Synopsis of the income tax code and requirements for filing.
I suggest you obtain the following material (minimally) to fully understand these arguments and to have a confident and firm ability to make your stand against tyranny: "Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?" by Phil Hart, "Cracking The Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America! by Peter Hendrickson, as well as several dozen other books and websites available on the subject which have helped to lead us all to understand the depth of the deception.
Emphasis throughout is mine. Key words or definitions to pay close attention to are bolded and/or "quoted." These words relate to legal definitions and constitutional terms that are often used to confuse and mislead.
Businesses and other organizations spend more than six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs conservatively top $225 billion annually-costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid by consumers. This alone is a monumental drain on the average American's resources. The IR Code itself is a monstrous piece of convoluted reading that very few, if any, human being can fully understand, let alone even read.
However, we have learned over the years to believe that "income taxes" are a normal, natural part of life... like they say, "nothing is sure but death and taxes." However, today, a growing body of well educated attorneys, X-IRS agents, CPA's, and others have begun to challenge this "conventional wisdom" about income taxes, by researching the actual IR Code book, statutory law, case law and Congressional records to determine the actual facts in America for what most Americans have "volunteered" to declare themselves by willingly filling their yearly 1040 forms... "taxpayers," and which NONE have proven they actually, legally, owe:
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority." The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947)
Question: HAVE YOU EVER PROVEN WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY LEGALLY OWE INCOME TAXES? Have you investigated the IR Code book (26 U.S.C.) yourself, or have you, like the rest of us, taken what you were told as "truth" and simply paid income taxes all your life?
This "brief" enters into the "ascertainment" mentioned in the court case above by supplying as much factual and legal information as is available on the subject of income taxation. The difficulty with which any normal individual of normal intelligence has to make sound judgments regarding their lawful duty to the IR Code and the Constitution is profound, and most have neither the time, and most often, not even the inclination to challenge what virtually EVERY American hates, and did NOT vote for... "Income Taxes."To begin with, let's be clear that Income taxation is a valid and Constitutional form of taxation when applied Constitutionally and legally, without fraud and deception. However, the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is ONLY within the legally and constitutionally defined "borders" of the "United States".
"And be it further enacted That there shall be levied collectedly and paid annually, upon the annual gains, profits, or "income" of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any professions trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever..." Revenue Act of 1862, Income Duty, Sec, 90.
This means income taxes ARE legal, but there are bounds as to where and to whom these taxes apply. We will discuss "jurisdiction" later on in this brief.Now, lets take a look at the IRS mission statements:
18.104.22.168.1 (Approved 12-18-1993)
1. Mission of the Service: Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.
[OK... stop snickering.]
2. Tax matters will be handled in a manner that will promote public confidence [or public terror, whichever is easier]: All tax matters between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service are to be resolved within established administrative and judicial channels. Service employees, in handling such matters in their official relations with taxpayers or the public, will conduct themselves in a manner that will promote public confidence in themselves and the Service. Employees will be impartial and will not use methods which are threatening or harassing in their dealings with the public.
1. Conclusions reached by examiners must reflect correct application of the law, regulations, court cases, revenue rulings, etc. Examiners must correctly determine the meaning of statutory provisions and not adopt strained interpretation.
22.214.171.124.2 (Approved 11-26-1979)
1. The public impact of clarity, consistency, and impartiality in dealing with tax problems must be given high priority: In dealing with the taxpaying public, Service officials and employees will explain the position of the Service clearly and take action in a way that will enhance voluntary compliance... [Like, "we must be missing something here under 861..."?] Internal Revenue Service officials and employees must bear in mind that the public impact of their official actions can have an effect on respect for tax law and on voluntary compliance far beyond the limits of a particular case or issue.
126.96.36.199.4 (Approved 03-14-1991)
1. Timeliness and Quality of Taxpayer Correspondence: The Service will issue quality responses to all taxpayer correspondence.
2. Taxpayer correspondence is defined as all written communication from a taxpayer or his/her representative, excluding tax returns, whether solicited or unsolicited. This includes taxpayer requests for information, as well as that which may accompany a tax return; responses to IRS requests for information; and annotated notice responses.
3. A quality response is timely, accurate, professional in tone, responsive to taxpayer needs (i.e., resolves all issues without further contact).
188.8.131.52.7 (Approved 11-04-1977)
1. Information provided taxpayers on the application of the tax law: The Service will develop and conduct effective programs to make available to all taxpayers comprehensive, accurate, and timely information on the requirements of tax law and regulations.
The IRS claims its "mission" is to help us to understand and comply with the tax laws. This is, in and of itself, a fat lie, and the IRS is failing in that mission miserably. Let's now go to the Constitution of the United States of America to see what it tells us about "income" taxation:
The Constitution clearly defines only TWO forms of taxation:
Direct, according to apportionment, and Indirect, according to uniformity, period.
