a huge donor (I am on certain years, thanks DAF), you can only deduct 50% of income (with carryforwards, yay). Your donation-back reduces that. Doing it direct adds $75 to AGI ($37.50 to deduction limit), so you can deduct donations of $37.50 to other charities. The donation-back adds $100 to AGI (adding $50 to donation limit) except $25 of that is spoken for by the donation-back, leaving only $25 left. So I consider the maneuver to be a &quot;lose lose&quot; unless you have some bizarre tax reason for wanting to do that. Further, such an arrangement is likely to draw scrutiny from the IRS. By the way, here's an origin concept. IRS waives taxes on value which you create by your own DIY labor*. Say you mow your own lawn at an annualized cost of $100/year (lawnmower depreciaton and fuel) instead of $1100/year to hire it done. You created $1000 of value &quot;from the sweat of your brow&quot;. IRS's policy is not to treat that as income, and thus, not to tax that. Thus, when you are a craftsman, IRS views the sale of service as the taxable event, not the crafting itself. Similarly, when you do volunteer work for a charity, &quot;the sweat of your brow&quot; does not create a cash value of interest to the IRS in either direction. Really, when you are a craftsman offering services, and you do services for a charity, that is considered volunteer labor. * This used to only be about $5000, but Trump was keen on a postcard-sized tax form, so they folded the adult &quot;personal exemption&quot; into the standard deduction, removing 2 lines on the 1040 form. Meaning most Americans who itemized before, no longer itemized - they didn't have $12,000 of deductions! Schedule A goes away for them (so mission accomplished there)... but so does the tax deductibility of charitable contributions, which was a knife in the heart of charities.