🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:

>>I would assume it's up to the courts to determine what is or
>>is not required by the laws of any given jurisdiction. There is
>>no question that there is an Internal Revenue Code in your country,
>>and that it was enacted by your federal legislators. Whether it
>>requires filing, and what filing it requires, can obviously be
>>determined by the courts.

And friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) replies:

>	Actually, I think you missed a bet here. Schiff's statements
>are actually irrelevent, at least in my understanding of legal
>language. The true relevent question is whether the tax code contains
>the single word "shall" anywhere in reference to filing returns. As I
>understand the accepted usage in legal documents, the word "shall" by
>itself is sufficient to create a legal requirement, no other terminology
>is needed. I rather strongly suspect that the tax code *does* use the
>word "shall" quite frequently throughout, in which case any court in
>the US, and probably most other countries as well, would rule that the
>code is setting up required actions, even in the absence of explicit
>criminal penalties.

No, I didn't miss that point. But those who claim the tax is unconsti-
tutional are entitled to have their claim heard, and that is precisely
what the court is for. As has been pointed out by another poster, the
use of "shall" will not necessarily create an obligation (for example,
if that obligation is in conflict with your Constitution). Again: that's
why we have courts, to interpret the statute. And the courts in the U.S.
have obviously interpreted the Internal Revenue Code and determined
that the obligations it appears to create are indeed valid.

Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
{ ihnp4!utzoo  pesnta  utcs  hcr  decvax!utcsri  } !lsuc!dave