This means there are ONLY two ways for the government to tax the American people.
Contrary to what is commonly promoted by the IRS and many others involved in the income tax scheme, the 16th Amendment creates no new classification of taxes under the Constitution and we are therefore still left only with direct and indirect taxes. The 16th Amendment did NOT change the Constitutional tax laws or open the door for a new type of taxation. The 16th Amendment has been misquoted and misused:
"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; (That of being able to tax people outside direct and indirect, as they are being taxed today - JTM) that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulations of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..."
"But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it -(the 16th Amendment), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the (16th) Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..." S. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847 (US Dist. Ct. S.D., N.Y., 1917); U.S. 330 (1918)
"The legislative history merely shows that the words 'from whatever source derived' of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to the federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable." [South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988) (footnote 13)]
"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, (Brushaber), it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another." Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918.
This means income taxes are an INDIRECT tax, as court cases uphold, and therefore falls within the "uniformity" requirement to be legal and constitutional, which it is NOT. It also ONLY applies to the other constitutional and congressional record definitions of what "income" is and how it should be taxed, which we will discuss shortly.
"...Taxation on income is in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such" (in other words "indirectly" -- as a tax upon the optional exercise of a privilege which comes FROM the federal government.)
"The terms "excise tax" and "privilege tax" are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably. American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880
"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privilege. "Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911).
"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common rights but is an excise tax... The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, (such as unearned income) but it has no power to declare as 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right." Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925);
"The income taxes is, therefore, not a tax on income such, It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580.
"When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excises it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself but rather it is a fee for the privilege of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property." John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney with the Library of Congress, "Frequently Asked Questions
"The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid." Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Apportionment is a term regarding DIRECT TAXES, meaning to portion out according to the census. Example: Say the government needs one billion dollars. This amount is then divided up according to the population of each state. New York might hypothetically have eight million people, while Missouri has three million. Apportioning the total income taxes needed would mean that New York would pay a higher percentage of the total tax bill than would Missouri. Each individual's share in Missouri would be lower per person than New York residents. This is the LEGAL "fair share" concept for income taxes.
Today, however, income taxes are NOT collected according to apportionment.
Uniformity is the term regarding INDIRECT taxes, meaning that EVERYONE is charged the SAME amount across the country, regardless of any other criteria. An example of this would be taxes on liquor or cigarettes. These taxes are ALL uniformly collected in every state of the country.
Income taxes are NOT uniformly collected across the country. Income taxes are legally an "excise" tax and can legally ONLY be collected according to uniformity.
Next, we need to ask, "Where does the Federal Government have jurisdiction and to whom do the "People" owe allegiance?"
Legally, most Americans are NOT citizens of the "United States" as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701
"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."
"In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17." Bevans v. United States, 16 U.S. 336 (1818).
"State": The term "State" shall be construed to "include" the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title." 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701
United States: The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes [is limited to] only the States, (see definition for "state" above) and the District of Columbia. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701
The above court ruling supports the fact that "United States" has at LEAST two different meanings.
"A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949)
Foreign government: "The government of the United States of America, as distinguished from the government of the several states." (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition)
Foreign Laws: "The laws of a foreign country or sister state." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
Foreign States: "Nations outside of the United States" Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state. The term 'foreign nations,' ...should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)
The Federal Government has jurisdiction ONLY over what the states and "People" concede to it...
"Almost a century ago, Congress declared that "the right of expatriation [including expatriation from the District of Columbia or "U.S. Inc,"the corporation] is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and decreed that "any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government." 15 Stat. 223-224 (1868), R.S. 1999, 8 U.S.C. 800 (1940). Although designed to apply especially to the rights of immigrants to shed their foreign nationalities, that Act of Congress "is also broad enough to cover, and does cover, the corresponding natural and inherent right of American citizens to expatriate themselves." Savorgnan v. United States, 1950, 338 U.S. 491, 498 note 11, 70 S. Ct. 292, 296, 94 L. Ed. 287. The Supreme Court has held that the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940 "are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed." Id., 338 U.S. at pages 498-499, 70 S. Ct. at page 296.That same light, I think, illuminates 22 U.S.C.A. 211a and 8 U.S.C.A. 1185." Walter Briehl v. John Foster Dulles, 284 F2d 561, 583 (1957).
"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction." New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, (1836)
"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal government or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State the Federal Government possess no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the States, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property." The Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States."
In other words, the Federal Government has little jurisdiction over State affairs unless the State concedes that jurisdiction through legal channels. Even if such concessions are made, the constitution STILL controls WHO is taxable and HOW. Therefore, most citizens of the several states are NOT citizens of the "United States," (as defined in the IR Code and supported by Supreme Court case law) and therefore NOT liable for federal income taxes as promoted and enforced.
