So, you want to know the truth about America’s tax laws & tax system.

Introduction

So, you want to know the truth about America’s tax laws and income tax system. This book contains the absolute truth about the tax system. A truth that our government prays you will never learn, or even become aware of. The truth is; United States Citizens are not subject, under the letter of the law, to the payment of income taxes on domestic income, and are not required by law to file a Form 1040 for the purpose of reporting, or paying the income tax on, their own domestic income. The truth is the IRS has been a fraudulent, illegal operation for over 60 years. The truth is the IRS routinely violates the Law, the Regulations and the United States Constitution. The IRS is an operation that is more representative of the Nazi Gestapo than the American Constitution, routinely trampling the rights of innocent Citizens. The IRS is the most un-American agency in the country today and the sooner we are rid of this fraudulent lie the better off we will be as a nation.

The truth is that America’s tax filing system is based on voluntary compliance and self assessment, and that’s right from the IRS itself, which we’ll see later. But what does that actually mean, and why do they say that: "Voluntary compliance and self assessment." ?

Did you know, or did they tell you, that you "comply voluntarily", and self-assess ?

You see in America, under the law, the Citizens are free, and FREE means not taxed. If you don’t believe me, let's look and see what the tax laws actually say. Before we begin, I would just like to point out that I am not trying to tell anyone what they personally should do in the future. I’m simply going to show you what the law actually says about income taxes, how those laws are supposed to be applied, and then given what the law actually does say, what it is possible to legally do under those laws.

The Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme Law of the Land, establishes a limited federal government in America, representative of WE THE PEOPLE. Wherein, the Federal government is forever bound as the SERVANT of the PEOPLE, never to become their master. In this context, "Limited" means "bound by law" ! The IRS has turned this relationship upside down, effectively enslaving the People to the existing political system and parties, denying the People their FREE CHOICE ,and effectively creating a political system where it is virtually impossible to object to the activities of our supposedly representative government.

In the early centuries A.D. men feared the Fire Breathing Dragon, a great mythical creature of indeterminable and undefeatable power which burned individual men to ashes with a single breath. Today, believe it or not, we live with the same MYTH, about a "creature" of great and undefeatable power. Our DRAGON, our national curse and disgrace, our BEAST, is, of course, the IRS.

Most Americans fear the IRS out of ignorance of the law. Knowledge dispels hysterical fears of the unknown and makes possible the vanquishing of our foes. This information has been assembled in an effort to help all American Citizens overcome their own unfounded, hysterical fears of the IRS by making them knowledgeable about the law imposing income taxes, and how those laws affect you, the American Citizen. Once you know the TRUTH about the tax laws; the unconstitutional and illegal reign of terror orchestrated by the IRS in America for over 50 years will finally be over.

THE CODE HAS BEEN BROKEN !

The Paperwork Reduction Act Notice of 1980 is the key to exposing and understanding the truth about America's tax laws. The truth has been in print (the code) since 1916, and reaffirmed in print again recently. In 1985, when the IRS complied with the mandates of the Paperwork Reduction Act by providing to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the Table shown in 26 CFR 602.101, the stage was set to effect the end of the IRS in America. The IRS cannot ask you for more information, under any given code section, than this Table shows is required by that code section. This Table is from Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which implement the United States Code (USC) sections providing for the legal reduction of paperwork, and the administrative costs associated with its maintenance.

The following, showing the actual legal code sections that the IRS itself cites and invokes, should serve as proof beyond any reasonable doubt what-so-ever that the income tax laws are being intentionally misapplied to all American Citizens in America, in order to fund an unspoken, and un-American political agenda of socialist global control. To understand just how important the Paperwork Reduction Act is to the tax laws, keep in mind that since 1980 the IRS has been required by law to provide a notice of it (Notice 609) with every single piece of correspondence they issue to individuals. You can find a complete copy of this notice on Page 1 of any Form 1040 Tax Instruction Booklet. But, the IRS won’t tell you about the Code of Federal Regulations where you can lookup the information collection (form) requirements of any given code section. They just tell you that you’re supposed to know the law. Well, after reading this book, YOU WILL !

CHAPTER 1

IMPLEMENTATION

United States Code Annotated - General Index

Where does one begin an examination of the United States tax laws. The United States Code is voluminous and very complex. So, let us start at the beginning. Here, in the General Index for the United States Code Annotated from 1994, under the major heading Citizenship, we try to find an entry for Income Tax. But we only find:

CITIZENSHIP, cont'd.

........

Illegitimate Children 8 § 1409

Immigration, this index

Imprisonment,

Citizens by foreign governments 22 § 1732

Detention of Citizens prohibited except by

Act of Congress 18 § 4001

Indians,

Generally 8 § 1401

........

Where is income tax? There is nothing listed or shown for Income Tax in the General Index under 'Citizenship'. It would be there between 'Imprisonment' and 'Indians' if it existed. It’s not listed. There are no income tax code statutes shown here in the General Index as being applicable under 'Citizenship' because, as you will see, the income tax does not apply to a Citizen's domestic earnings and income earned by RIGHT, and the law accurately records that legal fact.

Here, in the General Index again, we see the entries for Citizens under the major heading Income Tax.

INCOME TAX, Cont'd.

.......

Citizens,

About to depart from U.S., waiver of requirements

as to termination of taxable year 26 § 6851

Living abroad, exclusion of earned income and

foreign housing costs from gross income 26 § 911

Civic Leagues,

....

How many code sections are shown here, in the General Index, as being applicable to Citizens under income tax? There are two sections, and they both have to do with what? They both have to do with foreign countries. So, here in the General Index for the Annotated Code, we immediately get our first indication that the income tax laws may be substantially different than what we have been led to believe is true by our government. Furthermore, if one looks up "Income Tax" under the major heading of "Aliens" in this General Index, one will find nine pages of code sections listed as being applicable, eight of those pages relate to income tax sections relevant to nonresident aliens.

Income Duty of 1861

Most people in America believe that income tax first started in America between 1913 and 1916. That is not correct. Income tax first appeared in the law at the beginning of the Civil War, in 1861. The text of the law read:

INCOME DUTY

§ SEC. 89. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of modifying and reenacting, as hereinafter provided, so much of an act, entitled "An act to provide increased revenue from imports to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved fifth of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, as relates to income tax;...

The first income tax was an income DUTY, imposed as a duty on revenue derived from foreign IMPORTS; imposed as a FOREIGN TAX DUTY. Duties are collected at the Ports of Entry to a nation, THEY ARE NOT IMPOSED ON DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES.

Also in the 1860s, in 1862, along with the Income Duty of 1861, Congress passed an Act into law that can only, and most accurately, be described as a Federal employment "Kickback" agreement. The text of the Act read:

The Federal Employee Kickback

Section 86. Salaries and Pay of Officers and Persons in the Service of the United States, and Passports.

§ SEC. 86. And be it further enacted, that on and after the first day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all salaries of officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or Service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress, when exceeding the rate of six hundred dollars per annum, a duty of three per centum on the excess above the said six hundred dollars; and it shall be the duty of all paymasters, and all disbursing officers, under the government of the United States or in the employ thereof, when making any payments to officers and persons as aforesaid, or upon settling or adjusting the accounts of such officers and persons, to deduct and withhold the aforesaid duty of three per centum, and shall, at the same time, make a certificate stating the name of the officer or person from whom such deduction was made, and the amount thereof, which shall be transmitted to the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and entered as part of the internal duties; and the payroll, receipts, or account of officers or persons paying such duty, as aforesaid, shall be made to exhibit the fact of such payment.

...[balance of section 86 applied to passports] (emphasis added)

Please note that the ONLY people who are subject to this duty, by clear statutory language, ARE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. The EFFECT of Section 86 identifies what it really is - a KICKBACK of part of the property agreed, under employment contract, to be paid for the labor of a Federal government employee. By this Act the amount of compensation contractually agreed to was diminished by one party to the agreement (Congress), without the consent of the other party (the federal employee). A unilateral change in the employment contract of all persons already in the employ of the Federal government was, and is, not legal, and the conduct of the United States judges for the next 70 years proves it, as they REFUSED to pay this "duty" until after 1932. Thus becoming, according to the IRS, the first "tax protesters" in American history. The Judges understood thaat the result of arranging for the withholding of three percent of the compensation due to Federal government employees under existing contracts was a deprivation of property and liberty without due process of law, which is violative of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Judges Refuse

In 1863 Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney sent a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury attacking implementation of Section 86 on the compensation of Federal judges as being unconstitutional. This letter was also published as a Supreme Court decision (157 U.S. 701). In it, Justice Taney states:

"The Act in question, as you interpret it, diminishes the compensation of every judge three percent, and if it can be diminished to that extent by the name of a tax, it may in the same way be reduced from time to time at the pleasure of the legislature." (emphasis added)

Here you can see that the judges understood the effect of this law was a diminishment "by the name of a tax". They knew it was not an actual tax, BUT A FORCED DEBT OBLIGATION. In this country there exists no circumstance under which a person lawfully can be forced to accept a debt against their will. The judges chose to exercise their RIGHT to REFUSE TO ACCEPT THIS DEBT.

The facts presented above were expressed by the Supreme Court in Pollock v Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. in 1895 where they said:

"Subsequently, in 1869, .... The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinion of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue." (emphasis added)

The "kickback" program illegally forced a three percent debt obligation upon Federal government employees working under an existing employment agreement in 1862. However the "kickback" program established by Section 86 was legal when applied to the salary of persons who took employment with the Federal government after the Act was passed because they were on notice that a three percent kickback was part of their employment agreement.

This “tax” (notice that it is not even called a tax in the Act, but a “Duty”), ONLY APPLIES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. It is these two acts from the 1860's, the Foreign Income Duty and the Federal employment agreement "kickback", blurred under the 16th Amendment distractions, whose provisions have been intentionally mingled with the Social Security provisions of the 1930’s, that have become today's so-called income tax, NOT BY PROPER CHANGES IN THE LAW, but by improper enforcement procedure by a renegade IRS, brutally and illegally intimidating, coercing and persecuting good American Citizens by threat, in order to force them to pay a so called "income tax" that they LEGALLY NEVER OWED in the first place, because they were never subject to it under the law because they never worked for the Federal government or earned foreign income under treaty !!!

A Note From the Commissioner

If we look at what the IRS tells us today about income taxes on the first page of the Form 1040 Tax Instruction Booklet from 1994, we find a "Note From the Commissioner", which is usually one of the first things in the booklet. This one is from Margaret Richardson, the current Commissioner of the IRS. It states in part:

Dear Taxpayer,

Thank you for making this nation's tax system the most effective system of voluntary compliance in the world. The key to maintaining that system is ensuring that you are treated fairly and equitably, that your privacy is protected, and that our tax system is as simple and understandable as possible....

Margaret Milner Richardson

The first sentence here is:

“Thank you for making this nation’s tax system the most effective system of voluntary compliance in the world.”

There it is! Voluntary Compliance. Why does she say that ? What does that mean ? Does that seem strange to you, given their known position in court ? And how does it effect you, a sovereign American Citizen, if compliance really is voluntary ? We will come back to those questions in a bit, but I would point out here that this opening statement is not unusual. Nearly every instruction booklet from past years has opened with some variation of this statement from the Commissioner.

The next thing we’re going to take a look at is the Privacy Act & Paperwork Reduction Act, Notice 609, which is required by law to be supplied to you by the IRS with any correspondence you receive from the IRS. It states in pertinent part:

Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act

Notice 609

The Privacy Act of 1974 and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 say that when we ask you for information, we must first tell you our legal right to ask for the information, why we are asking for it, and how it will be used. We must also tell you what could happen if we do not receive it and whether your response is voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory under the law.

This notice applies to all papers you file with us, including this tax return. It also applies to any questions we need to ask you so we can complete, correct, or process your return; figure your tax; and collect tax, interest, or penalties.

Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections.........

We ask for tax return information to carry out the tax laws of the United States. We need it to figure and collect the right amount of tax............

If you do not file a return , do not provide the information we ask for, or provide fraudulent information, the law says that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution..........

Please keep this notice with your records. It may help you if we ask for other information. If you have questions about the rules for filing and giving information, please call or visit any Internal Revenue Service office.

In the third paragraph it states:

"Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011 & 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for."

Now does that say you have to file a return for taxes that you are not liable for ? No! Does it state who is liable ? No! Does it even state what liability is ? No ! And that raises the legal questions, what is liability, and who is liable?

Now keep in mind that this does not actually say that this is their right to ask you (the Citizen) for information. It doesn't actually specifically say from whom information may be requested, it just establishes that a legal right to request information does exist. But from whom may information actually be requested under these laws ? Well, they cite three code sections in this notice, what do they say ?

§ 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns.

Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements or keep such records as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).

(emphasis added)

Notice that the first three words in this code section are: “Every person liable”. Does this code section actually establish liability ? Or, does it simply list the consequences of being liable, leaving the reader to assume that he or she is in fact made liable elsewhere in the Code. Indeed it does not establish liability, it merely lists the consequences of being liable. It is interesting to note, that the second sentence here says:

"Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements or keep such records as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax."

Have you ever received notice from the Commissioner ? Are you sure that you’re required to make such returns, render such statements or keep such records ? Which records, which statements, and which returns are required ?

Do you see in the third sentence where it refers to "employers". Does this code section apply to employers ? Are employers liable for tax ? (see Section 3403 - Liability for Tax)

Section 6011 was the next section cited in Notice 609 by the IRS as their right to request information, and it says:

§ 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list.

(a) General rule.

When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations...........

(emphasis added)

The first sentence states in pertinent part:

"... any person made liable...”

Does this code section actually make anyone liable, or again, does it just list the consequences of being made liable, leaving the reader to assume or presume, again, that liability exists, or is actually established elsewhere in the code ? Neither of these code sections, 6001 nor 6011, actually establish liability. They simply establish the consequences of being liable, or being made liable. So, we’re going to look for Code sections that do state some person is liable, or is made liable for the payment of "income" tax, that would trigger the filing requirements established by these sections.

The last section referenced by the IRS in Notice 609, as their right to ask for information, Section 6012, states in pertinent part:

§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income.

(a) General rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:

(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -

(i) who is not married, is not a surviving spouse, is not a head of a household and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual.

(ii) who is a household and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual.

(iii) who is a surviving spouse and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual.

(iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.

This section states

“Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A ...”

and Subsection (1)(A) says, “every individual having for the taxable year...”

So, the requirement identified here is being established for individuals under Subtitle A. Where is the tax imposed on individuals that would correspond to this filing requirement, and what is the exact legal nature of the specific requirement that is established by this section (6012), under the imposing statute? This Code section (6012) may appear to be related to individuals and their corresponding filing requirement (for Returns), but what are its legal limitations, as recorded in the law, and who are the individuals subject under subtitle A ?

Structural Organization of Title

First, a short explanation regarding the organization of the Tax laws in the United States Code. The tax law of the United States of America is in Title 26 of the United States Code (Internal Revenue Code). Title 26 is broken into a number of Subtitles, each Subtitle being a distinct and separate section of the law as the table below shows:

Tax or Topic Subtitle Chapters Sections

--------------------- ------- --------- ----------

Income Taxes A 1 to 6 1

Estate & Gift Taxes B 11 to 13 2001

Employment Taxes C 21 to 25 3101

Miscellaneous Excises D 31 to 47 4041

Alcohol, Tobacco and

Certain Other Excises E 51 to 54 5001

Procedure and

Administration F 61 to 80 6001

Joint Committee on

Taxation G 91 to 92 8001

Financing Presidential

Election Campaigns H 95 to 96 9001

Trust Fund Code I 98 9500

This book examines the laws under Subtitle A - Income taxes, Subtitle C - Employment taxes, and Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration, which applies and implements the other Subtitles under the law. The code sections we just looked at 6001, 6011 and 6012 are all from Subtitle F. Income taxes are in Subtitle A, consisting of chapters 1 - 6 of Title 26, Employment taxes are in Subtitle C, consisting of chapters 21 - 25.

It is important to understand that each Subtitle establishes a distinct and separate program, or "tax", with its own individual authority to administer within that Subtitle, over its code sections. These authorities do not automatically cross over into the other Subtitles and cannot be invoked as an authority in the other Subtitles unless it is shown as applicable within the law and its provisions (regulations).

Each Subtitle imposes its own tax, and establishes the groups of persons subject to that tax, within that specific subtitle. Just because one group of people is subject to one tax under one subtitle, does not necessarily imply that group is automatically also subject to the taxes imposed by other subtitles. To demonstrate this point one could ask "Do you pay Subtitle E taxes ?". For most people, the answer is a resounding "NO". Why not, you may ask, isn't everyone subject to the law? The answer, of course, is that the group of persons subject to Subtitle E taxes are ONLY those people who engage in the manufacture and sale of alcohol and tobacco products, as proscribed in Subtitle E.

As you will see, the group of people who are subject to the Subtitle C Employment Tax laws are those people who have voluntarily chosen to participate in the Social Security program and supply a Social Security number. Who then, is the subject of the Subtitle A - Income Tax laws, and what exactly is the true nature of this tax and its associated filing requirements ? Well, Section 6012 said: “... with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A ...", and we are looking for the Code section where the income tax is imposed on individuals, so, we go to Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Section 1, which states:

SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES

Chapter 1. - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

Subchapter A. - Determination of Tax Liability

PART 1. - Tax On Individuals

§ 1. Tax Imposed.

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses. There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in Section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under Section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in Section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over 32,450 15% of taxable income

Over 32,450 but not

over 78,400 4,867.50, plus 28% of

the excess over 32,450

Over 78,400 17,733.50, plus 31% of

the excess over 78,400

(b) Heads of households. There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over 26,050 15% of taxable income

Over 26,050 but not

over 67,200 3,907.50, plus 28% of

the excess over 26,500

Over 67,200 15,429.50, plus 31% of

the excess over 67,200

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households). There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual ( other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) of the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over 19,450 15% of taxable income

Over 19,450 but not

over 47,050 2,917.50, plus 28% of

the excess over 19,450

Over 47,050 10,645.50, plus 31% of

the excess over 47,050

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over 16,225 15% of taxable income

Over 16,225 but not

over 39,200 2,433.75, plus 28% of

the excess over 16,225

Over 39,200 8,866.75, plus 31% of

the excess over 39,200

(e) Estates and trusts. There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every estate, and

(2) every trust,

taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over 3,300 15% of taxable income

Over 3,300 but not

over 9,900 495 , plus 28% of

the excess over 3,300

Over 9,900 2,343 plus 31% of

the excess over 9,900

(f) Adjustments ...........

Does all of this look familiar ? It should, this is the Income Tax you probably pay every April 15th of every year, and it sure looks like everyone has to pay, doesn't it ?

But wait, notice that the language in each of the paragraphs of this section reads in the form:

“...there is hereby imposed on the taxable income ... a tax ...”.

Notice that in all of these paragraphs the tax is not actually imposed on the individual him or herself, it is imposed on the taxable income of the individual. So, that leads to the question, what is taxable income, and what makes income taxable, as opposed to non-taxable ? What everybody in America apparently does: is assume that they have taxable income, and then assume that they have liability for tax, and then they assume that Form 1040 is the correct form to file to satisfy that liability for tax on taxable income that they have as individuals, So they fill out Form 1040 and send it in to the IRS to pay the tax. But, is that the correct and proper legal procedure to follow under the law ? Certainly that is what the IRS tells us to do, but what does the law actually say. What information is legally required from U.S. Citizens to satisfy the statutory liability for tax on taxable income established in Chapter 1, Section 1, by the (income) tax imposed ?

For the answer to that question we must go back to the Paperwork Reduction Act, but first, a small note (code section).

Most people believe that Section 1 is all there is in the law regarding the imposition of the income tax. But what about this next section from Title 4 - Rules For Federal Employees.

4, U.S.C. § 111. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax.

The United States consents to the taxation of pay or compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States, a territory or possession or political subdivision thereof, the government of the District of Columbia, or an agency or instrumentality of one or more of the foregoing, by a duly constituted taxing authority having jurisdiction, if the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.

Here Congress is consenting to the taxation (kickback return) of the pay of Federal officers and employees in the name of income tax. There is no such corresponding statute anywhere in the code for anyone who DOES NOT WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. In this law, the U.S. government is providing notice that ONLY the employees of the U.S. government (United States), who are receiving the U.S. government's property (in the form of wage payments to those employees), which is subject to being returned (kick-backed) to the government, are responsible for those returns of income (referenced in 6012), to the government as part of their employment agreement. This section is in Title 4 BECAUSE IT ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and cannot apply to anyone else. Congress cannot enact law for any other taxing authority (like a State), or in any area where it does not have jurisdiction to tax. Only government employees are responsible for returning a portion of their income to the Federal government (IRS), NOT Citizens in the fifty States WHO DO NOT WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. DO YOU WORK FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ? Are you still sure that you are required to "make a return of income" to the Treasury ?

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

Now, the Paperwork Reduction Act effectively says that the United States government cannot require, or collect, more information from Citizens than is absolutely necessary to satisfy the requirements of the law. And under this Act, which was passed in 1980, the IRS was required to file with OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, a list of all the code sections that required information to be collected from individuals, together with the cross-referenced list of forms to be used to satisfy those legal information collection requirements for any given code section.

This table is incorporated into the law in the Code of Federal Regulations in 26 C.F.R. 602.101, whose introduction states that the purpose of this regulatory section is to comply with the legal requirements imposed on the government by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The IRS itself prepared and supplied this Table to OMB. It took the IRS five years to comply with the mandate of this Act to document the specific filing requirements associated with any given section, and after you see the table you will understand why the IRS did not want to release this information for over five years.

It states in pertinent parts:

PART 602 - OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

Section 602.101. OMB Control numbers.

(a) Purpose.. This part collects and displays the control numbers assigned to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. The Internal Revenue Service intends that this part comply with the requirements of .... (OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act), for the display of control numbers assigned by OMB to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations....

_________________________________________________

26 CFR (4-1-94 Edition)

CFR part or section where Current

identified and described OMB Control No.

1.1-1 ........................................... 1545-0067

1.23-5 ...........................................1545-0074

1.25-1T.........................................1545-0922

1545-0930

1.25-2T..........................................1545-0922

.....

1.60120....................................... 1545-0067

1.6012-1...................................... 1545-0074

........

In the portion of the table reproduced above, the left hand column shows the code section (where the income tax is imposed; in PART 1, Section 1, designated here in the table as 1.1-1), and the right hand column shows the OMB Document Control Number (DCN) assigned to the information collection request (the form), that is required by the code section to satisfy its legal requirements. Note that there is only one form shown here as being required by the law that imposes the income tax, and note that the form that is to be used to satisfy the requirements of this code section, where the income tax is imposed, carries OMB DCN 1545-0067. Also note that the same form is required by Regulation 1.6012-0, which corresponds to the individual's filing requirement established in Section 6012, which has already been reviewed.

It should be noted that 6012 (from Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration) is used to enforce all of the individual filing requirements established and imposed in the other Subtitles, but it does not expand or establish any new or additional requirements in association with any given section. So, while 1.6012-1 can be used to enforce (and require) the use of Form 1040 in association with those sections that actually do require it (1.23-5 for example), IT DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXPAND THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 1, as shown in the above CFR table. It can properly be used to enforce the requirement(s) shown, but it cannot expand them.

So, if Form 1040 is the proper form for United States Citizens to file to satisfy their liability on taxable income, under the law, as listed by the IRS; that OMB Document Control Number, 1545-0067, will show up on the top of a Form 1040.

Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service

Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1993 | Reserved for IRS Use Only.

For the year Jan 1-Dec 31, 1993, or other tax year beginning , 1993 ending ,19 | OMB No. 1545-0074

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the reproduced top portion of a Form 1040 from 1993, and there in the upper right hand corner, it says OMB No. 1545-0074. Does that number match the number shown in the table as being required by Section 1 that imposes the tax ? No ! It’s the wrong number! The Table in the Code of Federal Regulations shows that the law requires the form with OMB Document Control Number 1545-0067, not 1545-0074.

It’s probably worth saying that 1545 is the prefix assigned by OMB to all IRS documents. But OMB Document Control Number 1545-0074 is assigned to Form 1040, and the form required by the law carries DCN 1545-0067. So what form does carry the OMB Document Control Number 1545-0067 ?

Form 2555 Foreign Earned Income |OMB No. 1545-0067

__________________________________________________________________________________

For Use by U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Only 1993

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, you see at the top of the form, in the upper right hand corner it says: OMB No. 1545-0067. Now that matches the entry in the CFR Table! And what is the title of this form ? Form 2555 Foreign Earned Income ! And what does it say underneath the title ?

"For Use by U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Only".

Now does Form 1040, say anything about who is supposed to use it ? No, it doesn’t! But Form 2555 - Foreign Earned Income states who is supposed to use it, “U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Only”. This is the form that’s listed in the law as being required to satisfy the information reporting requirements associated with the individual's statutory liability for income tax on "taxable income", imposed by Section 1 in Chapter 1, the income tax; and, it is the same form shown as being required under Section 6012, which was cited by the IRS itself in Notice 609.

I’ll mention that here again, under the law, we find that the income tax, for Citizens, other than the Federal “source” kickback”, appears to be related only to foreign income. Remember we started with the General Index for the United States Code Annotated and found that under Income Tax, under Citizens, it only referenced foreign countries, and here again, we find that the only form actually required under the law, reports only foreign income. The law is consistent so far, isn't it? It doesn't agree with what we are told to believe by the IRS, but it agrees with itself, without contradiction, doesn't it ? So what is the proper legal use of Form 1040 ? The next document will help explain things.

TREASURY DECISION 2313

Income Taxes

Treasury Department

Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Washington, D.C., March 21, 1916

To collectors of internal revenue:

Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income "from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States," computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.

The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on within the United States, shall make a full and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their nonresident alien principals.

The person, firm, company, copartnership, corporation, joint-stock company, or association, and insurance company in the United States, Citizen or resident alien, in whatever capacity acting, having the control, receipt, disposal, or payment of fixed or determinable annual or periodic gains, profits, and income of whatever kind, to a nonresident alien, under any contract or otherwise, which payment shall represent income of a nonresident alien from the exercise of any trade or profession within the United States, shall deduct and withhold from such annual or periodic gains, profits, and income, regardless of amount, and pay to the office of the United States Government authorized to receive the same such sum as will be sufficient to pay the normal tax of 1 per cent imposed by law, and shall make an annual return on Form 1042. (emphasis added)

This is the only place that I have ever been able to find the proper explanation, actually, any explanation what-so-ever from the United States government, for the proper use of Form 1040. Treasury Decision 2313, handed down in 1916, instructs the collectors of the Internal Revenue on how to implement the income tax laws as imposed under the 16th Amendment. This Treasury Decision is the result of a Supreme Court ruling, referenced in the first paragraph as "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co.", which was decided January 21, 1916, and from which:

"... it is hereby held that the income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.”

The second paragraph states:

“Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income-tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States,” computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.”

Now, the first paragraph says that nonresident aliens are subject to the tax. The second paragraph says that nonresident aliens are liable for the tax and that they are not allowed to claim the exemption designated as paragraph C. That implies that Citizens are allowed to claim the exemption in paragraph C, and that Citizens are not liable for the tax, because they are not subject to the tax, because it was not specified in paragraph one that Citizens are subject. Now let’s read the third paragraph, and keep in mind that we are going to look for a Paragraph C in the United States Code that exempts Citizens from income tax. The third paragraph states:

“The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on within the United States, shall make a full and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their nonresident alien principals."

Now there’s the proper legal use of Form 1040. It is to be used by United States Citizens to report the income of his or her foreign principals. It is not to be used to report the Citizen's own personal domestic income. Again, this is the only place where I have ever seen a legal explanation from the government for the proper legal use of Form 1040, and now I think you know why. Form 1040 is to be used by withholding agents to report the income of foreign principals. It is not to be used by U.S. Citizens to report their own income, and that’s why voluntary self assessment and voluntary compliance are so important to the IRS. Because the current mythical system doesn’t work unless the Citizen voluntarily misapplies the law and uses the wrong form to mistakenly, voluntarily assess his own domestic income for a foreign income tax. Form 1040 is also properly required to claim certain credits and deductions (discussed later), as well as for Federal employees to utilize in minimizing the “kickback” duty under 4 U.S.C. 111.

This Treasury Decision, 2313, references the Supreme Court decision Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., so it is time to step back, and get a little background information.

The Constitution

The first thing we’re going to do is look at what the Constitution says about taxation. The limitations in the Constitution restricting the direct taxation of individuals and their property are found in Article 1 in two different sections. Both sections specifically restrict the Federal government as to how it may lay direct taxes on the Citizens. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states:

"Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers"

and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states:

"No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

These basic sections of the Constitution have never been repealed or amended. The Constitution still forbids the direct taxation of individuals, their property, and their rights, unless the tax is apportioned to the State governments for collection.

And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states:

“No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marquee and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.” (emphasis added)

This Clause in the Constitution is why NEITHER the Federal, nor the State governments have any authority, either OVER, or TO UNILATERALLY ALTER, PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS as stated in Justice Taney’s letter (recorded as a Court Decision).

In 1895, Congress tried to pass an Act that imposed income taxes on the interest and dividends of U.S. Citizens on deposit in U.S. banks. This Act was immediately struck down in Pollock vs. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. (157 US 429), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose an income tax on the interest and dividends of United States Citizens on deposits in U.S. banks. The court ruled that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax that was not apportioned as required by the Constitution. This decision has never been reversed or overturned.

Excerpts from the Pollock decision include:

"...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes..."

(emphasis added)

and,

"...Subsequently, in 1869, .... The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinion of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue..." (emphasis added)

and;

"...A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution..."

(emphasis added)

and,

"...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution. ..it follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom. (emphasis added)

Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a direct tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax.." (emphasis added)

and, even in dissent:

..that personal property, contracts, obligations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration."

(emphasis added)

Then, in 1913 Congress passed the 16th Amendment which says,

“Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

So that changed everything, right? Well, NO ! That is not what the Supreme Court ruled. What the Supreme Court ruled, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. and in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., is that since the provisions of Article I, requiring that direct taxes be apportioned, were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. And, that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen. Article I cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our Law. So, to specifically prevent the Constitution from contradicting itself, the Supreme Court ruled that since the 16th Amendment provides for an income tax without apportionment, then the income tax cannot be a direct tax.

But, there are only two major classes of taxation authorized in the Constitution; direct taxes and indirect taxes. So, if the income tax cannot be a direct tax, then it must be an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are classified into three minor categories in the Constitution: imposts, duties and excises, and are ONLY imposed on revenue taxable activities and/or events. If you remember, the income tax started in 1861 as an income Duty, imposed only on foreign imports and Federal employees, which was contained and allowed within the Constitutional category of duties. As a foreign duty it was only imposed on the flow of foreign goods into America, NOT DOMESTIC GOODS, NOR DOMESTIC INCOME except that earned by federal employees and officers (Civil War).

Obviously today, the income tax is not currently being enforced as a duty, so the questions are: "Did the 16th Amendment create a new congressional power to tax directly ?", and; "How did the 16th Amendment change the income tax ?".

The answer to the first question was supplied by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating:

"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous 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.." (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS. So, if it is not a direct tax, then it is still an indirect tax, but, possibly, no longer a duty. Then; "What kind of tax is the income tax now?"

In the "previous ruling" referenced above, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co . 240 US 1 (1916), the court stated:

"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise ...” ,and

"...taxes on such income had been sustained as excises in the past...".

specifically,

"Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..." (emphasis added)

The Court ruled that the 16th Amendment effectively transformed the income tax from an indirect duty to an indirect excise (imposed on revenue taxable ativities). It is not a direct tax without apportionment. And, if we examine the law closely, that is exactly what we find; that the income tax is imposed and applied under the law, as an indirect excise, ONLY imposed on specific entities, privileged and Federal, and specific taxable activities and events that are identified in the law as “included types” or potential “sources” of “taxable income”

So, legally, exactly what is an excise tax ? Fortunately, the Supreme Court used to know what it was doing, and both of these decisions, Brushaber and Stanton, refer you to another case handed down five years earlier, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co 220 U.S. 107 (1911) , in which the Supreme Court ruled that excise taxes are taxes:

“laid on 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 the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.” (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court effectively establishes with this ruling that excise taxes are manufacturing taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on privileges. Privileges in the form of either licenses to pursue certain occupations, corporate privileges, and any other privileges granted to the individual by the government as well. One of these other privileges, is the privilege of being protected by the United States government in a foreign country under a tax treaty The government normally would have no jurisdiction or ability to protect you or your business interests in a foreign country, but because of the existence of the tax treaty with that foreign government, your business is protected by the U.S. government outside their jurisdictional boundaries (the United States). That protection, being afforded by the tax treaty, is construed to be a privilege granted to you by the government; and therefore, the income earned in that foreign country under the tax treaty, is privileged income and subject to the income tax.

And that is why the General Index shows that there are only two code sections that apply to Citizens, both having to do with foreign countries. And that is why the form that is actually required by the law is Form 2555 - Foreign Earned Income. Because that is the privileged income that you have as "taxable income", upon which you have liability to satisfy, resultant from engaging in a revenue taxable activity. And that is the only filing requirement that you have as an individual American Citizen under the law. If you have no foreign earned income under tax treaties and no foreign principals to whom money is paid, then you don’t have to file anything under the letter of the law because other income, domestic income, is earned by Right, not privilege. It is a long and well established rule of law that the government cannot tax your Rights, nor may it tax the proceeds derived from the simple exercise of those Rights, and the law accurately reflects and captures that Constitutional truth. It is the IRS that ignores the truth, ignores the law, ignores the implementing regulations and tramples your Citizen's Rights into the mud, because, as you will see, their actions are certainly not supported by the law, or even properly, legally authorized under it.

There is no requirement to file a Form 1040 reporting your own domestic income because the form is only supposed to be used by non-resident aliens and those U.S. Citizens who serve as "withholding agents" to aliens and who have foreign principals to whom moneys are being paid, and Federal employees. As the "agents" for those foreign principals they are required to deduct and withhold and pay the income tax, not on their own income, but on the income of the foreign principals, who do not possess the same rights as a Citizen. As Federal employees they are “transferees” under the I.R. Code and subject to making a “return of income” to the U.S. Treasury.

Now, the reason why these facts are so little known in America, and in the legal community itself, is that if you just look up the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. decision and read it quickly, it appears that the Supreme Court tells the U.S. Citizen (Brushaber) that the tax is constitutional and he has to pay it. It reads as if the Citizen is being told by the Court that he has to pay the income tax. But, the fact of the matter is Frank Brushaber was the U.S. agent for a group of foreigners who had stock in the Union Pacific Railroad. Under the 16th Amendment he (Brushaber) and the Union Pacific Railroad were both made withholding agents and were both ordered by the government to deduct, withhold and pay over the income tax to the government, on the foreigners' income from the stock.

Now, Frank Brushaber filed this suit on behalf of his foreign principals, who had no standing as foreigners in the U.S. courts to file themselves, and that is why Brushaber's name is on the decision. The foreigners lost the suit. The foreigners were essentially told by the courts that it was a privilege to be allowed to have access to the United States marketplace and earn income there. That privilege is granted by the U.S. government, which is given, in the Constitution, full authority over foreigners in America and foreign affairs with other nations. The Court determined that it is the U.S. government that allows foreigners the privilege of earning money in America, therefore; any income that they earn under that extended privilege is taxable income, and the Citizen who acts as the foreigner's agent has to withhold and pay the income tax to the federal Government. In this case the Citizen essentially got told by the court that you have to pay the tax because you’re the withholding agent for these foreigners upon whom the income tax is imposed. The first sentence of the case “write-up” clearly states that the decision is about TARRIFF LAWS.

But the decision simply isn’t written up so that it’s clear about the circumstances of the case. You have to research it thoroughly. If you just look it up, it looks like the U.S. Citizen, Frank Brushaber, gets told by the government, "the tax is Constitutional, and you have to pay it", and, over the passage of time, the IRS has found it very easy to deceive the American people as to the true nature of this Supreme Court decision because of the way this decision is written. In fact, if you call the IRS and ask them why the income tax is Constitutional, they will answer that the Supreme Court ruled it was Constitutional in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. But they won't tell you that this was a case about tarriff laws and the taxation of foreigners, AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIRECT TAXATION OF CITIZENS, as fraudulently claimed by the IRS for over 60 years. So that everyone understands this, it should be said that Title 15 U.S.C. § 17, states:

§ 17 Anti-trust laws... ...

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce...

and therefore cannot be made subject to any indirect excise tax as though it were such.

Finally, from the Congressional Research Service in 1979:

SOME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

REGARDING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

Howard Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney

American Law Division

May 25, 1979

Report No. 79-131 A

... In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916), the Supreme Court held that the income tax , including a tax on dealings in property, was an indirect tax, rather than a direct tax, and that:

"the command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by a consideration of the source from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class." 240 U.S. 1 18-19 (1916)

This same view was reiterated by the Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) in which the court stated that the:

"Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous 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." 240 U.S. 112 (1916)

Therefore, it is clear that the income tax is an "indirect" tax of the broad category of "Taxes, Duties, imposts and Excises," subject to the rule of uniformity, rather than the rule of apportionment......

CHAPTER 2

APPLICATION

Internal Revenue Definitions

Chapter 79, from Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration, contains many of the legal definitions for the terms used in Title 26. Specifically Section 7701, which states.

§ 7701 Definitions.

(a). When used in this Title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--

(1). Person - The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

...

(3) Corporation. The term “Corporation” includes associations; joint stock companies, and insurance companies.

(4) Domestic. The term “domestic” when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State.

(5) Foreign. The term “foreign” when applied to a corporation or partnership means a corporation or partnership which is not Domestic.

...

(9). United States. The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(10) 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). Trade or business. - The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

...

(30). United States person. - The term "United States person" means-

(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,

(B) a domestic partnership

(D) any estate or trust (other than a foreign estate or foreign trust , within the

meaning of section 7701(a)(31)).

(31). Foreign estate or trust. - The terms "foreign estate" and "foreign trust" mean an estate or trust, as the case may be, the income of which from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under Subtitle A.

First note that the word "person" is not restricted to meaning just people. For purposes of the application of the tax laws, "person" means any entity subject to the tax laws. Next, notice that the definition of Domestic (4) references “any State”, and the definition of State (10) says that it includes (only) the District of Columbia.

Additionally, if one examines the statutory evolution of the definition of the word "State" in the I.R. Code, one finds in the 1939 I.R. Code (when Hawaii and Alaska were Territories) the following:

§ 3797 (a)(10). State. The term "State shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. (emphasis added)

In the 1954 recodification of the I.R. Code (after Alaska became a State and Hawaii is still a territory), § 3797(a) was moved to § 7701(a), where we find:

§ 7701 (a)(10). State. The term "State shall be construed to include the Territory of Hawaii and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. (emphasis added)

And finally, in 1959 (after Hawaii became a State), the definition in the Code for the word "State" was updated, and now we find:

§ 7701 (a)(10). State. The term "State shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. (emphasis added)

Which is how the statute stands today. Clearly the 50 States of the union are omitted. Lest there be any question that Congress is capable of including the States in this sort of definition where it intends to, one should note carefully the statutory definition provided at 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(5) for "State", which does include the several (50) states.

§ 6103(b)

...

(5) State

The term "State" means -

(A) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and

(B) ....

This indicates that any entity in one of the fifty States of the Union is outside (not covered by) the jurisdiction established by this Code for the purposes of applying and properly understanding the internal revenue laws. Citizens are not under the direct jurisdiction of the U.S. government, but rather, are under the jurisdiction of the STATE government, NOT THE FEDERAL. NOW THIS DOES NOT mean that you are a non-resident alien. It just means that you are a Sovereign American Citizen WHO IS OUTSIDE AND ABOVE THE FEDERAL ABILITY (and territorial jurisdiction) TO DIRECTLY TAX, and therefore is not subject to the control, or rule, or taxation of the Federal government on your domestic activities engaged in by Right.

We see this understanding confirmed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 26 CFR 1.911-2(h) where it states:

“Reg. 1.911-2(h) Foreign country. The term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States” (emphasis added)

That means every State in the nation could apparently be legally considered, by statutory definition, as “FOREIGN” to (or outside of) the I.R. Code, because they have their own Sovereign governments. When the American States united to form a central government they retained full sovereign governmental authority over their own territory and people. Leaving the “United States” as the sovereign authority over ONLY those territories NOT YET CONFIRMED AS STATES, or conceded by the States to the “United States” (D.C., enclaves, military bases, etc.). The regulation above explains that each and every one of the fifty States could be deemed to be outside the power of the I.R. Code, because they are under their own sovereign governments.

Because of these definitions, and others, there seems to be a lot of confusion and conflicting works by authors making claims regarding these definitions and others specifically, "State" and "United States", AND "Citizen" and "nonresident alien". Many books and articles in the Patriot community in America today claim that since the legal definition of the term "United States" appears to NOT include the 50 States, because the term “State” does not actaully include the 50 states, then Citizens of the 50 States are technically not Citizens of the United States under the IR Code, and therefore are not subject to the income tax, because the tax is only imposed on a citizen of the United States (areas of Federal jurisdiction). Thus a Citizen of a State is a non-resident alien for purposes of the tax code, and is not subject. As already explained and shown in great detail, this argument appears to be flawed. As we have alreaday seen, NON RESIDENT ALIENS ARE THE ACTUAL SUBJECT, AND ONLY SUBJECT, OF THE INCOME TAX ! If you declare yourself to be a nonresident alien, you are declaring yourself subject to the tax. It will just be a matter of time before the IRS shows up at your door demanding that YOU, THE ALIEN (according to your own declaration), pay the tax. This is a destroyed legal argument and cannot succeed in the courts.

This confusion results from the fact that THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS for these terms contained in the law. However, each definition is specifically attached to, and relevant for, ONLY certain code sections (generally one chapter, or one Code section) referenced in the definition itself. This is the wrong argument to base your legal claims on if you are going to try and take on the IRS in court, IT IS NOT RECOGNIZED. PLEASE DO NOT DEPEND ON THIS LEGAL ARGUMENT OR YOU WILL LOSE.

I further would point out that Citizens CAN VOTE, and ALIENS CANNOT. If you voted (or are registered (or eligible) to vote) THEN YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, and cannot (and SHOULD not) claim that you are "alien" (resident or otherwise) to the government for the purpose of applying the tax laws (but not the voting laws ?)!

If you want to know how to really beat the IRS, read this whole book and join the Disciples of Truth and the Save a Patriot Fellowship to stay informed, because citizenship is the very best tax umbrella possible - you are not subject, if you exercise your rights, and DON'T volunteer for silly programs.

NOW, it is TRUE and CORRECT to understand that YOUR ESTATE can be considered exempt (not taxable), in that it is private property, beyond jurisdictional reach of the Federal government to tax directly (in the States) and NOT under their control or ownership. BUT that DOES NOT make you a foreigner or an alien, JUST A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN who owns property THAT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, CANNOT BE TAXED DIRECTLY . (Can the Federal government impose taxes on the people of England ? Of course NOT. Why not ? - THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THAT PROPERTY ! RIGHT ! Well they have NO DIRECT authority or control OVER YOUR PROPERTY EITHER ! (get IRS HUMBUG - The BEST book on the Market ! for more understanding on this.)

Furthermore the Constitution FORBIDS the Federal government from interfering in PRIVATE CONTRACTS, LIKE YOUR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Because the Constitution FORBIDS THIS, the United States government HAS NO UNILATERAL AUTHORITY OVER EITHER YOU, AS AN EMPLOYEE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, OR YOUR EMPLOYER, WITHOUT YOUR/THEIR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND PERMISSION. As you will see, the law records these legal facts

Those Citizens (of the 50 States) NOT working for the Federal government, technically, under the IR Code, have income which is part of their estate, NOT derived from the United States [government], NOT includible in gross income under subtitle A, wherever their income is “not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business (“the functions of a public office within the United States” - see § 7701(a)(26) ), per the definition given in § 7701(a)(31) .

I know this sounds strange and is a little tricky, but re-read this, and think about it. Are you FREE and REPRESENTED, or are you SUBJECT and RULED ? YOU (the Citizens) ARE THE AUTHORITY AND THE TRUE SOVEREIGN in this nation. Sovereigns DON’T PAY TAX, they IMPOSE it on THEIR SUBJECTS, and collect it from them

And what does the Supreme Court say about Federal jurisdiction in the Territories and 50 States ?

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters {outside of Constitutionally delegated powers} do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” [Caha v. United States, 152 US 211]

“Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the areas of land, enclaves, territories and possession over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority” [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244]

“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the Federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.” [New Orleans v. United States, 35 US (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]

“It is well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears” [Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 US 281 (1948)]

“Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations of administrative agencies and where jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, the action of the agency is a nullity..” [City Street Improv Co. v. Pearson, 181 C 640, 185 P. (1962) O’Neil v. Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards, 7 CA2d 393, 46 P2d 234]

“...the commerce clause...has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states” [United States v. DeWitt, 76 US 41 9 Wall 4, 19 L. Ed 593]

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings” [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533]

Subtitle A - Income Tax - the Foreign Tax

Remember that the third paragraph of Treasury Decision 2313 essentially says that (withholding) "agents", or "representatives", are going to withhold tax (from nonresident aliens). But, what is the legal definition of a "Withholding Agent", who appears to be the legal entity responsible for the withholding and payment of income taxes ? Again, from 26 U.S.C. 7701(a):

§ 7701 Definitions.

...

(16). Withholding Agent. - The term "Withholding Agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443,, or 1461.” ...

So, it appears as though a withholding agent can definitely withhold tax, can’t he ? Well, let us look at what is truly authorized by these Code Sections referenced here in the definition. The first thing to point out is that all of the code sections that start with ‘14’ are in Chapter 3 of Title 26. Chapter 3 is titled:

“WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS

AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS”.

These sections, 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461, cited in the definition of a Withholding Agent, state:

§ 1441. Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens .

(a) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) all persons, in whatever capacity acting having the control, receipt, custody, disposal or payment of any of the items of income specified in subsection (b) (to the extent that any of such items constitutes gross income from sources within the United States), of any nonresident alien individual, or of any foreign partnership hall deduct and withhold from such items a tax equal to 30 percent thereof, except that in the case of any items of income specified in the second sentence of subsection (b), the tax shall be equal to 14 percent of such item. (emphasis added)

(b) Income items. ...

Section 1441 only authorizes withholding from nonresident aliens.

§ 1442 . Withholding of tax on foreign corporations.

(a) General rule. In the case of foreign corporations subject to taxation under this subtitle, there shall be deducted and withheld at the source in the same manner and on the same items of income as is provided in Section 1441 a tax equal to 30% thereof. ...

(b) Exemption. Subject to such terms and conditions as may be provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of a foreign corporations engaged in trade of business in the United States if the Secretary determines that the requirements of subsection (a) impose an undue administrative burden and that the collection of the tax imposed by section 881 on such corporation will not be jeopardized by the exemption.

(c) Exception for certain possessions corporations. For purposes of this section, the term "foreign corporation" does not include a corporation created or organized in Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianna Islands, or the Virgin Islands or under the law of any such possession if the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 881(b)(1) are met with respect to such corporation.

Section 1442 only authorizes the withholding from foreign corporation.

§ 1443 Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations

(a) Income subject to section 511.

...

(b) Income subject to section 4948.

....

Section 1443 only authorizes the withholding from foreign tax exempt organizations.

The last section referenced in the definition of a Withholding Agent, 1461, states:

§ 1461 Liability for withheld tax.

Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (emphasis added)

Section 1461 says withholding agents are made liable for the payment of taxes they withhold from individuals (foreigners). Well, what do you know ? Here is a code section where someone is made liable for such tax. And who is made liable ? The withholding agents are made liable for the tax, and that triggers the filing requirements of § 6011. Remember § 6011 ? We were looking for someone who was made liable for payment of the tax, and here it is. Section 6011 is the filing requirement for withholding agents, not Citizens, or even individuals. Withholding agents are made liable in § 1461 for the payment of taxes withheld, and that liability triggers the filing requirements associated with and under § 6011. And who are Withholding agents authorized to withhold income taxes from ? Foreigners, and foreigners only. And what else does § 1461 also say, that they are : "... indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payment made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter".

And what Chapter is this from ? Chapter 3 - Withholding from Foreigners. And that means that if they wrongfully withhold from someone other than a foreigner, like a Citizen, they’re not indemnified from claims against them for wrongful withholding. So, U.S. Citizens who have income tax wrongfully withheld from them, can sue the withholding agent to have those moneys returned.

Who are the Withholding Agents ? Well, your bank is a Withholding Agent, your stock broker is a Withholding Agent, your employer is NOT a Withholding Agent. Your employer is your employer and employers are defined for purposes of implementing the employment taxes imposed in Subtitle C (see 26 USC 3401(d)), and they don’t have anything to do with income taxes under Subtitle A, other than the fact that they are apparently authorized to withhold income taxes at the source by a W-4, which we are going to look at in a minute. It is clear that by statutory definition Withholding Agents can only withhold from foreigners, and that they are only indemnified for withholding under Chapter 3, which, as we have seen, is only from foreigners.

We have just examined the complete legal authority of a "Withholding Agent" to withhold taxes and, as you can see for yourself, there is no legal authority anywhere in the law for a Withholding Agent to withhold subtitle A income tax from a U.S. Citizen. WHY ? Because the tax is not imposed on the domestic income of Citizens earned by Right, and therefore would never need to be withheld from them ?

Remember the mysterious paragraph C, that nonresident aliens cannot claim, referenced in the third paragraph of Treasury Decision 2313. Here is Section 6654 - Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax. Take careful note of paragraph (e)(2)(C).

§ 6654. Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax.

