Talk:Tax lien

Law C‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

Lien versus levy

The section I have added on the difference between a tax "lien" and a "levy" for U.S. Federal tax purposes is added because I have found in my practice a lot of confusion in the public, and even among some IRS employees, on these terms. Eventually the section on "levy" could be expanded and possibly made into a separate article. Yours, Famspear 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linking to a commercial site

Would it be inappropriate to link to http://www.lienexchange.com? Although this is a commercial website they provide completely free access to a comprehensive database on tax liens by state and county... I couldn't find any other site providing that type and quality of information.

Tax liens are a matter of public record. There is no need to include commercial sites into this mess. I have removed this link, if anyone else cares to argue for commercial sites, please discuss here; otherwise, I will consider it as spam. --71.49.111.83 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually put it up again, as that site provides the only database I could find on tax liens by state and counties. And it offers it completely free with no registration required. - Therefor I would not consider that link to be commercial. It is rather encyclopedic... ARebour 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add any commercial sites to this article. There are "watch our TV commercials", buy this book links, etc. It doesn't need to have registration required to make it uncommercial. This is clearly spam. --Jbanning22 09:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link has been discussed on several occasions before. I will not put it up again. Although to my knowledge it is the only site that gives all this useful encyclopedic information completely for free. The remaining link by the way does not contain ANY useful information at all... ARebour 09:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding books as references, there's a few on google books that's accessible and free. --76.5.199.180 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linking to another commercial site

www.InvestingWithoutLosing.com provides similar features as lienexchange but more up to date

Enigmatic material moved from article

The following garbled material (complete with the fragment "You"), which had been inserted at the end of the article by an anonymous user, has been moved to this discussion page, for what should be obvious reasons:

I have no idea what you guys are taolking abpit. Why are we suppose ro pay taxes? I mean we have som mnay poaces where we have to pay and now property taxes? You

Yours, Famspear 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tax protester gibberish regarding allodial title, etc.

An anonymous editor has repeatedly added the following nonsense:

The failure of the Federal Government to ratify the 16th Amendment [1] [2] raises legal question as to any tax lean. Prior to the 1930’s Americans owned their land under Allodial Title [3] and there was no tax on land or property. Allodial Title formed a core concept to the formation of the U.S.A. in that people were secure on their land from government intrusion and tax.

When the Federal Reserve Bank artificially induced the Great Depression, they placed in government agents of that privately held bank who implemented Socialism, FCC, SEC and the IRS which created an induced cash and interest flow for the privately held Federal Reserve Bank’s Notes. Secretary of State Philander Knox simply announced the 16th Amendment was ratified when it was not [4]. It has been well established up to the Supreme Court level [5] that the 16th Amendment was not ratified and added no new taxing authority. The IRS, Federal Government and local County Tax collectors assume authority that is not theirs and operate a criminal enterprise collecting taxes under the color of law. Nevada is one of the States who still offers their citizens a means of perfecting Allodial Title on their property [6], eliminating all future tax on the land.

The above material is almost completely incorrect.

The Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified, as every federal court considering this issue has ruled. The web site, "the law that never was", which is cited (including the preposterous argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified) has been ruled in federal court to be part of a fraudulent scheme.

The statement that it "has been well established up to the Supreme Court level that the 16th Amendment was not ratified" is a blatant lie. Every single federal court -- without a single exception -- that has considered this has rejected the laughable argument that the Amendment was not properly ratified. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ever ruled that the Amendment was not properly ratified. (See below.)

As noted in one or more Wikipedia articles, it is however correct to say that the Amendment added no NEW powers of taxation. The problem is that the tax protester who spread this kind of garbage on the internet want to argue that this statement means something else (see articles referenced below). For example, even if there were no Sixteenth Amendment, income taxes on compensation earned by individuals would still be taxable.

The statement that there was no tax on land or property prior to the 1930s is laughable, blatantly false, and is indeed completely delusional. State and local property taxes on land and other property have existed since the founding of the nation. (Note: There is essentially no federal property tax.)

The term "allodial title" is a technical legal term. Neither Nevada nor any other state offers a way to eliminate future tax on land in the way described in the material quoted above. Of course, a particular state might have a constitutional provision that negates the possibility of a property tax, or an income tax, or a sales tax, etc. (for example, the Texas Constitution prohibits a personal income tax), but that is a separate issue.

For background, see:

Per the consensus at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tax_protester/Request_for_comment

this kind of tax protester rhetoric should be removed on sight. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "libertyforlife" web site that was cited appears to be completely unreliable for purposes of Wikipedia. It appears to be copying copyrighted material from what is found (or was formerly found) at the fraudulent "thelawthatneverwas" web site. So, the material is also apparently objectionable on copyright and reliability grounds as well. Famspear (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]