Let's now review the Internal Revenue Code book for some clues as to who is and who is NOT subject to the income tax:
The IR code makes a point to hide meanings and definitions...
Sec. 7806. - Construction of title (b) Arrangement and classification
Here we have confusing but precise language that tells us the fact that related items of law in the code may well be dispersed throughout the code and that this "arrangement" doesn't change the actual law.
In other words, to paraphrase, "just because in assembling one big mock-up of a few hundred actual laws scattered (read "hidden") throughout the code, we may have obscured the (actual) legal requirements placed on people reflected therein, don't make the mistake of thinking that those requirements have changed from the constitutional law's requirements." This is the government's way of claiming innocence regarding any possible "misunderstanding" MANY millions of people make every year about the requirement to file "income" taxes. (After all, the code DOES have the actual law there, just in a distorted, confusing and deceptive form which all Americans, after all, "should be aware of" according to the government.) WELL, NOW YOU WILL BE "AWARE."
Some definitions of KEY words are necessary in order to understand who is being discussed in the IR Code book. Keep in mind that subtrafuge, deceit and confusion are the tools the IRS attorneys use to make the tax issue one which most do not understand neither could understand without a great deal of research.
3401(c) "Employee: For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision hereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
3401(d) Employer: For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any services, of whatever nature, as the "Employee" (as defined above) of such person...),
(26) Trade or business: term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office."
3121)(e) United States: The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.)
This states clearly that ONLY people working for the government as a government or state official... or performing the function of a public office... are liable for "income" taxes. It also must be understood that once a law or statute is defined or explained ONCE in the IR Code, subsequent "elaboration" of the definitions does NOT have to continue the same definition and can, thereby, mislead in the "common" understanding of common terms used in the IR Code.
The word "includes" in the above definitions does NOT mean "what is written and anything else you might imagine to be a part of this clause." It means what it says...
"Include," or the participial form thereof is defined to comprise within "to hold," "to contain," "to shut up," and synonyms are "contain," "enclose," "comprehend," "embrace." J.S. Supreme Court, Montillo Salt co. v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452, at 466.
"Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition...
"Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion. "Russello v. United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983)
"The united States Supreme Court (and the IRS) cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute." Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 US SS, p. 55, 475042/56451 (1959)
"Includes is a word of limitation. Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, 'including' the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement. Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under 'limitations'."
Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as:
"(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace(2) To enclose within; contain; confine But granting that the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language...The word 'including' is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing."
"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen." Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153.
In other words, "includes" means ONLY what is stated in the code section as defined and DOES NOT presume to include those things which are NOT specifically stated. These definitions clearly show who is subject to the "income" tax and who is NOT. So we are left to wade through case law precedent to try to understand what is actually legally taxable "income"...
In fact, the term "income" is NOT defined in the entire IR code:
"The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." US v Ballard, 535 F2d 400, 404, (1976)
"...income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and "profits' (as defined in the code) is to limit the meaning of the word 'income." S. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 F. 330. (1918)
"...Taxation on income is in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such" (in other words indirectly as a tax upon an optional exercise of privilege, and taxed uniformly across the country to everyone.)
"Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every persons, this right cannot be taxed as privilege."(Excise or "income" tax) Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T, MacFarland, Commissioner, 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 Sup. Court of Tennessee (1960)
In other words, income taxation is legally and constitutionally ONLY on privilege, i.e. Corporate profits (after expenses and salaries) and unearned income "from whatever source derived" - 16th amendment, and is also ONLY on those serving in a public office or working for the government.
"A tax upon the privilege of selling property at the exchange,...differs radically from a tax upon every sale made in any place." "A sale at an exchange differs from a sale made at a man's private office or on his farm, or by a partnerships because, although the subject matter of the sale may be the same in each case, there are at an exchange certain advantages, in the way of finding a market, obtaining a price, the saving of time, and in the security of payments and other matters, which are more easily obtained there than at an office or a farm." Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 (1899)
Further misdirection takes place with misunderstanding normal words we have common understanding of. Keep in mind the bolded key words we NEED to have proper IR Code-defined definitions for:
Sec. 3401. - Definitions
(a) Wages. Purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer,.. . c) (see 3401(c) and 3401(d))
Sec. 3121. - Definitions (a) Wages
For purposes of this chapters the term "wages" means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including beneath) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include ... [various pre-tax deductions]
For purposes of this chapters the term "employment" means any services of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (I) within the United States, or (ii) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft.. . or (B) outside the United States by a citizen or resident of the United States as an "employee" for an American "employer" (as defined in subsection (h)), ... (e) State, United States, and [Puerto Rican] citizen
For purposes of this chapter,
The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Pueblo Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
h) American employer
For purposes of this chapters the term "American employer" means an employer which is
(1) the United States or any instrumentality thereof
(2) an individual who is a resident of the United States, a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are residents of the United States,
(4) a trust, if all of the trustees are residents of the United States, or a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any State.