(a) Addition to the tax. In the case of any underpayment of estimated tax by an individual, except as provided in subsection (d), there shall be added to the tax under chapter 1 and the tax under chapter 2 for the taxable year an amount determined at an annual rate established under section 6621 upon the amount of the underpayment (determined under subsection(b)) for the period of the underpayment (determined under subsection (c)).

.....

(e) Exceptions.

(1) Where tax is small amount ......

(2) Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year.

No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if -

A) the preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months,

B) the individual did not have any liability for tax the preceding

taxable year, and

C) the individual was a Citizen or resident of the United States

throughout the preceding taxable year.

(3) Waiver in certain cases ... (emphasis added)

When you file a Form 1040, what you are actually doing is paying estimated income tax. And this Section, 6654, addresses the failure by an individual to pay estimated income tax. Subsection (e) addresses the exceptions for that failure. Within subsection (e), Subsection (2) provides that where there is "no tax liability for preceding taxable year" then "No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if" the conditions in subparagraph (A), (B) and (C) are met.

Remember that Citizens do not have any liability for tax on domestic income, according to the Paperwork Reduction Act tables in the Code of Federal Regulations relating to the tax imposed, and the liability established, under Chapter 1 Section 1 - Tax Imposed. It is the nonresident aliens who are liable for this tax (and their withholding agents), according to Treasury Decisions 2313.

Now let’s look at conditions (A) and (B) as well. (A) says, “the preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months”. Well, just about everyone satisfies that condition, and (B) says: “the individual did not have any liability for tax for the preceding taxable year”. We've seen that all Citizens who do not have foreign earned income or foreign principals satisfy this condition, and then we have, again, (C) “the individual was a Citizen or resident...” . Citizens and residents aliens are excepted from the failure to pay. Here is the mysterious paragraph C referenced in Treasury Decision 2313, excepting Citizens from the failure to file and pay estimated income tax.

If you still are skeptical and don’t believe me, here's Section 1.1441-5 from The Code of Federal Regulations.

26 C.F.R. 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding.

(a) Individuals. For purposes of chapter 3 of the code an individual's written statement that he or she is a Citizen of the United States may be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a Citizen or resident of the United States. This statement shall be furnished to the withholding agent in duplicate. An alien may claim residence in the United States by filing form 1078 with the withholding agent in duplicate in lieu of the above statement.

(b) Partnerships and Corporations. .....

This corresponds to Section 1441 of the United States Code which we reviewed earlier. It clearly states:

"For purposes of chapter 3 of the Code an individual’s written statement that he or she is a Citizen or resident of the United States may be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a Citizen or resident of the United States.”

and therefore, is not subject to the withholding of income taxes. This is confirmed in Publication 515, the instruction booklet from the IRS, to the employer, on how to implement the subtitle A withholding regulations. In this booklet it states

WITHHOLDING EXEMPTIONS AND REDUCTIONS

You should withhold any required tax if facts indicate that the individual, or the fiduciary, to whom you are to pay the income is a nonresident alien. However, the alien may be allowed an exemption from withholding or a reduced rate of withholding as explained here.

Evidence of Residence. If an individual gives you a written statement stating that he or she is a Citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you do not have to withhold tax. An alien may claim U.S. residence by filing with you, Form 1078, Certificate of Alien Claiming Residence in the United States... (emphasis added)

Why ? Because as we have seen, under the law, the tax is not imposed on the domestic income of Citizens, or resident aliens as it turns out, and therefore there is never any need to withhold this tax from those Citizens, as the instructions accurately point out. That is the extent of the Subtitle A income tax as it is actually imposed under the law. So what have you been paying ?

Subtitle C - Employment Tax - the Social Security tax

Now we are going to look at the laws implementing the Subtitle C, Employment tax, for Social Security purposes, which program, tax and subtitle first appeared in the law in the 1930s, some 23 years AFTER the income tax was supposedly created by the 16th Amendment (false belief as previously shown - the tax actually started in 1861).

That brings us to Title 26 , subtitle C, Chapter 24, Section 3402 - Income Tax Collected at Source. This is where most employers believe they are authorized to withhold income tax from Citizens. Please note carefully the language of subsections (n) and (p). For some reason, however, the tax industry in America doesn’t seem to be able to read more than subsection (a) of this code. But it is a canon of law that “THE LAW MUST BE CONSTRUED FROM ITS FOUR CORNERS, SO AS TO GIVE MEANING TO ALL OF ITS PARTS”.

§ 3402. Income tax collected at source

(a) Requirement of withholding. (1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary....

...

(n) Employees incurring no income tax liability Not withstanding any other provisions of this section an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee -

(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for

his preceding taxable year, and

(2)anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed

under subtitle A for his current taxable year.....

....

(p) Voluntary withholding agreements The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding -

(1) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for his

employer which does not constitute wages, and

(2) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary

finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter,

if the employer and the employee, or in the case of any other type of payment the person making and the person receiving the payment, agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be made in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations provide. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter) remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee to the extent such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is in effect ...(emphasis added)

As you can see in Subsection (a) it says: "Except as otherwise provided in this section every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax...” . If one does not read this whole section carefully, it appears that employers are authorized to withhold income taxes from your wages. But after reading subsections (n) and (p) carefully it is clear that if you tell your employer that you have no liability under subtitle A, and give him a Statement of Citizenship as referenced in 26 CFR 1.1441-5, and that you will not volunteer to agree to such withholding, and will not voluntarily participate in Social Security for reasons of religious objection, then the employer is not required to withhold tax, and in fact has no legal authority left in the law, under which withholding could be legally authorized or effected.

And then there is this next section from the same chapter.

§ 3404 Return and Payment by Governmental Employer.

If the employer is the United States, or a State, or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted and withheld upon any wages may be made by any officer or employee of the United States, or of such State, or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or of such agency or instrumentality, as the case may be, having control of the payment of such wages, or appropriately designated for that purpose.

Notice carefully HOW THE WORD “RETURN” IS USED HERE. This is the "return of income" to the Federal government required from Federal employees under the Federal Employment "Kickback" agreement, often referred to as INCOME TAX. The "return" referenced is clearly NOT A FORM to be filed, but a "kickback" (an actual returning of funds) to the Treasury by the "employer" - The United States GOVERNMENT. NOBODY ELSE IS REQUIRED TO KICKBACK ANYTHING to the U.S. Treasury..

Now, who are the employers and the employees actually defined in the law, and addressed by these sections, and precisely what are wages. This next section is also from Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 24, where we also find Section 3401, which says:

3401 Definitions.

....

(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 thereof, 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.

(d) Employer. For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, ...

Only FEDERAL workers and Officers (of Federal corporations) ARE STATUTORILY DEFINED AS EMPLOYEES "for purposes of this chapter". Are you a Federal employee ? AND OF COURSE if ONLY Federal workers are employees, WHO IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EMPLOYER in this chapter ? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Are you an officer of a Federal corporation or a Federal employee ? (If you are an officer of a private corporation, this statute does not affect you, but even if it did, it could only effect you in regards to the corporate tax affairs, NOT personal matters.) BY DEFINITION (of “employee”), THIS WHOLE CHAPTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIVIDUALS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR EXCEPT WHEN THEY VOLUNTEER (for Social Security), It ONLY addresses Federal "employees" working for the Federal "employer". Why ? Because Congress cannot control any employment agreement except its own (the government’s).

We further see the limited federal jurisdiction, reflected by the statutorily defined areas of coverage for these subtitle C taxes, which do NOT include the 50 states, in Chapter 21 for the FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) tax. Section § 3121 states:

§ 3121. Definitions.

...

(e) State, United States, and Citizen. For purposes of this chapter

(1) State. 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 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a Citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a Citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a Citizen of the United States.

And again, in Chapter 23, Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), contains Section 3306, which states:

§ 3306. Definitions.

...

(j) State, United States, and American employer. For purposes of this chapter -

(1) State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

(2) United States. The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) American employer. The term ''American employer'' means a person who is -

(A) an individual who is a resident of the United States,

(B) a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are residents of the United

States,

(D) a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any State.

An individual who is a Citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin islands (but not otherwise a Citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a Citizen of the United States...

What happened to Guam and American Samoa ? Clearly there are supposed to be distinct differences in the extent of the taxing Authority established in each of these programs (FICA & FUTA), under each of these Chapters (21 and 23). Please note the difference in these statutes, which do NOT include the 50 states, and 6103(b)(5), WHICH DOES.

However, both sections define the terms “United States” and “State” for use within their respective chapters ONLY. AND SO WE SEE THAT CONGRESS IS CLEARLY CAPABLE of making it explicitly clear where the fifty states are included in the term “STATE” or “UNITED STATES”, AND WHERE THEY ARE NOT. Obviously, where the States are NOT “included”, IT IS DONE INTENTIONALLY, and not by accidental omission. THE INTENT is to document the limitation of power granted. THE IRS IGNORES ALL STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON THEIR POWER AND ACTS AS THOUGH THEY ARE GOD, and you MUST OBEY THEM OR SUFFER ! BALONEY, not according to the law !

So which of these definitions is applicable and active in Chapter 22 ? NEITHER !! Chapter 22 has no Code section that REDEFINES these terms for use in that Chapter, so its definitions for those terms arise and are controlled under Subtitle F - Procedure & Administration, in Section 7701 (remember), which states:

§ 7701. Definitions.

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -

...

(9) United States The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(10) 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.

...

Now Section 1 - Tax imposed, is contained in Chapter 1 - Normal Taxes & Surtaxes. Chapter 1 does not have a Code section that redefines these terms for use within it, so the definitions are provided by Section 7701(a)(9) and (10) shown above (for the whole TITLE according to the opening text of subsection (a))

So, what’s really happening in the private work place? "Voluntary withholding agreements" under subsection (p) of section 3402, that’s what’s really happening. When you file a W-4 with your employer, and specify the number of deductions you are claiming on it, you are voluntarily authorizing your employer to withhold income taxes from you. Naturally, he honors your voluntary request. But, if you gave him a statement of citizenship instead of a W-4, he would not have any legal authorization at all, anywhere in the law, to withhold any taxes from you. And the employer is instructed not to withhold income taxes under such circumstances in Publication 515.

One need only look as far as Section 7806 to see that Section 3402 - Income tax collected at source isn't really a legal mandate to withhold income tax at the source , but is rather an authority to withhold employment tax on "wages" when requested to do so (even Section 61 doesn't include "wages"), .

§ Section 7806 - Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the side notes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act, before its enactment into law.

As you can see the descriptive title of Sec. 3402. Income Tax Collected at Source, HAS NO LEGAL EFFECT ! The actual legal authorities established by the law are the limited authorities established by the actual wording of the code section paragraphs. (That is why I'm showing you the actual code sections here. Can your accountant do this with his claims ? How about your lawyer ? I have yet to meet anyone in the country who can rebut this presentation of law which is why you need to know about this.) Section 3402 authorizes the collection of employment taxes on WAGES from Federal employees, not the collection of income taxes on INCOME from all persons.

A W-4 is the "voluntary agreement" referenced in subsection (p) of § 3402. Through its execution, you voluntarily create "taxable income" in your name for Social Security purposes, and further request the withholding of income tax from your wages when you specify a number of deductions to be taken.

According to 26 CFR 1.1441-5 a Statement of Citizenship may serve as the "withholding exemption certificate" referenced in subsection (n) of § 3402. And a W-2 may be USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A FORM 1040, as indicated by the Federal Register. The most direct proof that the IRS violates the RIGHTS of the Citizens of the United States of America by controlling their labor through an UNLAWFUL DEBT PROCESS (not tax law), based in "voluntarily" executed legal instruments (W-4, 1040, etc.) that establish a DEBT in the name of, and under the guise and pretense, of TAX, is THEIR OWN NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. This notice appeared in the Federal Register dated Sept. 11, 1946 at 117A-39. It reads:

FORM W-2. Withholding statement.

This is a statement of wages paid during the calendar year and the amount of income tax withheld on such wages, if any. The original and duplicate are furnished by the employer to employee at the close of the calendar year or upon termination of his status as an employee. The original is used as an optional Income Tax Return by the employee in lieu of Form 1040.

(emphasis added)

The FACT that the IRS is INSTRUCTED TO ACCEPT THE W-2 FORM AS A SUBSTITUTE FORM 1040 IS PROOF that the IRS' true authority is limited to the collection of a "kickback" on Federal "wages". The term "wages" in the I.R. Code technically means ONLY covered earnings that are paid to Federal government employees for personal services. Covered under the Social Security provisions, and includible in gross income under Subtitle A of the I.R. Code. IF THE IRS had authority to collect on other forms of income, (i.e. interest, dividends, pensions, etc.) THEY WOULD NOT BE INSTRUCTED TO IGNORE THESE OTHER FORMS OF INCOME AND ACCEPT THE W-2 (that the employer, the Federal government, is required to make) IN LIEU OF A FORM 1040, now would they ?.

Wages

20 CFR 404.1041 Wages.

(a) the term "wages" means remuneration paid to you as an employee for employment unless specifically excluded....

(b) if you are paid wages it is not important what they are called. Salaries, fees, bonuses and commissions on sales or on insurance premiums are wages if they are paid for employment.....

20 CFR 404.1003 Employment.

Employment means, generally any service covered by social security performed by an employee for his or her employer...

20 CFR 404.1004 What work is covered as employment.

(a) General requirements of employment. Unless otherwise excluded..., the work you perform as an employee for your employer is covered as employment under social security if one of the following situations applies:

(1) You perform the work within the United States...

(2) You perform the work outside the United States and you are a Citizen or resident...

OK. Is that all clear. Maybe this will help:

20 CFR 404.1001 Introduction

(a)(1) In general, your social security benefits are based on your earnings that are on our records... you receive credit only for earnings that are covered for social security purposes. The earnings are covered only if your work is covered. If you are an employee.....Some work is covered by Social Security and some work is not. Also, some earnings are covered by social security and some are not. It is important that you are aware of what kinds of work and earnings are covered so that you will know whether your earnings should be on our records.

(2) If you are an employee, your covered work is called "employment."...

(3) If your work is "employment" your covered earnings are called "wages".

I'm sorry, ISN'T THIS WHERE WE STARTED with WAGES. Don't you just love circular legal definitions that define themselves with references to variations of themselves ? I mean, I hope you don't just think I'm making this up on my own. I couldn't dream this stuff up, ever.

Discussion on Wages

The term "wages" is also defined in Section 3401 in Subtitle C, where it does not relate to anything but Employment taxes, for Social Security purposes, under Chapter 24. WAGES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INCOME TAXES UNDER SUBTITLE A. "Wages" are "covered earnings". Covered earnings are earnings that are taxed, at your request, for the purpose of accumulating "credits" to be used in calculating future Social Security benefit payments.

Section 3401(a) states:

§ 3401 Definitions.

(a) Wages. For 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, including the cash value of all remunerations paid in any medium other than cash.

This definition eludes to the existence of an employment agreement between two parties. It states that wages are only what is received for personal services performed by an employee for his employer . Hence, the term "wages" does NOT extend beyond that relationship/agreement. This fact brings out the importance of knowing just WHO is an "employee", and WHO is the "employer" referred to within the Internal Revenue Code (in this chapter) and what exactly constitutes “wages”, because, as we have seen, IN THIS CHAPTER, THAT CAN ONLY BE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT according to the definition of "employee".

These definitions have been expanded BY PRESUMPTION and voluntary permissions, NOT law, to include private sector employers participating in the Social Security program as collectors and "payers", by voluntary assumption through application. So, when you have given a Social Security number to your boss on a W-4, he then becomes your "employer", by virtue of your request, and you then have "wages" (covered earnings), and you thus become an "employee", and your work is called "employment", and you become subject to the federal tax code administering the Social Security tax provisions imposed on those who voluntarily assume them under the misguided and mistaken belief that one day (somewhere, far off in the future) they will get a “benefit” from their participation. History says otherwise. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

If you do not participate in Social Security or choose to NOT provide your social security number, then you are NOT "legally" an "employee", and you just have earnings, NOT "wages", and you just have a job not "employment", and you have a boss, not an "employer". Especially if you don't work for the Federal government. ALL WITHHOLDING FROM CITIZENS HINGES ON “COVERED” EARNINGS (wages) for the Social Security tax program. And your boss became an “employer" when he voluntarily applied for an EIN (employment identification number) to participate in the Social Security system as a WITHHOLDER OF EMPLOYMENT TAXES (employer) under subtitle C, NOT subtitle A. Some of these definitions (descriptive paragraphs) are in Title 20 - Education, because just like public schooling, Social Security is VOLUNTARY, not mandatory (one can choose a private school, and one can choose a private retirement program, if he wishes). As a final point it should be noted that 404.1001(a)(5)(b) also states:

"...We generally do not include rules that are seldom used..."

LIKE CITIZENS THAT DON'T PARTICIPATE IN SOCIAL SECURITY !

Now, code section 26 U.S.C. § 3406, which is used to justify or order backup withholding, states:

§ 3406. Backup Withholding.

(a)Requirement to deduct and withhold.

(1) In general. In the case of any reportable payment, if -

(A) the payee fails to furnish his TIN to the payor in the manner required,

(B) the Secretary notifies the payor that the TIN furnished by payee is incorrect,

(D) there has been a payee certification failure described in subsection (d), then the payor shall deduct and withhold from such payment a tax equal to 31 percent of such payment.

(2) Subparagraphs (c) and (d) of paragraph (1) apply only to interest and dividend payments. Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph (1) shall apply only to reportable interest or dividend payments .....

So if anyone tries to backup withhold from your SALARY OR WAGES, you ask him where that's authorized in the law, because these sections ONLY APPLY TO INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS and patronage dividends. Section 3406 is worth examining a little closer. Paragraphs B and C within it, state that a notice is required from the Secretary; i.e. NO NOTICE = NO legal authority to “Backup Withhold” - the Secretary must make a formal request, or the payor cannot do it. Subsection A specifies a failure of a “manner required” to provide a number. So we will examine the “manner required” for reporting of remuneration to non-employees, which is specified in 26 U.S.C. 6041 et. seq., dependent upon the source of the payment (bank, broker, corporation, etc.), as we will see.

Also, it is worth noting that 26 U.S.C. Section 3451 states:

§ 3451. Income Tax Collected at Source on Interest, Dividends and Patronage Dividends.

(a) Requirement of withholding. Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, the payor of any interest, dividend or patronage dividend shall withhold a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount of the payment.

(b) Special Rules.

(1) Time of Withholding. Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, for the purposes of this subchapter--

(A) any payment of interest, dividend, or patronage dividend shall be treated as made, and

(B) the tax imposed by this section shall be withheld,

at the time of such interest, dividend, or patronage dividend is paid or credited.

So, there is NO authority, anywhere in the law, to backup withhold income tax from the payments or earnings of a United States Citizen who is NOT an employee with covered earnings (wages), only foreigners. If you have given a Statement of Citizenship to your broker (agent), that agent cannot backup withhold from your interest and dividends legally, even if he is ordered to, because the Statement of Citizenship relieves the agent from the duty of (and destroys the legal authority to) withhold(ing) income tax from that individual, as stated in Publication 515.

The following Code Section, 6041, is where the reporting of income to non-employees (contracted persons) on a Form 1099 originates. Also note that (uncovered) “wages” may be reported here. It states, in pertinent parts:

§ 6041. Information at source.

(a) Payments of $600 or more. All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable gains, profits and income (other than payments to which section 6042(a)(1), 6044(a)(1), 6047(e), 6049(a), or 6050(N)(a) applies, and other than payments with respect to which a statement is required under the authority of section 6042(a)(2), 6044(a)(2), or 6045), of $600 or more in any taxable year, or, in the case of such payments made by the United States, the officers or employees of the United States having information as to such payments and required to make returns in regard thereto by the regulations, hereinafter provided for, shall render a true and accurate return to the Secretary, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the amount of such gains, profits and income, and the name and address of the recipient of such payment.

.......

(c) Recipient to furnish name and address. When necessary to make effective the provisions of this section, the name and address of the recipient of income shall be furnished upon demand of the person paying the income. (emphasis added)

and for brokers,

6045. Returns of brokers

(a) General rule. Every person doing business as a broker shall, when required by the Secretary, make a return, in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, showing the name and address of each customer, with such details regarding gross proceeds and such other information as the Secretary may by forms or regulations require with respect to such business...

and for banks,

6049. Returns regarding payments of interest.

(a) Requirement of reporting . Every person -

(1) who makes payments of interest (as defined in subsection (b)) aggregating $10

or more to any other person during any calendar year, or <BR>

(2) who receives payments of interest (as so defined) as a nominee and who

makes payments aggregating $10 or more during any calendar year to any

other person with respect to the interest so received, shall make a return

according to the forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth

the aggregate amount of such payments and the name and address of the

person to whom paid. ....

and for corporate distributions,

6042. Returns regarding payments of dividends and corporate earnings and profits

(a) Requirement of reporting

(1) In general Every person -

(A) who makes payments of dividends aggregating $10 or more to any

other person during any calendar year, or

(B) who receives payments of dividends as a nominee and who makes

payments aggregating $10 or more during any calendar year to any

other person with respect to the dividends so received, shall make a

return according to the forms or regulations prescribed by the

Secretary, setting forth the aggregate amount of such payments

and the name and address of the person to whom paid...

6044. Returns regarding payments of patronage dividends

(a) Requirement of reporting

(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every

cooperative to which part I of subchapter T of chapter 1 applies, which

makes payments of amounts described in subsection (b) aggregating $10

or more to any person during any calendar year, shall make a return

according to the forms of regulations prescribed by the Secretary, setting

forth the aggregate amount of such payments and the name and

address of the person to whom paid...

Now, do you see any requirement anywhere, in any of these code sections, to use a social security number when making reports on these types of earnings ! WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY (banks, brokers, corporations) ALL TRY TO DEMAND A NUMBER FROM YOU ? COULD IT BE THE RESULTING TAX AND DEBT IMPLICATIONS ? CAN THEY LEGALLY REQUIRE YOU TO SUPPLY ONE ? NOT ACCORDING TO THE LAW !

SO, do you see any requirement to provide an SSN, or any other number, to a payor who will be reporting your (ANY) earnings on a Form 1099, INSTEAD of on a Form W-2 ? No, its not there.

As stated, this section (6041) and the others, are the code sections where the use of the Form 1099 originates (reporting payments to individuals NOT "covered" by Social Security). Carefully note that this reporting requirement DOES NOT REQUIRE a Social Security number, a TIN, or any other number from the individual. These sections ONLY requires the NAME and ADDRESS of the recipient. So give your clients (and/or your employer) your name and address on a Statement of Citizenship ( as specified in C.F.R. 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a Person Not Subject to Withholding), refuse to supply a social security number on a W-4 (because it is voluntary), and tell them to report your earnings on a Form 1099 instead of on a Form W-2 using your name and address as specified in the United States Code. Does that really sound so tough ? Without a SSN on the Form 1099, the IRS computers will not recognize that income as “taxable income”, and consequently, will never try to collect tax on it, income or employment. In fact there is some question as to whether these reports, without SSNs, ever even get entered into the IRS computer systems because without an SSN, or some other number, the record will never “link” to any “person” or report, for IRS examination or audit purposes, and therefore is useless information that can never be utilized by the “system”. Why bother enter it, it just takes up computer hard disk space?

Oh, you say, YOU ALREADY GAVE YOUR EMPLOYER A W-4. DID HE TELL YOU IT WAS VOLUNTARY, or claim it was mandatory ? If he did, that was fraud. Did he tell you that you can terminate the W-4 with written notice to him indicating such desire on your part ? Probably NOT. So, why not use the law AND TERMINATE YOUR W-4 AGREEMENT tomorrow with this letter.

{American Citizen}

{Citizen Address}

{City}, {ST}. {ZIP}

{Employer Contact Name}

{Employer Company Name}

{Employer Street Address}

{Employer City, ST Zip-Code}

Re: Notice of Termination of Current W-4 Agreement.

Dear {Employer Contact Name},

This letter is to inform you that I am no longer voluntarily participating in the social security system. Through a recent intensive study of the law, and of the Bible, I have reached the personal religious and legal conclusion that it is fundamentally evil to attempt to enumerate human flesh. This conclusion is based on the biblical prophecy contained in Revelation Chapter 13:

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a

mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads;

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the

beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him who hath understanding count the number of the beast,

for it is the number of a man; ...

It is my belief that this biblical prophecy is being realized in America today through the preponderant misuse of social security numbers by the government and its financial institutions, where men are coerced into betraying their faith in God and His security, and are convinced or forced into replacing that faith with a false allegiance to the electronic systems of mankind, administered through the assigned numbers. I prefer, and my personal religious beliefs demand, that I place my faith in God himself, rather than the "social security" of mere mortal men and their government promises of “security”.

The laws and regulations providing for the withholding of employment taxes associated with the Social Security program are found in Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapters 21 through Chapter 24. The legal provisions for the implementation of the Social Security program and the withholding of tax are contained therein.

Section 3402(a), which provides for the withholding of income tax from employees, by employers, clearly states:

§ 3402. Income tax collected at source

(a) Requirement of withholding.

(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary....

The conditions necessary, to be granted an exception from the tax withholding requirement of this statute, as provided by the specific language of this section, are specified at 3402(n), which states:

(n) Employees incurring no income tax liability

Not withstanding any other provisions of this section an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee -

(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for

his preceding taxable year, and

(2)anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed

under subtitle A for his current taxable year.....

....

The attached duplicate Statements of Citizenship provide to you the certification necesary, as specified by this subsection, for you to except myself from the withholding of this subtitle A income tax from my wages; as I have certified to you therein that I have no statutory liability for tax under subtitle A, as required by law.

Furthermore, in the Code of Federal Regulations at Section 31.3402, which corresponds to 26 USC 3402(p), it states in pertinent parts:

31.3402 (p) -1 Voluntary withholding agreements.

(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402 (p) to provide for the withholding of income tax…

(b) … an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402 (p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402 (f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding....

Furthermore, 26 C.F.R. 31.3402 (p) -1(b)(2) states :

"An agreement under Section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and the employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other." (emphasis added)

Per the instructions provided by these regulations, this is my formal notice to you, my "employer", that I wish to formally terminate between us any and all W-4 agreements on file with you, as per 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402 (p) -1(b)(2), effectively immediately. Consequently, all use of my social security number in making reports to the IRS must cease immediately, and the company must stop immediately the withholding of all employment taxes imposed under Subtitle C of Title 26, because, since I am no longer a voluntary participant in the Social Security program, I am no longer subject by law or regulation to the withholding or payment of those taxes associated with the administration of that welfare "benefits" program; because the laws and regulations implementing the Social Security program only apply to those individuals who have voluntarily chosen to participate in it.

Although the FICA statutes are in Chapter 21, rather than Chapter 24, where the above cites are taken from, Chapter 21, like Chapter 24, is also part of the administration of Subtitle C - Employment Taxes (from Title 26). The different chapters of Subtitle C, ALL implement different elements of the Social Security program provisons and taxes (FICA, MED, FUTA, etc.). BUT THEY ARE ALL TAXES, whose withholding is completely dependent upon there being a current, active W-4 (request for withholding) between the employee and the employer.

The fact that social security is not mandatory in the 50 states of the Union is clearly revealed by the definitions provided for "State" and "United States" in Title 26 Section 3121 of Chapter 21, controlling the territorial limits for mandatory implementation of the program. Subsection (e) of 3121 provides:

(e) State, United States, and citizen

For purposes of this chapter -

(1) State

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 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An

individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a

citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a

citizen of the United States.

These limited subtitle C definitions of areas covered clearly show that the Subtitle C Employment Taxes are NOT direct mandatory taxes in the 50 states, which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United State of America, but are voluntary taxes for Citizens in the states who wish to assume them, collected indirectly by employers at the employee's request, and are totally dependent upon the employee's voluntary decision to participate in the Social Security program, and the providing to the employer by the employee of a request to withhold (on a W-4), which I am refusing to do from this time forward. If you continue to withhold these taxes after taking receipt of this letter terminating your legal authority to withhold social security tax from me, you will be guilty of manifesting a condition of involuntary servitude upon my person, in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and will thus become liable to me for all damges that accrue as result of your unlawful encumbrance upon my remuneration, and deprivation of my rights to property. The fact that the laws record the fact that I am allowed to terminate my request for withholding is irrefutable proof of these facts.

The fundamentally voluntary nature of the Social Security program is evidenced by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935), wherein the court ruled that Congress did not have authority to create a mandatory benefits program and cannot compel U.S. Citizens to participate in any benefits program:

"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstrate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things ? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such ? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power."

This letter terminates your authority to withhold from my paychecks the employment taxes imposed under Subtitle C, and terminates my permission to use my social security number in making reports to the IRS, which would have the effect of mis-representing my person as one who is continuing to voluntarily participate in the social security program, which is not true

If you believe that there is a statutory authority that exists for you to continue to withhold tax from my pay under Subtitle A - income taxes, that allows you to continue to use my social security number for making reports to the IRS for such Subtitle A reporting purposes, please cite the Code section within Subtitle A (Chapters 1 through 6 of Title 26) that you believe grants you the authority to withhold income tax from a United States Citizen, and to use my social security number for such Subtitle A reporting, in your response to this letter. If you cannot cite a statutory authority under Subtitle A to withhold tax from a United States Citizen and use my social security number in conjunction with Subtitle A tax reporting, I will presume that you understand that you no longer have any legal authority under which you may operate to withhold taxes from my paychecks or use my social security number, and consequently, you will cease immediately all such withholding from my pay, and cease all use of my social security number for reporting purposes. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

{American Citizen}

========================================================

NOW COULD THAT BE ANY EASIER TO DO !

If your employer (or his lawyer) is worried about IRS penalties, show them:

§ Sec. 6724. Waiver; definitions and special rules.

(a) Reasonable cause waiver . No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

This shows that your employer and clients cannot be penalized by the IRS if you have provided the correct documentation when making your requests (see C.F.R. 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a Person Not Subject to Withholding). Certainly, being relieved of the duty of withholding tax (Publication 515) under the presentation of Statement of Citizenship is “reasonable cause” and not “willful neglect”.

Furthermore,

“ 1989 Internal Revenue Code Section 6676, 26 USC. § 6676 (1989) set forth the penalties for failing to supply the IRS with identifying numbers as required by the code...a $50.00 penalty will be imposed for failure of an employer to provide an identifying number on any document filed with the IRS unless it is shown that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. The Treasury Regulation interpreting the Statute states:

Under Section § 301.6109-1 (c) a payor is required to request the identifying number of the payee. If after such a request has been made the payee does not furnish the payor with his identifying number the penalty will not be assessed against the payor.

(emphasis added) Treas. Reg. § 3l0.6676-1 (1989)”

It is interesting to note that section 3403 - Liability for Tax, states:

§ 3403. Liability for tax.

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment. (emphasis added)

There you go, the employer is liable! The employers are liable, and that triggers the filing requirements of Section 6001 , remember, where "Every person liable...". It’s the employers who are liable, and the withholding agents who are made liable, and both of those sections, 6001 and 6011, establishing the associated filing requirements, are there so that the government can prosecute anyone who withholds income taxes and doesn’t pay them over to the Federal Treasury. Remember that Section 6001 referenced "employers" in its third sentence ? This is why, according to Section 3403 "THE EMPLOYER SHALL BE LIABLE", not the individuals. By its own specific language Section 6001 only relates to those "persons" who are liable - the employers.

These are the ONLY code sections in existence that establish liability for the payment of income tax, other than the limited liability for foreign earned income imposed and established by Chapter 1, Section 1 - Tax imposed (the income tax), which we have already examined. There are no other Code Sections anywhere in the United States Code that establish liability for payment of the income tax. And as you have seen, what the U.S. Citizens are actually liable for under the law is the payment of income tax on privileged (foreign or federal) sources, not domestic income earned by Right.

And from the Supreme Court on this subject:

“The reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of “taxpayer” is bestowed upon them and their property seized.” [Botta v. Scanlon, 228 F. 2nd 304 (1961)] .

It is Voluntary

“Let me point this out now. Your [subtitle C “employment”] income tax is 100 percent voluntary 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...” (BUT SOMEHOW, TODAY, THE IRS CLAIMS THEY DO !)

Dwight E. Avis, Head of ATF, IRS - House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings - 1953

"You are among the millions of Americans who comply with the tax law voluntarily."

(1992 Form 1040 Tax Instruction Booklet)

"Two aspects of the Federal Income Tax system - voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax - make it important for you to understand your rights and responsibilities as a taxpayer. 'Voluntary compliance' places on the taxpayer the responsibility for filing an income tax return. You must decide whether the law requires you to file a return. If it does, you must file your return by the date it is due." (IRS Publication 21)

"The IRS's goal is to increase the rate at which taxpayers voluntarily pay their taxes from the current 82.3% to 90% by 2001." (The Washington Post front page Dec. 2, 1993 - "IRS Hopes Change")

"Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe." (Johnie M. Walters IRS Commissioner, 1971 Form 1040 Booklet)

"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance." (Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 IRS IR Audit Manual)

"The mission of the service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance." (Donald C. Alexander, IRS Commissioner, Federal Register, March 1974)

"The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system. (Jerome Kurtz IRS Commissioner, 1980 IR Annual Report)

"We have a voluntary compliance system." (Fred Goldberg, IRS Commissioner, Nightline with Ted Koppel, Apr.13, 1990)

and finally, from the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority in the land:

"Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint (force)." (United States v. Flora, 362 US 145 (1958))

This is a whole page full of statements that the IRS has made, in public, to the media and the People, regarding the "true nature of our tax situation". The sources are quoted. In these, the IRS repeatedly states over and over again that Citizens comply with the tax laws voluntarily, and that our tax system is based on voluntary compliance and self assessment, and now you know why. Because if the Citizen does not voluntarily comply, and through his own ignorance of the law, misapply the code and use the wrong form, the whole system fails. And that’s why they say it’s voluntary, because under the law, it is. And, if you do comply voluntarily, then they can use against you the information that you provided on the Form, because the courts have ruled that when you perform a voluntary self assessment (file a Form 1040), you establish the liability for payment of the tax necessary for the IRS to collect and enforce the amount assessed.

But there is no statutory liability imposed on Citizens for the payment of income tax on domestic income, only foreign income under tax treaties and on income from federal sources. You, the Citizen, create your own liability for the income tax that grants the IRS the jurisdictional authority to enforce and collect the numbers you show on your return when you voluntarily perform that self assessment using the wrong form. And, it doesn’t matter that you misapplied the law or used the wrong form; you establish the liability voluntarily with the assessment, and it is then legal, and you owe it. You have to pay it, and they can enforce it if you don't. And if they find anything incorrect or fraudulent on the return, they can assess penalties and interest because the assessment was incorrect or not done properly.

I don’t know if anybody noticed, but if you look back to the table in 26 CFR 602.101, where we saw the OMB Document Control Numbers required by Section 1.1-1, on the next line 1.23-5 appears, which does require the form numbered 1545-0074, Form 1040. Some of you may have noticed this and thought I was trying to slip one by you. So, here’s 1.23-5

26 CFR 1.23-5 Certification Procedures.

(a) Certification that an item meets the definition of an energy-conserving component or renewable energy source property. Upon request of a manufacturer of an item....the Assistant Commissioner shall certify ... that :

(1) the item meets the definition of insulation (see ........

This is from the Code of Federal Regulations, and it starts:

"Certification procedures. (a) Certification that an item meets the definition of an energy-conserving component or renewable energy source property..."

Section 1.23-5 is the renewable energy resource credit. If you want to claim this deduction, or that credit, you have to file Form 1040, because it’s the proper legal vehicle or mechanism through which that deduction is claimed. And there are a lot of other deductions and credits and legal reasons why Form 1040 would be required. If you want to claim a refund, you have to file Form 1040, because that’s the established legal mechanism through which a Citizen claims a refund. If you want to claim certain credits, or take certain deductions, you have to file Form 1040 because that is the legal mechanism through which those credits and deductions are claimed. But, if all you want to do is satisfy the liability for tax on taxable income that you as a Citizen have, without claiming any deductions, or taking any credits, then the only form that you are required to file is Form 2555, not Form 1040. Because Form 2555 is the only form required by law, the proper vehicle for you to use to satisfy the liability you have for income tax as an individual Citizen, according to the law. So, how does the IRS get away with doing what they have been doing for so long?

Remember that if you want to claim a refund, you MUST file a Form 1040 because it is the legal mechanism through which a refund is claimed !! This is why they deceptively withhold from you when you are young and start working at your first job. You are young and naive, and know nothing about the tax law and they take advantage of your ignorance and withhold more than is necessary. You are gradually conditioned, or programmed, to file a return TO GET A REFUND, NOT to pay the tax. Then when you get older, you've been filing the Form 1040 all your life, so you continue doing what you did all along, ignorantly; because you are no longer filing to get a refund, NOW YOU'RE FILING TO PAY A TAX THAT YOU ARE NOT LIABLE BY LAW TO PAY !

IF ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS SATISFY YOUR LIABILITY, YOU DO NOT USE FORM 1040.

CITIZENS USE FORM 2555 to satisfy liability ! At least that's what the law says !

That's because, as far as individuals are concerned,

THE INCOME TAX IS STILL JUST A FOREIGN TAX !

I know old habits are hard to break, and that all of this information doesn't agree with what you have been told to believe all of your life, and in fact, doesn't seem possible, but keep reading because the truth is far stranger than fiction and the law records the truth. And, as you will see, IGNORANCE CAN BE ELIMINATED WITH KNOWLEDGE, ITS STUPIDITY THAT REMAINS FOREVER, and

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE !

CHAPTER 3

ENFORCEMENT

Remember earlier, the question was raised: "What is taxable income ?" Section 63 is the code section that the IRS claims establishes what "taxable income" is. It states:

§ 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions ..........

The IRS claims that since the definition of "taxable income" references "gross income" (defined in Section 61), then everything that anybody makes that is listed in Section 61 is taxable income and must be reported. That is the complete and total argument that the IRS makes in its demand for income taxes. Section 61 states:

§ 61. Gross income defined.

(a) General definition. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits and similar items;

(2) Gross income derived from business;

(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;

(4) Interest;

(5) Rents;

(6) Royalties;

(7) Dividends;

(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;

(9) Annuities;

(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;

(11) Pensions;

(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;

(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;

(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and

(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

(b) Cross references.

For items specifically included in gross income, see part II

(Sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded

from gross income, see part III (Sec. 101 and following).

Do you see where subsection (a) lists possible sources and where subsection (b) says where to find the items specifically included in gross income. Do you understand the difference between a possible source and an included item. What exactly are those “items specifically included” ?

Part II. Items specifically included in gross income.

§ 71. Alimony and separate maintenance payments.

§ 72. Annuities; certain proceeds of endowment and life insurance contracts.

§ 73. Services of child.

§ 74. Prizes and awards.

§ 75. Dealers in tax-exempt securities.

(76. Repealed.)

§ 77. Commodity credit loans.

§ 78. Dividends received from certain foreign corporations by domestic

corporations choosing foreign tax credit.

§ 79. Group-term life insurance purchased for employees.

§ 80. Restoration of value of certain securities.

(81. Repealed.)

§ 82. Reimbursement of moving expenses.

§ 83. Property transferred in connection with performance of services.

§ 84. Transfer of appreciated property to political organizations.

§ 85. Unemployment compensation.

§ 86. Social security and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits.

§ 87. Alcohol fuel credit.

§ 88. Certain amounts with respect to nuclear decommissioning costs.

(89. Repealed.)

§ 90. Illegal Federal irrigation subsidies.

I have not received any income from any of these items specifically included, have you ? The IRS, of course, claims that the sources are the actual included items, ignoring entirely the precise language (and obvious repercussions) of subsection (b).

Do the regulations help clear up this confusion between items and sources ? Well, yes they do.

Sources are described by the Secretary of the Treasury in the Code of Federal Regulations and are the legally binding definition of 'sources' that must apply to an income for it to be classified as 'Gross Income'.

Subchapter N establishes the legal limitations of the sources subject to tax, based on income from sources within or without the United States. For U.S. citizens, the sources subjected to taxation are treated in Section 911 and 931. In Section 911, a U.S. citizen living and working abroad, and thus having sources without the U.S., is subjected to taxation. In Section 931, the sources subjected to taxation are those sources earned within a possession of the United States. For U.S. citizens, who were born in the U.S., who are domiciled in the U.S., and who have sources of income within the U.S., there is no income tax imposed on any source. From Title 26, we have:

Subchapter N. Tax based on income from sources within or without the United States

Part I. Source rules and other general rules relating to foreign income.

Part II. Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations

Part III. Income from sources without the United States

(Sections 911 and 931 are contained herein)

Part IV. Domestic international sales corporations.

Part V. International boycott determinations.

Which Part applies to the domestic income of a U. S. Citizen ? Furthermore, the Code of Federal Regulations, at 1.861- 8(a), states:

"...The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections." (Emphasis added)

The Federal Regulations make reference to 'sources' within the United States . These are the only sources listed from which income must derive in order for it to be taxable for the purpose of the Income Tax. Paragraph (f)(1), mentioned above, states:

Code of Federal Regulations 1.861-8(f)(1)

(i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit.

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) DISC and FSC taxable income.

(iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign

corporations engaged in trade or business within the U.S.

(v) Foreign base company income.

(vi) Other operative sections.

(A) ...foreign source items of tax...

(B) ...foreign mineral income...

(D) "...foreign oil and gas extraction income..."

(E) "...citizens entitled to the benefits of section 931 and the section 936 tax

credit..."

(F) "...residents of Puerto Rico..."

(G) "...income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands..."

(H) "...income derived from Guam..."

(I) "...China Trade Act corporations..."

(J) "...income of a controlled foreign corporation..."

(K) "...income from the insurance of U.S. risks..."

(L) "...international boycott factor...attributable taxes and income under section

999..."

(M) "...income attributable to the operation of a agreement vessel

under section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936..."

This is very important in light of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the inclusion or exclusion of something in a law. Or simply, if a particular source is not on the list, it is effectively 'excluded' from 'Gross Income'. There are no other “OPERATIVE” sections.

The above list/regulation can be described merely as a fence, the Secretary was given the task to encircle and delineate the only area from which 'Gross Income' and hence 'taxable income' can be derived or accepted from. The above list is in fact the only definition of 'sources' anywhere in the regulations. 'Whatever' is within the fence is 'allowed' to be listed as 'Gross Income'. If it is not within the confines of the Secretary's 'fence' or 'regulation', it is 'exempt'. Some with a vested interest in your money, will argue that the word 'whatever' in the 16th Amendment means 'any and all'... yes, we AGREE that it does.. 'any and all 'sources'. The Secretary has defined them, then Congress agreed with the Secretary. And they are restricted to the above list as it is the only list which defines sources. A list for Citizens with domestic income does not exist! Remember that the power of the Congress is limited and so are it's laws.

Let's put it still another way...

It is not always what is in a law that is important. Sometimes what is not stated in a law is also equally important. Especially if you're assuming something is in a law, when it clearly is not.

1.) Section 61 states that income from 'sources' is gross income, which is taxable.

2.) Section 861 lists the 'sources' from within and without the U.S.

3.) Section 862 lists 'sources' that are only foreign.

Where is the section of law showing the U.S. domestic 'sources' ? It doesn't exist anywhere in the law. In good faith, let's take a look at Section 861. When you examine Sectio 861's regulations, you find the admission in 1.861-8 (a)(4), that income must come from a specific source to be taxable. If you examine the sources in 1.861-8 (f)(1), you will find that the domestic sources are only applicable to non-resident aliens and foreign corporations. The others listed are foreign sources that U.S. citizens would definitely be taxed upon

The four sources listed in (f)(1) are again repeated as non-exempt income pursuant to 26 CFR section 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2)(iii). And pursuant to 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2), all income that is exempt, excluded (not listed), or that is eliminated from the law, is exempt income.

The only remaining question is, why is it that the IRS believes that they can render an Act of Congress, The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, superfluous and of no legal effect, when we point out that the only form required to be filed pursuant to section 1.1-1 of the Code is the 2555 foreign earned income form ? Especially when they try to pass off this section of Code as the law taxing all U.S. citizens on their income from taxable sources.

AND THEY (the sources) ARE NOT THE ACTUAL ITEMS INCLUDED. You can see that the definition of gross income has been written to deceptively appear to include all of these, but, I would like you to remember that in 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. that it is unconstitutional to impose an income tax on the interest and dividends of U.S. Citizens on deposit in U.S. banks. Both of those items are listed here in section 61. Interest is number (4) and Dividends is number (7). And the Supreme Court further ruled in Stanton v Baltic Mining Co. in 1916, that no new power of taxation was conferred by the 16th Amendment.

So, if it was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and no new power was conferred by it; How can Section 61 be constitutional when it states that interest and dividends are part of gross income and will be taxed ? Well, we have to look at what the law shows for how Section 61 is supposed to be implemented and applied.

This version of Section 61 that is shown above is from the current 1986 version of the Code. The previous version of the Code is from 1954. This Section, 61, is nearly identical in both versions, except for the following footnote shown in the 1954 version:

"Source: Sec. 22(a), 1939 Code, substantially unchanged"

For some reason the footnote was dropped when the law was recodified in 1986. It is not known why the footnote was dropped in 1986, but it is very important because, as you can see, the footnote identifies the source of Section 61 as being Section 22(a) in the 1939 code, the last codified version previous to the 1954 version. Being able to research the source of a law is very important to determining how that law is supposed to be properly applied under the law. Without a review of the source materials it is very difficult to accurately determine how a law was originally intended to be applied, and the courts, of course, only have authority over the law, under, and to the extent of, its original intent. So we go to Section 22(a) in the 1939 code, and we see that the format has changed, but indeed, the substance is pretty much the same as in 1986.

SEC. 22 GROSS INCOME.

(a) General Definition.-"Gross Income" includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses commerce or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever....

But in order to understand how Section 61 is supposed to be applied today, it is very important to know and understand how Section 22 was implemented and applied in 1939,. The two sections are inextricably linked in such relevant fashion, and the answer to our question of how Section 61 can be Constitutional, given the Pollock decision, can only be found by a thorough examination of this relationship.

If we go back to the 1918 statutes we can examine the origins of Section 22, which are found in Section 213, which states:

Sec. 213. That for purposes of this title....the term “gross income” -

(a) includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or 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), of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. ...

(emphasis added)

And further insight can be gained from a review of Section 931 from the 1954 Code. It states:

Sec 931. Income from sources within possessions of the United States.

(a) General rule. In the case of individual Citizens of the United States, gross income means only gross income from sources within the United States if the conditions of both paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) are satisfied:

(1) 3-year period. If 80 percent or more of the gross income of such Citizen... was derived from sources within a possession of the United States; and

(2) Trade or business. If 50 percent or more of his gross income ... was derived from the active conduct of a trade or business within a possession of the United States either on his own account or as an employee or agent of another.

...

(h) Employees of the United States. For purposes of this section amount paid for services performed by a Citizen of the United States as an employee of the United States or any agency thereof shall be deemed to be derived from sources within the United States. (emphasis added)

You will notice that Congress is making reference to the gross income WHERE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (UNITED STATES) IS THE SOURCE of that income, or where it is the “sovereign” authority (possessions). ALSO CAREFULLY NOTE THAT THIS SECTION REVEALS THAT THE TERM “UNITED STATES”, in the I.R. Code, MEANS THE “U.S. GOVERNMENT”, NOT THE NATION OR THE WHOLE COUNTRY. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. It indicates that where the phrase “within the United States” or “without the United States” is used, it is NOT being used in the geographical sense (deceptively), BUT IS BEING USED TO INDICATE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as the (ONLY) lawfully affected “source” of the income ! Now go back and reread again everything to this point with that understanding and see if this doesn’t all begin to make REAL sense, as never before !

BECAUSE they (the U.S. government) ONLY have AUTHORITY over their OWN AFFAIRS (their employment contracts). They DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY over PRIVATE contracts in “foreign countries” without tax treaties, or over private contracts in the 50 states. So lets investigate that.

(Notice how the definition of “gross income” has been vaguely re-written with each new “codification” of the law, so that without researching its history, it is virtually impossible to determine from today’s statute (61) that there is a limitation to FEDERAL SOURCES inherent in the definition of “gross income” THIS IS IRS HUMBUG)

Furthermore, as you can see in the following table, shown here from the Code of Federal Regulations, Index of Parallel Tables - 1991 enabling regulations for the 1939 code sections, it clearly shows that Section 22, under the 1939 code, was implemented under Title 26, Part 519.

CFR INDEX PARALLEL TABLE

1991 Enabling sections

_____________________________________

26 U.S.C. (1939 I.R.C.)

22 ........................................... 26 Part 519

40 ........................................... 26 Part 1

62 ............................................26 Parts 509,513,514,520,521

143-144 .................................. 26 Part 521

....

The next table reveals what Part 519 is:

CHAPTER 1 - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

(Parts 500 to 529)

____________________________________________

SUBCHAPTER G - Regulations Under Tax Conventions

Part

500 [Reserved]

501 Australia ..........................

502 Greece ............................(x)

503 Germany .........................(x)

504 Belgium ...........................

505 Netherlands ....................

506 Japan ...............................

507 United Kingdom .............

509 Switzerland .....................(x)

510 Norway ............................

511 Finland ...........................

512 Italy .................................

513 Ireland.............................(x)

514 France ............................(x)

515 Honduras .....................

516 Austria ............................(x)

517 Pakistan ..........................(x)

518 New Zealand ..................

519 Canada ........................

520 Sweden ...........................(x)

521 Denmark..........................(x)

Part 519 is the Canadian Tax Treaty. What Section 61 actually defines (through the inherited limitation of Section 22), under the letter of the law; are the sources of taxable income under the foreign tax treaty with Canada. It does not define the domestic sources of taxable income. It defines the Canadian sources, under the Canadian Tax Treaty.

The countries shown in the table with an '...(x)' (ed.'s addition) are the countries with whom America has current tax treaties, in effect today (1996). However, since the Canadian Tax Treaty expired in 1993, Part 519 is now shown as reserved for future use in this Table, and Section 61 no longer has any legitimate application within Title 26 (IR Code) for the purpose of defining what gross income is (except, perhaps, under other tax treaties and for Federal employees subject to the “kickback” on Federal “wages” under Chapter 24).

But, most Citizens are ignorant of the law, they’re ignorant of the application of the law, they’re ignorant of the history of the law and these Court rulings, and the IRS relies on and takes advantage of that ignorance. The IRS relies on your ignorance, and your wrongfully self assessing the tax by using the wrong form. And legitimately, under the law, that’s not the way the law is actually applied, nor was it ever intended to be applied in such fashion.

Now the word “income” is not defined by itself anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code, so what has the Supreme Court said about the definition of the word/term “income” alone ?

“The word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act (of 1909)” [Merchant’s Loan and Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (at pp. 518 & 519)]

“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of ‘income’ it imports, as used here...the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities...[Doyle v. Mitchell, 247 US 179]

“Certainly the term ‘income’ has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than in that of 1909” [Straton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 416, 417]

“...we assume that there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two Acts.” [Southern Pacific Co. v. John Z. Lowe, Jr., 247 US 330, 335]

For purposes of this book income is taken to mean

“gain or profit on capitol or labor, or a combination of both”.

ENFORCEMENT

POSITIVE LAW

All of the laws of the United States have been codified into what is called the United States Code (USC). There are 50 Titles within the Code. The Titles that have been passed into what is known as "positive" law, are the Law of the nation, and can be legitimately used as "evidence" of statutory violations that result in formal "charges" against persons in our society. This can be seen to be true if one reviews Title 1 USC Section 204, which states:

§ 204. Codes and supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and supplements.

(a) United States Code... Provided, however that whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all courts of the United States, the several states, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. (emphasis added)

Each Title that has been passed into positive law records and indicates such passage within the Title itself. The 50 Titles (Positive Titles with *) and their Subjects are listed on the next page.

The Fifty Titles

* Title 1 General Provisions * Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

Title 2 The Congress Title 29 Labor

* Title 3 The President Title 30 Mineral Lands and Mining

* Title 4 Flag and Seal, Seat Of * Title 31 Money and Finance

Government, and the States * Title 32 National Guard

* Title 5 Government Organization and Title 33 Navigation and Navigable

Employees Waters

Title 6 Surety Bonds (repealed-Title 31) Title 34 Navy (repealed-Title 10)

Title 7 Agriculture * Title 35 Patents

Title 8 Aliens and Nationality Title 36 Patriotic Societies and

* Title 9 Arbitration Observances

* Title 10 Armed Forces * Title 37 Pay and Allowances Of the

* Title 11 Bankruptcy Uniformed Services

Title 12 Banks and Banking * Title 38 Veterans' Benefits

* Title 13 Census * Title 39 Postal Service

* Title 14 Coast Guard Title 40 Public Buildings, Property, and

Title 15 Commerce and Trade Works

Title 16 Conservation Title 41 Public Contracts

* Title 17 Copyrights Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare

* Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure Title 43 Public Lands

Title 19 Customs Duties * Title 44 Public Printing and Documents

Title 20 Education Title 45 Railroads

Title 21 Food and Drugs Title 46 Shipping

Title 22 Foreign Relations and Title 47 Telegraphs, Telephones, and

Intercourse Radiotelegraphs

* Title 23 Highways Title 48 Territories and Insular

Title 24 Hospitals and Asylums Possessions

Title 25 Indians * Title 49 Transportation

Title 26 Internal Revenue Code Title 50 War and National Defense

Title 27 Intoxicating Liquors

All persons living under the laws of the United States are bound by the "positive" laws in the Titles of the U.S. Code, whereas those Titles that are not passed into positive law appear to be limited in application to specific classes of persons and places, because the Federal government DOES NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL PEOPLE (SOVEREIGNS) or places (STATES), for ALL matters. Title 26, the Title containing the I.R. Code, HAS NEVER BEEN PASSED INTO POSITIVE LAW and therefore DOES NOT APPEAR TO APPLY TO ALL PEOPLE BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THIS STATUTE, IT IS NOT LEGAL “EVIDENCE OF THE LAWS....OF THE UNITED STATES” and therefore cannot have general applicability to the public. Who does this Title apply to, then, if NOT all people?

Title 44, Section 1505 sheds some light on this issue, it states:

§ 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register

(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published by Congress.

There shall be published in the Federal Register -

(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having

general applicability and legal effect, or effective only against Federal

agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees

thereof; .... (emphasis added)

Basically this section provides that before ANY ACT OF GOVERNMENT becomes

binding on ALL PERSONS in the nation, that, if regulations are specified, those regulations must be PUBLISHED in the Federal Register. Title 26 has NEVER been passed into positive law, nor have many of its regulations (specifically deficiency, lien, levy and enforcement regulations) ever been printed in the Federal Register as being invocable or applicable under Title 26. Therefore, those unpublished regulations, CANNOT LAWFULLY BE APPLIED TO ANYONE EXCEPT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, as provided for in 44 USC 1505. Are you a Federal Employee ? Would you like to see what has been published in the Federal Register regarding Title 26 Section 1 ? How's this:

[Federal Register: April 22, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 78)]

[Proposed Rules]

[Page 17614-17667]

From the Federal Register On-line via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

========================================================

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 31, 35a, 301, 502, 503, 509, 513, 514, 516, 517, 520, and 521

[INTL-O62-90; INTL-0032-93; INTL-52-86; INTL-52-94]

RINS 1545-AO27; 1545-AR90; 1545-AL99; 1545-AT00

General Revision of Regulations Relating to Withholding of Tax on

Certain U.S. Source Income Paid to Foreign Persons and Related

Collection, Refunds, and Credits; Revision of Information Reporting and

Backup Withholding Regulations; and Removal of Regulations Under Part

35a and of Certain Regulations Under Income Tax Treaties

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of notice of

proposed rulemaking.]

NOW ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU, and showed you earlier !

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has established that where the enforcement authority of laws in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is dependent upon the regulations promulgated by the Secretary, they must be published:

"we think it is important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone."

California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21,26 (1974) (emphasis added)

Without published regulations (where regulations are statutorily required) there is no legitimate legal enforcement authority held. Now, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Index and Finding Aids - Parallel Table of Authorities shows the location (statutory association) of the published regulations. All regulations with general applicability to the American public must be published in the Federal Register under their authorizing Title and Part. The statutes applicable to assessment, collection and enforcement laws in Title 26 (I.R. Code), and their STATUTORY APPLICABILITY are shown as follows:

PUBLISHED REGULATIONS

Section Published Regulation in: Description

====== ===================== ======================

6020 27 CFR Part 53,70 Return Prepared by Sec.

6201 27 CFR Part 70 Assessment Authority

6203 27 CFR Part 70 Method of Assessment

6212 NO REGULATION Notice of Deficiency

6213 NO REGULATION ...Petition To Tax Court

6214 NO REGULATION Determinations By Tax Court

6215 NO REGULATION Assessment ... By Tax Court

6301 27 Part 70,24,25,250,270,275 Collection Authority

6303 27 Part 70 Notice & Demand For Tax

6321 27 Part 70 Liens For Tax 6331-43 27 Part 70 Levy and Distraint 6651 27 Part 70,24,25,194 Failure to File or Pay 6671 27 Part 70 Penalty Assessed 6672 27 Part 70 Failure to Collect and Pay Over

6701 27 Part 70 Penalties For Understatement 7201 NO REGULATION Attempt to Evade or Defeat 7203 NO REGULATION Willful Failure to File... 7207 27 Part 70 Fraudulent Returns 7212 27 Part 170,270,275,285,290,295,296 Interference with I.R. Laws 7401 27 Part 70 Judicial Proceedings Authority 7402 NO REGULATION Court's Jurisdiction to Enforce 7403 27 Part 70 Judicial Action To Enforce Lien

7454 NO REGULATION Burden of Proof ... Transferee Cases

7601 27 Part 70 Canvass of District.... 7602 27 Part 70,170,296 Examination of Books .... 7603 27 Part 70 Service of Summons 7604 27 Part 70 Enforcement of Summons 7605 27 Part 70 Time & Place For Examination 7608 27 Part 70,170,296 Authority of Enforcement Officers

As you can see NONE of the published implementing regulations are associated with Title 26, and THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS AT ALL PUBLISHED FOR 6212 - Deficiencies, 6213, 6214, 6215 - Tax Court, 7201, 7203 - Evasion & Willful failure penalties, 7402 Jurisdiction to enforce. Which of course means that THEY APPEAR TO ONLY APPLY TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (TRANSFEREES) who MUST RETURN INCOME TO THE TREASURY AS PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (under 4 USC 111). ALL OF THE PUBLISHED AUTHORITIES ARE FOR TITLE 27 Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. THEY DO NOT AND CANNOT APPLY ANYWHERE ELSE UNTIL PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER UNDER TITLE 26 as being applicable to all Citizens.

This is confirmed at 26 C.F.R. 601.702., where it addresses and specifies the consequences of a failure to publish in the Federal Register. It states therein:

“(ii) Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms of any matter referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph which is required to be published in the Federal Register, such person is not required in any matter to resort to, or be adversely affected by, such matter if it is not so published or is not incorporated by reference therein pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subparagraph. Thus, for example, any such matter which imposes an obligation and which is not so published or incorporated by reference will not adversely change or affect a person’s rights.”

And finally from the Supreme Court on this issue:

“Failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to denial of due process: if regulations are required by Constitution or statute.” [Curley v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 52]

“for federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern.”

[Dodd v. United States, 223 F Supp 785, Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 US 186,, 59 S. Ct 155]

“...these regulations called for by the statute itself, have the force of law, and violations thereof incur criminal prosecutions, just as if all the details had been incorporated into the congressional language. The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other.” [United States v. Mersky 361 U.S. 438].

Assessment Authority

So, what does the IRS do ? The IRS claims that Section 6201 grants them the authority to assess income taxes directly. It states:

§ 6201. Assessment authority.

(a) Authority of Secretary. The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1) Taxes shown on return. The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the

taxpayer or by the secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

(2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp.

(A) Omitted stamps. ...

(B) Check or Money Order not duly paid. ...

(3) Erroneous income tax prepayment credits. ....

.........

(b) Amount Not To Be Assessed.

(1) Estimated income tax. No unpaid amount of estimated income tax required to be

paid under section 6654 or 6655 shall be assessed.....

Are income taxes paid by stamp ? No! Now, are you beginning to understand why the IRS wants you to voluntarily file a return ? Because subparagraph (a)(1) here gives them the authority to assess taxes shown on returns. But, let’s suppose you don’t file a return; what authority is left ? Well, Subsections 2 and 3 are left: "(2) Unpaid Taxes Payable By Stamp", (again, are income taxes payable by stamp) and: ”(3) Erroneous Income Tax Prepayment Credits". That’s it. That's the true extent of the authority to assess taxes under the law “1- Taxes shown on returns (done voluntarily), 2 - unpaid taxes payable by stamp (stamp taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, and 3- prepayment credits (withheld taxes). So where is the legal authority to assess income taxes not shown on a return ? (for individuals who do not file). IT DOESN’T EXIST IN THE LAW.

Now, it’s interesting to note, down at the bottom of 6201, it also states "(b) Amount Not To Be Assessed. (1) Estimated income tax.-No unpaid amount of estimated income tax required to be paid under section 6654 or 6655 shall be assessed". Remember, 6654 (e)(2)(C), your exception to the failure to file? Right here under 6201 their claimed authority, it states that if 6654 applies, no unpaid amount of estimated income tax assessed here is required to be paid.

So, if there is no return, the IRS has no legal authority to assess income taxes, and surprisingly enough, they admit that. So they just claim Section 6020 applies. The IRS claims that Section 6020 allows them to prepare and file a Form 1040 return for those individuals who refuse to do so voluntarily. It states:

§ 6020. Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary.

(a) Preparation of return by Secretary. If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title or by regulation prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return, which being signed by such person, may be received by the Secretary as the return of such person.

(b) Execution of return by Secretary.

(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return. If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

(2) Status of returns. Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes. (emphasis added)

As you can see Subsection (a) says:

"but shall consent to disclose all information necessary in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return...".

Subsection (a) clearly requires consent from the Citizen. So the IRS claims that Subsection (b) is what applies. Subsection (b) says:

"if any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise."

Here, the Secretary is authorized, in fact required, to file forms for individuals if they fail to do so. So, if the Secretary was required; why do they charge Citizens with the failure to file ? The only requirement that can be found in the law is for the Secretary. It’s the secretary that fails the requirement to file the assessment forms, not the Citizen. IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE LAW TO LEGITIMATELY CHARGE ANY CITIZEN IN THE COUNTRY WITH FAILURE TO FILE A FORM 1040, BECAUSE THIS REQUIREMENT (the Secretary’s) IS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT TO FILE THAT CAN BE FOUND IN THE LAW, AND THE W-2 IS SUPPOSED TO “SUBSTITUTE” FOR A FORM 1040 WHEN NONE IS PROVIDED BY THE TAXPAYER according to the publications in the Federal Register. Also note that the Secretary must sign (subscribe) the return for it to be valid (prima facie). THEY REFUSE.

So, the IRS claims that 6020(b) authorizes them to file a Form 1040 for a Citizen who refuses to do so voluntarily. However, the Internal Revenue Manual, in Chapter 5200 , addresses the proper legal use and invocation of 6020(b). It states:

5290. Refusal to file - IRC 6020(b) Assessment Procedure.

5291. Scope

(1) This procedure applies to employment, excise and partnership returns .... the following returns will be involved:

(a) Form 940 - Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return

(b) Form 941 - Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return

(c) Form 942 - Employer's Quarterly Tax Return for Household Employees

(d) Form 943 - Employer's Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees

(e) Form 11-B - Special Tax Return - Gaming Devices

(f) Form 720 - Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return

(g) Form 2290 - Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles

(h) Form CT-1 - Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return

(i) Form 1065 - U.S. Partnership Return of Income

It clearly states that:

"This procedure applies to employment, excise and partnership tax returns".

Does that say that 6020(b) applies to individual returns ? No, it doesn’t. It applies to employment excise and partnership tax returns. And look at what forms it states they are authorized to file under 6020(b):

"Form 940 ... 941 ... 942 ... 943 ... 11-B ... 720 ... 2290 .. CT-1 ... and ... 1065"

End of list. Is Form 1040 listed here? No, it is not! Form 1040 is not one of the forms that the IRS is actually authorized to file under Section 6020(b), according to the Internal Revenue Manual itself! 6020(b) is authorized only for employment, excise & partnership tax returns.

Why? Because, the tax is not imposed in a direct fashion on the domestic income of U.S. Citizens and Form 1040 IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW FROM ANYONE who is not a withholding agent or non-resident alien. And, again in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), at Section 5293.1 it states:

Returns Prepared Under IRC 6020(b)

5293.1

General.

(1) If the taxpayer fails to file employment, excise and partnership tax returns by the specified date, the return should be prepared under the authority of IRC 6020(b).....

Does that say individual returns ? No ! Again it emphasizes employment, excise and partnership returns only, not individual returns.

Finally at IRM 5293.1 (7) it states:

(7) In unable to locate situations when the proprietors, partners or responsible officers and assets cannot be located and:

(a) when their SSNs can be determined process the returns and follow the guidelines in IRM 5263 for returns without full payment; or

(b) when their SSNs cannot be determined, close the delinquency using TC (transaction code) 593 with the proper closing code. (see the guidelines in IRM 5235(2)(c).

Now, what do subtitle C Social Security numbers have to do with delinquencies under subtitle A ? Why would they close a delinquency simply because there is no Social Security number for the individual ? Why is a Social Security number necessary to have an income tax delinquency ? Social security numbers, under the law, have nothing at all to do with income taxes under Subtitle A ! They (SSNs) are only to be used for the administration of the Subtitle C - Employment Tax laws contained in chapters 21 through 25.

The improper use of 6020(b) can be further exposed by a review of Sections 6061 and 6065.

§ 6061. Signing of returns and other documents. Except as other wise provided by sections 6062 (Signing of corporation returns) and 6063 (Signing of partnership returns) , any return, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed in accordance with forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(emphasis added)

§ 6065. Verification of returns. Except as other wise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

Section 6061 states:

"any returns, statements or other documents required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall be signed in accordance with forms or regulations".

And Section 6065 states:

"any return declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulation shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury".

Ever seen one ? Furthermore, Section 6020 subsection (b)(2) stated:

"Any return so made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes."

I have never seen a substitute Form 1040, prepared by the IRS, that was either signed, or sworn to. Obviously that would be a violation of these laws. The IRS is required by law to sign these documents, but they refuse to do so, because they know they’re acting outside the authority authorized under the law and actually contained within the Revenue Manual. They know that if they sign the documents, they will assume the liability for the wrongful claims made on them. They do not want to do that, so they refuse to sign. They fill it all out and send it to you, for you to sign. They refuse to validate their own work with a signature as required under the law. but they demand that you, the Citizen, honor this fraudulent work with payment, without anyone from the government ever validating it for you or swearing that it's true. It is a violation of the law, but the Citizens generally accede to the demands, and out of ignorance, they comply. But the fact of the matter is: the law supports you, the Citizen, and does not support the United States government. Finally the Delegation Orders actually filed at the District offices, delegating the Authority to prepare and execute returns under 6020(b) read:

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

SOUTHWEST REGION Order No. DD-OKC-150, Rev. 5

OKLAHOMA CITY DISTRICT CR: SD-61

DELEGATION ORDER Date of issue: Nov 27 1987

Effective Date: Nov 27 1987

Subject:

AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE RETURNS

Authority is redelegated to Revenue Officers, GS-9 and above to

prepare and execute the following returns on behalf of the District

Director under Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Form 940, Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return;

Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return;

Form 942, Employer's Quarterly Tax Return for Household Employees;

Form 943, Employer's Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees;

Form 11-B, Special Tax Return - Gaming Services;

Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return;

Form 2290, Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles;

Form CT-1, Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return; and

Form 1065, U.S. Partnership Return of Income

This authority may not be redelegated.

This order supersedes Delegation Order DD-OKC-150 (Rev. 4) dated

December 13, 1984

Reference: Treasury Regulations 301.6020-1 (b)

Commissioner Delegation Order No. 182 (rev. 1)

IRM 5292

K. J. Sawyer

District Director

This list agrees completely with the Forms shown as authorized under 6020(b) in the Internal Revenue Manual itself. The IRS cannot produce a delegation order for any district in the country authorizing the preparation or execution of a Form 1040. Although this Delegation Order is for Oklahoma City, the Orders for the other District Offices are exactly the same. So, how does the IRS get away with the fraud that they have been perpetrating on the American People. WE ARE IGNORANT. Amazingly enough, the IRS computer systems have been properly programmed and will not trigger or initiate a collection action against a Citizen of the United States of America, UNLESS THEY ARE FED FRAUDULENT INFORMATION by an IRS employee.

This is, of course, exactly what the IRS does ! If you have ever received a letter from the IRS you can look and see, usually in the upper right hand corner area, what the CP number of the letter is. CP stands for Computer Paragraph. All of the IRS's collection correspondence is generated by computers, and under the Paperwork Reduction Act all of it must be documented and properly authorized. The Internal Revenue Manual contains an explanation relating the proper legal use of each of these CP codes and corresponding letters. The Manual clearly shows that the letters generated by the computers that relate to individuals carry a TWO DIGIT CP CODE. The Manual further shows that all BUSINESS accounts are addressed with letters that use a THREE DIGIT CP CODE. All of the three digit CP Code Letters ARE RESERVED FOR USE WITH BUSINESSES. It is the those Business letters that individuals wrongfully receive that threaten enforced collection of the income tax. If you have one, see what the CP Code on your letter is. If it carries three digits: you are the victim of IRS ANARCHY, FRAUD and attempted EXTORTION BY COMPUTER FRAUD. What the IRS illegally does is post a computer code (or assessment date) on your Individual Master File (IMF) in the computer, that deceives the computer into believing that YOU ARE AN (assessed) BUSINESS instead of an individual. That fraudulent entry is used by the computer systems to wrongfully trigger a collection action against a Citizen, which action is, in reality, reserved for use ONLY against businesses, because the computer knows that Citizens are not actually liable.

THE IRS MUST DEFRAUD ITS OWN COMPUTER SYSTEM TO INITIATE A COLLECTION ACTION AGAINST A CITIZEN. Once that fraudulent business code is illegally posted on your IMF, that IMF, the IRS's own document, can be used as prima facie evidence in court against them to expose the fraudulent and illegal nature of their activities and actions.

The result of this assessment process is supposed to be a signed formal Assessment Certificate, executed by an authorized Assessment Officer. It cannot be disputed that the Form 23C is the legal certificate of assessment. Form 23C is described in Document 7130, IRS Printed Product Catalog as:

23C

Assessment Certificate-Summary Record of Assessments

Form 23C is used to officially assess tax liabilities. The completed form is retained in the service center case file as a legal document to support the assessment made against a taxpayer. This status notice is reissued to update the status notice file. TR:R:A Internal Use (emphasis added)

Usually, no Form 23C can be produced by the IRS to substantiate the fraudulent claim that a legal assessment actually exists, or has ever been performed, to be be enforced in your matter. If no assessment exists - what are they collecting ? The assessment data shown on the face of IRS levy and lien documents has almost always been placed within the IRS computer fraudulently, without the actual creation of any legal assessment documents. This is clearly fraud by computer fraud.

If you are ignorant, and unaware of the fraud that they have committed you will not be able to stop their illegal theft of your property, perpetrated under this fraudulent deception of their own computer systems. THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW ! OOPS, actually there is: Title 18 U.S.C:

§ 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Computers.

(a) Whoever - .....

(5) intentionally accesses a Federal interest computer without authorization, and by

means of one or more instances of such conduct alters, damages, or destroys

information in any such Federal interest computer, or prevents authorized use of any

such computer or information, and thereby -

(A) causes loss to one or more others of a value aggregating $1,000 or more

during any one year period; or...

(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be

punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section....

In America, all persons are entitled to due process of law under the Administrative Procedures Act. The provisions of this Act within the law apply to ALL government agencies, including the IRS. Title 5 U.S.C. 556, part of this Act, states:

§ 556. ...Burden of Proof...,

...

(c) Subject to PUBLISHED rules of the agency and within its powers, employees presiding at hearings may, ....

(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. ... (emphasis added)

and § 558 states:

§ 558. ... Imposition of sanctions...,

(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, to the exercise of a power or authority.

(b) A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.

(emphasis added)

And what have the Courts said about the Due Process requirements ?

“Due process in administrative hearings includes a fair trial conducted in accordance with fundamental principles of fair play and applicable procedural standards established by law, and administrative convenience or necessity cannot override this requirement.” [Russell-Newman Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., C.A. Tex 1966, 370 F2d 980]

“Due process requires that when government adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly affect legal rights of individuals, they use procedures which have traditionally been associated with judicial process.” [Amos Treat & Co. v. Securities & Echange Commission, 306 F2d 260 (1962), 113 US App. D.C. 100]

“Although administrative agencies may be relieved from the observance of strict common law rules of evidence, their hearings must still be conducted consistently with fundamental principles which are intrinsic to due process of law.” [Southern Stevedoring Co. v. Voris, C.A. Tex 1951, 190 F2d 275]

“Administrative due process requires: (1) opportunity to be heard, (2) due notice of hearing , (3) fair conduct of hearing, (4) support in record for decision, (5) submission of proposed findings and tentative report, and (6) opportunity to file and to be heard upon exceptions to the report.

[Ideal Farm, Inc. v. Benson, D.C. N.J. 1960, 181 F Supp 62, affirmed 288 F2d 608, Certiorari denied 83 Sct 1087, 327 US 965, 10 Led2d 128]

“The requirement of fair trial is binding on administrative agencies as well as on the courts” [U.S. v. Brad, D.C. Cal 1968]

“The fair hearing essential to meet minimal requirements of due process includes not only rudimentary fairness in conduct of hearing when and where held, but also reasonable fair opportunity to be present at time and place fixed to cross-examine any opposing witnesses, to offer evidence, and to be heard at least briefly in defense.” [Jeffries v. Olsen, D.C. Cal 1954, 121 Fsupp 163]

“A full hearing is one in which ample opportunity is afforded to all parties to make, by evidence and argument, a showing fairly adequate to establish the propriety or impropriety, from the standpoint of justice and law, of the step to be taken.” [Boston and M.R.R. v. U.S., D.C. Mass. 1962, 208 Fsupp 661]

“Agencies have latitude to expedite hearings in the public interest and to dispense with evidentiary hearings in view of the nature of questions raised after a notice of action is requested, but an agency cannot act on mere inspection of a file without giving notice and opportunity to request a hearing, except in a narrow class of real emergency cases.” [Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 427 F2d 568 1970, 138 U.S. App. D.C.]

“Under the Adminstative Procedures Act, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Burden of proof means going forward with the evidence.” [Bosma v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. 9, 1984, 754 F2d 804]

(I guess I mean a law or ruling that the courts are willing to enforce rather than ignore.) The Courts and the judges are choosing to ignore these facts of law and rulings, which they are aware of, but which they will not address, because they have consciously chosen to derive their living from your ongoing suffering, and they don't really care about the Constitution, America or a Limited government. They pay lip service to these words, but their revenue related rulings and decisions have ignored them, and are obviously more concerned with an expansion of their own Communist-Socialist-Fascist agenda under an unauthorized and unconstitutional expansion of government powers, including their own to re-write the laws as passed by Congress. The courts have no authority to create new legislation, or re-write existing laws simply because the courts deem those laws susceptible of improvement. Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states:

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress ..."

No legislative powers or authority, to create new laws or alter existing ones, are granted to the courts in the Constitution.

After the IRS illegally makes up a return that they illegally refuse to sign, and fraudulently deceive the computers into initiating the correspondence related to a collection action, they illegally create a deficiency within that return.

§ 6211. Definition of a deficiency.

(a) In general. For purposes of this Title in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44, the term "deficiency" means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44, exceeds the excess of -

(1) the sum of

(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return,

if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was

shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon, plus

(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without

assessment) as a deficiency, over -

(2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2), made....

This section clearly states: "... in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by Subtitles A & B ... " . Deficiencies are clearly based on Subtitle A and Subtitle B taxes (and the excise taxes in Chapters 41, 42, 43 & 44 - Subtitle D). So why is the IRS using the record of earnings collected under Subtitle C (Employment Taxes) in order to calculate deficiencies ? That is what the IRS uses in its demands for tax payments. The record of earnings or wages paid and reported by your employer and the withholding agents under your SSN (subtitle C). The IRS is wrongfully and illegally using the record of earnings created under the Subtitle C Employment Tax laws, for Social Security purposes and foreigners, to demand that you, the Citizen, pay income tax on those domestic earnings. And that record of earnings does not come from any income tax withholding or payment requirements under Subtitles A or B. It comes from the employment taxes imposed in Subtitle C. The record of earnings belonging to the Citizen is coming from their voluntary participation in the social security program; whereby a social security number is provided to an employer on a W-4, who then withholds the taxes on wages for social security purposes under Subtitle C authorizations. We’ve already seen that income tax can only be withheld from foreigners, not from Citizens, unless it is requested on a Form W-4 (where you specify deductions) !

Then the IRS takes that Subtitle C information and wrongfully and illegally uses it to demand Subtitle A Income taxes on those Subtitle C records of earnings. But this code section, § 6211, states that a deficiency can only be based on Subtitle A and Subtitle B requirements, not Subtitle C So the IRS is in violation of the law to claim that there is a deficiency based on that record of earnings. But that’s what they do and they will continue to do it as long as you allow a record of earnings to accumulate under your name and social security number. As long as payers have your social security number and make reports to the IRS using that social security number the IRS is going to wrongfully and illegally use the information created under those subtitle C regulations to demand that you pay income taxes imposed under Subtitle A on foreigners. So after they illegally “manufacture” a deficiency by creative claim, they send it to you:

§ 6212. Notice of Deficiency.

(a) In general. If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitle A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44, he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail.

But remember, there are no implementing regulations associated with this Code section, so it can ONLY apply To Federal Employees for purposes of “assessing” the return of income (kickback) due from Federal sources.

Now, Document 6209 is used to decode the computer codes on the "Individual Master File" (IMF) records ! It clearly shows the meaning of these obscure and little known codes, which are extremely important. If you receive a "Notice of Deficiency" you should immediately, formally request a copy of your IMF, because 99 times out of 100 it contains a CODE 01, which means:

IMF Filing Requirement Codes

Form 1040- U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

00 No return filed

01 Return not required to be mailed or filed.

02 Form 1040A or 1040EZ filer it. (Package 50)

03 Form 1040, with Schedule A and B only. Principal non-business filer (Package 10)

04 Form 1040, Schedules A, B, D and E. Full non-business filer (Package 20).

05 Form 1040, Schedules A, B, D, E, C and F. Form 1040 business filer (Package 30).

06 Form 1040SS filer (Virgin Islands it (DO 66), Guam, and American Samoa-DO 98).

07 Form 1040PR it filer (Puerto Rico-DO 66)

08 Account is inactive. Return not required to be mailed or filed.

09 Form 1040NR filer.

10 Form Schedule F Business with Farm Package. (Package 40)

11 IMF Child Care Credit present. (Package 00)

12 Schedule R / R P present. (Package 80)

That's right, CODE 01 means "RETURN NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAILED OR FILED". It is RIGHT THERE on YOUR IMF, waiting to PROVE YOUR CASE, if you make one.

After fraudulently creating a deficiency (that goes unpaid) the IRS wrongfully levies your property in third party hands, and files a debt lien on your property at the county courthouse.

§ 6321. Lien for taxes.

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same, after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person. (emphasis added)

The IRS refuses to say how, or under what code section, they have determined that individual Citizens are LIABLE for tax on DOMESTIC income, THEY JUST PRETEND you are, and hope you don't know any better !

The requirements for the recording of Federal tax liens at State courthouses have been made fairl uniform by the adoption of the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act by the various State legislatures. It generally requires (from the Virginia Code):

§ 55-142.3

Duties of filing officers

A. If a notice of federal lien, a refiling of a notice of federal lien, or a notice of revocation of any certificate described in subsection B is presented to the filing officer and

1. He is the clerk of the State Corporation Commission, he shall cause the notice to be marked, held and indexed in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (4) of §8.9-403 as if the notice were a financing statement within the meaning of that Code; or

2. He is any other officer described in §55-142.1, he shall endorse thereon his identification and the date and time of receipt and forthwith file it alphabetically or enter it in an alphabetical index showing the name and address of the person named in the notice, the date and time of receipt, the serial number of the district director in the case of tax liens, the title and address of the official or entity certifying the lien, and the total amount appearing on the notice of lien, and shall index and record the same where judgments are indexed and recorded.

Now I have never ssen an IRS Notice of Federal Tax Lien that had all of these required elements present on its face, or within its recordation at a courthouse, which means that they have not been filed in accordance with the law, and may therefore be legally unenforceable, and possibly, attackable and removable under the various State codes.

The next thing the IRS tries to do is levy property held by third parties. The Authority they claim for this is Section 6331.

§ 6331 Levy and distraint.

(a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any nay tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within ten days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401 (d)) of such officer, employee or elected official. ..... (emphasis added)

This clearly states:

"Levy made be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia.”

Subsection (a) establishes the authority of the Secretary that limits the authority of all the other Subsections (b), (c), (d), (e,) and (f) in this Code section. Who does Subsection (a) say levy may be made on? "Officers, employees or elected officials of the United States government".

Furthermore, it is a CANON of LAW that:

"A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that a statute be construed from its four corners and not by singling out a particular word or phrase."Commonwealth Natural Resources, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 529, 536, 248 S.E. 2d 791, 795 (1978).

and that further, a legislative enactment:

"should be interpreted, if possible, in a manner which gives meaning to every word." Monument Assoc. v. Arlington County Bd, 242 Va. 145, 149, 408 S.E. 2d 889, 891 (1991)

I also note that it is a canon of common-law that

"the intent of the law is the force of the law"

Note 5 in the Annotated Code (U.S.C.A.) for Title 26 U.S.C.A.§ 6331 states the LAWFUL INTENT of the Congressional legislators in creating this statute. It states:

"Note 5. Purpose. This section was enacted to subject salaries of federal employees to the same collection procedures as are available against all other taxpayers, including employees of a state."

Does this section apply to Citizens or individuals? No, it does not. It explicitly states who it does apply to, and Citizens are not included. It only grants an authorization to levy federal employees. But this subsection is being wrongfully invoked all over the country to seize property from American Citizens who don’t really owe income tax on domestic income, but who are too ignorant of the law to defend themselves from a wrongful government attack. This section was specifically enacted to subject just federal employees to levy. Now it references the "same collection procedures as are available against all other taxpayers" but, the IRS refuses to site them or establish what they may be. Apparently they feel that Section 6331 is the only code section in Title 26 that they can rely on for levy, and clearly, it does not apply to U.S. Citizens, only federal employees. Perhaps this opinion letter, which you can obtain from the IRS Enrolled Agent for yourself, will help you to both understand, and explain to others, just exactly how the LEGAL IRS levy process is supposed to operate, according to the law.

TAXES - ACCOUNTING- AUDITS - ESTATE PLANNING - PAYROLL

17511 North Greenbluff Road Colbert, Washington 99005

Tel (509) 238-4697 Fax (509) 238-4697

May 27, 1997

IRS Enrolled Agent Opinion Letter

on the True IRS Authority to Levy Property

Dear Citizen,

At your request I have researched the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., regarding Seizures and Levies. The questions you were concerned with were the procedures for levying a private person’s property. Some of which are: Where does the IRS get its authority without a court order ? Does the property have to be turned over without a court order ? Are the rights, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, violated ?

About my experience, I am an Enrolled Agent. Enrolled Agents are defined in the IRS Regulations Circular 230, as a person who has demonstrated technical competence in interpreting and administrating the Internal Revenue Code and regulations thereunder. This person has withstood an extensive background check as to moral and ethical practices and has passed a strenuous test in all areas of taxation administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Enrolled Agents are licensed by the Treasury Department and must continue to show proficiency in the tax laws and regulations with documented continuing professional education hours in order to maintain their licenses.

The IRS frequently serves levy notices on third parties who may be holding your property. The IRS knows that all of the notices of levy that are sent to you or your employer are incorrect unless you are involved in a privileged activity as noted at the end of this letter. The primary reason is their has been no assessment, because the IRS can not legally assess a Private Citizen who has his/her income from only private sources.

Further, in reading the information as stated on the levy, a person is required to turn over property because a tax liability exists and the person named has refused to pay. You cannot refuse to pay something that cannot exist. There can be no assessment pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6201, without this there can be no levy, this is evidenced by the court also as follows:

"In order to place a lien/levy against property, the IRS must make a valid assessment of taxes pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6203. After the assessment is made, the IRS must send a § 6212 "Notice of Deficiency" to the taxpayer. Then the IRS must provide a "Notice and Demand for Payment" of assessed tax as required by § 6303(a). Only after full compliance with these procedures, may the IRS take a lien on the delinquent taxpayer's property." [Brewer v. U.S., 764 F. Supp. 309, 315 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)]

There are two concepts for me to get across. It is important to discuss the difference between a "levy" and a "seizure". A "seizure" means the act of taking into custody or control something which before was not in custody or control. A "levy" is not a single act, but rather is the whole process by which the money needed to pay a tax is raised, either by exercising control over something already in custody and control of the government or by distraining and seizing property not already in custody of the government. The levy process includes the sale of levied property and the application of the proceeds to the unpaid tax.

I must now advise you that a, "Notice of Levy", is not a levy or seizure. The "Notice of Levy" has no legal effect in the private sector unless it is accompanied with a Judicial Court Order and a "Notice of Seizure". The following cites will demonstrate that a "Notice of Levy" carries no authority to "Levy", and that a "Levy" must be done through "seizure" of the property.

“A Notice of Seizure should be given for a Notice of Levy to be successful. That the levy was impermissible in the absence of the required Notice of Seizure.” [Arford v. United States, 934 F 2d 229 (9th Cir. 1991)].

"A 'Levy' for-delinquent taxes requires that property be brought into legal custody through seizure, actual or constructive, and is absolute appropriation of property levied on, and a mere NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LEVY" (Emphasis added). [Freeman v. Meyer. 152 F. Supp. 383, Affd 253 F. 2d 1295 (3rd Circuit 1968)].

"A 'Levy' requires that property be brought into legal custody through seizure, actual or constructive, and is absolute appropriation in law of property levied on, and MERE NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY IS INSUFFICIENT" (Emphasis added).

[United States v. O'Dell, 160 F. 2d 304, 307 (6th Circuit 1947)].

“The IRS is to comply strictly to the conditions imposed by statute in the seizure and levy process.”

[Goodwin v. United States, 935 f 2d 1061, (9th Cir. 1991)].

“A stickler for enforcing the statutory notice it is entitled to receive, the government should be no less punctilious with respect to the statutory notice it is required to give.”

[Kulway v. United States, 917 F 2d 729, 735 (2nd Cir. 1990)].

There are specific procedures that must be followed for a garnishment to be lawful unless one voluntarily consents. This is also known by IRS Agents as evidenced by the Internal Revenue Manuel, page 57(16), titled "Legal Reference Guide for Revenue Officers" (February 9, 1990) States: "A proper levy against any amounts held as due and owing by employers, banks, stockholders, etc. must issue from a warrant of distraint and not mere notice" it then cites United States v. O'Dell, supra.

I hope I have covered the definitions of seizures and levies for you. Now I will use Title 26 U.S.C. to tell you the procedures the IRS must use. I will start with "seizures". The authority for "seizures" comes from Internal revenue Code sections 7321 and 7608 as follows: As stated in Goodwin v. United States and Kulway v. United States, (supra) the IRS compliance with the Lien-seizure-levy process must be strict and literal.

§ 7321. Authority to seize property subject to forfeiture.

Any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under any provision of this title may be seized by the Secretary.

§ 7608. Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers.

(a) Enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms. Any investigator, agent, or other internal revenue officer by whatever term designated, whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of subtitle E or of any other law of the United States pertaining to the commodities subject to tax under such subtitle for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible may--

(1) carry firearms;

(2) execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States;

(3) in respect to the performance of such duty, make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, such felony; and

(4) in respect to the performance of such duty, make seizures of property subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(b) Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than

subtitle E

(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division or of the Internal Security Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other criminal provisions of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible, or any other law for which the Secretary has delegated investigatory authority to the Internal Revenue Service, is, in the performance of his duties, authorized to perform the functions described in paragraph (2).

(2) The functions authorized under this subsection to be performed by an officer referred to in paragraph (1) are--

(A) to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States;

(B) to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States relating to the internal revenue laws committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony; and

As noted in these sections, Internal Revenue Enforcement Officers, when enforcing both Subtitle E taxes and other taxes as defined in 7608, are given authority to make seizures of "property subject to forfeiture". It becomes important to know at this point exactly what property comes within the meaning of "property subject to forfeiture" since if the property is outside the scope of the meaning of "property subject to forfeiture", the Internal Revenue Enforcement Officer is not authorized to seize it.

The definitions of "property subject to forfeiture" are found in Internal Revenue Code sections 7301 through 7304, as follows:

§ 7301. Property subject to tax:

(a) Taxable articles--Any property on which, or for or in respect whereof, any tax is imposed by this title which shall be found in the possession or custody or within the control of any person, for the purpose of being sold or removed by him in fraud of the internal revenue laws, or with design to avoid payment of such tax, or which is removed, deposited, or concealed, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax or any part thereof, may be seized, and shall be forfeited to the United States.

(b) Raw materials--All property found in the possession of any person intending to manufacture the same into property of a kind subject to tax for the purpose of selling such taxable property in fraud of the internal revenue laws, or with design to evade the payment of such tax, may also be seized, and shall be forfeited to the United States.

(c) Equipment--All property whatsoever, in the place or building, or any yard or enclosure, where the property described in subsection (a) or (b) is found, or which is intended to be used in the making of property described in subsection (a), with intent to defraud the United States of tax or any part thereof, on the property described in subsection (a) may also be seized, and shall be forfeited to the United States.

(d) Packages--All property used as a container for, or which shall have contained, property described in subsection (a) or (b) may also be seized, and shall be forfeited to the United States.

(e) Conveyances--Any property (including aircraft, vehicles, vessels, or draft animals) used to transport or for the deposit or concealment of property described in subsection (a) or (b), or any property used to transport or for the deposit or concealment of property which is intended to be used in the making or packaging of property described in subsection (a), may also be seized, and shall be forfeited to the United States.

§ 7302. Property used in violation of internal revenue laws.

It shall be unlawful to have or possess any property intended for use in violating the provisions of the internal revenue laws, or regulations prescribed under such laws, or which has been so used, and no property rights shall exist in any such property. A search warrant may issue as provided in chapter 205 of title 18 of the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the seizure of such property. Nothing in this section shall in any manner limit or affect any criminal or forfeiture provision of the internal revenue laws, or of any other law. The seizure and forfeiture of any property under the provisions of this section and the disposition of such property subsequent to seizure and forfeiture, or the disposition of the proceeds from the sale of such property, shall be in accordance with existing laws or those hereafter in existence relating to seizures, forfeitures, and disposition of property or proceeds, for violation of the internal revenue laws.

§ 7303. Other property subject to forfeiture.

There may be seized and forfeited to the United States the following:

(1) Counterfeit stamps--Every stamp involved in the offense described in section 7208 (relating to counterfeit, reused, canceled, etc., stamps), and the vellum, parchment, document, paper, package, or article upon which such stamp was placed or impressed in connection with such offense.

(2) False stamping of packages--Any container involved in the offense described in section 7271 (relating to disposal of stamped packages), and of the contents of such container.

(3) Fraudulent bonds, permits, and entries--All property to which any false or fraudulent instrument involved in the offense described in section 7207 relates.

§ 7304. Penalty for fraudulently claiming drawback.

Whenever any person fraudulently claims or seeks to obtain an allowance of drawback on goods, wares, or merchandise on which no internal tax shall have been paid, or fraudulently claims any greater allowance of drawback than the tax actually paid, he shall forfeit triple the amount wrongfully or fraudulently claimed or sought to be obtained, or the sum of $500, at the election of the Secretary.

These code sections give us the comprehensive list of property which Internal Revenue Enforcement Officers have authority to seize. If any property does not fall within the above descriptions it is not "property subject to forfeiture" and the Internal Revenue Enforcement Officers have no authority to seize it.

The levy process includes the power of seizure as authorized in section 7321 and 7608, which is evidenced by sections 7701(a)(21) and 6331(b), as follows.

§ 7701. Definitions

(a)

...

(21) Levy--The term "levy" includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means.

§ 6331(b) Seizure and sale of property

--The term "levy" as used in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means.

The word "distraint" basically means to retain possession of property, by force if necessary, once it is in the possession of the government. the phrase "by any means" applies to the seizures when and where authorized, and to distraining the property once in the government's possession. Internal Revenue Officers are thus given very broad authority to carry out their legitimate functions.

The authority to "levy" comes from Internal Revenue Code Section 6331, as follows:

§ 6331. Levy and distraint.

(a) Authority of Secretary--If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.

Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

(b) Seizure and sale of property--The term "levy" as used in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a levy shall extend only to property possessed and obligations existing at the time thereof. In any case in which the Secretary may levy upon property or rights to property, he may seize and sell such property or rights to property (whether real or personal, tangible or intangible).

(c) Successive seizures--Whenever any property or right to property upon which levy has been made by virtue of subsection (a) is not sufficient to satisfy the claim of the United States for which levy is made, the Secretary may, thereafter, and as often as may be necessary, proceed to levy in like manner upon any other property liable to levy of the person against whom such claim exists, until the amount due from him, together with all expenses, is fully paid.

(d) Requirement of notice before levy

(1) In general--Levy may be made under subsection (a) upon the salary or wages or other property of any person with respect to any unpaid tax only after the Secretary has notified such person in writing of his intention to make such levy.

(2) 30-day requirement--The notice required under paragraph (1) shall be--

(A) given in person,

(B) left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such person, or

(C) sent by certified or registered mail to such person's last known address, no less than 30 days before the day of the levy.

(3) Jeopardy--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a levy if the Secretary has made a finding under the last sentence of subsection (a) that the collection of tax is in jeopardy.

(4) Information included with notice--The notice required under paragraph (1) shall include a brief statement which sets forth in simple and non-technical terms--

(A) the provisions of this title relating to levy and sale of property,

(B) the procedures applicable to the levy and sale of property under this title,

(C) the administrative appeals available to the taxpayer with respect to such levy and sale and the procedures relating to such appeals,

(D) the alternatives available to taxpayers which could prevent levy on the property (including installment agreements under section 6159),

(E) the provisions of this title relating to redemption of property and release of liens on property, and

(F) the procedures applicable to the redemption of property and the release of a lien on property under this title.

(e) Continuing levy on salary and wages--The effect of a levy on salary or wages payable to or received by a taxpayer shall be continuous from the date such levy is first made until such levy is released under section 6343.

(f) Uneconomical levy--No levy may be made on any property if the amount of the expenses which the Secretary estimates (at the time of levy) would be incurred by the Secretary with respect to the levy and sale of such property exceeds the fair market value of such property at the time of levy.

You can see that there are conditions that must be met before the Secretary is authorized to levy on property or rights to property. First, you must be a person "liable" to pay a tax. Second, you must have been sent a "notice and demand" for payment of the tax. Third, you must have neglected or refused to pay the tax. And fourth, ten days must have elapsed after the notice and demand. (The ten day period does not apply in the case of a jeopardy determination).

After a levy is authorized, the property upon which the levy extends is given in Section 6331(b), which says that the Secretary may levy "only to property possessed and obligations existing at the time thereof". If the property is not already possessed by the Secretary, the property may be brought into the Secretary's possession by seizure and distraint, but remember only property "subject to forfeiture" may be seized, Section 6331 embraces the power given under Sections 7321 and 7608, it does not expand upon it.

Section 6331(b) has given us a very important definition. It has given us the definition of "property subject to levy", a phrase which makes its appearance in certain key places in both the Internal Revenue Code and in the Treasury Regulations. "Property subject to levy" basically means property which is not exempt from levy under section 6334.

The term "Secretary" is defined in section 7701(a)(11):

§ 7701. Definitions

(a)

...

(11) Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary,--

(A) Secretary of the Treasury--The term "Secretary of the Treasury" means the Secretary of the Treasury, personally, and shall not include any delegate of his.

(B) Secretary--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.

Thus, "Secretary" means "The Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate".

Basically, the only property the Secretary (or his delegate) would already have in his possession would be accrued salaries or wages of federal or District of Columbia employees which have not yet been paid out of the federal coffers. Such accrued salaries or wages would be the only Property upon which the Secretary could levy without having to effectuate a seizure, and this is confirmed within section 6331(a) itself.

Section 6331(a) states that a levy can be made on accrued salaries or wages by serving a "notice of levy" on the employer of an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia. This confirms what was said before since the accrued salaries or wages of such officers, employees, or elected officials represents an obligation of the Secretary existing at the time the levy is made. Since these described individuals are paid from the Federal Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury already has possession of the funds which would be used to pay the obligation, and the "notice of levy" is simply the Secretary's notice that said funds are being applied to unpaid taxes instead of being paid to the officer, employee, or elected official. No seizure is necessary, and thus no "notice of seizure" (explained later) is ever issued. The notice of levy is usually served on the head of the Federal (or District of Columbia) agency (or the agent designated by him who is charged with payroll duties).

When the IRS must bring property into the possession of the Secretary by seizure, then we have to refer to section 6335, as follows:

§ 6335. Sale of seized property.

(a) Notice of seizure--As soon as practicable after seizure of property, notice in writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the property (or, in the case of personal property, the possessor thereof), or shall be left at his usual place of abode or business if he has such within the internal revenue district where the seizure is made. If the owner cannot be readily located, or has no dwelling or place of business within such district, the notice may be mailed to his last known address. Such notice shall specify the sum demanded and shall contain, in the case of personal property, an account of the property seized and, in the case of real property, a description with reasonable certainty of the property seized.

So you see that whenever the IRS makes a seizure, they are required by law to issue a "Notice of Seizure"(Form 2433). This notice also has another effect. Remember, at the outset of this letter, I stated that a "levy" was not a single act, but rather the whole process by which money was raised and applied to an unpaid tax. The levy process includes seizure and sale of the property, along with the actual application of the proceeds.

However, a levy must be made within six years (see Section 6502(a) after the tax is assessed, and there may come a time when a levy proceeding occurs near the end of the six year period. So, for the purpose of determining the exact point in time when the law would consider that the levy was made, section 6502(a) states;

§ 6502. Collection after assessment.

...

(b) Date when levy is considered made--The date on which a levy on property or rights to property is made shall be the date on which the notice of seizure provided in section 6335(a) is given.

The 9th Circuit Court agrees with these procedures. In Arford v. United States (supra), a Notice of Seizure was a procedural requirement in order to effectuate the actual levy upon the seizure of Arford's retirement pay. This finding is in accord with 26 U.S.C. section 6502(b) which provides that a levy occurs on the date the Notice of Seizure is given pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6335(a), and not before.

The IRS levies on accrued salaries or wages by serving a "notice of levy" (Form 668-A or 668-W) on the employer of a Federal or District of Columbia officer, employee, or elected official. This is the only time the Internal Revenue Code states that the service of a "Notice of Levy" makes a levy. In all other cases, section 6502(b) tells us that a levy is considered made only when the "Notice of Seizure" is given.