(30): United States "person."
The term "United States person" means:
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E) any trust, if;
(I) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.),'
The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
(When an element or a statute has once been promulgated anywhere in the IR code book, it remains the law, whether spelled out in a future version or not, unless explicitly repealed. This is one of their dirty little secrets which they can use to plead innocence for "deceit," after all, they claim, it is an American's responsibility to know and understand the law. AND THEY ARE RIGHT!!! They are pleased that most do NOT know ANYTHING about the IR Code book, let alone constitutional law.)
This brings us to the legal term, "Income."
The IR Code mentions...:
26 CFR 39.21-1 (1956).. Meaning of net income. (a) The tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law - (the Constitution), nor expenses incurred in connection therewith, other than interest (which is unearned... and fits the actual legal definition for "income."), enter into the computation of net Income as defined by section 21
26 CFR 39.22(b)-1 Exemption--Exclusions from gross income. Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal government;"
Today's regulations put it this way: CFR ~ 1.61-1 (Current)
Gross income. General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever source derived unless excluded by law.
The People have to ask, "what is this "Income" "under the Constitution, which is "excluded by law," and "not taxable by the Federal government?" Can this "income" be defined and explained in law or the IR Code?
Further, the IR Code defines key words in the code, only briefly, and then presumes that everyone will understand what these words mean, based on presumption and today's meaning, without taking into consideration the actual IR Code definitions which are interspersed throughout the code:
Section 22 GROSS INCOME:
(a): Gross income includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service..."
Gross Income Defined: Section 213. That for the purposes of this title (except as otherwise provided in section 233, [Gross Income Of Corporations Defined -PH]) the term gross income-(a) includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, and compensation for personal service (including in the case of the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as such).
Said "gains, profits, and income" are all classified as being "DERIVED FROM" salaries, wages or compensation..." This is in keeping with the original intent of the 16th Amendment and what the so-called "Income" tax was designed for. Example; You receive a wage. That is NOT taxable because it diminishes the principle, the source for real income. However, you save your money, and place it into an account that collects interest. The interest IS taxable as this is "income" as defined by law and intent of law. example 2; You own an apartment complex. Your complex is NOT directly taxable, but the INCOME FROM this property IS taxable. The key is that the "principle" CANNOT be reduced by the tax... i.e. you cannot "go into the whole" in payment of true, legal 'income' taxes." How many people have lost their homes because they couldn't make the "property tax" payments, even where they owned their homes outright? That is unconstitutional, not to mention unethical and immoral.
"It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not "income"... Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920).
"It has to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." The United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
"Simply put, pay from a job is a 'wage,' and wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation (wages and salaries)." - Conner v. U.S. 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)
The original intent of the founders of the Constitution was NOT to tax wages or salaries of the people of the several states. The word "income" had a completely different meaning back then, compared to what is presumed to be the meaning today. Not only Supreme Court Case law, but hundreds of Congressional Records of the time (as shown in "Constitutional Income: Do you have any?) clearly show what the "income" tax was understood to be:
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. (1943)
"It is not a function of the United States Supreme Court to sit as a super-legislature and create statutory distinctions where none were intended. " American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 US 63, 71 L Ed 2d 748, 102 S Ct. 1534 (1982)
"...income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words "gains" and "profits" is to limit the meaning of the word "income." S. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 F. 330. (1918)
Gains, profits, and income all relate back to one another as being equal, and quite distinct from "wages and salaries." Working for wages or salaries or other compensation to provide for family and livelihood was NOT "income" nor intended to be taxed...
"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right,... It has been well said that the propels which every man has in his own labors as it is the original foundation of all other property, (without said property, no "wealth or "income" cold be gained) so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." Butcher Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883):
"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property:" Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915):
Such property was NOT to be taxes, but the "gains, profits, and income" from such property WAS available to be taxed.
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).
"Privilege" was what could be taxed by the "income" tax. Such privilege was NOT the "RIGHT" to work. "Right" and "privilege" are two distinctly different things.
It was not the intention of the American people to tax the wages and salaries of the working man, but ONLY to reach the "gains, profits and unearned income" of the country... something that was fought by big business and the wealthy of the country, and something which most people in the nation did NOT have...
"For 1936, taxable income tax returns filed represented only 3.9% of the population."... "The largest portion of consumer incomes in the United States is not subject to income taxation. Likewise, only a small proportion of the population of the United States is covered by the income tax." Treasury Department's Division of Tax Research publication, "Collection at Source of the Individual Normal Income Tax," 1941.
Are we to believe that only 3.9% of the entire population of America worked for a living, making wages and salaries in 1936? Despite the incorrect definition/use for the word "income" the Treasury Dept clearly shows how "incomes," while mis-defined, also shows that wages and salaries (what they believed to be income) were not yet the focus of "income" taxes.