Now, after reading all this, it should occur to you that the IRS's power to levy is actually very limited. Only property already possessed by the Secretary is subject to levy, and only property subject to forfeiture can be seized and brought into the possession of the Secretary if that property is not already possessed by the Secretary. So to summarize, seizure is limited by statute to certain specific items. Sections 7321 and 7608(b)(2)(C) strictly limit seizure authority to "property subject to forfeiture". Such property is described in sections 7301 through 7304. Property not subject to forfeiture cannot be seized, and a levy on any other property must be made on items already in the possession of the government. Section 6331(b) further states that a levy extends only to "property possessed".

Of course, there is a third way the Secretary may acquire possession of property which is not already in his possession, but you won't find it written in the Internal Revenue Code. The third way is simply an extension of the Secretary's authority under section 6301 to accept collection of internal revenue taxes which are voluntarily paid to him. If the IRS can get property turned over to the Secretary on a voluntary basis, then this property becomes property subject to levy and the Secretary may then levy upon it.

Yes, the IRS is actually bluffing non-federal employers, banks, and other third-party asset holders into turning over property to the Secretary when no authority to enforce such is given in the Internal Revenue Code! I will explain how the bluff works and why any employer, bank, or other third-party asset holder may simply refuse to turn over such property to the Internal Revenue Service, and that there is no penalty for not turning over such assets.

The first part of the bluff is Treasury Regulation 301.6331-1(a)(1), which states:

"Levy may be made by serving a notice of levy on any person in possession of, or obligated with respect to, property or rights to property subject to levy, including receivables, bank accounts, evidence of debt, securities, and salaries, wages, and other compensation."

Of course, we know now that when the regulation says that the levy may be made by serving a "Notice of Levy" on anyone having property "subject to levy", it means that the levy is made on accrued salaries or wages when the "Notice of Levy" is served on the employer of federal or District of Columbia employees, and, in the case of any other property already possessed by the Secretary, when the "Notice of Levy" is served on the person who has such property. This is a proper procedure for the IRS to adopt since section 6331(b) provides for a levy on any other property already possessed, but does not specifically state how such levy is to be carried out. In the case of a seizure, section 6502(b) already told us that the levy is made when the "Notice of Seizure" is given.

Now, the average person reading this regulation doesn't know what "property subject to levy" is, and when the "Notice of Levy" is served on him, he is led to believe that the law requires him to turn over to the IRS any property he has which belongs to the delinquent taxpayer. You now know, after reading all of the above, that this is not the case.

The bluff continues when the IRS cites Code section 6332, as follows:

§ 6332. Surrender of property subject to levy.

(a) Requirement--Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has been made shall, upon demand of the Secretary, surrender such property or rights (or discharge such obligation) to the Secretary, except such part of the property or rights as is, at the time of such demand, subject to an attachment or execution under any judicial process.

(b) (Not reproduced here. Deals only with life insurance and endowment contracts)

(c) Special rule for banks--Any bank (as defined in section 408(n)) shall surrender (subject to an attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits (including interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy.

(d) Enforcement of levy

(1) Extent of personal liability--Any person who fails or refuses to surrender any property or rights to property, subject to levy, upon demand by the Secretary, shall be liable in his own person and estate to the United States in a sum equal to the value of the property or rights not so surrendered, but not exceeding the amount of taxes for the collection of which such levy has been made, together with costs and interest on such sum at the underpayment rate established under section 6621 from the date of such levy (or, in the case of a levy described in section 6331(d)(3), from the date such person would otherwise have been obligated to pay over such amounts to the taxpayer). Any amount (other than costs) recovered under this paragraph shall be credited against the tax liability for the collection of which such levy was made.

(2) Penalty for violation--In addition to the personal liability imposed by paragraph (1), if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to surrender such property or rights to property without reasonable cause, such person shall be liable for a penalty equal to 50 percent of the amount recoverable under paragraph (1). No part of such penalty shall be credited against the tax liability for the collection of which such levy was made.

Again, we see that the law requires the surrender of "property subject to levy" upon which a levy "has been made". And again, the average person doesn't know exactly what all this means. You now know from reading the above that a levy "has been made" when a "Notice of Levy" is served on a person who has property "subject to levy", which means the "Notice of Levy" is given to some other delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury who has such property in his possession (or, in the case of accrued salaries or wages, to the head (or designated payroll agent) of a Federal or District of Columbia agency or instrumentality). It now becomes clear that this Code section was directed to other Treasury Secretary Delegates or heads of Federal or District of Columbia agencies or instrumentalities who may have possession of property, rights to property, or accrued salaries or wages belonging to the delinquent taxpayer, and the law requires them to surrender such property when the "Notice of Levy" is served on them..

Section 6332(c) also hints that there are penalties for failure to turn over property after a "Notice of Levy" has been served. You now know enough to know that this penalty would only apply if you have "property subject to levy" and you fail to surrender it upon demand by the Secretary. This was all discussed earlier and unless you're a person having such property in your possession or control, this penalty cannot possibly apply to you.

The IRS agents should take their case to court to allow you to be heard or your rights to due process will be violated. And indeed this is essentially what the IRS is supposed to do in every case. To enforce collection of a delinquent tax, the IRS needs a court order, just like any other judgment creditor. A Notice of Levy is not sufficient to reach property unless the asset holder is tricked by it into voluntarily turning it over to the revenue agent, or the property is already in the custody and control of the Secretary. The procedure to reach property by suit is given in the Internal Revenue Code under Code section 7401, as follows:

§ 7401. Authorization.

No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced.

And section 7403, as follows:

§ 7403. Action to enforce lien or to subject property to Payment of tax.

(a) Filing--In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof, whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district court of the United States to enforce the lien of the United States under this title with respect to such tax or liability or to subject any property, of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or liability. For purposes of the preceding sentence, any acceleration of payment under section 6166(g) shall be treated as a neglect to pay tax.

(b) Parties--All persons having liens upon or claiming any interest in the property involved in such action shall be made parties thereto.

(c) Adjudication and decree--The court shall, after the parties have been duly notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate all matters involved therein and finally determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property, and, in all cases where a claim or interest of the United States therein is established, may decree a sale of such property, by the proper officer of the court, and a distribution of the proceeds of such sale according to the findings of the court in respect to the interests of the parties and of the United States. If the property is sold to satisfy a first lien held by the United States, the United States may bid at the sale such sum, not exceeding the amount of such lien with expenses of sale, as the Secretary directs.

This is the due process written into the Internal Revenue Code. If the IRS wants to enforce collection of a tax, they have to file suit in Federal District Court, obtain a judgment, and execute the judgment with a court order in order to lawfully enforce the collection of the delinquent tax. The only obvious exception to this is when the Secretary already has possession of some property, in which case no court order is needed to reach the property since the property is already possessed.

Of course, the IRS likes to bluff people into voluntarily turning property over to them by serving "Notices of Levy" on them, as if this "makes" a levy and as if the person must surrender to the IRS any property he has belonging to the delinquent taxpayer. This is not the case, but as long as enough people fall for this bluff the IRS is going to continue using this ploy since it is far less expensive and far more efficient than having to go to court.

So the question comes down to this: What am I to do if I am ever served with a "Notice of Levy" ? Before I answer this, you must realize that you do not have to surrender any property to the IRS on the basis of such a notice, unless of course you are in custody or control of property "subject to levy". If the government wants to compel you to surrender any property belonging to the delinquent taxpayer, they must get a court order just like in any other garnishment proceedings. Basically, you should just sit back and wait for the Department of Justice to file suit. This way you will be protected by the court should you have to turn any property over to the government.

If you think that you can avoid being sued by complying with the "Notice of Levy" and turning over the property to the IRS, you would be wrong. It is true that you would avoid being sued by the Department of Justice, but you would then expose yourself to being sued by the person whose property you turned over. His cause of action would be against you since you turned his property over to the government without a court order, without his consent or permission, and without being required to surrender the property under any statute. He would have no cause of action against the IRS since the IRS basically did nothing wrong, and they were acting within the scope of their authority by accepting any property voluntarily turned over to them.

No protection is offered by section 6332(d), as follows:

§ 6332. Surrender of property subject to levy.

...

(e) Effect of honoring levy--Any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has been made who, upon demand by the Secretary, surrenders such property or rights to property (or discharges such obligation) to the Secretary (or who pays a liability under subsection (d)(1)) shall be discharged from any obligation or liability to the delinquent taxpayer and any other person with respect to such property or rights to property arising from such surrender or payment.

This section relies on 6331 and both sections require a levy on property.

Because there is no judicial process and no levy has been made the person taking property based on a "Notice of Levy" is not relieved from liability to the person owning the property. Also, this section was written for the government's own Treasury Secretary Delegates or heads (or designated payroll agents) of Federal or District of Columbia agencies or instrumentalities who turn over "property subject to levy" upon which a levy "has been made". Unless you're a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury or head (or designated payroll agent) of a Federal or District of Columbia agency or instrumentality you are not indemnified and you are exposed to a lawsuit by the owner of the property should you turn it over to the IRS.

The IRS will attempt to make you believe they have the authority pursuant to

§ 6331, however their own documents prove them wrong. As stated in the rules and regulations filed in the Federal Register 11-23-73:

"this treasury decision recodifies the portion of 26 CFR Part 301 entitled "Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title" into 27 CFR Part 70"

Federal Register, Vol 38, NO 226-Monday, November 26, 1993

27 CFR Part 70 is exclusively for the enforcement of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Unless you are providing services and or are involved in this type of activity the taking of money on a Notice of Levy is theft.

Turn the property over, and the owner will sue you. Don't turn the property over, and the government may sue you, but should this happen you will have a judicial order which will protect you and your company from civil action. The best thing to do, under the circumstances, is to simply not turn over any property to the IRS unless you get a court order ordering you to do so. The "Notice of Levy" has no legal muscle behind it as explained earlier.

When served with a "Notice of Levy", my suggestion would be to write a letter to the IRS agent who signed the notice and ask him the following questions:

1. What is property "subject to levy" as used in section 6332, and is the property you are demanding property "subject to levy upon which a levy has been made"? Please note that I am aware of section 6502(b), which states that a levy is made on the date the section 6335(a) "Notice of Seizure" is given. Has the "Notice of Seizure" been issued?

2. Please explain the indemnification process under section 6332(d) if I turn the property over to you and the owner of the property sues me.

3. Is this "Notice of Levy" the result of a judgment entered by a court?

Since it does not appear to be a court order, and does not have a case number or a Judicial signature. What will happen to me if I do not turn this property over to you?

All of these are legitimate questions which should express genuine concerns you have about the whole levy procedure. Of course, the IRS will try to hint that you should turn the property over in order to avoid any penalties and court proceedings, but when they answer question #3, they will be forced to tell you that they will simply have to go to court in order to reach the "Levied" property. If you've ever been the garnishee in a garnishment proceeding, it is really not that bad. I would also suggest you give the agent a copy of this letter.

This letter should have answered most of your questions about levies and what your duties are if you should ever receive one. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Please use the check sheet that I have attached to help you when you receive a Notice of Levy to see if it is valid or just an attempt to deceive you.

___________________________

John J Schlabach, Enrolled Agent

Enrollment # 50614

Third Party Checklist For Determining Validity of IRS Notices of Levy

Do not proceed to the next step (question) unless the answer to each and every question below is YES. If the answer to ANY question is NO, the levy is invalid and is LEGALLY UNENFORCEABLE. YOU MAY BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR HONORING SUCH A “NOTICE” WITHOUT AN ATTACHED COURT ORDER. Inform the IRS that you are unable to honor the “levy” untill ALL of the legal requirements for such have been met.

1.) Is there a copy of the court ordered warrant of distraint and Notice of Lien included with the Notice of Levy ?

2.) Does the tax that the IRS claims is owed arise from taxable activities subject to miscellaneous excise taxes under Title 26 USC, subtitle E, or those that would pertain to the enabling regulations of Title 27 CFR Part 70 (alcohol, tobacco, and firearms), or are you a Federal employer as defined in Title 26, section 3401(d) (in one of the U.S. territories and responsible for administering provisions under 26 USC subtitle C ?

3.) Was a valid Notice and Demand for unpaid tax sent to the individual whose property is the target of the levy ?

4.) Has a vaild Notice of Lien been filed with the appropriate court at least 10 days after the Notice and Demand was received, and has the court issued a warrant of distraint pusuant to IRS section 7403 ?

5.) Has the IRS sent at least three notices to the individual asking for payment and has the individual refused to pay ?

6.) Has the IRS sent a Notice of Intent to Levy to the individual at least 30 days prior to the date on the Notice of Levy you received ?

7.) Is the Notice of Levy signed by an IRS agent and is there a delegation order in existence giving that particular agent the authority to issue a Notice of Levy ?

If ALL of the above conditions have been satisfied, the levy could be valid. However, if you turn over property in response to an improper levy, the individual who owns the property can sue you personally for punitive as well as actual damages (26 CFR 301.6332-1c).

IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITYAS THE FIDUCIARY TO INSURE THAT ALL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET !

And what has the Supreme Court said about this issue, when wrongfully used in the private sector:

“the idea of wage garnishment in advance of judgment, of trustee process, of wage attachment, or whatever it is called is a most inhuman doctrine”... in a vast number of cases the debt is a fraudulent one, saddled on a poor ignorant person who is trapped ... in which he is charged double for something he could not pay for even if the proper price was called for, and then hounded into giving up his pound of flesh...” [Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 340, 341]

Sound familiar ?

This Enrolled Agent also offers an opinioni letter on tax liability if you are interested:

TAXES - ACCOUNTING- AUDITS - ESTATE PLANNING - PAYROLL

17511 North Greenbluff Road Colbert, Washington 99005

Tel (509) 238-4697 Fax (509) 238-4697

April 17, 1997

IRS Enrolled Agent Opinion Letter

on the Citizen’s Liability for Income Tax

Dear Citizen:

At your request I have researched the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 U.S.C.) relative to an individual income tax return. I cannot tell you not to file an income tax return unless you have no tax liability. Each person involved, on his/her own, must make this determination.

First let me tell you something about myself I am an Enrolled Agent. Enrolled Agents are defined in the IRS Regulations Circular 230 as a person who has demonstrated technical competence in interpreting and administering the Internal Revenue Code and regulations thereunder. This person has passed a strenuous test in all areas of taxation administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Enrolled Agents are licensed by the Treasury Department and must continue to show proficiency in the tax laws and regulations with documented continuing professional education hours in

order to maintain their licenses.

There are two important issues that you need to address. What is the subject of the tax? Where is the liability for that tax? These questions are addressed more in detail later in this research letter. Let us look at some statutes that might concern you. Lets start with the failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax, as stated in section 7203 as

follows.

§ 7203, Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or

required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to

make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully

fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such

records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law

or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be

guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not

more Than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned

not more than I year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In

the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any

estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to

such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with

respect to such failure. In The case of a willful violation of any

provision of section 60501, the first sentence of this section shall be

applied by substituting "5 years" for "1 year".

As you can see by the highlighted words there are two essential elements that must be present. First, you must be required to pay a tax, or be liable for paying a tax. This means it is a crime only if you are a person required by law or regulation to pay a tax, file a return or keep such records. It is, therefore, important to determine if you are a person

"required" to perform these functions. This will be the first subject discussed in this letter.

The government has to prove these elements in order to subject you to punishment. They must first prove you had `taxable income", that you are "liable" for a tax, and that the "liability" made you a "required person." If any of these elements cannot be proven, you cannot be subject to punishment.

Let's first see whether or not you are a "person liable." To start with, I look at the two code sections that address this issue under: Title 3, Section 552a(e)(3) [[The Privacy Act], and Title 44, Section 3504(c)(3)(C) [[The Paperwork Reduction Act].

The Privacy Act states that the Agency requesting information must:

(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form

which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be

retained by the individual---

(A) the authority (Ether granted by statute, or by executive order of the

President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether

disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;

(B) the principal purpose for which the information is intended

to be used; (C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as

published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and

(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the

requested information...

The Paperwork Reduction Act states that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must include with his/her information request:

“a statement to inform the person reviewing the request why the

information is being collected, how it is to be used, and whether responses

to the request are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory..."

Now, here we have two statutes directing the government to tell us whether giving the IRS an income tax return is voluntary or mandatory. The IRS responds to the directives of the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice with the following statement:

"Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code section

6001, 6011 and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a

return or statement with us for arty tax you are liable for. Your response

is mandatory under these sections."

I have to point out to you that the IRS again uses the word "liable for".

Now, let's look at the Internal Revenue Code to see what it has to say. The

two sections 6001 and 6011 follow as written in the code of 1994.

§ 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns

Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such roles and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable fur tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees undersection 6053(a).

§ 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list

(a) General rule--When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein theinformation required by such forms or regulations.

In these two sections we are instructed to file a return or statement for any tax we are liable for. indeed, Section 6001 refers to "Every person liable for My tax imposed by [The Internal Revenue Code]..." and Section 6011 refers to "...any person made liable for any tax imposed by [The Internal Revenue Code]..." But, as you can see, nowhere in either of these two sections are we told who is liable for, in this case, the income tax. The government has in effect, told us that a response is mandatory if we are liable for the tax, but neglected to tell us whether or not we are liable for the tax. The government has been very explicit in telling us that a response, either a return or statement, is mandatory for My tax that we are liable for; however, the government has remained silent in telling us who is liable for the tax. Thus, even after reading the government's official notices under the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act, we still do not know if an income tax return is required of us. In my opinion, by maintaining silence on this central issue, the government has not complied with either the spirit or the letter of the law of the two Acts. This opinion is shared by courts as well:

"`Silence' is species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation

of the existence of facts in question... When silence is of such character

and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud...it will operate

as an estoppel." [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 AT. 932]

Since the government has not told you whether you are required to file an income tax return, you have asked me to research this matter. Since you must be a "person liable" to be a "person required", lets address this issue.

The right to tax comes from the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which authorizes the federal government to impose two broad categories of taxes: direct taxes under Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 9, and indirect taxes under Article I, Section 8. Direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States.

Briefly, a direct tax is a tax on an ownership interest which the owner cannot pass on, while an indirect tax is on an event where the transaction and the impact of the tax can be passed on, in whole or in part, to others. In order for a tax to fall into the indirect tax category the individual liable for the tax cannot be the ultimate, final consumer. This is so since the one paying the tax can then add it on to the price of the thing being taxed and recover it (pass it on) when it is sold. The ultimate, final consumer would have no way to recover (pass on) the tax, so any tax which the ultimate, final consumer is liable for would be a direct tax based on an ownership interest.

"The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or

excepted subjects” [Pack v Lowe, 247 U.S. 165].

"The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation”

[Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 US.103, at 112].

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere

privilege of existing., The corporation is an artificial entity which owes

its existence in charter powers to the State, but the individual's right to

live and own property are natural Rights for which an excise cannot be

imposed." [Redfield v Fisher, 292 P.813, at 819].

"Neither can the tax be sustained on the [natural] person, measured by income.

Such a tax would be, by nature, a capitation rather than an excise."

[Peck v Lowe, 247 US. 165.] [emphasis added]

"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporate

excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The individual worker does not receive a

profit or gain from his/her labors - merely an equal exchange of funds for

services." [Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 US. 1, l7,36S.CT.236,24t].

"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition

precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does

not cause liability" [Bothke v. Terry, 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414(1983)].

"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income

of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of

Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which

is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment."

[Helvering v.Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2d 575].

Also, please note the voluntary nature of Social Security or the use of the W-4? The only place in the code that addresses the Social Security issue is in Title 26 U.S.C. subtitle C, chapter 21 (Social Security Tax Act) of the Internal Revenue Code starting in subchapter A. Subtitle C includes sections 3101 through 3510 of Title 26 U.S.C..

The first issue is whether subtitle C is relative / jurisdictional to you. To make this determination please note in Subtitle C at subchapter c, §3121, which has specific definitions which relate to Social Security. In this jurisdictional section at 3121(e) State, United States and citizen reads as follows:

3121. Definitions

...

(e) State, United States, And Citizen

For purposes of this chapter-

(l) State

The term `State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwalth of Puerto Rico, theVirgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(2) 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.

An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this

section, as a citizen of the United States.

The jurisdiction in this section is very specific as you can see. Because there is no section that makes it mandatory in the 50 Union States it must be voluntary for citizens in these States.

To better understand these provisions, and the different jurisdictions, you have to understand that Congress creates laws for TWO distinct and separate jurisdictions:

1) Washington, D.C., enclaves in the 50 states (i.e.: land that has been ceded by the State to the federal government), and the territories and possessions, such as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.

2) The 50 states.

The principal difference in the jurisdictions is that the Constitution of the United States of America has to be strictly adhered to in making laws that affect the 50 states. However in Washington, D.C., enclaves and territories, Congress has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, which means they can make any law they want to; The Constitution is not considered. (Article 1, Section 8 U.S. Const). See also CAHA v U.S. 152 U.S. 211:

The laws of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 is also very explicit:

"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the

area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress

had exclusive legislative authority."

The Supreme Court has ruled consistently on this issue ever since America's inception. In fact, the latest case was U.S. v. LOPEZ, 115 5. CT. 1624 (1995). The Court ruled a law applicable in Washington, D.C. was not applicable in San Antonio, Texas, because it did not conform to Constitutional restrictions.

Since an income tax is a tax on income created by a transaction which is (and must be) directly associated with, or effectively connected with, some particular type of revenue-taxable "privileged" activity [i.e. alcohol, firearms, tobacco, or other privileged activity or excise], the Internal Revenue Code and its implementing and controlling federal regulations must specify the particular type or kind of tax arising from a revenue-taxable, privileged activity that makes one a "person liable" or "made liable". For example, Internal Revenue Code Section 5005 establishes that liability for the tax on distilled spirits is placed on the distiller or the importer. Section 5043 places the liability for the tax, from wine, on the proprietor of the bonded wine cellar or on the importer. Section 5703 places the liability for the tax on cigars and cigarettes on the manufacturer or importer. Also, to be classified as an indirect tax, the individual liable for the tax must not be the ultimate, final consumer.

In support of this, took at some closely related taxes. Section 2502(c) establishes liability for the gift tax on the donor, the one giving the gift, not the donee, the one receiving the gift.

Section 2002 establishes liability for the estate tax on the executor, not on the inheritors receiving the property. "Section 2002, liability for payment. The tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid by the executor."

Since you must be liable for an income tax on your own income, neither section 6001 nor section 6011 require you to file an income tax return. However, I want to continue and discuss 6012, which is the section many believe require income tax returns be filed.

§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

(a)General rule -- Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A

shall be made by the following:

(1 )(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which

equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be

required of an individual--

(i) who is not mauled (determined by applying section 7703), is not a

surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), is not a head of a household

(as defined in section 2(b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of

less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction

applicable to such an individual,

(ii) Who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year

has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the

basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,

(iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year

has gross income of less than the stun of the exemption amount plus the

basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or

(iv) Who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when

combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year,

less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard

deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his

spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their

home.

To determine who must make returns lets see what type of taxes can be assessed, by whom and for what classification of tax. For this we must go to Section 6201 Assessment Authority, which reads as follows:

§ 6201. Assessment Authority

(a) Authority Of Secretary

The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries,

determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest,

additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed

by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which

have not been duty paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by

law.

Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(l) Taxes Shown On Return

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the

Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

(2) Unpaid Taxes Payable By Stamp

...

Title 26 U.S.C. § 6201 gives the secretary the authority to assess taxes not duly paid by stamp or by the individual who has assessed himself, ie: voluntary tax. Stamp taxes are associated with subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code Title 26 or Title 27. Ie: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Here, again, you have to determine what activity you are involved in and does this activity pay taxes by stamp.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects the freedom of speech and of the press. The freedom to speak, you must understand, also involves the freedom not to speak. If you do not have the right not to speak, (i.e.-- if the government could compel you to speak) then you have no freedom of speech. Since this right extends to printed and written materials, you have a First Amendment Right not to fill out government forms and not to give the government information.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects your privacy. You have a Fourth Amendment Right to keep your personal financial affairs private, and not to voluntarily give that information to the government. The Fourth Amendment provides that if the government wants to examine your books and records, a court order must be obtained. The mailing of a tax form along with instructions on how to complete it is not, for Fourth Amendment purposes, a valid order compelling a response.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects you as well, stating:

"No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

The fifth amendment seems to apply only to criminal matters, but the Supreme Court ruled in McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 US. 34, that the fifth amendment " applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings." Similar rulings have stated;

"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment.” [Sullivan v. United States, 15 F. 2nd 809], and

'The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax

return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis. "the testimony of a "witness" as

that term is used herein.' [Garner v. United States, 424 US. 648].

Since you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself, and since the Supreme Court has twice held that the filing of an income tax return is an act of being a witness against one's self, it follows that any statute compelling the filing of an income tax return would violate the protections of the Fifth Amendment.

The effect of the government's actions has been noted by the Supreme Court:

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many

citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be law, are

cunningly coerced into waving their rights due to ignorance."

[U.S. v. Minker, 350 US. 179, at 187].

Section 6012, moreover, specifies a condition that must be met before the income tax return "shall be made". The individual has to have "for the taxable year a gross income of the exemption amount or more". Based on the following code sections, I will show you where no individual has any item of' gross income that is includable:

First, look at the definition of "taxable year":

§ 7701. Definitions.

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly

expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--

....

(23) Taxable year. -- The term "taxable year" means the calendar

year, or the fiscal year ending during such calendar year, upon the basis

of which the taxable income is computed under subtitle A. "Taxable year"

means, in the case of a return made for a fractional part of a year under

the provisions of subtitle A or under regulations prescribed by the

Secretary, the period for which such return is made. (Section 441 (b) also

defines Taxable year: For purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable

year" means--(l)"the taxpayer's annual accounting period").

The definition of' "taxable year" is important since the law requires that taxable income is to be computed on the basis of a taxable year:

"Section 441(a) COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME--- Taxable income shall be computed on the basis of the taxpayer's taxable year."

Now, let us took at the definition of "taxpayer' and `person":

§ 770l. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--

(1) Person--The term "person" shall he construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership. association, company or corporation. [Which is only an artificial, not a natural, person / human being.]

...

(14) TAXPAYER --The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any

internal revenue tax.

So, by substituting the term "person subject to any internal revenue tax"for the term "taxpayer" in section 441(a), the section requires the tax to be computed on the basis of the taxable year of the person subject to the income tax, Using the same substitution as above, you find:

§ 451.

(a) General rule. -- The amount of any item of gross income

shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year in which

received by the taxpayer, unless, under the method of accounting used in

computing taxable income, such amount is to be properly accounted for as of

a different period.

The point is this: Taxable income is required to be computed on the basis of the taxable year of the person subject to the income tax, II the person does not have a liability, he cannot have a taxable year in which any amount can he included,

Based on all of the above, it is my professional opinion, supported by the Court in U.S. v, Flora, 362 US, 145. at 176, that the filing of an individual income tax return is voluntary Quoting the Court:

"Our system of taxation is based oil voluntary assessment and payment, not

upon distraint." [U.S.. v. Flora, id.]

Also, by the testimony of Mr. Avis before Congressional subcommittee hearings on the Internal Revenue Investigation: “Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day." (Exhibit A)

You may be asking yourself why is it that so many people file tax returns each year ? Let me give you a statement by Adolph Hitler, "If you tell or report a lie often enough and long enough people will eventually believe it." This is what has happened to the people of lie United States of America. Every year the IRS sends millions of forms to people, along with instructions, on how to I'll them out. The people do not question the form nor do they determine if there is a liability, but just fill in the lines and send them back with whatever money the form requires. No one ever asks what law requires them to fill out this form and does it apply to them.

Furthermore, the Privacy Act Notice says that the government must tell you the effects, if any, of not filing the return. Until 1981, the Privacy Act Notice read as follows: `If a return is not filed, or if we don't receive the information we ask for, the law provides that a penalty may be charged (the "penalty" being a penalty for filing and paying the tax late). Since 1982, the Privacy Act Notice has been revised, reading: "If you do not file a return, do not provide the information we ask for, or provide fraudulent information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution." No mention was made in the previous Privacy Act Notice since it only referred to not filing a return or providing information. Added to the Privacy Act Notice in 1982 was a caution about "fraudulent information" and "in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution".Since it is true that filing a false or fraudulent return is a crime under Code sections 7206 and 7207, the "certain cases" referred to in the later Privacy Act Notice are undoubtedly cases where a false or fraudulent return has been filed; however, the Privacy Act Notice still has not told us that not filing a return is a punishable offense.

If you remember, at the outset of this letter I said that in order for the government to punish you for not filing an income tax return, certain elements must be present: they must first prove you had "taxable income"; then, they must prove that income made you "liable" for a tax; next, they must prove that "liability" made you a "required person", and lastly, that you failed to file a "required return", and if any one of these elements cannot be proven, you cannot be subject to punishment. The word "willfully", when used in a criminal statute, means an act done with a bad purpose. Felton v. United States, 96 US. 699: Potter v. United States, 155 US. 438: Spurr v. United States, 174 US. 728, or without justifiable excuse. Felton v. United States, supra; Williams v. People, 26 Colo. 272, 57P. 701: People v. Jewell, 138 Mich. 620, 101 NW 835; St. Louis I. M. & S Ry. Co. v. Batesville & W. Tel. Co., 80 Ark. 499, 97 SW 660; Clay v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 555, 107 8W 1129; or Stubbornly, obstinately, perversely.Wales v. Miner, 89 lad. 1l8, at 127; Lynch v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 762; 109 SE. 427; Claus v. Chicago Gt. W. Ry. Co., 136 Iowa 7, 111 N.W. 15; State v. Harwell, 129 N.C. 550; 40 S.E. 48. The word is also employed to characterize a thing done without grounds for believing it is lawful. Roby v. Newton, 121 Ga. 679, 49 S.E. 694, or conduct marked by a careless disregard whether or not one has the right so to act. United States v. Philadelphia & R. Ry Co., 223 Fed. 207, at 210; State v. Savra. 129 Iowa 122; 105 N.W. 387; State v. Morgan, 136 N.C. 628,48 S.F. 670.

Thus, since the government's Privacy Act Notice and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice do not meet its intended purpose and does not specifically say that filing an income tax return is required, the courts have recognized that the word "willfully" in these statutes generally connotes a voluntary. Intentional violation of a known legal duty. U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US. 346.

The Supreme Court has ruled as recently as January 8, 1991, that a belief that one is not required to file an income tax return, based upon professional advice, precludes the "willfulness" requirement [Cheek v.U.S., 498 US. 192, at 207 (1991)].

To sum up, the government must prove that you have a liability and they must disprove your claim that you believed filing an income tax return was not required or is voluntary, and instead prove that you intentionally did not file one. This is a decision that you have to make on your own. If you have a tax liability you will have to file a return.

With all the facts and evidence presented herein. you should have no problem defending yourself should the government try to criminally prosecute you for not filing an income tax return if you have no liability.

I sincerely hope that all points have been clarified. If any additional questions arise

please do not hesitate to write me again.

Sincerely,

John J. Schlabach, Enrolled Agent

Enrollment # 50614

The Criminal Investigative Division

It states in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), in Chapter 1100, at Section 1132.75:

1132.75

Criminal Investigative Division

The Criminal Investigative Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States Citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements.

(emphasis added)

Now you show me the corresponding section, anywhere in the law or the IRM, that would provide authority over Citizens NOT RESIDING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES", but living and working in America !

This, of course, supports and agrees completely with the claim that the income tax is STILL JUST A FOREIGN TAX, as it is accurately recorded in the law. It also supports the charge that the IRS is exceeding the LIMITED authorities established for it under the law and illegally operating in an anarchistic fashion.

There has never been a LEGAL criminal investigation of any U.S. Citizen living and working in the United States of America in the history of the IRS. C.I.D. HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY OVER THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OR ACTIVITIES OF CITIZENS IN AMEICA, at least that is what the law records. Everything the IRS does to Citizens in America is illegal, occurring within a complete vacuum of law, MUCH THE SAME AS THE GESTAPO OPERATED IN NAZI GERMANY !

That brings us to CHAPTER 75. - . CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES AND FORFEITURES, and Sections 7201 and 7203, which are typically the statutory charge(s) in a court of law against a Citizen. They state:

§ 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax.

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat

any tax imposed by this Title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than 100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

§ 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax.

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation) or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 60501, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for "misdemeanor", and "5 years" for "1 year". (emphasis added)

Now, it’s worth pointing out that these Sections are penalty statutes, and that the government tries to skip right over the part of a trial where they identify an actual violation of law and charge you with it. They try to skip right over the requirement to explain what actual statutory violation has occurred, and leap right to the penalty phase. When accused, one has the right to demand to know what the underlying statutory infraction is, that has caused and justified the invocation of the penalty statute. One should demand to know what statutory violations the IRS has based the penalty charge on, and guess what; the IRS cannot site a statutory violation upon which the penalty is based, given the facts of law presented in this book.

I’d further like to point out that both of these sections specifically say,

"Any person required under this title..."

This next section, also from Chapter 75, redefines the term "person" for use in Chapter 75.

§ 7343. Definition of the term person.

The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. (emphasis added)

Now does this say that the term 'person' includes ALL individuals ? No! The term “person” is redefined for purposes of use within Chapter 75 to mean only government employees and (government) corporate officers. But it is not redefined right up there in Section 7203 where it says, "any person"; you have to read through the whole chapter to get to the redefinition of the term “person” at the end of the chapter in order to recognize that Section 7203 was never intended to be applied against any Citizen, who didn’t, or wasn’t, acting in the capacity of a government employee or corporate or partnership officer with legal responsibility for (corporate) tax liability ?

Section 7203 is here to file against the Federal employees who commit fraud in regards to the Federal employee “kickback”, and against corporate officers who fail to honor their legal responsibilities to report and pay the tax on the privileged income that the corporation may be making. It is not a statutory section that authorizes criminal penalties against the common Citizen, or even individuals.

Furthermore, this Section clearly states:

"... this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 ..."

Do you remember § 6654 (e)(2)(C), the Citizen's exception to the failure to pay, where no addition to tax shall be imposed if there is no liability and the individual was a Citizen or resident ? The same paragraph C referenced in Treasury Decision 2313 ? How can Section 7203 possibly be used against individual Citizens, given this specific language within the statute itself ? Do you remember that the Secretary is “required” under 6020(b) ? Do you remember that a W-2 is supposed to SUBSTITUTE for a Form 1040 ? Do you really need a lawyer to read these English sentences and understand what they mean ? Can’t you see for yourself how fraudulent and wrongful, in fact, criminal, all of this Federal persecution is ? And how many people in America have answered the doorbell only to find a band of jack-booted, gun toting IRS thugs at the door to seize their property, books and records, supposedly in enforcement the subtitle A income tax laws. What does the law really say about that ?

§ 7608. Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers.

(a) Enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms

Any investigator, agent, or other internal revenue officer by whatever term designated, whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of subtitle E or of any other law of the United States pertaining to the commodities subject to tax under such subtitle for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible may

(1) carry firearms;

(2) execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and

summonses issued under authority of the United States;

(3) in respect to the performance of such duty, make arrests without warrant for any

offense against the United States committed in his presence, or for any felony

cognizable under the laws of the United States if he has reasonable grounds to

believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, such felony;

(4) in respect to the performance of such duty, make seizures of property subject to

forfeiture to the United States.

(b) Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle E

(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division or of the Internal Security

Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary charges with the duty

of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other

criminal provisions of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which

the Secretary is responsible, or any other law for which the Secretary has delegated

investigatory authority to the Internal Revenue Service, is, in the performance of his

duties, authorized to perform the functions described in paragraph (2).

(2) The functions authorized under this subsection to be performed by an officer

referred to in paragraph (1) are -

(A) to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve

subpoenas and summonses issued under authority of the United States;

(B) to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States

relating to the internal revenue laws committed in his presence, or for any felony

cognizable under such laws if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the

person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony; and

laws.....

So where is carry firearms as an authority to enforce Subtitle A ? It doesn’t exist in the law. NO IRS agents, who are involved with subtitle A enforcement procedures in the field, ARE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO CARRY FIREARMS DURING SUCH DUTY, and it is a violation of the law for them to do so !

Do you really think this is the America our founders envisioned for this era ? And finally, concerning Federal criminal prosecutions in the States, the Supreme Court says:

“...the Federal government has nothing approaching a police power.”

[United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626]

Title 18 - Federal Crimes

All TRUE LAWFUL crimes (by the general public) against the United States are spelled out in Title 18 (Chapters 1 through 121), which is positive law. In order to be a legitimate, lawful, and valid (Constitutional) criminal charge by the Federal Government against an individual, the violation of the laws in the other Titles must be linked to a crime listed and spelled out in Title 18. THERE IS NO SUCH LINK FOR ALLEGED TITLE 26 VIOLATIONS..

It is a fact that there are only THREE Federal Crimes provided for in the Constitution: treason, piracy and counterfeit. The Interstate Commerce Act has been used to expand the authority of the Federal government over inter-state activities, but Title 26 charges do not relate to interstate activities. You cannot be legally arrested, charged or tried in a federal court because the Federal government has no territorial jurisdiction over you because they are not the Sovereign government authorized to enforce law in the lands of the 50 states. YOU ARE NOT A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, NOT A FEDERAL TRANSFEREE, AND TITLE 26 HAS NEVER BEEN PASSED INTO POSITIVE LAW OR PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER as generally applicable, therefore it does not and cannot legally apply to you. YOU CANNOT BE TRIED LEGALLY OR LEGITIMATELY BY A FEDERAL COURT FOR THIS CHARGE.

Now you show me the tax crimes provided for in the positive laws of Title 18 - Federal Crimes. It is not there. If you DO NOT CHALLENGE THEIR (inherent) CLAIM OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER YOU (and claim of Federal crime committed) and fail to refute their presentment of such claim properly, then it is legally presumed that such jurisdiction and charge do in fact exist legitimately, when in fact, they do not.

The record of court actions, called case law, shows how U.S. judges have imposed

their personal (rather than LAWFUL) discretion and opinions upon persons through the corrupt process of making "new law" under "personal" precedent, and not lawful or judicial precedent. In so doing they ignore Due Process of Law and make it possible to illegally control the lives, liberties and property of naive/ignorant persons present in the courtroom, who do NOT understand the legal limitations imposed on the Federal government by our Constitution, or who, for some unstated reason, choose not to make those limitations part of their defense arguments before the jury. case law is only binding on the litigants in the case out of which the ruling comes.

Case law cannot be expanded to apply to other complaints or cases because Article I of the Constitution says "all legislative powers shall be vested in a congress", which of course means that judges can't create or make up new laws as they have been fraudulently doing. Only Congress can make new law, or alter existing law. (It does say "all legislative powers", NOT 'some' or 'most'.)

These NON positive laws and unpublished regulations (imposed only on certain classes of people) have been enforced as though every person is required under them. By misusing the rules of the court, the judges are providing themselves with a self-serving personal discretionary power outside of the law, effectively, fraudulently and illegally, usurping authority over the matter, and your life and property.

The evidence begins with Rule 1 in the Federal Rules of Procedure.

Rule 1. Scope.

These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the courts of the United States as defined in Rule 54(c);...

The term "Courts of the United States" is not specifically defined, so Rule 1 puts us on notice that the scope of the criminal proceedings cognizable in the Courts of the United States is found in the definitions in Rule 54(c). Omitting irrelevant definitions, Rule 54(c) states:

Rule 54(c) Application of terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.

...

"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.

...

"Federal Magistrate" means a United States magistrate as defined in 28 USC Sec. 631-639. a judge of the United States or another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates.

...

"Judge of the United States" includes a judge of a district court, court of appeals, or the Supreme Court....

"Law" includes statutes and judicial decisions.

...

"State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular

possessions. (emphasis added)

Were you in any of these places when you were arrested (or taxed) ?

By use of the word "includes", in the definition of "State", those things NOT explicitly listed are EXCLUDED. This means that not one of the fifty States of the United States of America is included in this definition of the term "State". With this we are told that criminal proceedings in the courts of the United States are limited to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and a territory or in an insular possession; which is backed by the definition of "Act of Congress" and confirms the knowledge of the U.S. courts that Congress is limited to making laws applicable to its own employees and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territories and insular possessions of the United States government.

I know that this is not what attorneys are taught to argue, but this is what they should be arguing in defense of their clients' best interests, rather than allow the government's presumption of authority over them (the client).

STATE TAXATION

Actually this part is easy. Title 18 USC § 8 and Title 12 USC § 411 both state that “Federal Reserve Notes are United States obligations”:

18 U.S.C. § 8 Obligation or other security of the United States defined.

The term ''obligation or other security of the United States'' includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

12 U.S.C. § 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption.

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

And Title 31 USC § 3124 clearly states:

§ 3124. Exemption from taxation

(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by

a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that

would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in

computing a tax, except -

(1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise

tax, imposed on a corporation; and

(2) an estate or inheritance tax. (emphasis added)

So now, don’t you get paid in Federal Reserve Notes ? So how can your State tax them ? Furthermore, most of the State Codes invoke and incorporate by direct reference Section 61 of the United States Code as the State definition of “gross income” So, all of the Section 61 arguments shown previously become applicable and relevant to the proper and legal administration of the State tax laws and procedures.

CHAPTER 4

RECOURSE

The IRS is required to abate wrongful claims (assessments, liens, levies), per the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6404(a)(3) addressing this legal duty of the Secretary (too abate), This section states in pertinent part:

§ 6404. Abatements.

(a) General rule. The Secretary is authorized to abate the unpaid portion of the assessment of any tax or any liability in respect thereof, which ...

(1) is excessive in amount, or

(2) is assessed after the expiration of the period of limitation properly applicable thereto, or

(3) is erroneously or illegally assessed."

and you should be familiar with:

§ 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States

(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents

Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of

the United States -

(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or

(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or

receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the

performance of any duty; or

(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform

any of the duties of his office or employment; or

(4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or

(5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or

(6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud

the United States; or

(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any

fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or

(8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any

person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any

revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary;

(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment

or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise,

adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged

violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do; shall be dismissed

from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined

not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may

in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half

thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of

the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for

the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by

execution.

Since no formal, legal "Certificate of Assessment", Form 23C, can be shown to exist as the legal basis for IRS claims (because they are never actually executed), it is absolutely clear that no proper, legal assessment has ever been made or executed (subscribed) as required by 26 USC § 6020(b) . Furthermore, since it is clear that the IRS bases its claims on the Subtitle C taxes and tax records, and not Subtitles A or B (as specified by 6404(b)), the legal facts of the matter make absolutely clear that the Secretary has a formal legal duty to abate the wrongful liability because it has been erroneously AND illegally created (non-assessed). The proper code section to apply for this matter is 26 U.S.C.

§ 654(e)(2)(C) . Under the terms of these statutes the IRS has no legal alternative, but to abate the wrongful liability and illegal assessment indicated by these claims.

If the Secretary refuses to perform this legal duty, as required by law , one can supposedly find recourse in the Federal District Court under Title 28 U.S.C. 1361 which states:

§ 1361. Action to Compel an Officer of the United States to Perform his Duty.

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."

TITLE 18 - CRIMINAL STATUTES

Legal recourse is supposed to be available to the Citizen in both the Criminal courts under Title 18, and in the Civil courts under Title 42 at the Federal level, and in the State courts under the Fraud and Computer fraud statutes of the States’ law. First we will look at the Title 18 Criminal statutes that may be useful, and that you should be aware of at any rate:

§ 241. Conspiracy Against Rights..

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

and,

§ 242. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. .

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of Citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

To preserve the concept of “equal rights under the law” this code section can be relied upon by anyone who can show that a deprivation of rights under “color of law” has been perpetrated against them..

Now, how about something to deal with people who don’t really work for a LEGALLY existant Federal agency, and cannot show such under the law, but still insist on trying to take your property.

§ 912. Officer or employee of the United States

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

§ 913. Impersonator making arrest or search

Whoever falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, and in such assumed character arrests or detains any person or in any manner searches the person, buildings, or other property of any person, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Now, to deal with fraudulent activities and claims, made by the IRS (or anyone), we have:

§ 1001. Statements or Entries Generally. .

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

and for those fraudulent assessment dates on your IMF (where no assessment documents can actually be produced or shown to exist in association with the dates shown on the IMF):

Now, how about all those fraudulent documents they send you:

§ 1018. Official certificates or writings

Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

§ 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Computers.

(a) Whoever -

(1)

(5) intentionally accesses a Federal interest computer without authorization, and by

means of one or more instances of such conduct alters, damages, or destroys

information in any such Federal interest computer, or prevents authorized use of any

such computer or information, and thereby -

(A) causes loss to one or more others of a value aggregating $1,000 or more

during any one year period; or...

(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be

punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is -

(3)

(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both,

in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(5) of this section which

does not occur after a conviction for another offense under such subsection, or

an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and

(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in

the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(5) of this section which

occurs after a conviction for another offense under such subsection, or an

attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph.

This computer fraud is present in virtually every IMF record in the IRS computer system of any individual who has ever been pursued by the IRS for income tax on non-privileged sources..

If you get threatened for raising these issues of law at a meeting or hearing:

§ 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant

(a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another

person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent

to retaliate against any person for -

(1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony

given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official

proceeding; or

(2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal

offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial

proceedings given by a person to a law enforcement officer; or attempts to do so, shall

be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.

As to the controlling of one’s labor for the purposes of satisfying INFERRED and IMPLIED DEBT (not tax) obligations, imposed on unwilling and unspecified DEBTORS, and not by law, but by fraud, we have:

§ 1581. Peonage Obstructing Enforcement.

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

and finally from Title 18,

§ 3045. Internal revenue violations

Warrants of arrest for violations of internal revenue laws may be issued by United States magistrates upon the complaint of a United States attorney, assistant United States attorney, collector, or deputy collector of internal revenue or revenue agent, or private Citizen; but no such warrant of arrest shall be issued upon the complaint of a private Citizen unless first approved in writing by a United States attorney.

TITLE 42 - CIVIL RIGHTS

In Title 42, in support of Civil Complaints for the misuse of a person’s SSN, we have:

§ 408. Penalties.

(a) In general. Whoever -

(1) ..

(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. (emphasis added)

This addresses and controls the misuse, or compelled use, of a SSN in the private sector.

And these next sections are the code sections that provide Civil redress for violations of an individual’s Consitutional Rights.

§ 1981. Equal Rights Under the Law.

(a) Statement of equal rights.

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white Citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) ''Make and enforce contracts'' defined

For purposes of this section, the term ''make and enforce contracts'' includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

§ 1981a. Damages in Cases of Intentional Discrimination in Employment.

(a) Right of recovery

(1) Civil rights.

In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 or 717 of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, 2000e-16) against a respondent who

engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is

unlawful because of its disparate impact) prohibited under section 703, 704, or 717 of

the Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, 2000e-3, 2000e-16), and provided that the complaining

party cannot recover under section 1981 of this title, the complaining party may

recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this

section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, from the respondent.

(b) Compensatory and Punitive Damages

(1) Determination of punitive damages

A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a

respondent (other than a government, government agency or political subdivision) if the

complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory

practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the

federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.

(2) Exclusions from compensatory damages

§ 1982. Property Rights of Citizens.

All Citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white Citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

§ 1983. Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any Citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

§ 1985. Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights.

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

§ 1986. Action for Neglect to Prevent.

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

Jurisdiction, venue and subject matter all seem to be proper according to:

§ 1988. Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights.

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law

The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.

And the statutory foundation for suits to resolve problems with employers:

§ 2000e-2. Unlawful Employment Practices.

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

And, corresponding to 18 USC 1581 - Peonage, we have in Title 42:

§ 1994. Peonage Abolished.

The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.

CHAPTER 5

SUPPORTING PIECES

SO, WHY CAN'T THEY ANSWER OUR $10,000.00 CHALLENGE ?

There is a ten thousand dollar offer to any person who can show these facts are false. No accountant, tax lawyer, IRS employee or Justice Department lawyer has ever successfully challenged these facts. This contest is offered by the SAVE A PATRIOT Fellowship, which I am a member of, and highly recommend to anyone who wants to learn about these laws, or who is having trouble with the IRS and wants to fight back. It is an excellent organization and they have been helping me for four years to learn and understand what these laws are really all about, how they are supposed to be applied, and how to go about preventing the IRS from wrongfully demanding and seizing your property which, as a Citizen, is earned by right not privilege, and is therefore, NOT LAWFULLY SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX !

We will pay $10,000.00 to any person who can prove the following statements of fact to be false ! We have conclusive legal proof that the following legal facts are absolutely correct. That is why we can say; "American Citizens and permanent resident aliens, living and working within the States of the Union, ARE NOT SUBJECT to the filing of an IRS Form 1040 and ARE NOT LIABLE for the payment of the income tax on domestic "income" or earnings, unless those earnings or that income is derived from a privileged activity !"

FOR YEARS the IRS has ruled the American people in a manner equaled only by the Soviet KGB and the Nazi Gestapo. FEAR and BLUFF, intimidation and deception have been the IRS's major weapons. Americans have been led to believe that they "owe" an income tax on their earnings; that it is their "patriotic duty to pay income tax", and that there is no alternative to the IRS's abuse. Nothing could be further from the TRUTH.

FEAR can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the facts. The Bible teaches us that God's people perish for lack of knowledge. Therefore, consider the following:

1) Our Founding Fathers created a constitutional REPUBLIC as our form of government. The Constitution gives the federal/national government LIMITED powers. All powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People. The Union was created to be the servant of the People ! The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. (Article VI, Clause 2)

2) The Constitution gives the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the government, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, subject to the following rules, pertaining to the only two classifications of taxes permitted by the Constitution: Direct Taxes, which are subject to the rule of apportionment (to the states for collection), and Indirect Taxes - imposts, duties and excises, subject to the rule of uniformity.