Constitutional income" means what We the People say it means. Any word or term used in the Constitution has the meaning the People intended that word or term to mean at the time the Constitution was ratified. Or, in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, we use the words therein as the American People understood them to mean at the time the amendment was ratified by the several States. To understand what the meaning of the word "income" is, we must examine the history of income taxes in America prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
"It has to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." The United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
"Income" as the framers and people of America understood it, was not "all that comes in"... (S. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 F. 330. (1918)) but was, as The United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), above, states it, was "gains and profits DERIVED FROM salaries, wages, etc." In other words, wages were NOT income, but interest FROM wages sitting in a bank, or rent received FROM property, or interest FROM a loan to another WAS "INCOME"...
"All are agreed that an income tax is a direct tax on gain or profits..." Bank of America National T. & Sav. Ass'n. V United States, 459 F.2d 513, 517 (Ct.Cl 1972).
Mr. HEFLIN. An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share." 45 Congressional Record. 4420 (1909)
INCOME TAX: A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices." Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary 612 (1910).
INCOME TAX: An "income tax" is a tax which relates to product or income from property or from business pursuits. Levi v. City of Louisville, 30 S.W. 973, 974, 97 Ky. 394, 28 L.R.A. 480.
"There can be no tax upon a man's right to live and earn his bread by the sweat of his brow." O'Connell v. State Bd. of Equalization, 25 P.2d 114, 125 (Mont. 1933).
"The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the ' fruit. The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed...and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat... it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit." Waring v. Citv of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878).
The point being made is that the tree (Wages, salaries, compensation) is NOT taxable, while the "fruit" of the tree CAN be.
"The poor man or the man in moderate circumstances does not regard his wages or salary as an income that would have to pay its proportionate tax under this new system." Gov. A.E. Wilson on the Income Tax (16th) Amendment, N.Y. Times, Part 5, Page 13, February 26, 1911.
"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. V. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purpose of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Stratton's' Independence v. Howbeit, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. V. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921)
Now, let's notice some founding father's statements and court rulings regarding the concept of "income" and what rights we have regarding that "income:"
"The privilege of giving or withholding our money is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, and how important would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator." Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775, Papers 1:225.
"If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." Continental Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province Of Quebec. Journals of the Continental Congress. 1774 -1789. Journals 1: 105-13.
"Although the [enforcement] power provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are to be liberally construed, a court must be careful to insure that its construction will not result in a use of the power beyond that permitted by law." United States v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 488 F.2d 953 at 958 (5th Cir. 1974).
"Under the facts and the law, the Court should satisfy itself, via sworn testimony of the Defendant, that the IRS is not acting arbitrarily and capriciously, and that there was a plausible reason for believing fraud is being practiced on the revenue. The Court is free to act in a judicial capacity, free to disagree with the administrative enforcement actions if a substantial question is raised or the minimum standard is not met. The District Court reserves the right to prevent the "arbitrary" exercise of administrative power, by nipping it in the bud." United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 654.
"The IRS at all times must use the enforcement authority in good-faith pursuit of the authorized purposes of Code." U.S. v. La Salle N.B., 437 U.S. 298 (1978).
"A statute must be set out in terms that the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with, without sacrifice to the public interest." See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 159, 40 L. Ed. 2d 15, 94 S. Ct. 1633 (1974) (quoting United States Civil Serv. Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 579, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796, 93 S. Ct. 2880 (1973).
The IRS has consistently gone contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling, as well as the Constitution, regarding Due Process and supposed tax debt.
Let's see what the Constitution and Supreme Court states clearly about laws that are contrary to our constitution...
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That which is contrary to the constitution.
When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void. 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18.
The courts have the power, and it is their duty, when an act is unconstitutional, to declare it to be so; but this will not be done except in a clear case and, as an additional guard against error, the supreme court of the United States refuses to take up a case involving constitutional questions, when the court is not full. 9 Pet. 85. Vide 6 Cranch, 128; 1 Binn. 419; 5 Binn. 355; 2 Penns 184; 3 S. & R. 169; 7 Pick. 466; 13 Pick. 60; 2 Yeates, 493; 1 Virg. Cas. 20; 1 Blackf. 206 6 Rand. 245 1 Murph. 58; Harper, 385 1 Breese, 209 Pr. Dee. 64, 89; 1 Rep. Cons. Ct. 267 1 Car. Law Repos. 246 4 Munr. 43; 5 Hayw. 271; 1 Cowen, 550; 1 South. 192; 2 South. 466; 7 N H. Rep. 65, 66; 1 Chip, 237, 257; 10 Conn. 522; 7 Gill & John. 7; 2 Litt. 90; 3 Desaus. 476.
The US House of Representatives' Office of the Law Revision Counsel observes that of the 50 titles in the US Code, only 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49 have been enacted as positive law, leaving a 27 title majority both un-enacted, and often lacking published rules for significant sections. This means it is NOT actual law, and title 26, the "income tax" title, is NOT positive law!
Notice these Supreme Court rulings:
1. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to super cede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) (Emphasis above mine- JTM)
2. "THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
"...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void' (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170).
3. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding." Article six of the U.S. Constitution.
4. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
5.The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
6. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
"The construction of a statute by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong, especially when Congress has refused to alter the administrative construction, and such deference is particularly appropriate where an agency's interpretation involves issues of considerable public controversy and Congress has not acted to correct any misperception of its statutory objectives." CBS, INC. v. FCC, 453 US 367 (1981)
There are countless "compelling" indications that the income tax system, as being implemented and enforced, is not only "wrong," but illegal, and thus far, no corrections to this have been forthcoming, despite years of repeated attempts to bring the law and facts to Congress and the IRS.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due
process of law."
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and
collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. The latter
are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers and no
attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of
law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the
subject nor of the object of the revenue laws."
I provide this brief as "Prima facie" evidence that the income tax, as being applied, is both fraudulent and deceptive...
Prima facie = "Evidence that is sufficient to raise a fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted." Lectric Law Library;
"A fact presumed to be true unless displaced by some evidence to the contrary." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition)
Keep in mind that ALL of this evidence has been provided to the Federal government, the IRS, the Treasury Department, EVERY member of Congress, and other agencies, and so far, only neglect, or threats and force have been forthcoming.
The IRS has consistently used "terrorist" procedures to force, coerce, intimidate, and perform unconstitutional and illegal searches and seizures in its approximate 90 years of existence. It's own code comments on such "TERRORISM":
Terrorism = "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce... the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 CFR 0.85(l)).
Here is a court ruling against the IRS for its customary practice of trying to enforce an illegal summons:
The IRS has recently been corrected on the issue of all administrative orders it issues WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, which is virtually every order it issues:
"...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to "taxpayers," and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order [a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing." (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv)
In conjunction with this, the Court included ALL administrative actions by the IRS:
"Any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties 'so heavy as to prohibit resort to that remedy,' Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Schulz v. IRS and Anthony Roundtree.
Don't be misled by the term "taxpayer," as this is customary language to reinforce the concept that "all" people are "taxpayers," as the IR Code tries to make out, but this is NOT true.
The Constitution prohibits capitations and other direct taxes without apportionment. The Supreme Court has declared the meaning of "income" to be fixed and confined to objects proper to an excise. Objects proper to an "income" excise are privileges-- which is to say, activities not of common right-- and even then only to the extent that such activities are profitable and properly fall under the taxing authority's jurisdiction; Consequently, the only lawful object of the "income" tax is activity for which one is paid by the federal government; activity effectively connected with the performance of the functions of a public office, such as being an officer of a federal court; activity as a federal, federal instrumentality, or federally chartered "State" worker; or activity as a paid officer of a federal corporation. It can also be what is "derived FROM" income or property, as described above. Lastly, it MUST be collected according to constitutional mandate.
How do I legally conform to the constitution and pay any legally due "income" taxes, (as the IRS and common thought has dictated "income" to be) via uniformity because of "income" taxes being an indirect tax, when I have no basis on which to pay this tax, and how do I override the Supreme Court's code of law on exactly what "income" tax is (as defined by case law and Congressional testimony sited above) and the legal and constitutional means by which it should be paid? "Income" was originally defined and understood to be profit from "capital" - the money taxed was money (Profit above expenses)"derived" from sources of capital, leaving the principle unreduced, and is NOT "all that comes in."
The "voluntary" nature of the filing of income tax returns has been misapplied, and coercion has been used to continue the facade that "voluntary" means, "You must comply." Notice. . .
"Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers' belief that the tax laws they follow apply to everyone and that the Internal Revenue Service will respect and protect their rights under the law. These are fundamental principles of voluntary compliance." Internal Revenue Manual, Part 5, Collection Activity 184.108.40.206 (07/27/98)
"The income tax system is based upon voluntary compliance, not distraint." United States Supreme Court, Flora v, United States, 362 US 145.
Being unable to declare private-sector, unprivileged activities to be subject to the tax, or to-- itself-- declare that a private-sector individual is engaged in taxable activities, the government instead attempts to cause private-sector individuals to legally declare-- for themselves-- that payments with which they are associated involved taxable activities. This is accomplished by inducing such persons to erroneously, and sometimes criminally, issue affirmations about themselves and others-- under oath and penalty of perjury-- to the effect that their payments or receipts occurred as government workers, in connection with the performance of a public office, or while resident in an area under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, such as the District of Columbia. This is what is meant by "voluntary compliance" with the income tax-- citizens under no obligation to do so voluntarily participate in, or leave unchallenged, the processes by which their untaxable receipts are transformed into taxable benefits of privilege.