3) The government is NOT ALLOWED, by either one of the two classifications, TO TAX DIRECTLY Citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States, in the United States. The intent of the founders was to keep the government the servant of the People, and to prevent it from becoming the master. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3)

4) The census is taken every ten years to determine the number of representatives to be allotted to each state and the amount of a direct tax that may be apportioned to each state determined by the percentage its number of representatives bears to the total membership in the House of Representatives. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4)

5) It was established in the Constitutional convention of 1787 that the Supreme Court of the United States would have the power of "judicial review", i.e., the power to declare laws passed by the United States Congress to be null and void if such a law or laws were in violation of the Constitution, to be determined from the original intent as found in Madison's Notes recorded during the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the ratifying conventions found in Elliott's Debates.

6) Due to the characteristics of the second classification of taxation authorized in the Constitution, the Supreme Court called it an Indirect Tax, and it is divided into three distinct categories of taxes: IMPOSTS, DUTIES and EXCISES. These taxes were intended to provide for the operating expense of the government of the United States.

7) Duties and Imposts are taxes laid by the government on things imported into the country from abroad, and are paid at the ports of entry.

8) The Supreme Court says that "EXCISES are:... taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges" (See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107 (1911))

9) In 1862, Congress passed an Act (law) to create an "Income Duty" to help pay for the war between the states. A duty is an indirect tax which the federal government cannot impose on Citizens or residents of a state having sources of income within a State of the Union.

10) Congress passed an Act in 1894 to impose a tax on the incomes of Citizens and resident aliens of the United States. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged in 1895 and the Supreme Court said the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS A DIRECT TAX THAT WAS NOT APPORTIONED as the Constitution required. (See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895))

11) In 1909 Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that was allegedly ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states; it is known as the "Income Tax Amendment".

12) Some officials within the IRS, along with professors, politicians, teachers and some judges have said, and are saying, that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitution to allow a direct tax without apportionment.

13) The above persons are NOT EMPOWERED to interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution! As stated above (Fact 5), this power is granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court, but is limited to original intent. The supreme Court is NOT EMPOWERED to function as a "social engineer", to amend or alter the Constitution as they have been doing. A change or "amendment" can only be lawfully done according to the provisions of Article V of that document.

14) The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the 16th Amendment DID NOT change the Constitution because of the fact that Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself. The Court also said that the 16th Amendment MERELY PREVENTED THE INCOME DUTY FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF INDIRECT TAXATION. (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 US 1 (pg. 16) (1916))

15) After the Supreme Court decision, the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Treasury Decision 2313, ([Order] dated March 21, 1916; Vol. 18 January-December, 1916, page 53). It states in part:"....it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the Act of October 3, 1913."

16) In another Supreme Court decision in 1916, the Court, in CLEAR LANGUAGE, settled the application of the 16th amendment: by the previous ruling (Brushaber) it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment CONFERRED NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary (full) 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....(Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 249 US 112 (1916))

17) The United States Constitution gives the national government the exclusive authority to handle foreign affairs. Congress has the power to pass laws concerning the direct or indirect taxation of foreigners doing business in the Unites States of America. It has possessed this power from the beginning, needing no amendment (change) to the U.S. Constitution to authorize the exercise of it.

18) The DIRECT classification of taxation was intended for use when unforeseen expenses or emergencies arise. Congress, needing funds to meet the emergency, can borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8 Clause 2). The founding fathers intended that the budget of the United States be balanced and a deficit be paid off quickly and in an orderly fashion, through a DIRECT tax. The tax bill is given to the Senate of the Union. The bill is "apportioned" by the number of representatives of each State in Congress; therefore, each State is billed its apportioned share of the Direct tax equal to the number of votes its Representatives could employ to pass the tax. How the states raise the money to pay the bill is not a federal concern. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3)

19) In the Brushaber and Stanton cases, the Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment did not change income taxes to another classification. So, if the income tax is an indirect excise, then how is it applied and collected ? According to the Supreme Court: "Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such tax involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable......it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."

QUESTION: If all RIGHTS come from God (Citizens of the States retained all RIGHTS except those surrendered as enumerated in the Constitution) and PRIVILEGES are granted by government AFTER APPLICATION FOR PRIVILEGE IS MADE BY THE CITIZEN,, then WHAT IS THE PRIVILEGE THAT THE INCOME TAX IS APPLIED AGAINST ?

ANSWER: As established in the Constitution, the federal government cannot directly tax a Citizen living within the States of the Union. Citizens possess RIGHTS; these RIGHTS cannot be converted to privileges by the government. The only individuals who would not have these rights and be liable to regulation by government are NONRESIDENT ALIENS doing business and working within the United States or receiving domestic source profits from investment instruments in America,<B AND United States Citizens working in a foreign country and taxable under TREATIES between the two governments.

20) WITHHOLDING AGENTS withhold income taxes. The only section in the Internal Revenue Code that defines this authority is section 7701(a)(16).

21) Withholding of money for income tax purposes, according to section 7701(a)(16), is only authorized under sections 1441 - Nonresident aliens, 1442 - Foreign Corporations, 1443 - Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations, and 1461- Withholding Agents' Liability for Withheld Tax.

22) Internal Revenue Manual Chapter 1100, Organization and Staffing, section 1132.75 states: "The Criminal Investigative Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States Citizens RESIDING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements..."(emphasis added)

23) The implementation of IRS Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 1.1441-5 is explained in Publication 515 on page 2: "If an individual gives you a written statement, in duplicate, stating that he or she is a Citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you may accept this statement and are RELIEVED OF THE DUTY OF WITHHOLDING TAX."

24) The ONLY was a U.S. Citizen or permanent resident alien , living and working in a State of the Union can have taxes deducted from their pay, is by voluntarily making an application (Form SS-5) to obtain a social security number, and then entering that number on an IRS Form W-4 - Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, and signing it to permit withholding of "Employment Taxes". That is why the IRS pressures children to apply for social security numbers at an early age, and why Citizens are pressured to "get used" to using the number, and employers are pressured to obtain the voluntary execution of a Form W-4 immediately from all those being hired. However, no federal law or regulation REQUIRES workers to have a social security number, or to sign a W-4 to qualify for, obtain, or retain a job..

25) Karl Marx wrote in his Communist Manifesto, ten planks needed to create a communist state. The second plank is:" A HEAVY PROGRESSIVE OR GRADUATED INCOME TAX"

26) The attorney who successfully challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894, Joseph H. Choate, recognized the communist hand in the shadows. He told the United States Supreme Court: "The Act of Congress which we are impugning (challenging as false) before you is communistic in its purposes and tendencies, and is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic - what shall I call them - populistic as ever have been addressed to any political assembly in the world."

27) The Supreme Court agreed; and Justice Field wrote the Court's opinion, concluding with these prophetic words: "Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an Act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness."

28) Internal Revenue Code Section 6654(e)(2)(C states: ....no liability....if the individual was a Citizen or resident alien of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year.

The IRS contends the success of the self-assessment system depends upon VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE -- EVIDENTLY SO !

Save-A-Patriot Fellowship Tel. (410) 857-4441

P.O. Box 91 Fax (410) 857-5249

Westminster, MD. 21158 BBS (410) 857-4455

Membership Info/Application Tel. (703) 532-3219

The Best Kept Secret in America

As you can see, the laws regarding Income taxes under Subtitle A and Employment taxes under Subtitle C, their corresponding authorities and powers, are being illegally mixed and wrongfully invoked in a fraudulent and improper fashion against all U.S. Citizens. That means that you, as a Citizen, can disable and prevent that wrongful use of the information simply by handling your financial affairs in a particular fashion.

The law specifically states that you do not have to give your social security number to anyone except the Social Security Administration. You must also show it on the forms that you file with the IRS. But, as we’ve seen, you don’t have to legally file any forms with the IRS, unless you have foreign earned income under a tax treaty or foreign principals with domestic income. And if you refuse to supply your social security number to your employer on a W-4, or if you revoke your application for a Social Security number and rescind your participation in the Social Security program; then you have no legal requirement to supply a social security number to anyone at all; and there will never be any record of any earnings that is created under Subtitle C employment tax laws that the IRS can wrongfully and illegally use to demand that you pay income tax on.

Now, if you would like to learn more about opting out of the Social Security system, or if you would like help with stopping the wrongful withholding of income taxes by your withholding agents, we have an information package that you can use to address those situations with your employer and withholding agents.

But, the most important thing to understand, and the secret to living and working in the United States of America tax free, without repercussions or harassment from the IRS, is understanding that Social Security is a voluntary program and that people who do not use a social security number NEVER RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE IRS regarding the collection of tax, because that correspondence is never issued !

There is no law that requires you to participate in social security, and if you wish, you can opt out of the program, or conversely, you can just exercise your rights under the law and refuse to disclose your social security number to your employer, or anyone, for that matter, except the Social Security Administration. Thereby totally disabling, in a completely legal fashion, the information collection mechanism that the IRS relies upon to wrongfully demand income tax payments from Citizens. If the IRS insists on illegally misusing the information collected under Social Security, we, the People, are left with no other legal option but to legally prevent its collection in the first place, in order to prevent its misuse against us. What has the Supreme Court said about religious rights ?

"A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public program. It is true that the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial." THOMAS v. REVIEW BD., IND. EMPL. SEC. DIV., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)

and;

"The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233. On the other hand, [374 U.S. 398, 403] the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603. The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14" (emphasis added)

"It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege.

6 American [374 U.S. 398, 405] Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 390; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 191-192; Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155-156. For example, in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, the Court recognized with respect to Federal Social Security benefits that "[t]he interest of a covered employee under the Act is of sufficient substance to fall within the protection from arbitrary governmental action afforded by the Due Process Clause." In Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, we emphasized that conditions upon public benefits cannot be sustained if they so operate, whatever their purpose, as to inhibit or deter the exercise of First Amendment freedoms."

"Twenty-three years ago in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, the Court said that both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the intervening years several cases involving claims of state abridgment of individual religious freedom have been decided here - most recently Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, and Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488."

all from : SHERBERT v. VERNER, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)

and:

"Certain aspects of religious exercise cannot, in any way, be restricted or burdened by either federal or state legislation. Compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship is strictly forbidden. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166"

"For religious freedom - the freedom to believe and to practice strange and, it may be, foreign creeds - has classically been one of the highest values of our society. See, e. g., Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943); Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 510 (1946). Even the most concentrated and fully articulated attack on this high standard has seemingly admitted its validity in principle, while [366 U.S. 599, 613] deploring some incidental phraseology. See Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 89, 95-96 (1949) (concurring opinion); but cf. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956). The honored place of religious freedom in our constitutional hierarchy, suggested long ago by the argument of counsel in Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 600 (1845), and foreshadowed by a prescient footnote in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), must now be taken to be settled"

all from: BRAUNFELD v. BROWN, 366 U.S. 599 (1961)

and;

"We conclude then that government regulation that indirectly and incidentally calls for a choice between securing a governmental benefit and adherence to religious beliefs is wholly different from governmental action or legislation that criminalizes religiously inspired activity or inescapably compels conduct that some find objectionable for religious reasons. Although the denial of government benefits over religious objection can raise serious Free Exercise problems, these two very different forms of government action are not governed by the same constitutional standard. A governmental burden on religious liberty is not insulated from review simply because it is indirect, Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-718 (1981) (citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S., at 404); [476 U.S. 693, 707] but the nature of the burden is relevant to the standard the government must meet to justify the burden"

"Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists" Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, (1981).

all from: BOWEN v. ROY, 476 U.S. 693 (1986)

This is conclusive.

Neither the private employer nor the Withholding Agent. in any of the 50 States of America, may lawfully make manifest a condition of involuntary servitude on any Citizen, nor may they effect a condition of virtual peonage, wherein the labor of any Citizen is controlled by unidentified and/or unspecified alleged obligations, under the guise and pretense of federal tax, through colorable use of the statutes.

As irrefutable proof that Social Security is indeed a voluntary program, I offer the following:

In Texas, the Justice Department argued for the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) against an employer who had, under IRS advice, refused to hire an individual who would not provide a social security number. The complaint was styled as a DISCRIMINATION action. The discrimination involves both religious convictions and national origins (Americans are not required).

The IRS refused to appear in court to defend its advice to the employer, who immediately folded when confronted in court with a team of Justice Department lawyers suing him for discrimination. (Who wants to be in court against the Justice Department without any legal facts to stand on and no witness to call ?) The IRS typically passes out incorrect or misleading information to the employer, and then refuses to appear in the court room to defend the advice that the Employers are acting on.

The case proves beyond the shadow of any doubt what-so-ever that it is NOT necessary to use a social security number in association with your personal finances and earnings, IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO !

EXCERPTS FROM

EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting

CA3-92-0169-T

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

1. From the EEOC's Letter of Determination, Dated May 2, 1990 (p.2)

The evidence supports the charge that there is a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended,... Section 706(b) of Title VII requires that if the commission determines there is a reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, is shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods, of conference, conciliation, and persuasion, having determined there is reasonable cause to believe the charge is true, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in a collective effort toward a just resolution of this matter.

2. From the Affidavit of Tim Fitzpatrick, September 29, 1989 (p.3):

After discussions with the IRS, the company discovered that if Mr. Hanson did not provide the company with a Social Security number, the company would be in violation of the Internal Revenue Regulations and subject to various penalties.

3. From the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, April 1, 1992 (p.8-9)

"....the Internal Revenue Code and the Regulations promulgated pursuant to the code do not contain an absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee social security number to the IRS. Internal Revenue Code Section 6109(a)(3) states:

Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement or other

document with respect to another person, shall request from such person, and include

in any such return, statement or document, such identifying number as may be prescribed

for securing proper identification of such person.

26 U.S.C. 6109(a)(3) (Supp. 1992)"

The IRS regulation interpreting section 6109 provides:

"If he does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, he shall request such number of the other person. A request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under the law. When the person filing the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, he shall sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service so stating..

Treas. Reg. 301.6109-1 (c) (1991)"

"The applicable IRS statute and regulation place a duty on the employer to request a taxpayer identifying number from the employee. If document must be filed and the employer has been unable to obtain the number but has made the request then the employer need only include as affidavit stating that the request was made."

The Government also avers that:

"In 1989, Internal Revenue Code Section 6676, 26 U.S.C. and 6676 (1989), set forth the penalties for failing to supply the IRS with identifying numbers as required by the code....a $50.00 penalty will be imposed for failure of an employer to provide an identifying number on any document filed with the IRS unless it is shown that the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. The Treasury Regulation interpreting the Statute states:

Under Section 301.609-1 (c) a payor is required to request the identifying number of the payee. If after such a request has been made, the payee does not furnish the payor with his identifying number, the penalty will not be assessed against the payor.

Treas. Reg. 3106676-1 (1989)"

"Public Law 101-239, Title VII, Section 7711(b)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2393, repealed Section 6676 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC 6723 (Supp. 1992) has governed the failure to comply with information reporting requirement. However, Internal Revenue Code Section 6724, 26 USC 6724 (Supp. 1992), provides for a waiver of any penalties assessed under the code upon a showing of reasonable cause. Section 6724(a) provides:

No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

26 USC 6724(a) (Supp. 1992)"

4.) From the Consent Decree, dated November 4, 1992 (p.4)

The defendant ... shall be permanently enjoined from terminating an employee or refusing to hire an individual for failure to provide a social security number.... If an employee or applicant for employment advises the defendant that he does not have a social security number....., the defendant shall request, pursuant to Section 6724 of the Internal Revenue Service Code {sic}, 26 USC 6724, a waiver of any penalties that may be imposed for failing to include an employee social security number on forms and documents submitted to the IRS.

OBVIOUSLY, SOCIAL SECURITY IS VOLUNTARY - NOT MANDATORY !

Social Security is a fraudulent, PONZI PYRAMID con game. There is no money in any "social security" account, anywhere in the country. NOT ONE security is held anywhere in the world by the social security system. If Congress does not make an annual appropriation for Social Security payments EVERY YEAR, the program ends, JUST LIKE THAT. "What happened to all the money in my account ", you may wonder ? THERE IS NO MONEY IN YOUR ACCOUNT, THERE NEVER WAS. IT WAS ALL SPENT THE DAY IT ARRIVED AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

Congress has used your retirement money to fund its deficit spending and wasteful boondoggles. They gave it to the Emir of Kuwait (to fight Saddam), they gave it to Saddam Hussein (to fight Iran), they gave it to Iran (to support the Shah), they gave it to the Shah to fight China, now they are giving it to CHINA, in a most favored nation trade status, to show how much the America People REALLY OBJECT TO and HATE COMMUNISM. They gave it to everyone in the world, except you, the rightful owner, the American Citizen. You get ASSET FORFEITURE, DIRECT TAXATION, REGULATORY SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, UNDECLARED WARS, the responsibility for a GLOBAL POLICE FORCE (while foreign natives make money without bothering to defend their own country). Americans get Social Insecurity, WelFraud, WACO, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, an unconstitutional banking monopoly, worthless fiat paper money, a Congress run by PACs and special (foreign) interests, Government Hell-th Care, Schools that can't education, Police that can't protect, prisons that can't confine, immunity for rich criminals(the oligarchic aristocrats), a President with the morality (or lack thereof) of A WHORE, and a Federal Mafia, consisting of the whole alphabet - IRS, ATF, DEA, FBI, NSC, CIA, HUD, EPA, DOE, DOT, FAA, FCC, DOA, FRB, NRC, EEOC, OSHA, (How many more can you think of, how many of these did you vote for ?) etc., to enforce it all and ram it down our throats. All focused on stealing our wealth and prosperity, and enslaving our minds, bodies and spirits to an unconstitutional system and socialist way of life, bereft of faith in God and in complete denial of the authority of any perceived entity other than that of government law; all in the name of, for the sake of, and for the good of, "the children". Now who can argue with that ? POLITICIANS NEVER DO ANYTHING FOR THE CHILDREN, CHILDREN AREN'T OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE ! Do you feel represented, or do you feel deceived ?

Carlos dePonzi was a Count in the early 1900s who "operated" the first fraudulent "pyramid" investment cons; wherein money from later investors is directly and immediately used to "pay off" earlier investors, WITHOUT EVER INVESTING IN ANY REAL THING. Each "level" of "investors" is successively promised higher and higher rates of return, with the testimony of earlier "investors", "documenting" how well the program worked for them, as part of the sales pitch, until there are no more "investors" (read fools, or pigeons) left to enroll in the "pyramid". Of course, at that point in the con the "operators", and all the money "invested", disappear forever, never to be seen again ! Congress of course made these fraudulent cons illegal for anyone to operate, EXCEPT THE GOVERNMENT, who has been doing it ever since under the name "Social Security". They just got rid of the private competition !

In summary, if you allow earnings to be reported under your Social Security number to the IRS, the IRS will illegally use that social security information to demand that you pay income tax on those earnings. This demand is NOT supported by the law.

If you are less then 40 years of age, and you believe that you will ever see, even a dime, from Social Security, perhaps you had better go back and read again the preceding paragraphs ! Or, maybe, you really deserve your "social security", and the "benefits" you receive from it.

THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN AMERICA is that the IRS NEVER contacts or issues tax collection correspondence regarding income tax to Citizens who don't have, or don't use, a social security number in connection with their financial affairs and earnings ! This correspondence is never received because it is never issued by the IRS computers. It is never issued because the IRS computers have no earnings records upon which a fraudulent entry may made by an IRS employee to cause the initiation of any collection action.

BUT THE STORY GETS EVEN MORE SHOCKING ! Did you know that the assets "recorded" under the social security numbers (real estate, stocks, bonds, bank accounts, LABOR, etc.) are being used as the surety guarantee to the Federal Reserve Bank for the collective national debt and deficits. THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR PROPERTY IS THE GOVERNMENT'S COLLATERAL TO BE FORFEITED TO THE PRIVATE CORPORATION KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DEFAULTS ON THE COLLECTIVE NATIONAL DEBT (which can NEVER be repaid at this point). Don't you think those bankers are rich enough already ? How much more are we going to let them illegally (unconstitutionally) take from us ?

WELFARE ENUMERATION

a.k.a.

SURETY BONDS FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT

During the so-called "Great Depression" the Federal government acquired massive debt

in order to finance Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. By 1938, the national debt had grown to such proportions that the entire nation was bankrupt, which was noticed by the United States Supreme Court in the Erie v. Tompkins case of that year. From that year, all of the Legislative bodies of the Federal government passed Public Policy statutes in the interest of the nation's creditors. In order to continue financing the expenditures of the Federal government, capital needed to be increased. Federal Reserve Notes which became "legal tender" under the Thomas Amendment (H. J. Res. 192, Public Resolution No. 73-10) passed by Congress in 1933, were made the medium of exchange for this capital.

Previously, these notes were redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States at Washington in the District of Columbia, or in gold or "lawful money" at any reserve bank, which then could be used as capital and devoted to production. However, in order to have capital there must first be property. Property may be pledged and also the rights thereto, and converted into capital by the pledgee.

From 1936 to 1939, social security numbers where used by individuals who were effectively connected with a trade or business in interstate commerce, or who's commercial activities affected commerce and by those receiving unemployment compensation. To refinance the debt annually and avoid default, Congress in 1939, rewrote social legislation, repealing Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act, and allowed for the issuance of another class of Social Security number which would be issued to individuals pledging their future performance as SURETY against the national debt in exchange for the promise of cradle to grave protection. This pledge as surety in exchange for cradle to grave protection is called "Welfare Enumeration." The condition of such promise of protection throughout life provided no vested rights in the pledgee and the terms of the agreement was left solely to

the discretion of the body of policy makers (Congress) operating as agents of the trustee in bankruptcy representing the interest and rights of the creditor(s).

Property rights relating to future performance (labor) and contract are protected absolutely as they relate to the personality of an American Citizen. Execution of those rights may produce a translation of property but not necessarily a corpus of capital dedicated to the purpose of income production. A self declaration of bankruptcy by pledging one's property as surety against the national debt in essence converts one to a perpetual bankrupt and one's property so pledged to a bankrupt corporation (United States), a capital asset to be utilized by said corporation for the purposes of capitalization and revenue production earmarked as interest payable in discharge of the national (public) debt.

Until 1973, a person could walk into the nearest Social Security Field Office to apply for and be issued a "non-welfare enumerated" number. These numbers were assigned to individuals wishing to be covered under the original provisions of the Social Security Act, without the pledge of surety. In 1973, policy was changed and all social security numbers are now issued from the Social Security Administration's Central Office in Baltimore, Maryland. Today most applications for social security numbers received at the central office are processed as requests for welfare enumeration. The management and control of this national welfare policy was delegated by the Congress to the President. The President maintains control of this power under the "International Economic Emergency Policy."

The several States were seduced into the new policy in 1939, with Roosevelt's promise of federal grants-in-aid. Federal Revenue Sharing (31 U.S.C. §§6700 et seq.) is the modern version of the grants-in-aid program. In return for these grants the states would agree to uphold and maintain the pledge of life, labor and property of their respective citizenry as surety for the debt obligations of the Federal government. The politicians of these respective states gladly complied, because they viewed this as an opportunity to increase their own political power, letting the next generation of office holders worry over the long

term consequences of their acts.

Today most American's working for wages under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code

are working under the "Economic Realities Test."

The terms "independent contractor," "employee'" and "employer" are not to be construed in their common law senses when used in federal social welfare legislation. N.L.R.B. v. Hearst, 322 U.S. 111 (1944) (for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act; United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), and Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126 (1947) (for purposes of employment taxes on employers under the Social Security Act, as amended); and Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947) (for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act). Rather, their meaning is to be determined in light of the purposes of the legislation in which they were used. In the application of social legislation employees are those who as a matter of economic reality are dependent upon the business to which they render service. Under social legislation the ultimate criteria is to protect those whose livelihood is dependent upon finding employment in the business of others. It s directed toward those who themselves are least able in good times to make provisions for their needs when old age and unemployment may cut off their earnings. The statutory coverage is not limited to those [whose work activities satisfy the common law "control" test] but rather to those who, as a matter of economic reality, are dependent upon the business t o which they render services."

Under the Welfare Enumeration scheme, what once was a free and self regulating People,metamorphosed into a collective endeavor pointed to the management of a large population under principles legally associated with mass peonage. Both the labor and persons of the citizenry being converted into little more than commodities or human resources, to be consumed and controlled for the purpose of promoting a socialistic concept of utopia founded on a hopelessly insolvent welfare state. We see liberty under God traded for empty promises of "cradle to the grave" protection.

To learn more about the evolution of the Social Security number from a license to engage in "commerce" to a pledge of surety for the national debt, read Welfare Enumeration and Suretyship under the Social Security Act

We want to know what you think about the above information. Contact us at: http://www.ime.net/none/surety.html

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man;... Revelation 13:18

IS THE BEAST EATING YOU ? WHAT'S YOUR NUMBER ?

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

For several years now, a variety of high public officials have openly declared that the federal income tax laws are incredibly complex and need to be either substantially revised or scrapped. But after making such statements, these officials invariably fail to identify what specific parts of the tax laws suffer from this condition, choosing instead to conceal them. Are the objectionable parts of the federal tax code secretly and quietly discussed behind closed Congressional committee doors? If they are, why doesn't someone inform the American public of these deficiencies so that they may likewise participate in this debate? Is it possible that it is the major and not various minor features of the tax laws which are complex, even uncertain? Is it possible that these major features are so fundamentally flawed that they simply cannot be repaired? If so, what is the legal consequence of this complexity?

It is alleged that the legal duties arising from the tax laws are clearly known to all, but there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, in United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160 (4th Cir. 1974), at issue was the validity of the conviction of an Indian for tax evasion. Here, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had informed Mrs. Critzer that the money she derived from real property located within a reservation was not taxable; Mrs. Critzer relied upon this advice and failed to report such income. But, the IRS maintained a contrary position and indicted and convicted her for tax evasion. This conviction was reversed on the grounds that the unsettled nature of this field of law precluded any conviction:

"While the record amply supports the conclusion that the underreporting was intentional, the record also reflects that, concededly, whether defendant's unreported income was taxable is problematical and the government is in dispute with itself as to whether the omitted income was taxable," Id., at 1160.

"We hold that defendant must be exonerated from the charges lodged against her. As a matter of law, defendant cannot be guilty of willfully evading and defeating income taxes on income, the taxability of which is so uncertain that even co-ordinate branches of the United States Government plausibly reach directly opposing conclusions. As a matter of law, the requisite intent to evade and defeat income taxes is missing. The obligation to pay is so problematical that defendant's actual intent is irrelevant. Even if she had consulted the law and sought to guide herself accordingly, she could have had no certainty as to what the law required.

"It is settled that when the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant- actually or imputedly- lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Id., at 1162.

This single case is an adequate demonstration that there is at least one part of the tax code which is unclear and that lack of clarity caused the reversal of Mrs. Critzer's criminal conviction. But there are others; see United States v. Mallas, 762 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1985)(a prosecution for violating an unclear legal duty abridges principles of due process); United States v. Garber, 607 F.2d 92, 97-98 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Dahlstrom, 713 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Heller, 830 F.2d 150 (11th Cir. 1987); and United States v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1991). Unclear legal duties in other fields of law besides tax likewise prevent criminal convictions on due process grounds; see United States v. Insco, 496 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1974); People v. Dempster, 396 Mich. 700, 242 N.W.2d 381 (1976); United States v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676, 681-82 (1st Cir. 1985); United States v. Denemark, 779 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1986); and United States v. Larson, 796 F.2d 244 (8th Cir. 1986).

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, §2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, §9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other. To which constitutional category does the federal income tax belong? Is it a direct tax, or is it an indirect tax? Do American courts speak with unanimity about this simple question of what is the

nature of this tax?

To determine whether and to what extent there is any uncertainty or conflict of authority regarding the nature of the federal income tax requires at least a short review of the fundamental decisions concerning it. In 1894, Congress adopted an income tax act which was declared unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912 (1895). The Pollock Court found that the income tax was a direct tax which could only be imposedif the tax was apportioned; since this tax was not apportioned, it was found unconstitutional. In an effort to circumvent this decision, the 16th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1909 and allegedly ratified by the states in 1913. As a result, various opinions arose regarding the legal effect of the amendment. Some factions contended that the 16th Amendment simply eliminated the apportionment requirement for one specific direct tax known as the income tax, while others asserted that the amendment simply withdrew it from the direct tax category and placed the income tax in the indirect, excise tax class. These competing contentions and interpretations were apparently resolved in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36

S.Ct. 236 (1916).[1] Rather than attempt a determination of what the Court held in this case, it is more important to learn what various courts have subsequently declared Brushaber to mean.

A little more than a week after the opinion in Brushaber, similar issues were present for decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916), which involved the question of whether an inadequate depletion allowance for a mining company constituted a direct tax on the company's property. As to Baltic's contention that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment," the Court rejected it by stating that this contention:

"... manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous 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, and being placed in the category of direct taxation."

The Court clearly held that income taxes inherently belonged to the indirect/excise tax class, but had been converted by Pollock to direct taxes by considering the source of the income; the 16th Amendment merely banished the rule in Pollock. See also Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 36 S.Ct. 281 (1916), decided the same day.

However, the victory of defining what the 16th Amendment meant was short lived and later decisions commenced a course which appears to have changed the meaning of Brushaber, or at least provided fertile grounds for an entirely different and opposite construction of it. In William E. Peck and Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-73, 38 S.Ct. 432, 433 (1918), which involved a tax imposed on export earnings, the Court seemed to indicate that what was accomplished by the amendment was the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax, an argument rejected in Baltic:

"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, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removed 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."

The drift away from the position of the Court that the income tax via the 16th Amendment fell within the excise tax category became more pronounced with the decision in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920), which involved the application of this tax to a stock dividend. Here, the Court plainly stated what many lawyers and some judges today think was accomplished by means of this amendment, the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax. In deciding this case, the Court quoted the amendment and then

redeclared its meaning:

"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber....," 252 U.S., at 206.

"A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal."

Is this the resurfacing of the argument that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment" condemned in Baltic?

From a study of Brushaber, it is thus possible for someone to rely upon those portions of the two phrases at the beginning and ending of 240 U.S. 19 to believe that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment." If one fell into that error, this belief would be magnified by the above highlighted portions of Eisner. Confusion abounds as to the correct interpretation of Brushaber, and this is obvious because various courts of this nation have relied upon this line of authority to reach diametrically opposing results.

The state courts have been particularly split over the nature of an income tax and whether it constitutes a direct property tax or an indirect/excise, which is not imposed on property. A small number of them hold that an income tax is a direct property tax; see Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, 204 Ala. 492, 86 So. 56, 58 (1920); State v. Pinder, 108 A. 43, 45 (Del. 1919); Bachrach v. Nelson, 349 Ill. 579, 182 N.E. 909 (1932); Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 108 N.E. 570 (1915); Trefry v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 116 N.E. 904 (1917); Maguire v. Tax Comm. of Commonwealth, 230 Mass. 503, 120 N.E. 162, 166 (1918); Hart v. Tax Comm., 240 Mass. 37, 132 N.E. 621 (1921); In re Ponzi, 6 F.2d 324 (D.Mass.1925); Kennedy v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N.E. 747 (1926); In re Opinion of the Justices, 266 Mass. 583, 165 N.E. 900, 902 (1929); Hutchins v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 272 Mass. 422, 172 N.E. 605, 608 (1930); Bryant v. Comm. of Corps. & Tax'n., 291 Mass. 498, 197 N.E. 509 (1935); Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P.2d 81, 82 (1933)[2]; Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936); State ex rel Manitowoc Gas Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 161 Wis. 111, 152 N.W. 848, 850 (1915); and State ex rel Sallie F. Moon Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 166 Wis. 287, 163 N.W. 639,640 (1917). A far larger number of state courts disagree with the cases noted above and have held that an income tax is not a property tax but an excise; see Purnell v. Page, 133 N.C. 125, 45 S.E. 534, 535 (1903); State v. Frear, 148 Wis. 456, 134 N.W. 673, 692 (1912); Opinion of Justices, 77 N.H. 611, 93 A. 311, 313 (1915); Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 339, 205 S.W. 196 (1918); Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 126 Miss. 34, 88 So. 4 (1921); Stanley v. Gates, 179 Ark. 886, 19 S.W.2d 1000, 1001 (1929); Featherstone v. Norman, 170 Ga. 370, 153 S.E. 58 (1930); Diefendorf v. Gallet, 51 Idaho 619, 10 P.2d 307, 313 (1932); O'Connell v. State Board, 95 Mont. 91, 25 P.2d 114, 119 (1933); Maxwell v. Kent-Coffey Mfg. Co., 204 N.C. 365, 168 S.E. 397, 400 (1933); Reed v. Bjornson, 191 Minn. 254, 253 N.W. 102, 109 (1934); Opinion of the Justices, 133 Me. 525, 178 A. 621, 623 (1935); Miles v. Dept. of Treasury, 209 Ind. 172, 199 N.E. 372, 377 (1935)(citing Brushaber); Marshall v. South Carolina Tax Comm., 178 S.C. 57, 182 S.E. 96, 97 (1935); Hunton v. Commonwealth, 166 Va. 229, 183 S.E. 873, 876 (1936); Reynolds Metal Co. v. Martin, 269 Ky. 378, 107 S.W.2d 251, 259 (1937); Vilas v. Iowa State Bd. of Assess. & Review, 223 Iowa 604, 273 N.W. 338, 342 (1937); Oursler v. Tawes, 178 Md. 471, 13 A.2d 763, 768 (1940); California Co. v. State, 141 Colo. 288, 348 P.2d 382 (1959); and Burns v. State Bureau of Revenue, 79 N.M. 53, 439 P.2d 702, 706 (1968).

This split of authority evident within the state cases also manifests itself in the federal appellate courts. For example, in the First Circuit it is difficult to determine the meaning of the 16th Amendment because in United States v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986), that court held that the "16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income." Next door in the Second Circuit, there is uncertainty revealed by three completely inconsistent cases. In Jandorf's Estate v. Commissioner, 171 F.2d 464, 465 (2nd Cir. 1948), that court declared, "It should be noted that estate or inheritance taxes are excises ... while surtaxes, excess profits and war-profits taxes are direct property taxes." Surtaxes are the graduated taxes of the income tax, so this court holds that the personal income tax is a direct tax. But in Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2nd Cir. 1984), that court stated that the personal income tax was an indirect tax: "[T]he Supreme Court explicitly stated that taxes on income from one's employment are not direct taxes and are not subject to the necessity of apportionment." But compare United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 46 (2nd Cir. 1988)(citing Parker, infra, for the proposition that the tax is direct). In the Third Circuit, it has been held in one case that all income taxes are direct, but in another that only some are direct; see Keasbey & Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d 894, 897 (3rd Cir. 1943)("[A]n income tax is a direct tax upon income therein defined"); and Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 277 F.2d 16, 19 (3rd Cir. 1960)("Pollock .... only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier").

In the remainder of the Circuits, the difference of opinion as to whether the federal income tax is a direct or indirect tax is likewise as profound and confusing. In the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, the income tax has been held to be an excise tax; see White Packing Co. v. Robertson, 89 F.2d 775, 779 (4th Cir. 1937)("The tax is, of course, an excise tax, as are all taxes on income..."); and United States v. Gaumer, 972 F.2d 723, 725 (6th Cir. 1992)("Brushaber and the Congressional Record excerpt do indeed state that for constitutional purposes, the income tax is an excise tax"). However, in the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, arguments that this tax is an excise have been squarely rejected and determined to be frivolous. For example, in Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984), the court clearly rejected the contention that this tax is an excise:

"The Supreme Court promptly determined in Brushaber... that the sixteenth amendment provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax.

"The sixteenth amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct income tax be apportioned among the states.

"The sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax."

In Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986), the court held that an argument that this tax was an excise was frivolous on its face ("The power thus long predates the Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment requirement..."). A similar conclusion was reached in United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617, 619 (8th Cir. 1980), that court declaring that Brushaber held this tax to be a direct one:

"The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a direct tax, thus refuting the argument based upon his first theory. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 242, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916) (the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to take the income tax 'out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes')".[3]

Finally, in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir. 1982), that court expressed in the following fashion its contempt for the contention that the federal income tax was an excise:

"Lawson's 'jurisdictional' claim, more accurately a constitutional claim, is based on an argument that the Sixteenth Amendment only authorizes excise-type taxes on income derived from activities that are government-licensed or otherwise specially protected... The contention is totally without merit... The Sixteenth Amendment removed any need to apportion income taxes among the states that otherwise would have been required by Article I, Section 9, clause 4."

Therefore, while the Supreme Court rejected in Baltic the argument that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment," this position now prevails in the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits. In the Second Circuit, the existing authority illogically claims that the tax is both.

A direct tax applies to and taxes property while an indirect, excise tax is never imposed on property but usually an event such as sales; see Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S.124, 50 S.Ct. 46, 47 (1929).[4] Those courts which hold that an income tax is a direct property tax believe that income is property, yet those which hold that this tax is an excise declare that income is not property. If the courts of this nation cannot identify what is the nature of this ephemeral item known as income,[5] then how can the American people? While in Critzer the difference of opinion existed between two government agencies, here the difference of opinion is among many different courts, a situation far more serious than that presented in Heller. Aren't we being subjected to a monumental due process problem far bigger than that to which Mrs. Critzer was subjected?

The question of what constitutes property is an issue governed by state law; see Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512-13, 80 S.Ct. 1277, 1280 (1960), and United States v. Baldwin, 575 F.2d 1097, 1098 (4th Cir. 1978). The definition of the term, "property," is very broad; see Samet v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank, 247 F. 669, 671 (4th Cir. 1917)("Property is ... everything that has exchangeable value or goes to make up a man's wealth"). It includes money, credits, evidences of debt, and choses in action; see State v. Ward, 222 N.C. 316, 22 S.E.2d 922, 925 (1942). Income is property according to St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. United States, 617 F.2d 1293, 1301 (8th Cir. 1980). Accrued wages and salaries are likewise property; see Sims v. United States, 252 F.2d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 1958), aff'd., 359 U.S. 108, 79 S.Ct. 641 (1959); and Kolb v. Berlin, 356 F.2d 269, 271 (5th Cir.1966). Accounts receivable are property; see In re Ralar Distributors, Inc., 4 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 1993). Even private employment and a profession are considered property; see United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 798 (5th Cir. 1975).

There appears to be no dispute about the plain requirements of the Constitution that direct taxes must be apportioned and that indirect taxes must be uniform. Likewise as shown above, there is a line of decisional authority regarding the generally accepted proposition that income is property, although there are courts which deny this. In James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, 756 n. 11 (10th Cir. 1992), the 10th Circuit made it clear that income is property. Pursuant to United States v. Lawson, supra, the 10th Circuit declares that the property known as income is subject to tax under the view that the 16th Amendment eliminated the apportionment requirement for a specific class of property known as income. However, there is ample contrary judicial authority which demonstrates that this construction of the 16th Amendment is erroneous and that the purpose, intent and meaning of the amendment was the opposite construction and that the amendment did not free this one type of property tax from the regulation of apportionment. An error in a logical argument involving a single premise affects the ultimate conclusion. If the 10th Circuit accepted the proposition that the meaning of the 16th Amendment was contrary to that asserted in Lawson, but adhered to its decision in James, a valid legal argument would logically follow that property known as income could not be taxed because the current income tax is not apportioned.

This same problem, but from an opposite perspective, is evident within the Fourth Circuit where the existing authority of Sims v. United States, supra, declares that income is property. Since that Circuit holds that the federal income tax is an excise via White Packing Co. v. Robertson, supra, and since the definition of an excise tax appearing in that Court's opinion in New Neighborhoods, Inc. v. West Virginia Workers' Comp. Fund, 886 F.2d 714, 719 (4th Cir. 1989), excludes a tax on property, does it not logically follow that there is a tremendous gap in the decisional authority within the Fourth Circuit which presents a view of the law that the property known as income might not be taxed? Based on these cases, is this tax clearly imposed?

Review of the above noted authority in other circuits and states only demonstrates how profound this problem is. In the 6th Circuit, United States v. Gaumer, supra, declares the income tax to be an excise; via Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-56 (Tenn. 1960), the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that an excise tax cannot be used to tax the right to earn a living. Which authority do the people living in Tennessee follow? If they follow the word of their own state court, they might be charged with a tax crime, yet they have a right to rely upon the word of the courts, even when erroneous; see United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 1987). A different problem emerges in the 8th Circuit where United States v. Francisco, supra, holds that an income tax is a direct property tax. Missouri is within the 8th Circuit, but the Missouri Supreme Court held in Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, supra, that an income tax is an excise; if income is not property under Missouri state law,[6] then how does this federal property tax operate as to this "non-property"? Iowa is also in the 8th Circuit, but in Hale v. Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review, 223 Iowa 321, 271 N.W. 168, 172 (1937), that court held that "income is not property within the law of taxation." If state law holds that income is not property yet the federal appellate court for the same state holds the exact opposite, is not a serious uncertainty of the law, due process problem clearly evident?

The decisional authority within the 5th Circuit, Parker v. Commissioner, supra, holds that this tax is a direct property tax, but a contrary view prevails in Mississippi where its citizens are told that an income tax is an excise; see Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, supra. The courts in Wisconsin and Indiana, via State v. Frear, supra, and Miles v. Dept. of Treasury, supra, have found this tax to be an excise, yet the federal appellate court which encompasses these two states has an entirely different view of the object of the tax; see Coleman v. Commissioner, supra. The 10th Circuit, which sits in Denver, held in Lawson, supra, that the income tax is a property tax, yet a state court in the same city has declared that such a tax is an excise; see California Co. v. State, supra.

In Alabama, income is property via Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, supra; but next door in Georgia via Featherstone v. Norman,[7] it is not. While the11th Circuit appears not as yet to have passed upon the question of what type of tax the federal income tax is, consultation of Supreme Court decisions still doesn't resolve the question. By following the rationale of Brushaber and Bromley, supra, which declare the federal income tax to be an excise tax which is not imposed on property, are the people of Alabama exempt from this tax while those in Georgia are not? But by reversing the choice of Supreme Court decisions to follow in an effort to resolve this controversy merely changes the results but not the problem. By following Eisner which seems to hold that the tax is imposed on property, do the people of Alabama owe the tax while those in Georgia do not? These differing conclusions plainly reveal a serious uncertainty about what is taxed, and I do not attempt herein to offer any explanation for all of this inconsistency; the fact of the matter is that I cannot other than to allege that this is uncertainty of the law creates a serious due process problem.

The problems created by the failure of American courts to determine what is the nature of an income tax are very broad. Any particular federal tax must fit within one of the two constitutional tax categories and once the category is known, it may be determined whether the tax in question complies with the constitutional regulation for imposition of that type of tax. A direct tax which is uniformly imposed would still be unconstitutional as one imposed in the absence of apportionment. An indirect tax imposed via apportionment would likewise be unconstitutional since it would not be uniform. But if it is impossible to determine which class any given tax falls within, then it is likewise impossible to determine which constitutional regulation, if any, applies to that tax. If the courts of this nation hold that an income tax is both an excise tax and a direct one, it cannot with any degree of certainty be determined what constitutional restrictions might or might not apply to this tax or what is even the meaning of the 16th Amendment. What's more, it cannot be determine what is income, whether property or non-property.

But this is not the only fundamental problem for the federal income tax. Additionally, the question of which statute controls the duty to file income tax returns is subject to judicial dispute. In Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219, 222, 64 S.Ct.511, 513 (1944), the Court noted that §54 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, the predecessor for Internal Revenue Code §6001, related to the filing requirement; see also Updike v. United States, 8 F.2d 913, 915 (8th Cir. 1925). In True v. United States, 354 F.2d 323, 324 (Ct.Cl. 1965), United States v. Carlson, 260 F.Supp. 423, 425 (E.D.N.Y. 1966), White v. Commissioner, 72 U.S.T.C. 1126, 1129 (1979), McCaskill v. Commissioner, 77 U.S.T.C. 689, 698 (1981), Counts v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 426, 427 (11th Cir. 1985), Blount v. Commissioner, 86 U.S.T.C. 383, 386 (1986), and Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), these courts held that Internal Revenue Code §6011 related to the filing requirement. In United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 1980), United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1192, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1991), and United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991), those courts held that Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011 and 6012 governed this duty. In contrast, the cases of Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983), United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990), and United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992), held that only §6012 governed this duty. But in United States v. Pilcher, 672 F.2d 875, 877 (11th Cir. 1982), none of the above sections were mentioned and it was held that §7203 required returns to be filed. It is very apparent that there is even a diversity of opinion among judges regarding which sections of the Internal Revenue Code govern the requirement to file income tax returns.

The observation of the dissenting judge in Culliton v. Chase, 25 P.2d at 89-90, that this "disagreement of the courts and judges on identical problems seems to afford the highest proof that 'reasonable doubt' does exist," is particularly appropriate here. If American courts cannot decide such fundamental questions as what is the nature of the income tax and which section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the filing of an income tax return, then it is obvious that a serious due process problem exists within the federal income tax laws.

If American courts cannot decide such fundamental questions as what is the nature of the income tax and which section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the filing of an income tax return, then it is obvious that the problem with this tax involves these basic questions. Since even the courts are split over these questions, shouldn't we just scrap the whole thing since the condition which exists is incapable of repair?

In 1913 during the debate on the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment, Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law:

"I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for o one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."[8]

Apparently, nothing has changed.

END NOTES:

[1] In this decision, there is a very lengthy sentence which contains the following phrase: "... by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class," 240 U.S., at 19. This phrase and the one at the very end of this paragraph are almost identical. This language was used to describe the contention the

Court was rejecting, not approving.

[2] The dissent in this case noted the wide divergence of the authority as to whether the tax is a direct property tax or an excise. It commented: "The disagreement of the courts and judges on identical problems seems to afford the highest proof that 'reasonable doubt' does exist," 25 P.2d, at 89-90.

[3] It is interesting to note that this court relied upon those portions of the Brushaber decision quoted previously where the Court noted the argument is was precisely rejecting. If the judges who are legal scholars are capable of completely miusunderstanding this opinion, is it not also probable that the American people and even lawyers can make the same mistake?

[4] The Court defined these two types of taxes in the following manner: "While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct.... a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned..."

[5] At least one court has declared that the term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code; see United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1976).

[6] The Court in Ludlow, 205 S.W. at 198, declared that income is not property: "It is apparent therefore, that when the Constitution of 1875 was adopted, the word 'property' as the basis for taxation, proportioned to value, had acquired a fixed and definite meaning preclusive of personal incomes, occupations, privileges and similar sources of revenue."

[7] See 153 S.E. at 65: "Hence a man's income is not 'property' within the meaning of a constitutional requirement that taxes shall be laid equally and uniformly upon all property within the State."

[8] See The United States Tax Court: An Historical Analysis, page 12, by Harold Dubroff. Published by CCH.

KNOWLEDGE OF THE FEDERAL TAX LAWS AND THAT CONFLICT IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS

Former Federal District Judge Harry Claiborne admitted that, while he was a federal judge he knew nothing of federal tax law, yet decided tax cases.

In Bursten v. US, 395 f 2d 976, 981 (5th. Cir., 1968), the court acknowledged:

"We must note here, as matter of judicial knowledge, that most lawyers have only scant knowledge of the tax laws."

In Lord v. Kelly, 240 FSupp 167, 169 (D. Mass., 1965), it states the judges are under IRS scrutiny.

Even though the judges and lawyers admittedly do not know the tax laws, they sit in judgment and prosecute and/or defend the average Citizen. Even though this is the case, the Citizen being charged with a tax crime is supposed to have more knowledge than the law professionals and is held accountable by these professionals.

Under the criminal law, a criminal defendant has a right to rely upon decisions of the courts and this is a separate defense; see the Albertini case from the 9th Circuit. But further, if these decisions concerning a specific point of law are themselves conflicting, there is the additional defense of uncertainty of the law.

The nature of the income tax is itself conflicting. At the state level, most of the state courts hold that the tax is an excise, while a minority line of authority holds that it is a direct property tax. The reverse is true at the federal level, with most appellate courts holding that it is a direct tax and a minority holding that it is an excise; see the attached list. Since there is no doubt that this conflict is present within the cases, this demonstrates a very serious due process problem of uncertainty in the law.

To violate a clearly known legal duty, one must plainly know the law. But when the law itself is unclear, there correspondingly cannot be a clearly known legal duty. What kind of legal environment do we have when the law itself is uncertain ? We have every right to politically complain about the split and to promote one line of authority over the other. This clearly appears to be the case with the Save A Patriot Fellowship; its members face a split in authority which makes the law uncertain. For that the Fellowship and its members have every right in the world to advocate that a particular line of authority prevails at the end of the contest over the opposing line of authority.

So, given all of this, what should you do when wrongfully approached or contacted by the IRS ? Why not REFUSE PRESENTMENT FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR as in the letter shown below..

====================================================================

Commissioner, District Director & Chief, Legal Staff

Internal Revenue Service

1111 Constitution Ave. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20224

AFFIDAVIT OF REFUSAL TO ACCEPT

IRS NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR

NOTICE OF IRS DEFAULT

I, the undersigned, ________________ state and affirm that I am over the age of majority, of sound mind, and hereby TIMELY refuse acceptance, for cause and without dishonor, the presentment to me from the Commissioner of the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by yourself, which is dated and identified at the bottom as an IRS Letter ____, and within its content as a NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY, and all Forms, Documents, and other writings sent with it (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Presentment) and return same by attaching it herewith as Exhibit A. I do so without dishonor and provide ten (10) days to have a competent person (an IRS lawyer) rebut my causes and beliefs stated herein. Failure to do so becomes their default and admission to all shown under NOTICE on page 6 of this Affidavit of Refusal.