"The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system-- Jerome Kurtz, IRS Commissioner,
"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance." Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner
"Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns..."Johnnie Walters, IRS Commissioner.
"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply." Testimony of Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, before the House Ways and Means committee on Restructuring the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953).
The careful and deliberate use of the phrase "voluntary compliance" by the IRS is instructive. It is intended, as is so much else associated with the modern administration of the "income" tax, to confuse and mislead-- in this case by suggesting that we choose to comply with a legal obligation without too much fuss, or the like. However, "voluntary" means that individuals comply as a matter of choice because: they cannot be forced to do so... as one complies with a request. Such language would not be used under any circumstances were compliance actually required. Under the mystical self-contradictory reading of the phrase which the government would prefer that we accept and not examine too closely, every law in the country could be described as relying upon voluntary compliance. They are not so described, because they are not so reliant. The assignment of taxable status to otherwise untaxable revenue-productive activities, self-assessment of the resulting tax, and the filing of related income tax return by private-sector individuals are so described because they are voluntary.
Voluntary compliance can only respond to a request or as a choice. It cannot and does not respond to a requirement. The word "voluntary," which connotes an agreement, implies willingness, volition, and intent. It suggests a freedom of choice and refers to the doing of something which a person is free to do or not to do, as he so decides.
"In its legal aspect, and as commonly used in law, the word 'voluntary' is defined as meaning gratuitous; without valuable consideration; acting, or done, of one's own free will without valuable consideration, acting, or done, without any present legal obligation to do the thing done." Corpus Juris Secundum (C..J.S. 92: 1029, 1030, 1031)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, (PRA), each and every government form that is used to collect information from the general public under law must be linked to its authorizing statutes and implementing regulations and have a valid Office of Management and Budget "OMB" Form number. This requirement of law provides an orderly means to identify which statutes, regulations and forms are related.
As one item of evidence, a stamped copy of a 1987 Treasury Department document entitled, "Request for OMB Review" which is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The request was for IRS Form "1040-NR,"the tax form used by Non-Resident Aliens to report their "income."
Several things about this document are noteworthy:
1. The form used for the request is OMB Form "83"
2. On line 5 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the statutes actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing statutes are, in fact, cited.
3. On line 27 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the regulations actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing regulations are, in fact, cited.
The "Challenge of Authority" document also contains a similar Treasury PRA request from 1996, but this one is for the "regular" IRS Individual Form 1040 that millions of Americans file each year.
This Treasury administrative request is not made on OMB "Form 83" ---- but rather using an alternate OMB form, "83-1" titled, "Paperwork Reduction Act Submission".
Several very important differences between the OMB request forms need to be noted:
1. OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of statutory authority.
2. OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of regulatory authority.
3. In the "Certification" box found on page 2 of Form 83-1, there are specific references to both PRA Regulations "5 CFR 1320.9" and "5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)."
4. The attachments to this OMB Form 83-1 request consist primarily of a list of Title 26 (Income Tax) regulations and statutes that are merely (quoting) "associated" with IRS Form 1040.
IRS Form 1040-NR (for Non-Resident Aliens) is certified as complying with the requirements of the PRA found at regulation 5 CFR 1320.8. In its request to the OMB for IRS Form "1040-NR,"the Department of Treasury (IRS) clearly cites both the statutory and regulatory authorities authorizing the use of the form to collect information and certifies its request as such.Please specifically note that for the Treasury's request using alternative OMB Form 83-1 for IRS Individual Form 1040, the Treasury has formally certified the request under regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, which is explicitly reserved for "PROPOSED" government forms.
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Revised as of January 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 5 CFR 1320.9] [Page 155]
TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
PART 1320_CONTROLLING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC--
Table of Contents
Sec. 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of information.
As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior Official, or their designee) shall certify and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information [...]
In short, if IRS Individual Form 1040 was actually authorized
under U.S. law, the Department of Treasury would have submitted it for OMB
certification using OMB "Form 83" which requires explicit citation of the
Form's authorizing statutes and regulations.
Furthermore, even though an attachment to the Treasury's request for IRS Form 1040 (on OMB Form 83-1) contains a lengthy list of statutes and regulations, and "Box 12" on the form is marked indicating the form is "mandatory,"a careful reading of the submission to OMB will make it clear that the Department of Treasury is ONLY certifying that:
. Form 1040 is a "proposed form" and that, IF authorized, it would meet the collection criteria established by regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, and
. That Form 1040 is only "associated" with the statutes and regulations cited in the 1040 request, and If Form 1040 were actually authorized by law, it would be "mandatory".
As a final observation, it should be noted that both the 1987 Form 1040-NR
request as well as the 1996 Form 1040 request were signed by the same IRS
officials, one Garrick R. Shear, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer and one
Lois K. Holland as/for the Departmental Reports Management Officer.