BE AWARE that this is an exact copy of the original Affidavit, which is being retained by me to be used as evidence in court in the event such need arises.

(1) I believe that the Presentment does not contain a bona fide signature as required by law under 26 USC Sec. 6061, and that it does not conform with Rule 44, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is necessary to evidence it as an official record of the U.S. Government.

(2) I believe that, by use of the "we" and "us" in the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY, Commissioner Rossotti indicates that he is acting personally when sending out such presentment.

(3) U.S. Courts have ruled that laws passed by Congress are not self-executing [U.S. v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. (1987)] that forms are not legally recognizable unless promulgated by Secretary of the Treasury [U S. v. Reinis, 794 f.2d 506, 508 (9th Cir. 1986)] and that where regulations are controlling - "the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone." and "Since only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulation issued by tile Secretary and not the broad authorizing language of the statute which is to be tested". [California Bankers Assoc. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 26 (1974)]

(4) The Presentment infers that I am liable under law for an "additional tax" in the amounts computed by unidentified person(s) without identifying any law and the regulations published in the Federal Register that makes me liable for the alleged "additional tax".

(5) In addition, Congress set forth in 44 U.S.C. Sections 1501 et seq. the publication requirements as to all U.S. Governmental writings (eng., forms, documents, regulations, etc: ) It decreed that regulations not published in the Federal Register lack general applicability [Sec. 1505(a)] and that a list be produced of those that have been published in the Federal Register [See. 1510(b)]; which has been done by Table 1 - Authorities, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Index and Finding Aids.

(6) The CFR Index and Finding Aids Table of Authorities shows the following as to enforcement statutes in Title 26 [see Exhibit B]

Title 26 Description Enforcement Regulation In

6020 Returns Prepared by the Secretary 27 CFR Parts 53, 70

6201 Assessment Authority 27 CFR Part 70

6203 Method of Assessment 27 CFR Part 70

6212 Notice of deficiency NO REGULATION

6213 Restrictions applicable to deficiencies;

petition to Tax Court NO REGULATION

6214 Determinations by Tax Court NO REGULATION

6215 Assessment of deficiency found by

Tax Court NO REGULATION

6301 Collection Authority 27 CFR Parts 70, 24, 25, 250, 270, 275

6303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27 CFR Part 70

6321 Liens for Taxes 27 CFR Part 70

6331-43 Levy and Distraint 27 CFR Part 70

6601-02 Interest on Underpayments 27 CFR Part 70, 170

6651 Failure to File Tax Return or Pay Tax 27 CFR Part 70, 24, 25, 194

6671 Penalty Assessed as Tax, Person Defined 27 CFR Part 70

6672 Failure to Collect and Pay Over Tax 27 CFR Part 70

6701 Penalties for Understatement of Tax 27 CFR Part 70

6902 Provisions of Special Application to

Transferees NO REGULATION

7201 Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax NO REGULATION

7203 Willful Failure to File Return, Supply

Information or Pay Tax NO REGULATION

7207 Fraudulent Returns 27 CFR Part 70

7212 Interference with Adm. of I.R. laws 27 CFR Part 170, 270, 275, 285, 290

7401 Judicial Proceedings Authorization 27 CFR Part 70

7402 Court's Jurisdiction to Enforce Summons NO REGULATION

7403 Judicial Action to Enforce Lien 27 CFR Part 70

7454 Burden of proof in fraud, foundation

manager, and transferee cases NO REGULATION

7601 Canvass of District for Taxable Persons 27 CFR Part 70

7602 Examination of Books and Witnesses 27 CFR Part 70, 170, 296

7603 Service of Summons 27 CFR Part 70

7604 Enforcement of Summons 27 CFR Part 70

7605 Time and Place for Examination 27 CFR Part 70

7608 Authority of Internal Revenue

Enforcement Officers 27 CFR Part 70, 170, 296

(7) 26 U.S.C. See. 6020(b) authorizes the Secretary, or Delegate, to make a return based upon "his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise" if "any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation." Once such return is subscribed by the Secretary, or Delegate, it is "prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes." The Commissioner states in the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY sent to me: "We have determined that there is a deficiency (increase) in your income tax as shown above." The figure they provided was based upon the accompanying writings, wherein the computer printed name “Margaret Milner Richardson” appears as signature.

(8) Though no implementing regulation is stated upon which these people base their authority to create these writings, it can be presumed they rely upon 26 U.S.C. See. 6020(b). From the list provided in (6) above it can be seen that the published implementing regulations are located in Parts 53 and 70 of Title 27 CFR: however, Title 27 CFR deals exclusively with taxable alcohol, tobacco and firearms activities. The records maintained by the IRS about me show, or should show, that I am not involved in any taxable alcohol, tobacco or firearms activities.

(9) In the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY it states it was sent "as required by law" without identifying the law and regulation relied upon. From the list provided in (6) above it call be seen that section 6212 of Title 26, U.S. Code, is the authority for issuing a Notice of Deficiency and that NO REGULATION has been published for it. 44 U.S.C. See. 1505(a)(1) provides that those "effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as of officers, agents, or employees thereof:" need not be published in the Federal Register. The records maintained by the IRS about me show, or should show, that I am not employed by any Federal agency. For this reason, I believe that the Presentment is subject to my acceptance. By this Affidavit I make a record that I refuse to grant my acceptance.

(10) In the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY it is suggested that I can petition the U.S. Tax court for a "redetermination of the deficiency" if I wish to contest the amount that was “determined” and declare is due as an "increase" in income tax . From the list provided in (6) above it can be seen that NO REGULATIONS have been published for the sections of Title 26 applicable to the U.S. Tax Court (i.e. 6213, 6214, 6215 and 6902), therefore the same principles as shown in (8) above apply here. I believe that my appearance in Tax Court would be takers as my acceptance of the Presentment, which I choose not to do.

(11) From the list in (6) above, it can be seen that the published regulations for assessment [Sec. 6201], collection [Sec. 6301], and enforcement laws in Title 26 only apply to taxable alcohol, tobacco and firearms activities in Title 27 CFR.

(12) The IRS Mission was established as the enforcement of voluntary compliance in See. 1111.1 of Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 62 - Friday, March 29, 1974, Page 11572.

(13) I believe that the IRS must operate based upon voluntary compliance because of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that: "Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes."

[Pollock v Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co. 157 U.S.. 429, 558 (1895)]

(14) Since "income tax" is not apportioned (thereby not a direct tax) and the burden to pay it cannot be shifted upon someone else, I believe that they are paid by people who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, and that this is the reason terms like "voluntary compliance", "self-assessment", and "pay a fair share" are used by government people in association with the "income tax".

(15) Numerous times the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the "income tax” is an indirect tax. In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1915), at pages l6-17, it also ruled that the Court would have to "disregard form and consider substance alone" if "it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent."

(16) From my studies, I understand and believe what is known as a "return" is a kickback arrangement between the Federal government and its employees that works in this manner. The Federal agent or employee [defined in 26 U.S.C. See. 3401(c)] receives "gross income" which includes "gain" and "income" derived from "wages" [see Sec. 213 of the Revenue Act of 1918, C. 18, 40 Stat. 1057; and 26 U.S.C.. See. 3401(a)] by the Federal agency as the employer [defined in 26 U.S.C.. See. 3401(d)]. The "income" portion is consideration for consideration. The "gain" portion is U.S. Government property and is subject to being returned by the "transferee" [the Federal employee] depending upon exemptions and deductions (which are subject to change at the discretion of the property owner, the U.S.. Government). The Federal employee makes their claim for part of the "gain" portion on a Form 1040. If a Federal employee's claims are not acceptable by IRS examiners they are to be informed by way of a "notice of deficiency'' (increase of what is to be returned). In essence, this formula makes the U.S.. Government agency the payer of the tax that is required to be returned by the transferee hence the U.S.. Government is the taxpayer. This is corroborated by 26 U.S.C. See. 6902(a), which reads: "Burden of Proof. - Is proceedings before the Tax Court the burden of proof shall be upon the Secretary to show that a Petitioner is liable as a transferee of property of a taxpayer:, but not to show that the taxpayer [U.S. Government] was liable for the tax." [emphasis and bracketed portion added]. This is also confirmed by the Table of Authorities in the CFR Index and Finding aids which shows the statutes related to "deficiencies" and "tax court" (sections 6212, 6213, 6214, 6215, 6902) have NO PUBLISHED REGULATIONS which, by 44 U.S.C.. See. 1505(a), means they are only applicable to Federal employees. This is confirmed by 26 U.S.C.. See. 3403 (no published regulations).

(17) I also believe that my property (estate) is described by the definition in 26 U.S.C. See. 7701 (a)(31), which reads: Foreign estate or trust. The term "foreign estate" and "foreign trust" means an estate or trust, as the case may be, the income of which from sources without the United States which is not effectively collected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

(18) In addition, since the U.S. Supreme Court has established that "civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary" [California Bankers Ass. v. Schultz, 416 U.S.. 21, 26 (1974)], I believe that without a verified statement (by an IRS representative competent to know the law) as to the laws and the regulations that obligate me for the alleged "income tax" liability, and the laws and regulations relied upon by the government people for authority to create and send the Presentment, then (absent my acceptance) the Presentment is legally unenforceable

(19) Based upon all of the above, and the fact that I am not employed by the Federal government or involved in any taxable alcohol, tobacco or firearm activity, I believe that performing the act of accepting an "income tax" liability must be voluntary and that there must be this record of acceptance and/or an Order by a court of law, based upon a verified complaint of injury, before government agents (IRS or others) can lawfully enforce collection: otherwise that which is abolished by 42 U.S. C. See. 1994 (Peonage Abolished) is manifested [see Clyatt vs. U.S., 197 U.S.. 207, 215-216 (1904)].

(20) The U.S.. Supreme Court has declared that legal and/or physical coercion are an incident of involuntary servitude [U.S. v Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 956 (1988)]. I believe that where there is evidence of my Affidavit refusing to accept the Presentment for cause without dishonor, and a default occurs by failing to have an IRS attorney rebut it by Affidavit, then any subsequent presentment establishes an incident of legal coercion.

(21) I further believe that, absent a full rebuttal to my causes and beliefs by a competent person (an IRS lawyer), any enforced collection of the amounts alleged to be due and owing from me based upon the Presentment or the presumptions in any other IRS Form or Document would result in controlling my labor by debt against my will a prohibited condition of involuntary servitude, 44 U.S.C. See. 1994, and that with this Refusal any government people who participate in such conduct accept the legal consequences of 18 U.S.C.. See. 1581 and any other applicable law.

NOTICE

TEN (10) DAYS TO REBUT OR ADMIT

Ten (10) days is provided to have an IRS lawyer rebut and disprove, in affidavit form, my causes and beliefs. Failure to do so (by silence or otherwise) becomes a self-imposed default by the people to whom this is directed, for the IRS, and stipulation that they have dishonored and discredited any and all declarations and claims made in the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY, all associated writings, and any and all past or future presentments to me, or to others about me and/or my property. By such default they admit and stipulate, as fact:

(a) that the intent of the Presentment to me is to obtain my consent (directly or indirectly) to pay a "fair share" of the U.S.. Government's debts based upon the IRS Mission of voluntary compliance published in the Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 62 - Friday, March 29, 1974, at page 11572

(b) that the IRS has no cause to act against me and/or my property absent my consent

(c) that IRS or other government agents have no lawful or legal authority to act against me or my property absent my consent and/or a Court of Law Order based upon a verified complaint:

(d) that by this Affidavit my refusal to perform the act of consenting to accept this IRS service is now on record.

(e) that the U.S.. Tax Court cannot provide remedy to me because it is not intended as a forum for non-transferees /non-taxpayers:

(f) that upon default to this Affidavit of Refusal all IRS presentments to me, or to others about me, are legally unenforceable

(g) that, because this Refusal is directed to IRS policy makers, it will be established upon default to this Affidavit of Refusal that any IRS enforcement process used against me or my property is IRS policy

(h) that any Presentment from IRS employees to me, or to others about me and/or my property, constitutes evidence of the use, or threatened use of, physical or legal coercion

(i) that good faith would be demonstrated by IRS employees only if a release of the alleged deficiency against me is made and recorded in the IRS records, and I am notified that this has been done,

(j) that Account numbered ----------- has been CLOSED), and that IRS employees will discontinue any further action or contact with me and that this Affidavit of Refusal is sufficient for all legal purposes as evidence that I have met the burden to rebut the presumptions in the Presentment (Rule 301, Federal Rules of Evidence) .

NOTICE OF SELF-IMPOSED DEFAULT BY THE IRS

NOTICE is hereby given to ALL PERSONS that the IRS agrees to a self-imposed DEFAULT if the head of its legal staff at this office fails to respond to this affidavit as directed above: and NOTICE that by such DEFAULT the IRS acquiesces to my position and stipulates to all stated in all paragraphs above; and that the IRS accepts from that time forward that the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence will prevail as to enforcement of any IRS presentment.

NOTICE

ORIGINAL OF THIS AFFIDAVIT IS RETAINED FOR LEGAL PURPOSES

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(e)(7), I hereby authorize and require that this Affidavit be made part of any IMF record maintained by the IRS under my name and/or the Social Security Administration’s number ----------- (application Form SS-5 revoked 4/26/93).

So stated and affirmed by:

_________________________________________

Citizen’s Name (seal)

On this _______ day of ______________________, 199__, the foregoing Affidavit was subscribed and

sworn to before me by _________________________.,

known to me to be this person by satisfactory evidence. I am a Notary Public in the State

of ______________________, County of ___________________,

_________________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires on _____________________.

Attachments:

Exhibit A - the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY, and all Forms, Documents, and other writings attached thereto; all "Acceptance Refused for Cause Without Dishonor" and dated and signed this day.

Exhibit B - copies from pages of the CFR Index and Finding Aids Table of Authorities that refer to enforcement statutes in Title 26, U.S.. Code

==================================================================

By the way, we help people to prepare and submit these personalized REFUSALS for $20 each.

Send to: R Safe, P.O. Box 7720 Arlington, VA 22207 (fax us the letter you got (703) 532-3219).

This is NOT a Tax Protest

Although the IRS will try to claim that all of this information from the Fellowship (from the law itself) is "tax protest", THAT IS A LIE. This is a PROPER exercise of RIGHTS and a simple flexing of the legal power possessed by the TRUE SOVEREIGN. This is TAX LAW. In fact, IT IS THE IRS THAT PROTESTS THE TAX LAW, by protesting its VERY LIMITED APPLICATION as proscribed in the law, as shown in the statutes. The fact of the matter is the phrase "Illegal Tax Protester Schemes" is defined in the law in the Internal Revenue Manual in Section 5431.4. It states:

Illegal Tax Protester Scheme Definitions

1. Constitutional Basis---Refusal to include tax return information on Form 1040/1040A because of violation of Constitutional rights. In lieu of information required on Form 1040/1040A, the illegal tax protester either shows "--0--", "none", "Object", or a Fifth Amendment annotation in all of the blanks or will include a broad general statement regarding his/her constitutional rights (including 4th Amendment and 16th Amendment). This is commonly referred to as a Porth/Daly type return.

2. Fair Market Value---Reducing gross income because of declining value of dollar. The gross income is listed on the face of the return and there is a large adjustment to income which makes adjusted gross income small enough for standard deduction to eliminate taxable income. The adjustment to gross income is on Schedule D, Schedule of Capital Gains and Losses, or Form 2106, Employee Business Expenses, for Form 1040.

3. Gold/Silver Standard---Any return with a statement that only gold or silver backed currency can be taxed.

4. Blank Form 1040/1040A---These generally fall into two categories. In one category the individual files a return with only a name and address, and possibly signature and Form(s) W-2 is attached. This scheme is usually verified upon correspondence with the taxpayer. In the second category the individual files a return similar to the Porth type return, i.e. the lines contain "object", "Fifth Amendment", etc., with the exception that Form(s) W-2 is attached. In both instances, the return could or could not list marital status and/or exemptions.

5. Non-Payment Protest---Non-Payment or underpayment of tax based upon some type of protest statement written or attached to the return.

6. Protest Adjust---This is similar to Non-Payment Protest, in that the return contains specific unallowable items (e.g., deductions, exclusions, etc.) identified to some type of protest.

7. Mail Order Ministries---Individual receives income from non-religious sources and declares that it is non-taxable because of "vow of poverty". This scheme also involves returns where the individual includes all or substantially all of gross income as a contribution deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040. Some individuals will complete Form 1040 and then take an unusually large contribution deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, normally 50% or more of the adjusted gross income.

8. Protester Letters and Cards---The receipt of letters and cards (without tax return) protesting the use of taxes for war, defense and/or other government spending policies, and indicating that this will affect their reporting and payment of taxes.

9. Family Estate Trust---The trusts are filed on Forms 1041. Terms such as "family", "equity pure", "prime", or "constitutional" are used in the title of the trust. Income is from "wages" or "Contract" sources and deductions are for personal living expenses, such as housing, medical, auto, child care, interest or taxes. Generally, an individual will establish a trust, give his/her wages or other income to the trust, and the trust pays for the expenses of the individual. The expenses claimed as administrative expenses of the trust, resulting in the individual paying no tax and the trust paying little or no taxes.

10. W4---Excessive Overstatement of Allowances---This scheme is usually employed in conjunction with one of the other schemes mentioned above. The claiming of excessive allowances is usually directed towards eliminating withholding of Federal taxes from wages.

11. Forms 843 and Amended Returns--- Some individuals are filing Form 843 Claims and/or Amended Form 1040 (1040X) returns to obtain a total refund on all taxes paid in prior years, even though returns have not been filed for the prior years.

Now you tell me which of these defined categories of "Tax Protest Schemes" that applying the law properly would fall into ? The IRS won't say, can YOU !

Tax Avoidance vs. Tax Evasion

Apparently, many people in America are not aware of the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Simply put, tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is a crime. Tax avoidance is the legal art of using the provisions of the statutes of law to minimize tax liabilities and indebtedness.

Tax evasion is the art of lying. It generally involves the falsification of records and documents, or fraudulent reporting of facts, for the purpose of reducing or eliminating existing tax liability or debt imposed under the law. There is a billion dollar industry in America practicing Tax Avoidance. It is what ALL accountants and tax lawyers are asked, and paid, to do for their clients. Citizens can practice tax avoidance too. You do not have to retain a lawyer to practice perfect tax avoidance. All you have to do is know what the law actually says and provides for, so that you may claim the exemptions provided in the law that apply to you as a Citizen, the true Sovereign Power in America !

The Save A Patriot Fellowship

The S.A.P. Fellowship is a first amendment association dedicated to seeing the IRS and other government personnel obey the law. Our association recognizes the necessity of taxation (raising of revenues) but we also recognize that this necessity has provisions in the law, and that the government, in meeting its exigencies, may not extend its activities beyond the law.

The Fellowship actively promotes the study of the law and the assertion of one's rights in accordance with the law. It does not "protest" or "object" to any tax, income or otherwise, and is NOT a "tax protest" organization. However, Fellowship members believe that many Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees routinely misapply and illegally enforce the provisions of the law and that the public must find a way to hold them within the law. To that end the Fellowship educates the public, shows in its publication what the law actually says, and attempts to clarify the limitations of various tax laws as was intended by Congress. The Fellowship does not advocate or condone unlawful resistance, protest, or other like actions.

However, as law abiding Citizens we will not tolerate illegal threats, intimidation or acts of violence by government employees who exceed their authority under the law. The Fellowship has researched and developed legal defenses to help prevent this and to protect our Liberty and Property from these unauthorized attacks on us by our own "representative" government.

The Fellowship believes that this has become necessary because too many government bureaucrats have been relying on unlawful and un-American tactics such as fear and intimidation to keep the public "in line" in order to perpetuate their own private agendas. They have and continue to use the news media to plant stories suggesting that resistance is useless and reprisal is swift and financially painful. These "reminders" and a lifetime of conditioning make it difficult for most people to assert their rights. However, S.A.P. Fellowship members have joined together to help remove the risk by pledging to assist one another in this battle !

To our knowledge, there is no insurance company willing to buck the system and insure Patriots against the criminal acts of government agencies or their employees. Creating and operating a conventional insurance company would have been impossible. The bureaucrats would have insisted on our submission to the dictates of the Insurance Commission. In no time at all we would have been expending funds fighting legal actions just trying to survive. It would have also been necessary to protect such funds from the searching eyes of the IRS and other government agencies.

There was only one totally logical answer: a FELLOWSHIP that gives the Patriot insurance-like protection, hence to Save A Patriot. JOIN US. Write or call for info

R SAFE (703) 534-1144

P.O Box 7720 (703) 532-3219

Arlington, VA 22207 (703) 534-1172 fax

I.R.S. Insurance

Simply put, many Save A Patriot Fellowship members pledge to reimburse other members for losses of cash or property incurred by illegal confiscation. This is done by spreading the reimbursement costs to all members. For example, suppose that after a valiant and stubborn struggle through the phases of the legal maze, a member were to lose his vehicle to an illegal seizure. Let's value the vehicle at $9,000. If there are 10,000 members participating in the Fellowship, Save A Patriot would verify the loss and apportion the liability at a rate of 90 cents per member. PRESTO ! Mr. or Ms. Valiant Patriot suffers NO loss at all, and their friends' fear of possible IRS retaliation is gone (protected by the Fellowship's computer encrypted records). Real-life examples such as this have convinced many "closet patriots" to join the Save A Patriot Fellowship in droves. Welcome to the Constitutional Revivalist Movement.

The surest and safest protection of funds is to keep them in the widely distributed hands of the Fellowship members themselves. The only money to be sent to the Fellowship headquarters is the annual $70 membership (headquarters operations) fee. After verification by Headquarters of losses to claimant member, an apportionment is sent out to the membership; you send payments DIRECTLY to the claimant (or their beneficiary). Save A Patriot merely verifies that all members have met their assessment obligations by a simple procedure.

Payment for incarceration. There are still occurrences when a Patriot is criminally tried, wrongfully convicted and jailed. This is the most difficult financial burden to individually shoulder. Therefore, it is the stated policy of the Fellowship to assess for the beneficiary of each incarcerated Patriot $25,000 per calendar year, during the period of actual incarceration.

Save-A-Patriot Fellowship Tel. (410) 857-4441

P.O. Box 91 Fax (410) 857-5249

Westminster, MD. 21158 BBS ( 410) 857-4455

America IS NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY !!

Let's say it together now:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands .... "

The children don't say this Pledge of Allegiance in school anymore because it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA IN AN IRREFUTABLE FASHION.

AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC, a constitutional Republic of a democratic (one man - one vote) nature. However, WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY where the majority always rules. THAT IS GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO CONDITION YOU TO ACCEPT THEIR INJUSTICE and believe that there is nothing that you can do about it. The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that in a Republic there are certain things THAT CAN NEVER BE DONE NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO DO IT ! The rights of no individual or group can ever be removed or diminished (because that group may be currently unpopular (for whatever reason)), regardless of how many people vote to do so. In a Republic, even if the vote is 250 million to 1, that one cannot be thrown into slavery. In a pure democracy 51% of the men can vote the other 49% back into slavery if they wish. Or, they can vote to steal your property by theft and regulation (sound familiar). BUT NOT IN A REPUBLIC (if the Constitution or the law forbids it, which ours DOES). Our founding fathers HATED the idea of a pure democracy, recognizing that it is nothing more than social slavery to the popular hysteria of the era and the obsessions of the ignorant masses. They wanted a representative (democratic) system, BUT NOT A pure DEMOCRACY, and they did not establish a pure democracy in the Constitution, they established a REPUBLIC, a Constitutional Republic.

Things like "MAJORITY RULES" and "FAIR SHARE" are COMMUNISTIC CONCEPTS right out of The Communist Manifesto and from the communist maxims like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", attempting to justify the theft of private property by government under the PRETENSE of "redistribution to the poor" and "efficient utilization of national resources". BUT FOR SOME REASON THE STOLEN WEALTH NEVER SEEMS TO MAKE TO THE POOR, BUT INSTEAD ALWAYS ENDS UP IN THE POCKETS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY LEADERS ! I won't even mention how efficient the Communist regimes of the world have shown themselves to be with their national resources.

Life is really very simple. People like to pretend that it is not, but it is. You have two choices in life: you can accept what you find, or you can work to change what you find into something better. You can stand up and fight, or you can lie down and die. Fail to do the one, and the other becomes inevitable. You choose for yourself,

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave, ... It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen cry peace, peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun ! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms ! Our brethren are already in the field ! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish ? What would they have ? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ? Forbid it, Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death !"

Patrick Henry

Collective hysteria, paranoia and insanity are the planned result of Government propaganda, issued under the pretense of "protecting the children", in order to effect rule by Government Anarchy (outside the law), without protest from the people. Their propaganda has been very effective here in America, wouldn't you agree ? Fortunately, like ALL government propaganda; NONE OF IT IS TRUE, and surely any government's claim to be acting to protect the children is exposed as PURE FRAUD when that same government actually repeatedly murders its own people's children (WACO & RUBY RIDGE).

KNOW YOUR ENEMIES

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of the communist manifesto. They read:

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

1. Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (need we say anything !)

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (read inheritance taxes)

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

(read the accused, not the convicted - Asset forfeiture laws, DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (read Federal Reserve Bank, Fiat Paper Money and fractional reserve banking)

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (read DOT, FAA, FCC etc...)

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (read "controlled" or "subsidized", rather than "owned")

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (read Minimum Wage and Slave Labor. You know, like in China, our Most Favored Nation trade partner. Can you figure out why we are partnered with communists ?)

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (read forced relocation and forced sterilization programs, you know, like in China.)

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". I defy you to show me the words "fair share" anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26). ANYWHERE !! The whole philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need ! The very concept is pure socialism.)

The people (politicians) who believe in these things and pass more and more laws implementing these ideas are traitors to the American Constitution. INCOME TAX IS THE SECOND PLANK OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. IF YOU SUPPORT, OR VOLUNTARILY PAY INCOME TAX, YOU ARE A PRACTICING COMMUNIST, and you are responsible for the socialist programs being foisted on the American People! Now,

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ! Know your enemy:

HIS NAME IS DEMOCRAT, his alias is REPUBLICAN !

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only party in America that still supports and abides by the Constitution, and represents you the Citizen ! (See The Political Difference pg. 92)

The following Press Release proves that the lawyers know the truth and that most of them have consciously made the decision to participate in this fraud and continue to derive their living from your ongoing suffering. Thank God there are a still at least a few honest men left in this profession.

NATIONAL PRESS RELEASE

An Everett attorney, Steffan M. Bertsch, has spent over eighteen months examining the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations and has concluded that there is no authority for the IRS to seize any personal or real property in Washington State for alleged income tax liabilities from most Citizens. Bertsch charges that the agency has been seizing property for decades through numerous deceptions and strong arm methods, and has conducted an ongoing fraud that nearly everyone in the State believes is legal. The state of affairs is this: The IRS is operating outside the law and has placed the Citizens of Washington State under governmental anarchy.

Beginning in March of 1996, Bertsch sought the aid of the Attorney General of Washington, Christine Gregoire, in exposing the fraud. Ms. Gregoire's office researched the issue and attempted to defend the unlawful acts of the agency, but has been totally unable to rebut Bertsch's charge of fraudulent conversion of property by the IRS.

On May 1, 1996, Bertsch also sought the aid of Edward Shea, the president of the Washington State Bar Association, to expose the fraudulent activity of the IRS seizing property without lawful authority. To date, the Bar Association has remained silent, which, considering the gravity of the charges, is most troubling. However, since the bar association, with the entire legal brain trust of the state at its disposal has been unable to respond, it is reasonable to assume that the bar association cannot defend the charges against the IRS in Washington State made by Bertsch.

In April of 1996, Bertsch began correspondence with Governor Lowrey in an effort to halt the illegal seizures by the IRS in Washington State. The governor responded that "Because the issue raised is federal matter, it is out of my jurisdiction as governor." Governor Lowrey added that, "I hope your efforts to resolve this matter prove worthwhile.

The fraud Bertsch charges is too severe for the Bar Association to acknowledge, too egregious for the Attorney General to defend it, and originates from too great a power for the governor to act upon it. The duty of exposing a systematic fraud that only Charles Ponzi could admire falls upon the media.

The Washington State Bar Association

The text below is transcribed from a letter from Stefan Bertsch, Attorney at Law, to Edward Shea, President of the Washington State Bar Association, dated June 14, 1996.

Dear Mr. Shea,

On May 1, 1996 I sent you a letter charging a terrible, ongoing fraud being committed in Washington State by the Internal Revenue Service. I assert most adamantly that the IRS is seizing property for alleged income tax liabilities by using the excise tax authority. There is no authority to seize the property for income tax liabilities of ordinary Citizens. The action of the IRS amounts to governmental anarchy.

On May 9, 1996 I sent you a follow-up letter, but have heard nothing in response to either. By the total silence from the bar association I must presume that either my accusations have been dismissed as absurd, or that the bar has discovered what I charge is correct and true. There was a fellow in twentieth century who instructed political leaders that the method of addressing irrefutable truth from opponents was to absolutely ignore it and let silence kill the argument. This noble advice is found in Mein Kampf. (authored by Adolf Hitler, ed.)

I cannot overstress how serious the situation is. I have information the IRS has every federal judge in the country under criminal investigation, monitoring among other things, their court actions and the sentences they hand down from the bench. This fact alone, if borne out by investigation to be true, renders the entire federal court system a mockery, a shill for the IRS. Yet, the bar, by its silence, seems not to care. The silence appears to condone the destruction of the judiciary created by Article III of the Constitution.

I have included a copy of a press release that I will be distributing on July 3, 1996 to all media sources. If the bar association desires any input concerning the language of the release, please let me know as soon as possible. If I hear nothing from your office before July 3, 1996, I will presume that the language of the release is acceptable to you.

Sincerely,

Steffan M. Bertsch

HOW IT HAPPENED TO AMERICA

First off, the IRS cannot demand any information (ICR) that they want, without statutory justification. Everybody, including the IRS, is bound by the law, must obey it, and is constrained within the statutory limitations on autority established therein ? If the IRS is not limited in their demands for information by the Paperwork Reduction Act, why did they provide to OMB the table contained in 26 CFR 602.101, pursuant to its mandate, with that purpose stated in its introduction? If the Paperwork Reduction Act does not limit the government in its information collection actions (the stated purpose), what was its purpose and what does it do ?

However, this is not the only fact that our argument is based on, it is only just one of the many supporting pieces of documentation found in the law, presented on the Web site pages, that the IRS refuses to address in Court and refuses to attempt to rebut with cites of law.

To properly understand the American tax laws, and understand exactly what happened to America, one must be familiar with their complete history. For brevity’s sake I will refer to my web site pages in this letter, where you can find and check the actual language of the code sections referenced herein.

The Relevant Chronological History

1861 - 1868. Income tax first appears in American law as an FOREIGN income DUTY (see The Income Duty of 1861 ), and a FEDERAL (Civil War) officer employment "kickback" agreement. I’m sure you are aware that duties are imposed on foreign imports, not domestic productivity, and as such, this tax did not affect U.S. Citizens domestic income, only foreigners and Federal officers (transferees). The Federal Judges become the first "tax protesters" by refusing to submit to the tax for 70 years until 1932. The Anti-Injunction Act is passed to prevent FOREIGNERS and FEDERAL OFFICERS from interfering with the collection of these taxes.

1898 - In Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898) the Supreme Court strikes down an Act of Congress that attempted to expand the application of the income tax and impose it on the interest and dividends from funds on deposit at U.S. banks, ruling that the tax was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it was a direct tax on property without apportionment, as required by Article 1 for all direct taxes (see Referenced Sections of the Constitution ). This decision refers to Chief Justice Taney’s letter to the Secretary of the Treasury in 1862 addressing the limited federal power to control and alter (tax) ONLY its own “new” employment contracts, entered into after the passage of the Act (Section 86 - the Federal “kickback” return “duty”).

1913 - America is invaded “economically” by Foreign predatory parties waging economic war on America, and its unaware and betrayed Citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank and the power to print paper money is established in America for the first time in the hands of PRIVATE FOREIGN PARTIES, and the 16th Amendment is allegedly ratified by 3/4ths of the States, although to this day, the Federal government still will not produce or release for examination the ratification documents supposedly received from the states.

1914 - 1916 The European Federal Reserve banksters print and loan paper money to fund both sides of the conflict during World War I. Betrayed American’s get stuck for the debt when European nations default on repayment of the loans (Surprise ! Did you really think they were going to make their own countrymen pay, when they had a boatload of ignorant American suckers ready to foot the bill for them as personal debt ?).

1916 - The Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916) decision rules that the 16th amendment IS constitutional because it is NOT a direct tax, but rather, is an INDIRECT EXCISE tax, which therefore, does not have to be apportioned. The Court refers the reader to Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) for the definition of what an excise tax is. This ruling means that the 16th Amendment has no legal effect except to move the income tax from the indirect category of “duty” to the INDIRECT category of EXCISE. In Flint vs. Stone Tracy the Court ruled that excise taxes are:

"taxes on the manufacture, consumption and sale of commodities within the country,

on licenses to pursue certain occupations, and

on corporate privileges."

Given this fact, how would income tax be applied to income NOT derived from these three defined revenue taxable excise activities ? Treasury Decision 2313 was issued by the commissioner of the IRS as a result of this Supreme Court decision. It clearly states that non-resident aliens are liable for the tax, and that the income of those nonresident aliens is to be reported on Form 1040. It does NOT say "Citizens" or "all persons" because it was properly understood that Citizens are not subject to the tax unless they are engaging in PRIVILEGED activities. Citizens have a RIGHT TO WORK, and our rights cannot be taxed. In fact, this Treasury Decision explicitly references an exemption for Citizens as paragraph C, that nonresident aliens cannot claim.

1916 - In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) the Court rules that the 16th Amendment: "CONFERS NO NEW POWERS OF TAXATION" upon Congress. It does not create a new authority to tax Citizens directly without apportionment (because it is an indirect tax), according to the Supreme Court itself. So if it was unconstitutional to tax the interest and dividends (of Citizens) before the 16th Amendment (according to Pollock), and no new powers to tax are created by the 16th, how can the income tax be constitutionally imposed today on those sources when Pollock has never been overturned or reversed ?

1918 - The 75 year Canadian Tax treaty is signed and Section 22(a) (now Section 61) is added to the USC, defining the sources of taxable income from Canadian sources, subject to the income tax under the foreign tax treaty with Canada ( see The Proper Application). (Income earned in a foreign country under a tax treaty is privileged income, and therefore, is subject to the income tax under the Brushaber decision.)

1919 - 1928 The income tax is properly collected, not from all U.S. Citizens, but only from those who enjoy income from privileged or licensed activities, as determined by the Supreme Court in Brushaber, and from Federal employees as a "kickback" on their "employment" agreement, per the language of Title 4 U.S.C. 111 ..., Income Tax. The income tax is also properly collected from foreigners earning money in the U.S., from any source, per the instructions issued in Treasury Decision 2313.

1929 - The Depression is triggered (engineered) by the collapse of the stock market (caused by the rampant speculation with the paper money, irresponsibly issued and released by the Federal Reserve banksters in order to undermine the fundamental strengths of the American economy, so as to conquer and take over it) and the refusal of the Federal Reserve banksters to create and release a sufficient supply of notes to the American People for daily use.

1930 - (approximately) Federal power and jurisdiction to control and regulate interstate commerce is expanded.

1932 - At the request of the Federal Reserve Bankers, the United States government steals all of the gold held by American Citizens and gives it to the Federal Reserve Bankers so that the U.S. government can never again compete with the bankers in the issuance of real “money”. America is effectively conquered by foreign economic powers at this point, but the people are too ignorant and the government to deceitful for the people to realize what has happened.

1933 - Social Security, as a mandatory program for all individuals involved in interstate commerce, IS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R.

1935 - VOLUNTARY Social Security begins (Subtitle C - Employment taxes), and those who voluntarily take a number and provide it to an employer voluntarily subject their wages to tax. This begins the withholding of tax from U.S. Citizens, but not for income tax purposes ( under Subtitle A), just for Social Security (Subtitle C). The W-4 is created to provide a documented legal authority for employer to withhold employment tax from the Citizen. The use of W-4s originates under Sec. 3402. Income Tax Collected at Source , subsection (p) - Voluntary Withholding Agreements. This Form becomes the legal basis and ONLY legal authority in the U.S. Code under which the withholding of tax from U.S. Citizens is authorized. Social security taxes are now withheld from wages.

1935 - 1941. World War II and lots of brand new paper money for the governments’ armies and war machines (and debt for the People) is provided by the bankers, who just 2 years earlier supposedly did not have a penny to loan to farmers and businesses for peace and prosperity, but suddenly had unlimited billions for the destructions of war, a war tthat the America people did not even want to be involved with in the first place.

1942 The Victory tax is imposed and it is withheld from Citizens’ wages along with the Social Security taxes. The U.S. Treasury uses Donald Duck cartoons, not law, to “sell” the income/victory tax to the American people. (This tax was probably unconstitutional, but no one objected, so the point is moot.)

1944 - Present. The victory tax expires, but the withholding of tax continues after Form

W-4 is modified to include a voluntary request to "claim a number of deductions". This of course relates to income tax, NOT Social Security (or employment taxes under Subtitle C). The W-4 is now a voluntary withholding agreement that covers BOTH Employment taxes AND Income taxes, which are withheld at the voluntary request (on the W-4) made by the employee. However, under the law, ONLY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AS "TRANSFEREES", ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO MAKE A "RETURN OF INCOME" (KICKBACK) to the Treasury as a result of their "employment". (read IRS HUMBUG - The BEST book on the market to understand this aspect completely!)

It should be carefully noted that Employers are authorized BY REQUEST to withhold EMPLOYMENT taxes from Citizens under Subtitle C (on the W-4 under 26 USC 3402(p)), and authorized BY STATUTE to withhold INCOME tax (imposed in Subtitle A) from foreigners. The STATUTORY authority to withhold INCOME tax is granted to WITHHOLDING AGENTS under Subtitle A, NOT EMPLOYERS. That authority, of the employer to withhold INCOME tax comes ONLY from the voluntarily supplied W-4. The definition of a "withholding agent" is provided in Sec. 7701(a)(16) - Withholding Agent Defined , where the agent is authorized to deduct and withhold from foreigners, and only foreigners, exactly as the tax was authorized and collected for the first 16 years (1916-1932) of its existence as an excise tax (under the 16th).

The last paragraph accurately reflects the legal reality of today’s situation. While you are correct that the tax laws are imposed as "liabilities" NOT filing requirements, the only code sections that exist in the U.S.C. that actually specify or establish liability for tax are Sec. 1461. Liability for Withheld Tax and Sec. 3403. Liability for Tax . If you believe that there is another code section that establishes liability for the income tax, PLEASE CITE IT NOW.

If you believe that Sec. 1. - Tax Imposed, establishes LIABILITY, you need to read it more closely. It imposes a tax on "taxable income", but does not mention liability. If Section 1 creates liability, who is liable ? Where does it say that ? The truth is that 26 CFR 602.101 - The Form Required reveals the true extent of any liability that may be imposed under Section 1 as being limited to a liability for "taxable income", earned in foreign countries under foreign tax treaties, which is a PRIVILEGED source of income and, therefore, subject to the indirect excise income tax.

My Personal Situation

As for my personal situation, I am not an "employee", but a consultant, and have been for 10 years. I do not use a Social Security number in association with my earnings. My earnings are reported to the IRS by my payors on a 1099, using my Name and Address, as specified in 26 USC 6041 (see How To Handle Your Employer & Clients - Sec. 6041. ). Are you are aware that taxes are not withheld from 1099 earnings, unless they relate to a foreigner. The statutory authority to withhold income tax is limited to withholding agents (over foreigners, as shown by 7701(a)(16)), and employers (from employees, i.e. "covered workers"). I have no employer, only clients, because my work is not "covered" by Social Security. What statutory authority would my payors invoke to withhold tax from me ? Please provide a cite of the specific code section you believe establishes this authority. I would remind you that the ONLY authorities to backup withhold income tax are established in Sec. 3406 - Backup Withholding and Sec. 3451 - Income Tax Collected at Source on. Both of these sections only provide an authority to backup withhold against interest and dividends (and patronage dividends). As a consultant, I do not receive these types of payments from my clients. Before anyone can take my money THEY BETTER HAVE A STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DO SO or they will suffer the legal consequences of attempting to perpetrate theft through fraud. If you believe that there is another code section that authorizes the Backup Withholding of income tax, PLEASE CITE IT NOW.

Furthermore, the Code provides that where a failure to withhold tax is due to "reasonable cause" rather than negligence on the part of the payor, no penalties are imposed (see - Sec. 6724. Waiver; Definitions and Special Rules and 26 CFR 301.6676-1 (a)) on the payor. All of my clients have been provided with a Statement of Citizenship as provided for in C.F.R. 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a Person Not Subject to Withholding , relieving the withholding agent of the duty of withholding income tax from my earnings (according to Publication 515). The IRS accepts these statements as "reasonable cause" for failure to withhold. They don’t advertise that fact, but they do, which is why my payors are never penalized or asked to pay "back" taxes, or withhold taxes on my earnings. Publication 515 - Employer's Instructions (IRS instructions to employers on how to implement the income tax withholding regulations) also clearly states that if someone gives you (as an employer) a Statement of Citizenship you are relieved of the duty of withholding (income) tax from that individual. Since I do not participate in Social Security and am not an employee with "covered earnings", there is no requirement under Subtitle C to withhold employment tax from me either ! No statutory authority to withhold means no tax can legally be withheld from me. No privileged "taxable income" (and 26 CFR 602.101) means no legal requirement to file a return because no statutory liability exists ! NO withholding, NO liability, NO return, NO penalties, NO enforcement actions, NO TAX == FREEDOM. (free MEANS "not taxed". Citizens are FREE, RIGHT ?)

I have not been approached by the IRS for tax in a taxable year, since removing my Social Security number from my earnings records over three years ago. The only tax they claim I owe is based on the earnings that were reported under my SSN previous to that date. As my web page explains - the SSN is the mechanism through which you are voluntarily enslaved to the Federal government. LOSE IT (the ssn) and you are free of Federal taxation (under the current code) for the rest of your life !

I would further point out that there are attorneys all across the country who are defeating the IRS with the legal arguments shown on my web pages. The Long case in Tennessee, the Paul case in Kentucky, the Allnut case in Maryland most recently, were all based on this information. The Allnut case was going to be the IRS’s "celebrity prosecution" for 1996. In this particular case the courtroom was so rigged against Mr. Allnut that when the jury "hung", the Judge actually invoked the Allen Rule (used once in the history of the State to convict Spiro Agnew) and ORDERED the jury to reach a unanimous verdict based on the majority feelings of the jurors (unconstitutional !). The decision took 15 minutes - NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. The IRS lost again.

Three Questions For the Attorneys

I generally ask attorneys 3 questions to prove to them that they have been misled by the IRS concerning these income tax laws. The first two are easy, the third has never been answered, BY ANYONE (including the IRS and the Justice Dept.)

QUESTION:

Where are the laws regarding income tax contained in the U.S. Code ?

ANSWER:

Title 26, Subtitle A. (Subtitle C is Employment taxes NOT Income taxes.)

QUESTION: How many Chapters are there in that Subtitle ?

ANSWER : 6 (Chapters 1 - 6)

QUESTION:

Where in those 6 chapters do you find the withholding of income tax from American Citizens ?

Please respond with a cite of the specific code section that you claim establishes this authority. If you cannot provide a cite of a law from Subtitle A authorizing this, I would expect an admission from you that the law doesn’t really say what you thought it did, and that these issues should be investigated and addressed by our government.

(PS. Don’t waste too much of your time trying to find this, IT DOESN’T EXIST)

That lack of authority agrees completely with the big picture of understanding our facts of law create in the minds of jurors that the income tax it is still (basically) a foreign (excise) tax. As a final remark I would point out that in America judges don’t decide guilt or throw people in jail, juries do. That being the case, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the judges agree with us, it only matters that we are consistently able to convince juries of these legal facts. Actually, the IRS makes it easy, they don’t even try to rebut or discredit these facts of law any more, they just hope the jurors will ignore them. They don’t.

If you wish to engage in a correspondence with me, I would be happy to do so. I’m certain that we both would probably learn something. However, if you are going to respond, please cite the specific code sections you are referencing and relying on when you make claims so that I may respond directly to your concerns. You could start by citing the code sections requested herein, and providing me with cites of the sections your letter was based on. After ten years of research, I am unaware of the laws you have evidently ASSUMED exist. Show them to me in the law, don’t just tell me about a mythical belief that is prevalent in America. I’ve heard the myth, but after ten years of asking the IRS and Justice Department., I still haven’t been shown any laws.

PLEASE SEND THESE FOIA LETTERS

This letter has been mailed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) in large numbers. A man named Bill Petterson from Missouri sent a copy to his Congressman, Pat Danner, and Danner wrote back admitting that the IRS has never been created by statute. I want lots of people mailing the letter to the new Commissioner

Larry Becraft

Attorney at Law

-------------------------------------------------------------

March 4, 1996

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20224

Dear Commissioner,

Many years ago, I tried to find within the Internal Revenue Code the section which created your agency, the Internal Revenue Service, but I was unable to find it. I then decided to locate other sources of information regarding how the Internal Revenue Service was established and what I found was nothing short of amazing.

In 1972, an Internal Revenue Manual 1100 was published in both the Federal Register and Cumulative Bulletin; see 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, 1972-2 Cum. Bul. 836, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. On the very first page of this statement published in the Bulletin, the following admission was made:

“(3) By common parlace [sic] and understanding of the time, an office of the importance of the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a bureau. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report at the close of the calendar year 1862 stated that 'The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Act of the last session...' Also it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue, or thought they had, from the act of March 3, 1863, in which provision was made for the President to appoint with Senate confirmation a Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue 'who shall be charged with such duties in the bureau of internal revenue as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or as may be required by law, and who shall act as Commissioner of internal revenue in the absence of that officer, and exercise the privilege of franking all letters and documents pertaining to the office of internal revenue.' In other words, 'the office of internal revenue' was 'the bureau of internal revenue,' and the act of July 1, 1862, is the organic act of today's Internal Revenue Service.”

This statement, which again appears in a similar publication appearing at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, as well as the current IRM 1100, essentially admits that Congress never created either the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service. To conclude that “;Congress thought it had created this agency”; is an admission that even the government itself cannot even find anything which created either agency. The only office created by the act of July 1, 1862, was the Office of the Commissioner; neither the Bureau nor the Service was actually created by any of these acts.

I have no doubt that when employees of the IRS were researching its origins so that this statement could be included within IRM 1100, those employees must have performed a very thorough investigation. This obviously is the best position that your agency can develop regarding precisely how the IRS came into being. But besides the problem that these acts simply did not create either the Bureau or the IRS is the fact that these acts were repealed by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873. Therefore, it would appear that your agency has never been created by any act of Congress, and this is a serious flaw.

At the state level, it is a well acknowledged rule that a duly constituted office of state government must be created either by the state constitution itself or by some legislative act; see Patton v. Bd. of Health, 127 Cal. 388, 393, 59 P. 702, 704 (1899)(“;One of the requisites is that the office must be created by the constitution of the state or it must be authorized by some statute”;); First Nat. Bank of Columbus v. State, 80 Neb. 597, 114 N.W. 772, 773 (1908); State ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P. 497, 498 (1909); State ex rel. Stage v. Mackie, 82 Conn. 398, 74 A. 759, 761 (1909); State ex rel. Key v. Bond, 94 W.Va. 255, 118 S.E. 276, 279 (1923) (“;a position is a public office when it is created by law”;); Coyne v. State, 22 Ohio App. 462, 153 N.E. 876, 877 (1926)(“;Unless the office existed there could be no officer either de facto or de jure.

A de facto officer is one invested with an office; but if there is no office with which to invest one, there can be no officer. An office may exist only by duly constituted law”;); State v. Quinn, 35 N.M. 62, 290 P. 786, 787 (1930); Turner v. State, 226 Ala. 269, 146 So. 601, 602 (1933); Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co., 178 Okl. 212, 62 P.2d 94, 97 (1936); State ex rel. Nagle v. Kelsey, 102 Mont. 8, 55 P.2d 685, 689 (1936); Stapleton v. Frohmiller, 53 Ariz. 11, 85 P.2d 49, 51 (1938); Buchholtz v. Hill, 178 Md. 280, 13 A.2d 348, 350 (1940); Krawiec v. Industrial Comm., 372 Ill. 560, 25 N.E.2d 27, 29 (1940); People v. Rapsey, 16 Cal.2d 636, 107 P.2d 388, 391 (1940); Industrial Comm. v. Arizona State Highway Comm., 61 Ariz. 59, 145 P.2d 846, 849 (1943); State ex rel. Brown v. Blew, 20 Wash.2d 47, 145 P.2d 554, 556 (1944); Martin v. Smith, 239 Wis. 314, 1 N.W.2d 163, 172 (1941); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 75, 202 S.W.2d 992, 994 (1947); State ex rel. Hamblen v. Yelle, 29 Wash.2d 68, 185 P.2d 723, 728 (1947); Morris v. Peters, 203 Ga. 350, 46 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1948); Weaver v. North Bergen Tp., 10 N.J. Super. 96, 76 A.2d 701 (1950); Tomaris v. State, 71 Ariz. 147, 224 P.2d 209, 211 (1950); Pollack v. Montoya, 55 N.M. 390, 234 P.2d 336, 338 (1951); Schaefer v. Superior Court for Santa Barbara County, 248 P.2d 450, 453 (Cal.App. 1952); Brusnigham v. State, 86 Ga.App. 340, 71 S.E.2d 698, 703 (1952); State ex rel. Mathews v. Murray, 258 P.2d 982, 984 (Nev. 1953); Dosker v. Andrus, 342 Mich. 548, 70 N.W.2d 765, 767 (1955); Hetrich v. County Comm. of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304, 159 A.2d 642, 643 (1960); Meiland v. Cody, 359 Mich. 78, 101 N.W.2d 336, 341 (1960); Jones v. Mills, 216 Ga. 616, 118 S.E.2d 484, 485 (1961); State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141 S.E.2d 241, 245 (1965); Planning Bd. of Tp. of West Milford v. Tp. Council of Tp. of West Milford, 123 N.J.Super. 135, 301 A.2d 781, 784 (1973); Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Iowa 1973); Kirk v. Flournoy, 36 Cal.App. 3d 553, 111 Cal. Rptr. 674, 675 (1974); Wargo v. Industrial Comm., 58 Ill.2d 234, 317 N.E.2d 519, 521 (1974); State v. Bailey, 220 S.E.2d 432, 435 (W.Va. 1975); Leek v. Theis, 217 Kan. 784, 539 P.2d 304, 323 (1975); Midwest Television, Inc. v. Champaign-UrbanaCommunications, Inc., 37 Ill.App.3d 926, 347 N.E.2d 34, 38 (1976); and State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).

This same rule applies at the federal level; see United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886)(“;there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill”;); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888); Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901)(“;The law creates the office, prescribes its duties”;); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S.Ct. 137 (1919)(“;Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function... And we think the delegation of such function and the extent of its delegation must have clear expression or implication”;); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956)(“;'Officers' normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement”;); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.Nev. 1910)(“;There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress”;); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp. 495 (E.D.Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943).

Since I have reached the conclusion that the IRS has never been created by Congress, I am asking you to provide to me the citation of any statute which really did create the IRS. Since this is a question of profound national importance, I request that you provide an answer to me within 20 days. Failing a response within that time period, I shall conclude that you cannot find any such statute and shall act accordingly.

Sincerely,

Your Name Here

What is the IRS really ?

Title 31 USC, Subtitle I, Chapter 3 is entitled:

CHAPTER 3 - DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

SUBCHAPTER I - ORGANIZATION

§ 301. Department of the Treasury.

§ 302. Treasury of the United States.

§ 303. Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

§ 304. Bureau of the Mint.

§ 305. Federal Financing Bank.

§ 306. Fiscal Service.

§ 307. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

§ 308. United States Customs Service.

§ 309. Office of Thrift Supervision.

§ 310. Continuing in office.

SO WHERE IS THE IRS in this list if the agency actually exists by (or in the) law ?

The only statute that can be found is Title 26 USC § 7802, which states:

§ 7802. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Assistant Commissioner

(Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations)

(a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

IF the IRS is just an Executive office within the Treasury, rather than a true Federal Agency, as this statute indicates, then this mere office cannot possibly wield the same jurisdictional legal power as a true Federal agency.

In Title 27 C.F.R. § 250.11, the following definitions are found.

“Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.”

“Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico”

“Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in this part.”

In the absence of any other definition describing revenue officers and agents in either Title 26 or Title 27, the Secretary, or the Department of the Treasury, definitions specified above are uniformly applicable to all IRS and BATF departments, functions and personnel. The actual delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue thus far located, tend to reinforce the conclusions set out above. Treasury Department Order No. 150-42, dated July 27, 1956, appearing at 21 Federal Register 5852, specifies the following:

“The Commissioner shall, to the extent of the authority vested in him, provide for the administration of United States internal revenue laws in the Panama Canal zone, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.”

So where does the authority in the fifty States of the Union come from ?

The True Creditor and Beneficiary of IRS Collections

All “taxes” collected by the Internal Revenue Service are, BY LAW, supposed to be deposited at the Treasury on a daily basis.

§ 7809. Deposit of collections

(a) General rule Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and in sections 7651, 7652, 7654, and 7810, the gross amount of all taxes and revenues received under the provisions of this title, and collections of whatever nature received or collected by authority of any internal revenue law, shall be paid daily into the Treasury of the United States under instructions of the Secretary as internal revenue collections, by the officer or employee receiving or collecting the same, without any abatement or deduction on account of salary, compensation, fees, costs, charges, expenses, or claims of any description. A certificate of such payment, stating the name of the depositor and the specific account on which the deposit was made, signed by the Treasurer of the United States, designated depositary, or proper officer of a deposit bank, shall be transmitted to the Secretary.

Where does the money really go ? If it doesn’t go to the Treasury can it legally, truly be “tax” ?

If you check the back of any check that was ever sent to the IRS for an alleged “tax” payment, you will see that the check was NOT cashed by the United States Treasury, but rather, the Federal Reserve Bank.

Do you know why ?

The IRS has not, and WILL NEVER, REVEAL who their real Signatory of Obligation is, NOR will they ever reveal who their true Creditor is. The IRS does NOT issue true Tax Liens because deliberately fraudulent assessments, being a crime, sets the IRS agents outside the veil of limited federal liability, and makes IRS agents legally responsible and liable for the lack of completely lawful formal assessment Affidavits and Certificates. The IRS Notice process is not supported by Affidavit (of tax lien). judgment, or court order. Hence, cannot be legitimately used to collect other assets, seize or levy any private property in the 50 States of the Union.

. The IRS is actually a collection agency under the IMF control, Governor of the Fund Robert Rubin, per 26 U.S.C. § 7401 and under the guise of an alleged “income tax”, State and Federal, is collecting the “subscription” that the United States (government) owes, and turns it over to the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a PRIVATE, FOREIGN CORPORATION which serves as the depository for the IMF/World Bank, 22 U.S.C. § 296(d). The IRS “taxes” collected, DO NOT SUPPORT AMERICA, nor are they actually received by, or deposited within, the United States Treasury, but rather are redirected by (unlawful ?) transfer to the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve Bank, to become CAPITOL AND PROFITS OF THE PRIVATE BANK, NOT “TAX” COLLECTED FOR THE TREASURY. What appropriation bill or law, passed by Congress, has authorized this transfer OF ALL FUNDS COLLECTED BY THE IRS to the private company known as the Federal Reserve Bank ? HOW ARE APPROPRIATIONS AGAINST THESE FUNDS (not in the Treasury) EVER AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS ? HOW ARE THESE SUPPOSED “TAX” DOLLARS (collections), AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT, EVER ACCOUNTED FOR TO WE - THE PEOPLE, BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, IF THE TREASURY NEVER ACTUALLY RECEIVES THE PAYMENT OR TAKES RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT/DEPOSIT ? How are these taxes spent by Congress if the funds are never actually deposited to the Treasury ? How are those expenditures audited ? Clearly, if there is no deposit to the Treasury then the money collected CANNOT BE “TAX” !

The “Bankruptcy” of America IS EFFECTED BY THE IRS and its agents REPRESENTING FOREIGN INTERESTS. It is against the law for an insolvent to demand anything. The United States government is Bankrupt. That is a fact admitted by Congress. (most recently by Congressman Trafficant of Ohio, Congressional Record of March 17, 1993) ALL IRS COLLECTIONS ARE FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF THE THE PRIVATE, FOREIGN COMPANY KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, which is, in fact, NO MORE FEDERAL than Federal Express.

Contributing money to an organization that promotes a One World order through an instrumentality such as the IMF/World Bank, with the United States as a subscribing member, is a Felony Crime against the Constitution of the United States of America and constitutes TREASON against America itself. Therefore: all the officials, State officials and United States officials, that have an income tax agreement with the IRS and Federal Reserve Bank are in violation of the aforementioned Public Law and Constitution. Not one cent of the so called income tax has ever been applied to the national debt of the United States, or to the operations of the United States [government] in America. All the money collected by the IRS has gone straight to the PRIVATE MONOPOLY (NOT a government agency) known as the Federal Reserve Bank. Proof that the Federal Reserve Bank is “a private banking owned monopoly”, and of this arrangement, was determined and accepted by the Ninth Circuit Court in late 1992. The case is Lewis v. United States. The Ninth Circuit Court said,

“The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, locally controlled, separate corporations, having absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Government of the United States of America”.

“From a legal standpoint these banks are private corporations ... They are not in the strict sense of the word, ‘Government’ banks. William P.G. Harding, F.R.B. Governor (1921)

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks do not make them federal agencies under the Act. (H.R. Report #69, 63 Congress 1st Session 18-19, 1913). Why is a private bank cashing your tax check ? How does Congress (America) ever get to use (spend) money in a PRIVATE BANK ?

Where does the Constitution authorize a private company to tax the American Citizens ? - Or the government to collect debts for private parties ? WHAT DEBT IS BEING PAID ? Why isn’t this “payment”, made from U.S. “tax” revenue collections, listed anywhere in the United States BUDGET ?

. The IRS process is a non-judicial process which BLATANTLY DENIES AND VIOLATES ALL DUE PROCESS OF LAW, both Administrative and Judicial, REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITIZEN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION and the LAWS of the United States of America, BEFORE any property is “taken” from the Citizen.

. The Clearfield Doctrine (ref: Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S., 318 (1943)) was eloquently expressed as follows:

“Governments descend to the level of a mere corporation and take on the character of a private citizen (where private corporate commercial paper or securities are concerned)... For purposes of this suit, such corporations and “individual” are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government” Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, Wheaton, 22 US, 904; 6 L. Ed. 24

The IRS is a subcontracted bill collector in the ordinary commercial sense of a bill collector, and is therefore subject to any debtor’s right to command them with a Cease and Desist Order, forcing them to go to State court to collect as a third party entity if they believe they have a true commercial right and legitimate claim to property. To circumvent the required legal process for debt collection by acting under color of law, in NAME of tax only, in guise of “tax” collector, is pure CRIMINAL enterprise and a “taking” (theft) by the federal government’s employees, acting in their individual capacities, NOT under the law.

The ONLY time that these funds are actually “returned” to the U.S. Treasury (as required under the law where-ever true “tax” is involved), is when they are actually collected for a true TAX - when they are taken from a Federal employee’s paycheck by the federal employer. Since the paychecks of Federal employees are written by the Treasury any diminshment in pay results in those funds being left in the Treasury - thus they are “returned” by accounting, and “tax” is actually deposited (left) in the Treasury. This is the only time that IRS collections of “tax” actually result in a “tax” deposit with the Treasury, and, correspondingly, this is the only time when the IRS can legitimately argue that “tax” is actually being collected under the law. Everything else that the IRS FORCES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PAY IS NATIONAL DEBT - NOT TAX. This is obviously an unconstitutional Federal PEONAGE debt scheme, pure and simple. Are you happy with life as a federal peon and virtual slave ? Do you really still feel represented ?

Public Notice Regarding Limits of IRS Authority

This notice This notice will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules) should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. A true and correct copy of this Public Notice is on file with and available for inspection at the newspaper responsible for publishing the instrument as legal notice. The memorandum addresses the character of the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies of the Department of the Treasury, and legal

application of the Internal Revenue Code.

1. IRS Identity & Principal of Interest

In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (Treasury Order No. 150-29, G.M. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no congressional or presidential authorization for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico, Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321), and as will be demonstrated, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, was first published in the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. A criminal complaint was filed in the office of W. A. Drew Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico. Later, criminal complaints were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the United States District Court for the District of Northern Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmondson, and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS principals have yet to rebut the allegations in that instance. (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Kenney F. Moore, et al, 95 CR-129C).

By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United States Department of the Treasury. The fact that Congress never created a “Bureau of Internal Revenue” is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.

Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties who knowingly participate in IRS-initiated scams: No legitimate authority resides in or emanates from an office which was not legitimately created and/or ordained either by state or national constitutions or by legislative enactment. See variously, United States v. Germane, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943); where the state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).

Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR § 1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the United States Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional. Administration of the Act was subsequently moved offshore to Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration, and operation eventually merged with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Philippines, created by the Philippines provisional government via Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321 for listing of Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue)), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines). This line will be resumed after examining additional evidences concerning IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.

Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority in the several States is found in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that there are no regulations supportive of 26 USC §§ 7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table). In other words, no regulations have been published in the Federal Register, extending Federal authority to the several States and the population at large:

(1) to establish revenue districts within the several States,

(2) extending authority of the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the

several States,

(3) giving authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants

within the several States, or

(4) extending authority of any other Department of Treasury personnel to the

several States.

Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, via the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is convoluted in regulations, but makes an amount of sense by citing various regulations pertaining to the Service and application of the Commissioner’s authority. General procedural rules at 26 CFR § 601.101(a) provide a beginning-point:

(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the

Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The

Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes

imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the

agency by which these functions are performed...

The fact that there are no regulations extending authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or the Department of the Treasury in the several States (26 USC § 7802(a)), has greater clarity in the light of the general merging of functions between IRS and other agencies presently attached to the Department of the Treasury. The Commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations for the Code at 26 CFR § 301.7805-1, with approval of the Secretary, but there are no cites of authority for this CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, or even statutory cite. In other words, there is no actual or effective delegation which vests the Commissioner with significant independent authority which might be conveyed to IRS, BATF, Customs or any other Department of the Treasury agency with respect to powers extending to or affecting the several States and the population at large.

The link historical between the IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is significant as the connection with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, is through this association. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1940, Section 2, made the following change:

§ 2. Federal Alcohol Administration

The Federal Alcohol Administration, the offices of the members thereof, and the office

of the Administrator are abolished, and their function shall be administered under the

direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury through the Bureau of

Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury.

Again, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 was declared unconstitutional in 1935, and the operation thereafter transferred off shore to Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service in 1953 (cite above), then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a division of the Internal Revenue Service, was seemingly separated from the IRS (T.O. 120-01, June 6, 1972). In relevant part, the order reads as follows:

1. The purpose of this order is to transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers

and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under law relating to Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

division of the Internal Revenue Service, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms herein after referred to as the Bureau which is hereby established. The Bureau

shall be headed by the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein referred

to as the Director...

2. The Director shall perform the functions, exercise the powers and carry out the

duties of the Secretary and the administration and the enforcement of the following

provisions of law:

A. Chapters 51 and 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Section 7652

and 7653 of such code insofar as they relate to the commodity subject to tax under

such chapters.

B. Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 insofar as

they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters

51, 52, 53. (emphasis added)

Transfer of functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important where the instant matter is concerned as the only regulations published in the Federal Register applicable to the several States are published in the Federal Register under 27 CFR, Part 70 and other parts of this title relating exclusively to alcohol, tobacco and firearms matters. However, the charade doesn’t end there. In Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC § 903), the original Bureau of Customs, created by Act of Congress in 1895, was abolished and merged under the Secretary of the Treasury.

In a Treasury Order published in the Federal Register of December 15, 1976, the Secretary of the Treasury used something of a slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, “The term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has been replaced with the term Internal Revenue Service.”

Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing when it comes to administrative

responsibility. However, the order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely operating with interchangeable hats. Therefore, definitions and designations applicable to one are applicable to the other.

In definitions at 27 CFR § 250.11, the following provisions are found:

Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the

Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury

of Puerto Rico. Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of

the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to

perform the function mentioned or described in this part.

In the absence of any other definition describing revenue officers and agents, the Secretary, or the Department of the Treasury, definitions above are uniformly applicable to all IRS and BATF departments, functions and personnel. In fact, it will be found that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to United States territorial jurisdiction exclusive of the several States and to imported petroleum. BATF has authority only with respect to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, munitions, etc.

The two delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue thus far located tend to reinforce conclusions set out above. Treasury Department Order No. 150-42, dated July 27, 1956, appearing in at 21 Fed. Reg. 5852, specifies the following:

The Commissioner shall, to the extent of the authority vested in him, provide for the

administration of United States internal revenue laws in the Panama Canal Zone,

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

On February 27, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 9571), Treasury Department Order No. 150-01 specified the following:

The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for

the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.

Territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.

To date only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as currently amended, have been located that specifically reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States (District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.): 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The first two provide certain exemptions to bond and import tax requirements relating to imported distilled spirits for governments of the several States and their respective political subdivisions, and the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax Court will constitute evidence of the reports in courts of the United States and the several States. None of the three statutes extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within the several States.

IRS is contracted to provide collection services for the Agency for International Development, and case law demonstrates that the true principals and beneficiaries of interest are the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242; see 22 USCA § 286, et seq.). In other words, the IRS seemingly provides collection services for undisclosed foreign principals rather than collecting internal revenue for the benefit of the Treasury or the constitutional United States government operation. To date, IRS principals have failed to credibly deny or dispute these published allegations and facts of law.

The Internal Revenue Service, is operating as an (unregistered) foreign entity (agent) with respect to the several States, and is not registered, legally or otherwise, to “service” or enforce debt, or administer Federal tax law, in the several States of the Union, outside of the Federal enclaves (military bases, etc) that may exist within a State.

2. Preservation of Due Process Rights

The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by statutory courts both of the United States and the several States, with the latter operating in the framework of adopted uniform laws which ascribe a federal character to the several States. Both operate under the presumption of Congress’ Article IV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate private international law under exclusively United States (federal) treaties on private international law, and both operate in the framework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see both majority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan, U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996) , which is repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority of Department of Justice as representative of the “Central Authority” established by U.S. treaties on private international law at 28 CFR § 0.49; also, “conflict of law” as a subcategory to “statutes” in American Jurisprudence). However, this house of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism, known as Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly documented and is rapidly being exposed via state and United States appellate courts and in public forum.

In reality, the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:

§ 7804 (b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.

-- Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any right or remedy, including trial by jury, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. For the purpose of any action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all statutes, rules, and regulations referring to the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law. (emphasis added)

The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, and were codified as title 26 of the United States Code. Savings statutes have been in place since the beginning, but generally not understood by the general population or the legal profession. The statute set out above is easier to comprehend when references are consolidated. Further, the dependent clause “including trial by jury” relates to a constitutionally-assured right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location in the sentence. Finally, the matter of venue is important as “existing law” is constitutional and common law indigenous to the several States. In the absence of legitimate federal law which extends to the several States, those persons who operate under color of law in NAME of tax only, engage in fraud, oppression, misuse of authority, abuse of law, conspiracy, extortion, wrongful conversion, theft, etc., are subject to the foundation law of the States. Venue is determined by the law of legislative jurisdiction.

Citing “including trial by jury” preserves the full slate of due process rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the several States. The example represents the class.

Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus assessments as well as collections, and (2) § 7804(b), unlike § 7433, does not presume that the complaining party is a “taxpayer”. Finally, there is 26 CFR, Part 1 regulatory support for § 7804 where there are no regulations published in the Federal Register in support of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations). Therefore, § 7804(b) preserves rights and determines the nature of civil actions for remedies in the several States. When straightened out, applicable portions of § 7804(b) read as follows:

Nothing in [the Internal Revenue Code] shall be considered to impair any right, [including trial by jury], or remedy, ... to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ... The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law.

The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 USC § 2463, which stipulates that any seizure under United States revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject solely to disposition of courts of the United States with proper jurisdiction. In other words, even if IRS had legitimate authority in the several States, the agency would of necessity have to file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment, seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty or property of any given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment citizen-subject of the United States or a Citizen principal of one of the several States. Due process assurances in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not equivocate -- administrative seizures without due process can be equated only to tyranny and barbarian rule. Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1).

(1) Rule 1. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law,

statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in

violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Accordingly, an

Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall

hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her

duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the

taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between

taxpayers.

Even officers, agents and employees of United States agencies are assured due process where garnishment is concerned (5 USC § 5520a), so the notion that IRS has authority to execute garnishment and other seizures via the private sector without due process is clearly absurd. In the English-American lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury under rules of the common law indigenous to the several States; the de jure people of America are not subject to admiralty or administrative tribunals.

Where officers, agents and employees of the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, there can be no plea of ignorance concerning the necessity of due process as the Handbook for Revenue Agents, at paragraph 332: (1), provides the following:

During the course of administratively collecting a tax, an occasion may arise where

service of a levy or a notice of levy is not adequate to seize the property of a taxpayer.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual

rights must not be violated. Property should not be forcibly removed from the person

of the taxpayer. Such conduct may expose a revenue officer to an action in trespass,

assault and battery, conversion, etc.

The provision acknowledges the Supreme Court decision in Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. 337 U.S. 682 (1949).

In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, is clearly antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens, except where licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts, administrative seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.

3. Current I. R. Code & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same

Consult 26 USC §§ 7851 & 7852 to verify that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since, simply reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Read § 7852(b) & (c), then read the balance of §§ 7851 & 7852 for best comprehension.

The importance of making this connection rests on the fact that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely codification of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. There was no general income tax levied against the population at large in 1939 or since. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 incorporated the Social Security tax activated after 1936, was premised on the notion that working for federal government is a privilege. Income and related taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the current Internal Revenue Code have never been mandatory for anyone other than officers, agents and employees of the United States, as identified at 26 USC § 3401(c), and agencies of the United States, identified at § 3401(d), particularized at Title 5 USC §§ 102 & 105 and Title 4 U.S.C. § 111.

The (privilege) tax is an indirect excise tax rather than a direct tax -- according to the Supreme Court rulings in Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

- “... taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such ...”,

and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 112 (1916)

- “... the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation ...”,

the Sixteenth Amendment, deceptively promulgated in 1913, did not alter or repeal constitutional provisions which require all direct taxes to be apportioned among the several States (Constitution, Article I §§ 2.3 & 9.4), nor did it establish the income tax as a direct tax.

In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and numerous decisions since, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that for purposes of income tax, wages and other returns from enterprise of common right are property, not income. In fact, returns from enterprise of common right are fundamental to all property, and the sanctity is preserved as a fundamental common law principle dating to signing of the Magna Charta in 1215.

The nature of Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR § 31.3101-1: “The employee tax is measured by the amount of wages received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936...” In other words, the wage is not the object, but merely the measure of the tax. This verbiage constitutes so much legalese in an effort to circumvent the Duck test, but the fact that taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service fall into the excise category was confirmed by the Comptroller General’s report following the initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). This little known fact of law is further confirmed by the Congressional Research Service Report No. 79-131 A, which was written by Howard Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney for the American Law Division of Congress. It is further suggested at 26 CFR § 106.401(a)(2), where the regulation concedes that, “The descriptive terms used in this section to designate the various classes of taxes are intended only to indicate their general character...”.

By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, cited above, it is found that the definition of “gross income” is still preserved in Section 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, thus cementing the link between the Code of 1939 and Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since. The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 merely codified the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in Senate Committee On Finance and House Committee On Ways and Means reports No. H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which § 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (current code) were solidly linked, as shown in the footnote for 26 USC § 61 in the 1954 Code. Both reports stipulate that the current definition of “gross income” is intended to be constitutional. The implementing tables for section 22a under the 1939 (and current) Code show it as being implemented under Title 26 Part 519, which is the Canadian Tax Treaty that expired in 1993, but DO NOT SHOW any implementation for it under PART 1 - Tax On Individuals. There is no implementation shown for Section 61 in those tables

This intent is articulated at 26 CFR § 1.61-1(a): “Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.”

An “Act of Congress” is policy, not law, and per definition located in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, has only local application in the District of Columbia and other United States territories and insular possessions unless general application is manifestly expressed: Rule 54(c) -- “‘Act of congress’ includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.”

Where the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large, p.3), the legislation is in fact styled, “An Act” “To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.”

As demonstrated above, wages and other returns from enterprise of common right are exempt from direct tax by fundamental law, and the regulation for the current Internal Revenue Code definition for “gross income” clearly articulates the fundamental law exemption.

The exemption as it pertains to the several States is demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules (Index volume to the CFR, p. 751 of the 1995 edition): There are 26 CFR, Part 1 regulations listed for 26 USC §§ 61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted gross income, but there is no 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26 USC § 63, the definition for taxable income.

While definitions for gross and adjusted gross income are clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they have no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross income which is not taxable within the several States is of no consequence where the federal tax system is concerned.

Further, on examination of 26 CFR § 1.62-1, pertaining to “adjusted gross income”, it is found that subsections (a) & (b) are reserved so the published regulation is incomplete, with “temporary” regulation § 1.62-1T serving as the current authority defining “adjusted gross income.” Temporary regulations have no legal effect.

Definitions at § 3401, Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large (the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), make it clear that, (§ 3401(a)(A)), “a resident of a contiguous country who enters and leaves the United States at frequent intervals..,” is a nonresident alien of the United States. It is those nonresident aliens who are the primary subject of the Subtitle A incoem tax. The exclusion from “wages” extends to Citizens of the United States who provide services for employers “other than the United States or an agency thereof”

(§ 3401(a)(8)(A)).

4. The Employer or Withholding Agent is Liable

Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, makes it perfectly clear who is “liable” for payment of Subtitles A & C taxes:

§ 3504. ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS.

In case a fiduciary, agent, or other person has the control, receipt, custody, or disposal of, or pays the wages of an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, the Secretary of his delegate, under regulations prescribed by him, is authorized to designate such fiduciary, agent, or other person to perform such acts as are required by employers under this subtitle and as the Secretary or his delegate may specify. Except as may be otherwise prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, all provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in respect to an employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary, agent, or other person so designated, but, except as so provided, the employer for whom such fiduciary, agent, or other person acts shall remain subject to the provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in respect to employers.

The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d) :

§ 3402(d). Tax paid by recipient.

If the employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax against which such tax may be credited is paid, the tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from the employer; but this subsection shall in no case relieve the employer from liability for any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such failure to deduct and withhold.

These provisions from Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large comply with and verify liability set out at 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D in general. Further, territorial limits of application are made clear by the absence of regulations supporting 26 USC §§ 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes authorizing establishment of internal revenue districts and delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants. The fact that the liability falls to the “employer” (defined at 26 USC § 3401(d)) under 26 USC 3403 and/or a “withholding agent” (defined at 26 USC § 7701(a)(14)) under 26 USC § 1461, with no compensation for serving as “tax collector,” narrows the field to federal government entities (agencies) as “employers”, if for no other reason than the population at large is not subject to the edict of government officials. As a matter of course, government cannot compel performance of Citizens of a State where the general population is concerned. (even if the Citizen is an employee of the State - see United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626). The subject classes that have “liability” for Subtitles A & C taxes is the “employer” and/or his/a (withholding) agent, fiduciary, etc., as identified above, and nonresident aliens (by T.D. 2313 (1916).

The matter is further clarified in §§ 3403 & 3404 of Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large:

§ 3403. LIABILITY FOR TAX.

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

§ 3404. RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER.

If the employer is the United States, or a State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted and withheld upon any wages may be made by any officer or employee of the United States, or of such State, Territory, or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or of such agency or instrumentality, as the case may be, having control of the payment of such wages, or appropriately designated for that purpose.

The territorial application, and limitation, is made clear by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

§ 31.3121(3)-1 State, United States, and citizen.

(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

Definition of the terms “includes” and “including” located at 26 USC § 7701(c) provides the limiting authority which the above definitions, beyond constructive application, are subject to:

(c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. -- The terms “includes” and “including” when

used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things

otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

Two principles of law clarify definition intent:

(1) The example represents the class, and

(2) that which is not named is intended to be omitted.

In the definition of “United States” and “State” set out above, all examples are of federal States, and are exclusive of the several States, with the transition of Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving the point. This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of regulations which extend authority to establish revenue districts in the several States (26 USC § 7621), authority for the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC § 7801), and no grant of delegated authority for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or other Department of the Treasury personnel (26 USC § 7802 & 7803).

5. Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax

Here again, the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is useful as it demonstrates that Subtitles A & C taxes do not have general application within the several States and to the population at large. The regulation for 26 USC § 1 refers to 26 CFR § 301, but that amounts to a dead end -- there is no regulation under 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the several States and the population at large. Further, there are no supportive regulations at all for 26 USC §§ 2 & 3, and of considerable significance, no regulations supporting corporate income tax, 26 USC § 11, as applicable to the several States.

Where the instant matter is concerned, regulations supporting 26 USC § 6321, liens for taxes, and § 6331, levy and distraint, are under 27 CFR, Part 70. The importance here is that Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations is exclusively under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration for Subtitle E and related taxes. There are no corresponding regulations for the Internal Revenue Service, in 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, which extend comparable authority to the several States and the population at large.

The necessity of regulations being published in the Federal Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act, at 5 USC § 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, at 44 USC § 1501 et seq. Of particular note, it is specifically set out at 44 USC § 1505(a), that when regulations are not published in the Federal Register, application of any given statute is exclusively to agencies of the United States and officers, agents and employees of the United States, thus once again confirming application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated above. Further, the need for regulations is detailed in 1 CFR, Chapter 1, and where the Internal Revenue Service is concerned, 26 CFR § 601.702.

The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as stated in California Bankers Ass’n. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974):

“Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone ... The government argues that since only those who violate regulations may incur civil and criminal penalties it is the regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and not the broad, authorizing language of the statute, which is to be tested against the standards of the 4th Amendment...”

Because there is a citation supporting these statutes applicable under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it is important to point out that, “Each agency shall publish its own regulations in full text,” (1 CFR § 21.21(c)), with further verification that one agency cannot use regulations promulgated by another at 1 CFR § 21.40. To date, no corresponding regulation has been found for 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, so until proven otherwise, IRS does not have authority to perfect liens or prosecute seizures in the several States as pertaining to the population at large.

6. Misapplication of Authority

Regulations pertaining to seized property are found at 26 CFR § 601.326:

“Part 72 of Title 27 CFR contains the regulations relative to the personal property seized by officers of the Internal Revenue Service or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, or intended to be used, to violate certain Federal Laws; the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture; and the administrative sale or other disposition, pursuant to forfeiture, of such seized property other than firearms seized under the National Firearms Act and firearms and ammunition seized under title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968. For disposal of firearms and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, see 18 U.S.C. 924(d). For disposal of explosives under Title XI of Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, see 18 U.S.C. 844(c).”

The only other comparable authority thus far found pertains to windfall profits tax on petroleum (26 CFR § 601.405), but once again, application is not supported by regulations applicable to the several States and the population at large.

Where the provision for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the key regulatory reference is at 26 CFR § 601.401(d)(4), and this application appears related to “employees” who work for two or more “employers”, receiving foreign-earned income effectively connected to the United States under tax treaty. The option of filing a 1040 return for refund is mentioned in instructions applicable to United States citizens and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date has not been located elsewhere. Reference OMB numbers for § 601.401, listed on page 170, 26 CFR, Part 600-End, cross referenced to Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the Federal Register, November 1995, for foreign application.

The fact that 1040 tax return forms are optional and voluntary, with special application, is further reinforced by Delegation Order 182 (reference 26 CFR §§ 301.6020-1(b) & 301.7701). The Secretary or his delegate is authorized to file a Substitute for Return for the following:

Form 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return);

Form 720 (Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return);

Form 2290 (Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles);

Form CT-1 (Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return);

Form 1065 (U.S. Partnership Return of Income);

Form 11-B (Special Tax Return - Gaming Services);

Form 942 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return for Household Employees); and Form 943 (Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees).

The “notice of levy” instrument forwarded to various third parties is not actually a “levy” which warrants surrender of property. The Internal Revenue Code, at § 6335(a), defines the “notice” instrument by use -- notice is to be served to whomever seizure has been executed against after the seizure is effected. In short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for action. The term “notice” is clarified by definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, and other law dictionaries. Use of the “notice of levy” instrument to effect seizure is prima facie evidence of fraud by design.

The entire Levy process is authorized under 26 USC § 6331(a), which reads:

§ 6331 Levy and distraint.

(a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within ten days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401 (d)) of such officer, employee or elected official. ..... (emphasis added)

This LIMITED authority to LEVY is clearly established ONLY OVER FEDERAL OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. It is a Canon of Law that “the intent of the law is the force of the law”. To identify the legislative intent of this statute (6331) one need look no further than 26 U.S.C. Annotated § 6331, Note 5, which states:

“Note 5. Purpose. This section was enacted to subject the salaries of federal employees to the same collection procedures ...”

BY VIRTUE OF THE CANON AT LAW INVOKED, AND THE CLEAR INTENT of the legislators stated here, it would seem that the FORCE OF LAW established by this statute for the actual IRS Authority to Levy, is ONLY established OVER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, and is ONLY PUBLISHED in the Federal Register as being implemented, and generally applicable, under Title 27 - for Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms related activities.

Proper use of the “notice” process, administrative garnishment, et al, is specifically set out in 5 USC § 5514, as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees of agencies of the United tates (26 USC § 3401(c)). Even then, however, the process must comply with provisions of 31 USC § 3530(d), and standards set forth in §§ 3711 & 3716-17. In accordance with provisions of 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D, the employer, meaning the United States agency the employee is employed by, is responsible for promulgating regulations and carrying out garnishment.

Even if IRS was the agency responsible for collecting from an “employee,” due process would still be required, as noted above, so authority to collect would ensue only after securing a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, which in the several States would mean a judicial court of the State. In United States law, however, there is no authority for securing or issuing a Notice of Distraint premised on non-filing, bogus filing, or any other act relating to the 1040 return. See United States v. O’Dell, Case No. 10188, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 10, 1947. In G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that a judicial warrant for tax levies is necessary to protect against unjustified intrusions into privacy. The Court further held that forcible entry by IRS officials onto private premises without prior judicial authorization was also an invasion of privacy.

7. Liability Depends on a Taxing Statute

General demands for filing tax returns, production of records, examination of books, imposition and payment of tax, etc., are of no consequence to the point a taxing statute (1) defines what tax is being imposed, and (2) the basis of liability. In other words, even if the Internal Revenue Service was a legitimate agency of the United States Department of the Treasury under the law and had authority in the several States, the Service would have to be specific with respect to what tax was at issue and would have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute with the necessary elements to establish that any given person was obligated to pay any given tax.

This mandate has been clarified by the courts numerous times, with the matter definitively stated by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 797, at p. 800 (1964):

“Without question, a taxing statute must describe with some certainty the transaction, service, or object to be taxed, and in the typical situation it is construed against the Government.” Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559, 82 L.Ed.858

In other words, to the point Service personnel produce the statute which mandates a certain tax and which specifies, “... the transaction, service, or object to be taxed..,” the burden of proof lies with the Government, with the consequence being that no obligation or civil or criminal liability can ensue to the point a taxing statute that meets the above requirements is in evidence.

This conclusion is supported by the statute which provides the underlying requirements for keeping records, making statements, etc., located at 26 USC § 6001:

§ 6001 - Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns

Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person, or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employee shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).

This controlling statute for Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part I, concerning records, statements, and special returns, clearly returns the matter to the “employee” defined at § 3401(c), and the “employer” defined at § 3401(d). In general, however, (1) the Secretary must provide direct notice to whomever is required to keep books, records, etc., as being the “person liable,” or (2) specify the person liable by regulation. In the absence of notice by the Secretary, based on a taxing statute which makes such a person liable according to provisions stipulated in United States v. Community TV, Inc., Hassett v. Welch, and other such cases, or regulations which specifically set establish general liability, there is no liability.

Sec. 6001 also exempts “employees” from keeping records except where tips and the like are concerned. This is consistent with constructive demonstration that “employers” rather than “employees” are required to file returns, as opposed to paying deducted amounts as income tax returns, constructively demonstrated in a previous section of this memorandum and specifically articulated in 26 CFR § 601.104. Clarification via 26 USC § 6053(a) is as follows:

(a) REPORTS BY EMPLOYEES. -- Every employee who, in the course of his employment by an employer, receives in any calendar month tips which are wages (as defined in section 3121(a) or section 3401(a)) or which are compensation (as defined in section 3231(e)) shall report all such tips in one or more written statements furnished to his employer on or before the 10th day following such month. Such statements shall be furnished by the employee under such regulations, at such other times before such 10th day, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed by the Secretary.

Unraveling § 6001 straightens out the meaning of § 6011, which requires filing returns, statements, etc., by the person made liable (§ 3401(d)), as distinguished from the person required to make returns (payments) at § 6012 (§ 3401(c)). Even though a person might be a citizen or resident of the United States employed by an agency of the United States, and thereby be required to return a prescribed amount of United States-source income, he is not the person liable under § 6011 and attending regulations.

The “method of assessment” prescribed at 26 USC § 6303 is therefore dependent on the taxing statute and must rest on authority specifically conveyed by a taxing statute which prescribes liability where the Secretary (1) has provided specific notice, including the statute and type of tax being imposed, or (2) supports assessment by regulatory application. In the absence of one or the other, an assessment by the Secretary is of no consequence as it is not legally obligating.

The requirement for the Secretary to provide notice to whomever is responsible for collecting tax, keeping records, etc., is clarified at 26 CFR § 301.7512-1, particularly (a)(1)(i), relating to “employee tax imposed by section 3101 of chapter 21 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act),” and (a)(1)(iii), relating to “income tax required to be withheld on wages by section 3402 of chapter 24 (Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages)...” The person liable is the employer or the employer’s agent, and of particular significance, it is this “person” who is subject to civil and particularly criminal penalties (26 CFR § 301.7513-1(f); 26 CFR §§ 301.7207-1 & 301.7214-1, etc.). Officers and employees of the United States are specifically identified as being liable at 26 USC § 301.7214-1.

The matter of who is required to register, apply for licenses, or otherwise collect and/or pay taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code is ultimately and finally put to rest under “Licensing and Registration”, 26 USC §§ 301.7001-1, et seq. Each of the categories so addressed has liability based on some particular taxing statute which creates liability.

8. The Necessity of Administrative Process

The requirement for a specific taxing statute, with 26 USC § 6001 clearly providing the first leg in necessary administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at length in Rodriguez v.United States, 629 F.Supp.333 (N.D. Ill. 1986). Presuming (1) the Secretary has provided the necessary notice, or (2) a regulation prescribes general application which makes any given person liable for a tax and requires tax return statements to be filed, each step in administrative process prescribed by 26 USC §§ 6201, 6212, 6213, 6303 and 6331 must be in place for seizure or any other encumbrance to be legal.

Here again, regulations published in the Federal Register are significant, with provisions of 5 USC § 552 et seq., 44 USC § 1501 et seq., 1 CFR, Chapter I, and 26 CFR, Part 601 all supporting the mandate for regulations to be published in the Federal Register before they have general application. It will be noted by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, that application by regulation to the several States is only under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or that there are no regulations published in the Federal Register. The following entries, or non-entries, are found:

Code Section & Description Published Regulation

26 USC § 6201 Assessment authority 27 CFR, Part 70

26 USC § 6212 Notice of deficiency No Regulation

26 USC § 6213 Restrictions applicable to deficiencies;

Petition to Tax Court No Regulation

26 USC § 6303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27 CFR, Part 53, 70

26 USC § 6331 Levy and distraint 27 CFR, Part 70

The assessment authority under 26 USC § 6201, in relevant part as applicable to Subtitles A & C taxes, are as follows:

§ 6201. ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority of Secretary. -- The Secretary is authorized and required to ake the inquires, determination, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, dditional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, r accruing under any former internal revenue law, which havenot been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1) TAXES SHOWN ON RETURN.

The secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

(2) UNPAID TAXES PAYABLE BY STAMP. ...

(3) ERRONEOUS INCOME TAX PREPAYMENT CREDITS.

If on any return or claim for refund of income taxes under subtitle A there is an overstatement of the credit for income tax withheld at the source, or of the amount paid as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which is allowed against the tax shown on the return or which is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the Secretary in the same manner as in the case of a mathematical or clerical error appearing upon the return, except that the provisions of section 6213(b)(2) (relating to abatement of mathematical or clerical error assessments) shall not apply with regard to any assessment under this paragraph.

(b) Amount not to be assessed.

(1) ESTIMATED INCOME TAX. -- No unpaid amount of stimated income tax required to be paid under section 6654 or 6655 shall be assessed.

(2) FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAX. -- No unpaid amount of Federal unemployment tax for any calendar quarter or other period of a calendar year, computed as provided in section 6157, shall be assessed.

...

(d) DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS.

For special rules applicable to deficiencies of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes, see subchapter B. [emphasis added]

It is clear that the ONLY legal authority established to assess taxes NOT shown on a return is subparagraph(a)(2) - UNPAID TAXES PAYABLE BY STAMP. Income taxes ARE NOT PAYABLE BY STAMP. The grant of assessment authority with respect to taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C is limited to provisions set out above even where the Service might have authority relating to those made liable for the tax, meaning the “employer” specified at 26 USC § 3401(d). Clearly, returns made either by the agent of the United States agency required to file a return, or the Secretary, are to be evaluated mathematically, and errors are to be treated as clerical errors, nothing more. The Secretary has no authority to assess estimated income tax (individual estimated income tax at § 6654; corporation estimated income tax at § 6655), or unemployment tax ( § 6157). For all practical purposes, the trail effectively ends here.

9. The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election

In order for there to be an opportunity for a Citizen of the United States (a Citizen of one of the several States) to be taxed or treated as a “taxpayer” of the United States, one or the other of a married couple, or the single “individual” making the election, must be an employee of the United States. Some party must in some way be connected with a “United States trade or business” (performance of the functions of a public office (26 USC § 7701(a)(26)), or elect to participate in Social Security. A Citizen never has domestic self-employment income. In the event that a person becomes an “employee” of the Federal Government (26 USC § 3401(c)), the “employer” (26 USC § 3401(d)) is liable (26 USC § 3403) for collection and payment of income tax from that person. And in order for real property to be treated as effectively connected with a United States trade or business by way of election, it must be located within the geographical United States (26 USC § 871(d)).

Provisions cited above preclude any and all legal authority for Citizens of the several States, or privately owned enterprise located in the several States, to be mandated to participate in the federal tax and benefits programs prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code, and companion legislation such as the Social Security Act which provide benefits from the United States Government, which has no legislative (territorial) jurisdiction in the several States to impose law from, on the Citizens of that State.

Summary & Conclusion

This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely sufficient to support causes set out separately. The most conspicuous conclusions of law are that Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the predecessor of the Internal Revenue Service; Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code prescribe excise taxes, mandatory only for employees of United States Government agencies; the Internal Revenue Service, within the geographical United States where the Service appears to have colorable authority, is required to use judicial process prior to seizing or encumbering assets; and the law demonstrates that people of the several States cannot legitimately be taxed or treated as taxpayers (Federal employees) of the United States Government by presumption. If a Citizen of one of the several States works for an agency of the United States or receives income from a United States “trade or business” or otherwise effectively connected with the United States, the employer or other third party responsible for payment is made liable for withholding taxes at the rate of 30% or 14%, depending on classification, and is thus “the person liable” and may be subject to Internal Revenue Service initiatives, with administrative initiatives, where seizure and/or encumbrance actions are concerned, subject to judicial determinations by courts of competent jurisdiction. Citizens are not made liable within the United States Code for any tax on domestic income.

Under penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, per 28 USC § 1746, and without prejudice, I attest that to the best of my knowledge and understanding, all matters of law and fact presented herein are accurate and true.

by Dan Meador (edited by Thomas T. Scambos, Jr.)

July 4th, 1997

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST SAMPLE

Your Name

Your Address

Your City, ST. Zip

Freedom of Information Act Reading Room

1111 Constitution Ave.

Room 1571-IR

Washington, D.C. 20224

Disclosure Officer,

1. This is a request made under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552 and appropriate regulations.

2. This is my firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating and reviewing the documents for information requested below. I am making this request from within the classification of “other requestor”. If costs are expected to exceed $20.00, please send an estimate of costs.

3. If some of this request is exempt from release, please send those portions reasonably segregatable and provide me with indexing, itemization, and detailed justification concerning the information you are not releasing.

4. The information will provide knowledge and understanding of the rules and regulations of the agency (IRS), and will assist the requestor relative to the policies of the agency.

5. I understand the penalties provided in 5 USC 552(a)(1)(3) for requesting or obtaining access to documents or records under false pretenses. I am the person making this request and my signature appears below.

6 Please send a copy of the documents that evidence that the IRS is not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act.

Sincerely,

Your Signature

Documents to Ask For Under FOIA

1.) The documents which show that the definition of the word “State” defined in 26 USC 3121(e) includes any other state than those specifically listed there.

2.) The documents that evidence the date a legislative act of Congress enacted the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service.

3.) The documents that evidence specifically which parts of the Internal Revenue Code are under the exclusive direction and control of the Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico.

4.) The documents that evidence the specific date Title 26, USC was enacted into positive law.

5.) The documents that evidence the IRS has any police power on land belonging to the

State of _______________.

6.) The documents that evidence where the Executive branch of the United States government gained their claimed authority to collect taxes directly from the Citizens in the

State of _______________.

7.) The documents that evidence specifically what the code MFR-01, that is on the Individual Master File (IMF) records specific to me and bearing my name, means.

8.) The documents that define the territory that an “Act of Congress”, as defined in Rule 54(c) of Title 18 USC Rules of Criminal Procedure, applies to.

9.) The documents that evidence that Article 1, section 8, clause 1 of the United States Constitution has been repealed or amended, specifically the statement “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,...”

10.) The documents that evidence the territorial jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service.

11.) The documents that evidence When, Where, and by Whom the Internal Revenue Service, (formerly, the Bureau of Internal Revenue) was lawfully created.

12.) The specific code section in Title 26 that establishes the statutory liability of American Citizens to pay the income tax.

13.) The documents that show that any regulations establishing and controlling the collection and/or enforcement authorities associated with the enforcement of Title 26 internal revenue laws, were ever published in the Federal Register in association with Title 26 enforcement.

14.) The documents that evidence that the Internal Revenue Service has incorporated, by specific reference within the Federal Register, a requirement to make an income tax return.

15.) How may a United States Citizen lawfully determine whether a law enacted by Congress applies to the Sovereign Citizens of the fifty States, in the fifty States, or if it (the law) applies to just the Federal Citizens under direct Federal jurisdiction in the territories, possessions, D.C., etc. that Congress legislates for under the 14th Amendment ?

CHAPTER 6

PRODUCTS

Employer's Notification Package

Regardless of whether or not you choose to continue to participate in Social Security, you may, at any time, legally choose to NOT have your earnings credited to you under the social security program, simply by refusing to supply your social security number on a W-4 to your employer. Under such circumstances, the employer is required to immediately stop all withholding of taxes, both employment and income.

If you want a copy of the correspondence letters and legal documents necessary to give to your employer to suspend, or effectively end, your participation in the social security system, thereby depriving the IRS of the information whose misuse they rely upon to harass you for taxes you don't legally owe under the strict letter of the law, SEND $30 check, cash or money order to:

R-SAFE

Product EMP

P.O. Box 7720

Arlington, VA. 22207

So that we may Laser Print a personalized set of documents for you to have and use, please include your own complete formal name and address, the name and address of your employer, and the name of the contact person at the employer, to whom this correspondence should be addressed. This package includes: - Cover letter to the employer

- Termination of W-4 Letter

- Statement of Citizenship in duplicate.

- Notice & Demand Regarding Use of SSN

- Excerpts from the EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting Decree.

- The EEOC Religious Discrimination Fact Sheet

Check out our internet web page for the latest news:

www.tax-freedom.com

IRS HUMBUG

To order, send your name, address and $33.50 cash, check, or money order,

PAYABLE TO: FRANK KOWALIK, to:

R Safe

Product HUMBUG

P.O. Box 7720

Arlington, VA. 22207

This 356 page book by Frank Kowalik, another 30 year IRS War Veteran, lays bare and rips open the IRS enforcement hoax "to the bone", and serves as a "tool" for learning how to exercise one's rights in refusing IRS demands and tax collection presentments, thereby preserving your liberty and property.

The best IRS expose on the market today. This book "blows away" everything else.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED !

It is IRS HUMBUG (hoax with intent to deceive) when you do not understand that taxing authorities need your cooperation (permission) to get you to relinquish your income in the name of tax.

THE IRS' FALSE BELIEFS ENFORCE "HUMBUG", NOT LAW !

By training a baby elephant to be controlled by a staked chain, it can then be controlled the same way as an adult, even though it could then easily break the chain that binds it. The adult elephant is being CONTROLLED BY A FALSE BELIEF. The chain and stake are "humbug" (hoax with intent to deceive). The IRS is controlling YOU in exactly the same fashion, BY FALSE BELIEF.

IRS HUMBUG is a first hand report that proves that you are being controlled by a FALSE IRS BELIEF, not law. How to legally avoid being a political slave or prisoner is what IRS HUMBUG reveals. It shows that an "agreement" (W-4) is necessary to legally tax your labor under due process of law. Without your agreement, an unconstitutional and illegal direct tax on your labor exists. When the taxing authority does not have your agreement to the taxes collected you are not a "taxpayer", but a tax slave or a slave in the name of taxation. When an agreement is not in place, your labor is being controlled against your will and benefits others at your expense. Agreement is not in place if you are a person who files an IRS Form 1040 because you falsely believe that you are required by law to do so and that you are paying a tax. Under these conditions the paying of the so-called "tax" cannot be considered voluntarily made. Controlling your labor by debt is in violation of involuntary servitude laws of the United States of America, specifically peonage, because your labor is being controlled against your will. Knowledge of the foregoing and the illegal enforcement of the IRS to control you by debt goes to making it possible for you to express personal sovereignty and control over your own personal liberty and property.

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT "KICKBACK"

EXPOSED AND COMPLETELY EXPLAINED!

AFFIDAVITS OF REFUSAL

THESE ARE THE AFFIDAVITS THAT ARE FINALLY

STOPPING THE IRS ALL OVER AMERICA !

These Affidavits REFUSE PRESENTMENT of IRS demands made in tax collection actions illegally and raise the Peonage, involuntary servitude, Sovereign Citizen, and Federal "transferee" issues for the IRS or the court to deal with. NONE HAVE CHOSEN TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO. To personalize these affidavits for you we need a copy of the last letter your received from the IRS.