The IR Code nowhere legally makes the average American liable for income taxes upon wages and salaries of any kind, including self-employment wages, or service wages. If it does, it has not been made clear at all in the IR Code. Based on definitions, Supreme Court case law and the Constitutional requirements for taxation, there is NO evidence to suggest that the IR Code makes me liable for taxes on my wages, salary or service income. There is, also, evidence to suggest that since I am NOT a government employee, "income" tax can not be applied to my wages or salary.
This, and hundreds of other pages of questions have been posed to the IRS, the U.S. Attorney General, Colorado State Attorney General, State Congress and Senate leaders, attorney office and media leaders for the past 3 years, to NO avail.
If I cannot receive answers to my questions on these relevant issues, I can only conclude that my assessment of the IR Code and Constitution are correct as applied and that I am NOT liable for any form of income tax, until the IRS and U.S. Government answers, legally and constitutionally, these questions.
Evidence taken from Phil Hart's book, "Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?"
Fact #1: "In examining the history of the debate and ratification of the 16th Amendment, this book will show that there is no evidence upon which the government can rely for their claim that the American People desired to have their wages and salaries taxed. No evidence can be found in the law journals of the time, not in the journals on political economy or economics, not in the Congressional Record nor other Congressional documents, nor in any of the newspapers of record of the time. In other words, the government's position that wages and salaries equals income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment is 'wholly without foundation.'" Phil Hart, Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any? page 10, (Alpine Press, 2001).Fact #2: A tax on wages payable by the wage earner is a Capitation Tax. So says the premier authority on the issue, Adam Smith author of the timeless work Wealth of Nations. Ibid. pp. 141-145.
Fact #3: Capitation Taxes are direct taxes and are required by the Constitution to be apportioned among the 50 States. The 16th Amendment had nothing to do with Capitation Taxes. Ibid. pp. 250 - 253.
Fact #4: In the few hours just prior to the Senate's passage of the 16th Amendment the morning of July 5, 1909, the Senate twice by vote rejected two separate proposals to include direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment. Ibid. pp. 193-200.
Fact #5: In briefs and argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, both Brushaber and the Government claimed that the 16th Amendment provided for a direct tax exempted from the Constitutional apportionment rule. The High Court called this claim an "erroneous assumption...wholly without foundation." Ibid. pp. 204-210.
Fact #6: Just weeks after the Brushaber Case was decided, Mr. Stanton, in the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. again claimed (35 times) that the 16th Amendment created a new class of constitutional tax, that being a direct tax exempted from the apportionment rule. The High Court said in this case that the 16th Amendment created "no new tax." Ibid. pp. 212-220.
Fact #7: In the Stanton and Brushaber Cases, the Supreme Court ruled correctly by excluding direct taxes from the 16th Amendment. The intent of the American People and that of Congress was never to directly tax the American People, but only to tax income severed from accumulated wealth. Ibid. pp. 244 - 270.
Fact #8: When the Supreme Court stated in the Eisner, Stanton, and Doyle Cases that "Income may be derived from capital, or labor or from both combined" all these cases dealt with corporations and had nothing to do with the "Are wages income?" question. Ibid. pp. 239-244 and 272-274.
Fact #9: The genesis of the 16th Amendment was the income tax plank of the Democrat Party's Presidential Platform of 1908 which clearly reveals the intent of that Amendment: "We favor an income tax as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportional share of the burdens of the federal government." Ibid. p. 48.
Fact #10: There is not, and never has been, any delegation of authority from We the People to the government for the collection of an unapportioned direct tax on the wages and salaries of the American People. It has been a maxim of English Law since the Magna Carta of 1215, that the People must consent to all taxation. "We are being taxed without our Consent!"
The IRS is guilty of the following minimum illegal activities:
Given the above IR Code discussion, case law, Congressional record, and laws violated, is it any wonder that Americans of average intelligence are questioning their legal and constitutional requirements to pay "income" taxes? All these issues and more have been presented respectfully, over the past 5 years, to the IRS, the President, the Vice President, every member of the House and Senate, the U.S. Attorney General, many State AG's, the media, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, civil and religious leaders and countless tax "experts" and there have been NO answers forthcoming to date.
This is why there is now a class action law suit, "We The People vs The United States Government, et al," on these and other unconstitutional issues. To date these questions have been resisted, ignored, and condemned for over 5 years and the People have no recourse but to bring a "Redress of Grievance" to the government, which is our constitutional right and duty.
Be sure to join the class action law suit in progress at the site above and lend your voice to truth! Read about the details - PDF file.
This material is supplied "as is." It is NOT legal advice nor is it meant to be relied upon as sole evidence for the premise being made. You are a sovereign individual and responsible for your own education and actions. We highly advise you to research this material and the related books, as well as the other sources of information so you can make a firm, convicted decision on these matters.