Code Description

==== ===========================

A0 Statement of Facts and of Knowledge and Beliefs (23 pages + CFR)

A1 Default To Installment Agreement (7 pages + CFR)

A2 Have You Filed Your Tax Return (4 pages + CFR)

A3 IRS Audit (Form 2039) or SUMMONS (26 USC 7602) (5 pages)

A4 Close Account - response to Letter 2797- Change of Address (6 pages)

A5 Levy on Bank Account (6 pages + CFR)

A6 Levy on Wages (7 pages + CFR)

A7 Levy Against Social Security Check

A8 Spousal Protection (50% undivided interest, for use with levy) (2 pages)

A9 Notice of Deficiency (7 pages + CFR)

A10 IRS Refusal to Accept Refusal of Presentment (claim of "Tax Protest" scheme)

A11 State Income Tax (6 pages)

A12 Proposed $ Changes To Your Account (7 pages)

A13 Notice of Intent To Levy (7 pages + CFR)

A14 Frivolous Return - $500 Penalty (5 pages)

A15 Linking Most Recent IRS Demand to Previous Affidavits of Response (2 pages)

A16 Refusal of alleged Tax Lien for Cause

A17 Refusal to Accept Withholding in Name of Tax

ALL ALL 40 Affidavits, Notices & Letters in generic form ON DISK - $105

SEND $7 check, cash or money order, per GENERIC Affidavit, to:

SEND $20 check, cash or money order, per PERSONALIZED Affidavit,

R.-SAFE

Product A(##)

P.O. Box 7720

Arlington, VA. 22207

Add $3 shipping and handling for each product. We ship First Class.

LAWSUITS

FOR RIGHTS

PRESERVATION

THESE ARE THE LAWSUITS THAT ARE CHALLENGING THE “TAKERS” IN COURT ALL OVER AMERICA !

These lawsuits will attempt to preserve your rights and property in court - no guarantee that you will find an honest judge there however -many of them are absolutely, obviously corrupt, as you will learn.

Code Description

==== ===========================

L1 Refusal to Employ for Failure to Provide an SSN (Complaint, Memorandum, Motion)

L2 Refusal to Contract for Failure to Provide an SSN (Complaint, Memo., Motion)

L3 Wrongful Conversion Through Arbitrary Withholding by Payor (Complaint, Memo.)

L4 Wrongful Conversion Under Unauthorized IRS Request/Order (Complaint & Memo.)

L5 State Fraud Action Against County Clerk & IRS for Counterfeit Lien Recording.

(Complaint, Memorandum, Motion, and Briefs to prevent remanding to Federal court)

L6 State Fraud Action Against Company & IRS for conversion by fraudulent levy notice

(Complaint, Memorandum, Motion, and Briefs to prevent remanding to Federal court)

ON DISK !

SEND $150 check, cash or money order FOR EACH ORDER to

R.-SAFE

Product L#

P.O. Box 7720

Arlington, VA. 22207

Add $3 shipping and handling for each product. We ship First Class.

Educational Fellowship Tax Seminar Video Tapes

The Save A Patriot Fellowship offers an excellent set of 6, 2-hour video tapes that comprise a complete 12 hour educational seminar on tax law, recorded at the

Fellowship headquarters, that shows in great detail all of the information presented in brief fashion on these pages. This is very good educational material, easy to understand and completely documented. The 6 tapes are sold as a packaged set for $210. The optional Exhibit Documents Booklet (recommended) is an additional $30. Shipping is $10. There is also a new introductory single tape for around $20. Call for information.

If you would like to order this excellent set of informational and educational video tapes please call the Fellowship at

(410) 857-4441

to get current ordering information. This is GREAT material for any and ALL educational forums in America (high schools, universities, continuing adult education, etc..), and the purchase supports the very best Constitutional rights organization in America, fighting to preserve our rights, The Save A Patriot Fellowship.

CITIZENS HELPING CITIZENS LEARN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS UNDER IT !

There is also an introductory video tape for $20 - The Truth Behind the Income Tax - it is also very good and is a good “starter” video.

CHECK OUT OUR WEB PAGE for the latest developments:

www.tax-freedom.com

CHAPTER 7

IN THE COURTS

JURY NULLIFICATION

presentation prepared by

Boston Tea Party - Next Generation

Each person on a Jury has the power to vote NOT GUILTY in any criminal case even if it is obvious the Defendant broke the law (Penal Code). This tremendous power permits you, as a Juror, to NULLIFY or NEUTRALIZE a law which is in your opinion "BAD". You may exercise this Power despite the Evidence presented or the Judge's Instructions to you. No Judge will ever instruct you, however, that you have this Power to NULLIFY a bad law by voting NOT GUILTY. This is because legal tradition assumes that each Juror knows of this Power but should not be told of it as it is not a Right. Did you know ?

THE "POWER" EXISTS

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision. " [Charge to the Jury by the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL 1, Pg.4 (1794)]

This Jury Instruction occurred in a civil (not criminal) case].

“The verdict, therefore, stands conclusive and unquestionable, in point

both of law and fact. In a certain limited sense, therefore, it may be said that the jury have a power and a legal right to pass upon both the law and the fact. “

[Chief Justice Shaw (state) quoted in Sparf v. U.S., 156 US 51, Pg.80, 15 Sup.Ct. 273, Pg.285 (1895)].

"The judge cannot direct [DEMAND] a verdict it is true [FROM THE JURY], and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts. "

[U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 US 135, Pg.138 (1920)].

"In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law. We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. " [U.S. Appellate Court in U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, Pg.1006 (1969); cert denied in 397 US 910].

" The existence of an unreviewable and irreversible power in the jury, to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and precedent upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were different soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected sources -- John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges -- that jurors had a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case, and not bound by the opinion of the court." [U.S. Appellate Court in U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, Pg.1132 (1972)].

BUT DON'T TELL THE JURY !!

"The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is alteration in the way it is told to operate. The jury knows well enough that its prerogative is not limited to the choices articulated in the formal instructions of the court. [...] Law is a system, and it is also a language, with secondary meanings that may be unrecorded yet are part of its life. [...] In the last analysis, our rejection of the request for jury nullification doctrine [IN THE FORM OF AN INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE JURY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE] is a recognition that there are times when logic is not the only or even best guide to sound conduct of government. [...] The fact that there is widespread existence the jury's prerogative [NULLIFICATION], and approval of its existence as a 'necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,' does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. " .S. Appellate Court in U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1135-1136 (1972)].

CONCLUSION

In any criminal case each Juror can vote NOT GUILTY honestly and without fear of reprisal by anyone. The Jury, in any criminal case, acts as the 4th and Supreme Branch of Government, without whose approval One of its Own, One of the "People", may not be punished.

SUGGESTION

If someone is Proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt to have Willfully or Intentionally Hurt or Destroyed Someone or their Property -- vote “GUILTY”. Remember, however, each Accused Person is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. However, if the Accused has Hurt No One or their Property or has done so Only by Accident -- vote NOT GUILTY if you think the law is a "BAD" law.

In this way "We the People" will be telling our Government that we will support prosecutions in which a Member of our Community has been Deliberately Hurt or Wronged but that we will Not Permit Prosecutions based on "BAD" laws. Prosecutors will Not Bring Prosecutions they know local Juries will Not Support. Remember, it takes Only One Juror to make a "HUNG JURY". Be aware that Prosecutors, to improve their chances of scoring a win, will likely "Disqualify" you for Jury Duty if they learn you have Knowledge of JURY NULLIFICATION (handy if you Want to get Disqualified). Finally, Prosecutors may Prosecute You for Jury Tampering if they learn later you Intended to NULLIFY before hearing the Charges or the Evidence. So, if you decide to NULLIFY a "BAD" law and vote "NOT GUILTY", fine, but keep your reasons for voting NOT GUILTY to yourself !

So, if the IRS (or any other government agency) asks you to sit on a jury and throw one your fellow American Citizens in prison for alleged income tax violations, YOU THINK REAL HARD ABOUT HOW YOU’RE GOING TO VOTE, AND WHY!

Please be sure to read the IRS abuse files (too voluminous to reproduce here) if you need more convincing about how to vote as juror at one of these trials.

They can be found on the Internet from our Patriot’s Links page, or accessed directly at http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/1.html

Please pass this information on JURY NULLIFICATION along to your Friends and Neighbors. Get on those Juries. Love your Country -- but Keep your Government in Check!

This information on Jury Nullification was composed, and is hereby credited to:

BOSTON TEA PARTY - NEXT GENERATION

at: http://www.slip.net/boston~/jury.html

PATRIOT COMMUNITY INUNDATED WITH FALSE INFORMATION

Introduction by Otto Skinner

Almost every patriot will agree that there is a lot of confusion in the patriot community as to what is true and what is not true about the so-called "income" tax. Most patriots will agree that much of the information which is floating around the patriot community is false information. What patriots will

have a difficult time agreeing upon, however, is which information is true and which information is false.

Taking a legally flawed argument to court will almost always guarantee defeat, and in criminal cases, will usually provide a fast track to a place of incarceration. In spite of all of the confusion and false information, it is vitally important for patriots to stop wasting their time, effort and money pursuing

legal theories which are invalid. Here are just a few of the issues about which patriots need accurate information.

DESTROYED ARGUMENTS by Larry Becraft

I. The Money Issue:

In the seventies and early eighties, advocates of the specie provisions under Art. 1, §10, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution made a concerted effort to educate people about this constitutional provision, consequently people began litigating the issue. The courts have rendered the following adverse decisions on this issue:

ADVERSE FEDERAL DECISIONS ON MONEY ISSUE:

1. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1968).

2. United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973).

3. Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974).

4. United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975).

5. United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976).

6. United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976).

7. United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976).

8. United States v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1976).

9. United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976).

10. United States v. Hurd, 549 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1977).

11. Mathes v. Commissioner, 576 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978).

12. United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir. 1978).

13. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1978).

14. United States v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1979).

15. Nyhus v. Commissioner, 594 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1979).

16. United States v. Hori, 470 F.Supp. 1209 (C.D.Cal. 1979).

17. United States v. Tissi, 601 F.2d 372 (8th Cir. 1979).

18. United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979).

19. United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1980).

20. United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980).

21. Birkenstock v. Commissioner, 646 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1981).

22. Lary v. Commissioner, 842 F.2d 296 (11th Cir. 1988).

ADVERSE STATE DECISIONS ON MONEY ISSUE:

1. Chermack v. Bjornson, 302 Minn. 213, 223 N.W.2d 659 (1974).

2. Leitch v. Oregon Dept. of Revenue, 519 P.2d 1045 (Or.App.1974).

3. Radue v. Zanaty, 293 Ala. 585, 308 So.2d 242 (1975).

4. Rush v. Casco Bank & Trust Co., 348 A.2d 237 (Me. 1975).

5. Allen v. Craig, 1 Kan.App.2d 301, 564 P.2d 552 (1977).

6. State v. Pina, 90 N.M. 181, 561 P.2d 43 (N.M. 1977).

7. Dorgan v. Kouba, 274 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1978).

8. Trohimovich v. Dir., Dept. of Labor & Industry, 21 Wash.App.243, 584 P.2d 467

(1978).

9. Middlebrook v. Miss. State Tax Comm., 387 So.2d 726 (Miss.1980).

10. Daniels v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 601 S.W.2d 845 (Ark.1980).

11. State v. Gasser, 306 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1981).

12. City of Colton v. Corbly, 323 N.W.2d 138 (S.D. 1982).

13. Epperly v. Alaska, 648 P.2d 609 (Ak.App. 1982).

14. Solyom v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm., 452A.2d 1283

(Md.App. 1982).

15. People v. Lawrence, 124 Mich.App. 230, 333 N.W.2d 525(Mich.App. 1983).

16. Union State Bank v. Miller, 335 N.W.2d 807 (N.D. 1983).

17. Richardson v. Richardson, 332 N.W.2d 524 (Mich.App. 1983).

18. Cohn v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 138 Ariz. 136, 673 P.2d 334(1983).

19. First Nat. Bank of Black Hills v. Treadway, 339 N.W.2d 119 (S.D. 1983).

20. Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640, 691 P.2d 1255 (1984).

21. Allnutt v. State, 59 Md.App. 694, 478 A.2d 321 (1984).

22. Spurgeon v. F.T.B., 160 Cal.App.3d 524, 206 Cal.Rptr. 636 (1984).

23. Rothaker v. Rockwall County Central Appraisal Dist., 703 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.App.

1985).

24. De Jong v. County of Chester, 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 85, 510 A.2d 902 (1986).

25. Baird v. County Assessors of Salt Lake & Utah Counties, 779 P.2d 676 (Utah

1989).

26. State v. Sanders, 923 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1996).

II. Wages Are Not Income:

Back in about 1979 or 1980, Bob Golden and Pete Soehnlen published a work entitled Are You Required, which persuasively advocated the argument that wages are not income. However, desperate people championed this issue and lost in the following cases:

1. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981).

2. Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981).

3. United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923 (10th Cir. 1982).

4. Granzow v. CIR, 739 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1984).

5. Hansen v. United States, 744 F.2d 658 (8th Cir. 1984).

6. Perkins v. CIR, 746 F.2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1984).

7. Schiff v. CIR, 751 F.2d 116 (2nd Cir. 1984).

8. United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985).

9. Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083 (11th Cir. 1985).

10. Coleman v. CIR, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986).

11. Wilcox v. CIR, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988).

12. United States v. Gerards, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993).

Jeff Dickstein, lawyer "extraordinare" from California, later Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and now Oklahoma, has written a book entitled Judicial Tyranny, which discusses this issue in great detail, including all the adverse decisions on this issue through 1989. When Jeff and I were about to start the conspiracy trial of Vern Holland and Dave Mauldin in Tulsa in August, 1990, Jeff announced that his book was hot off the press. When we got the first copy and looked at his book just days before we were to start that trial in federal court in Tulsa, we noticed that the front cover contained the seal of the local federal court as well as a likeness of one of the local federal judges. At times, Jeff can be harrowing. However, we got a hung jury in that case and afterwards, 6 of the jurors, including the forelady, came and joined Vern's patriot organization.

III. The IRS is a Delaware corporation:

Back in 1982 or 1983, somebody started circulation of the argumentthat the IRS was a private corporation which had been created in Delaware in 1933. This is indeed a frivolous argument and hasproperly been rejected by the courts; see Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 147 (N.D. Ind. 1984).

IV. The IMF Argument:

Some contend that the Secretary of the Treasury is in reality a foreign agent under the control of the IMF; the argument has been rejected by the courts.

1. United States v. Rosnow, 977 F.2d 399, 413 (8th Cir. 1992).

2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992).

3. United States v. Higgins, 987 F.2d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 1993).

V. Non-resident Aliens:

Some contend we are for tax purposes non-resident aliens; again, this improper argument has been correctly rejected by the courts.

1. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991).

2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992).

3. United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993).

VI. The Form 1040 is Really a Codicil to a Will:

This argument was rejected in Richey v. Ind. Dept. of State Revenue, 634 N.E. 2d 1375 (Ind. 1994), along with other popular arguments of that date.

VII. Filing 1099s against IRS Agents:

At one time, some asserted that when an agent of the government inflicted damaged upon somebody, the proper response should be filing a Form 1099 against the agent because the agent was "enriched" by the damaged so inflicted. Parties doing this went to jail.

1. United States v. Yagow, 953 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1992).

2. United States v. Kuball, 976 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1992).

3. United States v. Dykstra, 991 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1993).

VIII. Land Patents:

Back in 1983 and 1984, Carol Landi popularized an argument that the land patent was the highest and best form of title and that by updating the patent in your own name, you could defeat any mortgages. This contention violated many principles of real property and when Carol started trying to get patents for most of the land in California brought up into her own name, she went to jail. Others who have raised this crazy argument lost the issue.

1. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mtg. Co., 612 F.Supp.253 (N.D. Ind. 1985).

2. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F.Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985).

IX. Not a "Person" Under the Tax Code:

Some have contended that they were not "persons" under the Internal

Revenue Code, an argument which has been lost.

1. United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986).

2. United States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1986).

3. United States v. Silevan, 985 F.2d 962, 970 (8th Cir. 1993).

X. Notice of Levy:

A popular argument currently circulating is that a mere notice of levy is not equal to a levy and thus may not be used for tax collection purposes. The courts have not accepted this idea.

1. United States v. Eiland, 223 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1955).

2. Rosenblum v. United States, 300 F.2d 843, 844-45 (1st Cir. 1962).

3. United States v. Pittman, 449 F.2d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 1971).

4. In re Chicagoland Ideel Cleaners, Inc., 495 F.2d 1283, 1285 (7th Cir. 1974).

5. Wolfe v. United States, 798 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1986).

XI. The UCC Argument:

Some assert that some unknown treaty back in the 1930s placed us under the control of the "international bankers," thus every action filed in this country, both civil and criminal alike, is for the benefit of the bankers. Under these facts, when the government attacks a patriot, he should assert the UCC argument; this silly

contention has been rejected.

1. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

2. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex.1996)(also raised flag and common law court issues).

3. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(also raised nom de guerre and flag issues).

XII. The CFR Cross Reference Index (where no regulation required by statute):

The Code of Federal Regulations contains a separate volume which list various statutes and the regulations which implement those statutes. This is not an exclusive list nor is it an admission made by the government that there are no regulations for Title 26, U.S.C. Parties making this argument have suffered defeat.

1. United States v. Cochrane, 985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1993).

2. Russell v. United States, 95 CCH Tax Cases ¶ 50029 (W.D. Mich.1994).

3. Reese v. CIR, 69 TCM 2814, TC Memo 1995-244 (1995)

(this and several other arguments described as "legalistic gibberish").

4. Morgan v. CIR, 78 AFTR2d 96-6633 (M.D.Fla. 1996).

5. Stafford v. CIR, TCM 1997-50.

XIII. The Flag Issue:

A current popular argument is that the gold fringed flag indicates the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. Naturally, pro ses have made this argument and lost.

1. Vella v. McCammon, 671 F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D. Tex. 1987)(the argument has "no arguable basis in law or fact").

2. Comm. v. Appel, 652 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa.Super. 1994)(the contention is a "preposterous claim").

XIV. Common Law Court:

These courts have been declared non-existent.

1. Kimmel v. Burnet County Appraisal Dist., 835 S.W.2d 108, 109

(Tex.App. 1992).

XV. "Nom de Guerre":

According to a book written by Berkheimer, a "nom de guerre" is a war name symbolized by a given name being written in capital letters. The argument contends that because of events in 1933, we have been made "enemies" and government indicates our status as enemies by the nom de guerre. If this is true, then why have the styles of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court since its establishment been in caps? This argument has gotten lots of people in trouble. For example, Mike Kemp of the Gadsden Militia defended himself on state marijuana charges with this argument and he was thrown into jail. I have not even seen a decent brief on this issue which was predicated upon cases you can find in a common law library. In any event, at least one case has rejected this argument; see United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997).

Credit to Larry Becraft for this compilation of cases.

OTHER BAD ARGUMENTS

by Otto Skinner

MISSING OMB NUMBERS ON TAX FORMS OR TAX REGULATIONS

DO NOT PROVIDE A DEFENDANT A LEGALLY VALID DEFENSE

AGAINST CHARGES OF FAILURE TO MAKE A TAX RETURN.

The fact that a tax form or a tax regulation is missing a required OMB number will not provide a defendant with any valid defense for failure to make a tax return, in spite of claims to the contrary. Let me explain.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does require federal agencies to acquire a number from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on all forms and regulations which are used to collect information from members of the public. However, proponents of the purportedly valid "OMB/PRA legal defense" theory present cases such as United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1989) and United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990), as if they stand for the proposition that an individual may ignore, with impunity, a requirement to make a tax return because either the applicable tax regulation or tax form is missing an OMB number or contains some other seemingly apparent flaw causing it to fail to meet the requirements of the PRA. But these two cases do not even come close to having the same or a similar fact situation that exists in a case of failure to make a tax return. For the proponents of this defense theory to use these two case as if they also apply to criminal charges for failure to make a tax return is misleading, at best.

In both the Smith Case and the Hatch Case, the defendants were facing criminal charges for failing to obey regulations issued by the National Forest Service. Each case involved mining operations (not failure to make a tax return). Each case involved missing OMB numbers. Each case involved a violation of a regulation, not a violation of a statute as is the case of failure to make a tax return.

Now let’s list some cases that did involve criminal charges for failure to make tax returns; cases in which the defendants relied upon the purportedly valid "legal defense" of the OMB/PRA argument; cases in which the defendants learned this lesson the hard way. Some of these cases are: United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d. 34, 38 (6th Cir. 1990) ("Defendant was not convicted for violating a regulation but of violating a statute which required him to file an income tax return."); United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Bentson, 947 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1991); and United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991). These are the cases which address the issue. This is just a short list of patriots who unsuccessfully tried the OMB/PRA defense. Many others who were suckered into using this argument either did not appeal their convictions or abandoned this argument after the trial and appealed their convictions on other issues.

In all of the cases in which the OMB/PRA argument was used in an attempt to defend against criminal charges for failure to make a tax return, the supposed failure of the agency to meet the PRA requirements involved Form 1040. It apparently was presumed by these defendants and their defense attorneys that the term "return" means a Form 1040. But the term "return" does not mean a Form 1040. The Form 1040 is merely the form the regulation requires a "taxpayer" to use to make his income tax return.

What does the term "return" mean? In each of the three books I have written since 1986, I have explained that any decent dictionary will show in one of the many definitions provide for the term "return" that it means an official or formal report; much like an election return. So when a statute requires certain persons to make "returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A" of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6012), it is merely requiring such a person to make a report of his earnings ("gross income").

A government prosecutor in New York explained this in very plain language. The defendant was using the OMB/PRA argument. The government prosecutor correctly told the judge that a "taxpayer" could report his income on a roll of toilet paper and still satisfy the statutory requirement of reporting his income. In other words, if a "taxpayer" reports his earnings ("gross income") on something other than the required form, he might be sanctioned civil penalties for using the wrong form in violation of the regulation (26 C.F.R. 1.6012-1(a)(6)), but he could not be convicted or suffer any criminal penalties for failing to report his earnings ("gross income") as is required by the statute. Once these details are pointed out, the fact that the term "return" means a report, and does not mean a Form 1040, seems just too simple to ignore. Yet, defense attorneys and many others in the patriot community have chosen to ignore the simple truth. And all at the expense of unsuspecting, and often times desperate, patriots.

The indictments and informations charging individuals with failure to make tax returns all read pretty much the same, to wit:

"Defendant, Joe Patriot, well knowing and believing all of the foregoing [that he was (supposedly) required to make an income tax return], did willfully fail to make an income tax return to said director...."

I have never seen an indictment or information charging an accused with failure to report his "gross income" on a Form 1040. I have never read a court trial transcript where the prosecutor ever argued to the jury that the defendant failed to complete a Form 1040. The Form 1040 is simply not part of the statute enacted by Congress requiring certain persons to make a return (report) of their "gross income", and it is simply not part of the charges against an individual for failing to make an income tax return (i.e., a report of his "gross income").

The regulation, 26 C.F.R. 1.6012-1(a)(6), which is written pursuant to the statute, 26 U.S.C. 6012, does require a Form 1040 to be used for purposes of making a tax return. Civil penalties (not criminal penalties) apply to the "taxpayer" who actually reports his earnings on something other than the required form and who does not, within a reasonable time, correct the situation by supplementing the "tentative return" with a return made on the prescribed form. See 26 C.F.R. 1.6011-1(b).

But criminal charges are brought against individuals for violating a statute which merely requires the "taxpayer" to make a return (report) of his "gross income". Requirements to make tax returns, like the rest of the Code, can only apply to persons who are subject to (liable for) the tax. Whether or not you are a person subject to the provisions of the Code, regardless of OMB numbers, is an entirely separate issue. It simply will not mix successfully with the OMB/PRA argument.

Those who argue that they are not required to make a tax return and cannot be punished for failure to make a tax return because of some supposed flaw in the OMB number requirement, are essentially saying that they would be required to make a return if the silly agency would just get the OMB number requirement taken care of.

Given all of the appellate court decisions shown above, wherein the courts have clearly explained that the defendants were convicted for violation of a statute and not a regulation, I find it abominable and intolerable that such a purportedly valid, but totally unsuccessful, "legal defense" theory as the OMB/PRA argument is still being perpetrated upon the patriot community.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS DO HAVE JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS AS SET FORTH IN TITLE 26.

Some promoters would lead the patriots to believe that the federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to try criminal cases for violations of the Internal Revenue Code, which is Title 26 of the United States Code. The reason given by the promoters of this argument is that there is no section in Title 26 granting the federal district courts jurisdiction in criminal cases. The true fact is, however, Congress did grant the federal district courts such criminal jurisdiction. Let me explain.

26 U.S.C. 7201 makes it a crime (felony) for any person to willfully attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by Title 26. 26 U.S.C. 7203 makes it a crime (misdemeanor) for any person required under Title 26 to make a return (report) to willfully fail to make such return. These are just two of the many crimes listed in Title 26.

The Criminal Code, Title 18 of the United States Code, grants federal district courts jurisdiction concerning criminal violations of Title 26, to wit:

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. 18 U.S.C. 3231. (In Part. Emphasis added.)

This issue has been heard and ruled on by the courts before. A rather thorough history and ruling regarding 18 U.S.C. 3231, as it applies to crimes listed in Title 26, is provided in the case of United States v. Sasscer, 558 F.Supp. 33 (D. Ct. Maryland 1982). The Sasscer Case shows that the ancestry of 18 U.S.C. 3231 can be traced to the First Judiciary Act of 1789 which also specified which courts would have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes committed against the laws of the United States. Also, see United States v. Spurgeon, 671 F.2d 1198 (8th Cir. 1982).

I would find it difficult to believe that any of the promoters of the "no criminal jurisdiction for Title 26 crimes" argument who also know John Sasscer personally would not also be fully aware of the facts documented by the court in the Sasscer Case. Nevertheless, the "no criminal jurisdiction for Title 26 crimes" argument should not be an argument a patriot would want to waste his time and effort on in a court case.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE THAT THE MEANING OF THE TERM "INCOME" FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES IS LIMITED TO CORPORATE PROFITS.

Some promoters would lead the patriots to believe that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of the term "income" for income tax purposes is limited to gain or profits derived from corporate activities. A careful reading of the court cases will, however, reveal that such a proposition is not true at all.

To support the supposedly "valid argument" claiming that the term "income" for income tax purposes only means corporate profit, the promoters cite the case of Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) wherein the court held that the word "income":

. . . must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court. Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519 (1921).

It is one thing to say that the term "income" must be given the same meaning as was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act. It is entirely another thing to say that the term "income" for income tax purposes only means corporate profit. No place in all of the United States Supreme Court opinions, I submit, will you find where the Court limited the term "income" for income tax purposes to mean corporate profit.

In fact, in Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, supra, the Court refers many times to Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), wherein the United States Supreme Court said:

For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term "income" as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the Amendment....

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-207 (1920).

The Eisner Court, after examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster’s Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.).... Eisner, supra, at 207, quite correctly proceeds to define the term "income" for purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment and a so-called "income" tax, as well as for purposes of the Eisner Case, to simply mean profit or gain derived by the person subject to the tax (the taxpayer") for his separate use and benefit. If you check your dictionaries, you will find that "income" is simply profit or gain (on capital or labor, or combination of both).

In other words, if you are subject to the tax, you can use the definition provided by the Eisner Court. If you are not subject to the tax, it doesn’t really matter what the term "income" means for income tax purposes. To argue the definition of the term "income" is to argue as if you would be required to make a tax return (i.e., that you are subject to (liable for) the tax) if you just had some of this stuff called "income".

For the reader who might still think it is the property earned that is the subject of the tax, it is important to note that the name "income tax" is merely the name given to a particular excise tax. A taxable activity (never property) is the subject of an excise tax. See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151, 154, 165 (1911).

It is also important to note that the requirement to make a tax return is not based upon "income" (profit or gain), but rather it is based upon the "gross income" (gross earnings) of a person who has a "taxable year" and is subject to (liable for) that excise tax. See 26 U.S.C. 6012. Also, see 26 U.S.C. 441(b) and 1313(b).

As to the false proposition that the term "income" for income tax purposes is limited to corporate profits, it is just one more flawed, frivolous argument, which is based on neither fact nor law, and which will, if relied upon, help send more patriots to the poky.

SUMMARY

Above are just a few of the issues upon which patriots have been provided with false or misleading information. Over the past 16 years, I have studied many, many court cases, including many cases wherein patriots were appealing their convictions. Case after case involved "legal" defense arguments which had no more basis in law or fact than in the examples shown above. The patriots had simply relied upon what they had "learned" from one promoter or another; all to the detriment of the unsuspecting, and not so careful, patriots.

Over these years, I have come to the personal belief that just because a promoter of various "legal" arguments dances like a patriot, sings like a patriot or talks like a patriot, that it does not necessarily mean that the promoter is a patriot. I also have come to the personal belief that each individual patriot must be willing to take off the rose-colored glasses, be willing to call a spade a spade, not take anyone’s word on anything, and check everything out for himself before he relies upon it.

I have also considered the fact that the most effective scams, the most effective confidence games, the most effective fraudulent schemes, contain many truths. The parts that are not true are the parts that can cause problems for the unwary. Think about it.

I further believe that each individual patriot must realize that when he is in a legal battle, he is, in a sense, at war. In this war, the battle is over the minds, property and liberty of otherwise free individuals. If patriots can be led down the primrose path with one or more groundless "legal" arguments, will this not result in more victories for the other side? Is this not what in fact happened in the cases of Wunder, Bowers, Bentson and Hicks shown above? Is this not what in fact happened in many other cases too numerous to mention? I leave it to the reader to answer these questions

for himself.

Please do not simply accept what I am telling you here at face value. Please go to a law library and check it all out for yourself. If you do, you will then know the facts for sure, your confidence in your personal position will skyrocket, nobody will be able to mislead you on these issues, and my credibility rating will go up. We both will win. Indeed, to some degree, the entire patriot community will win.

Otto Skinner is the author of the following three books:

The Best Kept Secret, "Taxpayer" v. Nontaxpayer (1986, revised 1996) $24.95

If You Are the Defendant (1989, revised 1996) $24.95

The Biggest "Tax Loophole" of All (1997) (A 2 pound book.) $39.95

Add $5.00 S&H flat rate for all orders

Get all three for a total of $84.85 and save $20.00 as compared to ordering each book separately.

Pay to: Otto Skinner, Dept. 1187

P.O. Box 6609

San Pedro, CA 90734

1) credit is given the author;

2) the article is reprinted in its entirety; and

3) the above information regarding the author’s books is also included. Any other arrangements must be specifically granted in writing by the author.

COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

The provisions of the United States Code regarding summons enforcement proceedings, 26 U.S.C., §§ 7601 through 7610, have over the last three decades been the subject of much litigation and consequently have been construed by the federal courts of appeals as well as the United States Supreme Court. In Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 84 S.Ct. 508 (1964), the Supreme Court held that a witness or taxpayer could challenge an I.R.S. summons on any appropriate grounds and may assert as a defense to the proceedings the fact that the materials sought by the I.R.S. relate olely for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution. In United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S.Ct. 248 (1964), the Court outlined four requirements which must be shown before any summons can be enforced. In Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 91 S.Ct. 534 (1971), the Court held that an I.R.S. summons could lawfully be used for a criminal investigation provided the summons also had a civil purpose. In Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S.Ct. 611 (1973), the Court held that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not protect tax records in the possession of a taxpayer's accountant. In United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 95 S.Ct. 915 (1975), the Court allowed the issuance of a John Doe summons for the purpose of investigating a $40,000 deposit of $100 bills. In Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (1976), the Court held that the Fifth Amendment did not protect tax records in the possession of the taxpayer's attorney. See also United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 103 S.Ct. 1548 (1983). This line of cases clearly shows that the Internal Revenue Service has very broad summons authority and may secure virtually any record or document in the possession of a third party.

I.R.S. summonses are issued to two separate and distinct classes of persons, with one class representing third parties who have possession and custody of books and records of the taxpayers under investigation, and the other class comprising taxpayers under investigation. A summons enforcement action is utilized when compliance with the summons has not been obtained due to the taxpayer notifying the third party not to comply, by the institution of a suit to enjoin enforcement, or by the refusal on the part of the taxpayer to comply when summons is directed to him. When the Service proceeds to enforce a summons issued to either a third party recordholder or the taxpayer himself, its burden of proof is very minimal and amounts to nothing more than proof of compliance with the requirements of Powell, supra; see United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963 (6th Cir. 1982).

Whereas the burden of proof upon the Service is relatively light in summons enforcement actions, a taxpayer opposing enforcement of the summons has a far heavier burden to carry. Basically, a taxpayer seeking denial of enforcement of the summons has available three defenses: (a) bad faith; (b) institutional posture, and (c) the Fifth Amendment. The "bad faith" defense is based upon Reisman v. Caplin, supra, and Donaldson v. United States, supra, and involves those situations wherein the summons has been issued for the improper purpose of gathering evidence needed for a criminal prosecution after referral to the Department of Justice. The "institutional posture" defense is based upon United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 98 S.Ct. 2357 (1978), and relates to those situations when the Service has made an institutional commitment to criminally prosecute the taxpayer under investigation but desires to withhold referral to the Justice Department to allow for the gathering of additional evidence needed for a successful criminal prosecution.[1] These two defenses are most often utilized by a taxpayer when intervening in a third party summons enforcement action or commencing an action to enjoin enforcement of the summons. Although a taxpayer opposing enforcement of a summons issued to him may assert the defenses of "bad faith" and "institutional posture," he will most likely rely upon the third defense available to him, that of the Fifth Amendment.

The history and development of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been one of slow but sure expansion of the benefits of its protection. James Madison, the prime author of this provision in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, sought this provision to prevent the development in our country of proceedings similar to or identical with Spanish Inquisitions or Star Chamber proceedings. A cursory examination of the William Penn Case, 6 How. St. Tr. 951

(1670), reveals that resort to "Spanish Inquisitions" has on many occasions been desired in order to bring about the efficient operation of governmental machinery; this is what Madison desired to avoid by inserting the Fifth Amendment into our Constitution. The original intent or purpose for the Fifth Amendment was to compel the government to procure independent evidence of the facts and proof of a crime other than through the mouth of the accused. Without such a requirement and with theavailability of procedures such as the Inquisition or Star Chamber, the government could constantly harass law abiding citizens and might on some occasion procure, through duress and coercion, a confession. But as is well known, such confessions are highly suspect, hence we have the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

One of the most appropriate statements concerning the Fifth Amendment and its operation was made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in the case of United States v. Aaron Burr. Chief Justice Marshall, quoted in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 565, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892), maintained that a witness could plead the Fifth Amendment not only in situations where his answer to a question would directly implicate him in a crime, but also in response to questions the answer to which would provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the witness of a crime. Protection from compulsory testimony designed to implicate a witness in a crime has been secured through the Fifth Amendment and has been one of the most sacred principles known to American jurisprudence. This principle of the Fifth Amendment protection from compulsory testimony, absent a grant of immunity,[2] has seen no erosion in its application since first expounded and requires but few citations to support it; see Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370 (1906), Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 71 S.Ct. 223 (1950), and Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 71 S.Ct. 814 (1951).

The question of Fifth Amendment protection for the books, records and personal documents of a witness who may be implicated in a crime was first really considered in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886), where the Supreme Court expanded Fifth Amendment protection against compulsory testimony to books and records of the witness. In granting such protection, the Court held:

"And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom," 116 U.S., at 631-32.

"And we are further of opinion that a compulsory production of the private books and papers of the owner of goods sought to be forfeited in such a suit is compelling him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment to the Constitution, and is the equivalent within the meaning of the fourth amendment," 116 U.S., at 634-35.

Since the decision in Boyd, the Supreme Court has on some occasions limited the full import of that historic ruling. In Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 31 S.Ct. 538 (1911), the Court held that the Boyd principle did not apply to corporations; see also United States v. Peter, 479 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1973); and In Re Grand Jury Empanelled March 8, 1983, 722 F.2d 294 (6th Cir. 1983). Still later, application of Boyd to partnership records was prohibited in Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 94 S.Ct. 2179 (1974). However until 1984, it still appeared that personal, non-corporate tax records of a person with potential criminal liability were still protected by Boyd principles. When the Supreme Court held that Boyd protection did not apply to partnership records in Bellis, supra, it expressly affirmed this proposition by stating:

"The privilege applies to the business records of the sole proprietor or sole practitioner as well as to personal documents containing more intimate information about the individual's private life," 417 U.S., at 87-88.

Likewise, Fisher, supra, did not emasculate Boyd in any respect as the issue in that case was completely different; in fact, the Court in Fisher definitely appeared to have sided with Boyd in the last paragraph of its opinion:

"Whether the Fifth Amendment would shield the taxpayer from producing his own tax records in his possession is a question not involved here; for the papers demanded here are not his 'private papers,' see Boyd v. United States," 425 U.S., at 414.

Shortly after its decision in Fisher, the Court was confronted with a similar issue in Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 473-74, 96 S.Ct. 2737 (1976). Here, a search warrant had been issued for the seizure of certain private books and records, and the criminal defendant was not required to produce those records or authenticate them because authentication was achieved by the use of third parties. The Supreme Court in Andresen did not emasculate Boyd in any way and in fact expressly affirmed Boyd:

Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an individual from complying with a subpoena for the production of his personal records in his possession because the very act of production may constitute a compulsory authentication of incriminating information ..., a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement officers differs in a crucial respect -- the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production or authentication of incriminating evidence."

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall be compelled to be a "witness" against himself in a criminal prosecution. Similar provisions exist in the constitutions of the various states of our nation, with some such constitutional provisions following the Fifth Amendment via use of the word "witness" while other provisions offer more expansive protection by stating that no person shall be compelled to give "evidence" against himself in a criminal prosecution. There exist distinct and crucial differences in the type of protection offered under these two different types of constitutional provisions. The protection against being compelled to give "evidence" against the accused is far broader than protection only afforded to "witnessing" and giving "evidence" arguably would include providing to the prosecution documents incriminating to the accused. The protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment is only that of proscribing testimonial compulsion and is not as all encompassing as the provisions prohibiting compulsory production of "evidence."

Neither Fisher nor Andresen disturbed the holding in Boyd or Bellis and both are wholly consistent with these two other cases. What the Supreme Court did in these two cases was note the crucial difference between protecting "evidence" and being a compelled "witness"; private papers may no longer be specially protected and in a distinct and different class from other evidence, property or contraband. What the Supreme Court has directed is that an accused cannot be compelled to produce his own incriminating books and records because such would involve to a degree an amount of authentication of such books and records on the part of the accused; such is tantamount to compelled testimony specifically proscribed by the Fifth Amendment. What the Supreme Court has commanded is that if the government desires to obtain personal books and records and use the same against the accused, it must be done through witnesses other than the accused himself.

A survey of pre-1984 decisions reveals the continued vitality of the principles of Boyd and the crucial government-citizen relationship which it protects. In the First Circuit case of In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Martinez), 626 F.2d 1051, 1056 (1st Cir. 1980), the court found that "personal, self-created business records in the possession of a sole proprietor or practitioner would enjoy a privilege against subpoena." In the Second Circuit, the case of United States v. O'Henry's Film Works, Inc., 598 F.2d 313 (2nd Cir. 1979), held that a corporate official's Fifth Amendment plea to questions concerning the location of corporate records was valid; see also United States v. Beattie, 522 F.2d 267 (2nd Cir. 1975), United States v. Patterson, 219 F.2d 659 (2nd Cir. 1955), In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 657 F.2d 5 (2nd Cir. 1981), In Re Grand Jury Witness (Gilboe), 699 F.2d 71 (2nd Cir. 1983), and United States v. Bobart Travel Agency, Inc., 699 F.2d 618 (2nd Cir. 1983). The three cases of In Re Grand Jury Empanelled March 19, 1980, 680 F.2d 327 (3rd Cir. 1982), In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Johanson), 632 F.2d 1033 (3rd Cir. 1980), and In Re Grand Jury (Colucci), 597 F.2d 851 (3rd Cir. 1979), demonstrate that the Third Circuit has protected private books and records from compulsory production. In United States v. Henry, 491 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1974), the Sixth Circuit quashed an I.R.S. summons to a taxpayer already indicted on a narcotics offense. The Seventh Circuit, faced with a pro se litigant in United States v. Awerkamp, 497 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1974), who was prematurely raising Fifth Amendment objections to the enforcement of an I.R.S. summons, held that the taxpayer could make specific Fifth Amendment pleas to questions directed at him when he complied with the order of enforcement.

In two other Seventh Circuit cases, Hill v. Philpott, 445 F.2d 144 (7th Cir. 1971), and United States v. Dickerson, 413 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1969), that court held that the records of an individual taxpayer were immune from a summons. The Eighth Circuit, in Isaacs v. United States, 256 F.2d 654 (8th Cir. 1958), held a Fifth Amendment plea of a corporate official to be valid when he responded to questions relating to $99,000 in checks written by the corporation. Another Eighth Circuit opinion in United States v. Plesons, 560 F.2d 890 (8th Cir. 1977), would have granted protection to the records of a doctor if he had raised his Fifth Amendment plea to a grand jury subpoena before testifying about those records. In the Ninth Circuit cases of United States v. Cohen, 388 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1967), and United States v. Helina, 549 F.2d 713 (9th Cir.1977), protection of a taxpayer's records from production was upheld. The above cases demonstrate that the great weight of authority in the various circuits has been that an individual taxpayer's records are protected from compulsory production because of the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have apparently treated this precise issue more often than the others and have conclusively held that tax records of an individual are immune from production on the basis of Boyd. In Stuart v. United States, 416 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1969), In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (McCoy), 601 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1979), In Re Oswalt, 607 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1979), In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Kent), 646 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1981), and United States v. Meeks, 642 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1981), this principle was upheld. More specifically in United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1043 (5th Cir. 1981), that court held:

"Their cumulative teaching is that any incriminating papers in the actual or constructive possession of an individual, which he holds in his individual capacity, ... and which he himself wrote or which were written under his immediate supervision, are absolutely protected by the Boyd principle from production by subpoena or equivalent process, regardless of whether they are business-related or more inherently personal in content."

The Sixth Circuit does not deviate in any respect from comparable decisions made in other circuits. In Patty v. Bordenkircher, 603 F.2d 587 (6th Cir. 1979), the court held that the government couldn't compel a criminal defendant to testify concerning his previous criminal convictions where they were relevant to a habitual offender statute. In United States v. Hill, 601 F.2d 253 (6th Cir. 1979), that court acknowledged that a taxpayer could raise Fifth Amendment objections by refusing to answer specific questions. In United States v. Doss, 563 F.2d 265, 275 (6th Cir. 1977), a case involving an indicted defendant called before a grand jury, that court concluded:

"However, upon the trial of the defendant in a criminal case, it would be a clear violation of a defendant's right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to compel him to take the stand, testify and produce his records, relating to the matter with which he is

charged."

The erosion of Boyd principles started in the early eighties. In United States v. Schlansky, 709 F.2d 1079, 1084 (6th Cir. 1983), a case where the taxpayer under investigation was compelled to surrender certain of his records which had previously been in his accountant's possession, the Sixth Circuit held that the three elements of compulsion, testimonial communication and incrimination by such communication were requisites to a valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment:

"Under this focus the key question is whether the compelled production involves compelled testimonial communication. The answer to this question in turn depends on whether the very act of production supplies a necessary link in the evidentiary chain. Does it confirm that which was previously unknown to the government; e.g., the existence or location of the materials? Does it supply assurance of authenticity not available to the government from sources other than the person summonsed? Though the party seeking to avoid compliance does not have to show more than is required to demonstrate that the privilege is properly claimed, he must make some showing that the act of production alone would involve an incriminating testimonial communication."

The Third Circuit case of In Re Grand Jury Empanelled March 19, 1980, 680 F.2d 327 (3rd Cir. 1982), involved the issue of compulsory production of books and records and that court continued to uphold the principles of Boyd. Because of a desire to have the Supreme Court adopt the Schlansky rationale, the government sought and obtained a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to review the decision in this case. On February 28, 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the above decision in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 104 S.Ct. 1237, 1242 (1984). In this pronouncement, the Court reversed its former holding in Boyd and held that books and records were no longer protected by the Fifth Amendment. It reasoned that the Fifth Amendment protected only compelled testimony and not books and records, and it relied heavily upon its rationale in Fisher, supra. But while the Court decided to withdraw Fifth Amendment protection to books and records, it held that production of such books and records was entitled to such protection. The Court reasoned that compulsory production of books and records via subpoena or summons is communicative in nature and similar to giving testimony, therefor such production is entitled to Fifth Amendment protection:

"Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers by the taxpayer. It also would indicate the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena."

The U.S. Supreme Court in Boyd v. United States, supra, clearly held that compulsory production via subpoena or summons of books, records and other documents in the possession of a witness was not permitted by the Fifth Amendment. This decision prevailed for some 98 years and effectively prevented the government from obtaining such written documentation from one having potential criminal liability. In United States v. Doe, supra, the Court changed its construction of the Fifth Amendment and held that the Amendment did not protect such records; and by making this change, a problem not addressed by Boyd arose. If the records are not protected from compulsory production by the amendment, what protection by the Fifth Amendment is left to a witness under process to produce documents? In Doe, the Court analyzed this situation and found that the mere act of producing such documents via compulsion non-verbally provides the following:

(a) Such production concedes that the requested documentation exists;

(b) Such production proves that the same are in the witness' possession;

produced are those which are sought;

(d) The act of production authenticates the documents.

Because of these non-verbal but communicative aspects present within any act of production, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment applied to the act of production. Thus, even though there is no longer any protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment for books and records, the Fifth Amendment's protection for the act of production accomplishes virtually the same result as under the Boyd doctrine.

This has proven to be the case as shown by various cases decided subsequent to Doe. In re Kave, 760 F.2d 343, 355-56 (1st Cir. 1985), an attorney was permitted to plead the protection of the Fifth Amendment because the request to produce certain documentary evidence would have in effect, under the "act of production" rule, forced her to testify against herself, the court explaining:

"The compelled production of such documents is prohibited only if there are testimonial aspects to the act of production itself. ... This rule extends to the business records of a sole proprietor ... In this context, the rule has three elements: The Fifth Amendment protects against compulsory surrender of (1) personal business records, (2) in the possession of a sole proprietor or practitioner, (3) only with respect to the testimonial act implicit in the surrender itself."

For a few years after Doe, its rule was applied to corporate records. The Doe "act of production" rule was followed in In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 747 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir. 1984), and In Re Grand Jury Matter, 768 F.2d 525 (3rd Cir. 1985), to prevent the compulsory production of corporate and partnership records. However, in Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (1988), the Court held that Doe did not apply to corporate records; see also Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 108 S.Ct. 2341 (1988).

But the application of Doe has continued as to personal and private records. In United States v.(Under Seal), 745 F.2d 834 (4th Cir. 1984), a case decided some seven (7) months after Doe, the Fourth Circuit specifically held that personal and individual records can't be forcibly produced by any process, over a Fifth Amendment objection; see also United States v. Cates, 686 F.Supp. 1185 (D.Md. 1988); and United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991). In In Re Grand Jury Proceedings on Feb. 4, 1982, 759 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1985), it was determined that records of a party under investigation in the hand's of his attorney were entitled to protection under the Doe "act of production" rule. Further, there is no "tax exception" to this rule; see United States v. Troescher, 99 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, according to the rationale of these cases, the ompulsory production of private personal records cannot be obtained in view of a valid Fifth Amendment objection. Therefore, it is clear that the decision in Boyd still produces a legal result, even if from its "grave."

CONCLUSION

A summons or subpoena for individual books and records, either personal or business, can't be enforced over a Fifth Amendment objection because of the Doe "act of production" rule.

THE CIVIL PROCEEDING

The rule that a party or a witness can plead the right against self-incrimination in civil proceedings has been well established by an abundance of authority. In Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.Ct. 316 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court stated this rule as follows:

"The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future proceedings."

The subsequent decisions of Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 95 S.Ct. 584 (1975), and Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983), serve only to buttress this basic principle and apply it to specific situations. This rule is followed by the federal appellate courts; see In re Kave, 760 F.2d 343 (1st Cir. 1985); National Life Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 615 F.2d 595 (3rd Cir. 1980); Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1979); In Re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litigation, 620 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1980); In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161 (6th Cir. 1983); and United States v. Jones,703 F.2d 473 (10th Cir. 1983).

Decisions on this point by various state courts reveal that this rule is not a modern one. In Morris v. McClellan, 154 Ala. 639, 45 So. 641, 645 (1908), that Alabama court acknowledged that a party in a civil case could claim the right against self-incrimination. In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Hatas, 287 Ala. 344, 252 So.2d 7, 21 (1971), the court held:

"The privilege against self- incrimination afforded by section 6 of the 1901 Constitution of Alabama has been held available to a party in a civil action."

Similar decisions have been made by courts in other States in the Union. In State ex rel. Hudson v. Webber, 600 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Mo. App. 1980), a judgment debtor pleaded his right against self-incrimination in answer to questions posed to him regarding his financial affairs, his fear of incrimination being related to federal taxes. The court sanctioned the answers of this party:

"This privilege is available to a judgment debtor in proceedings pursuant to sections 513.380-513.390, RSMO 1978."

The great weight of other State authorities holds that the right clearly applies in civil cases; see Carson v. Jackson, 466 So.2d 1188 (Fla.App. 1985); Lewis v. First American Bank of Palm Beach, 405 So.2d 300 (Fla.App. 1981); Travis Meat & Seafood Co. v. Ashworth, 127 Ga. App. 284, 193 S.E.2d 166 (1972); In re Zisook, 88 Ill.2d 321, 430 N.E.2d 1037 (1982); Martincich v. City of Hammond, 419 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. App. 1981); Whippany Paper Board Co. v. Alfano, 176 N.J.S. 363, 423 A.2d 648 (1980); Banca v. Town of Phillipsburg, 181 N.J.S. 109, 436 A.2d 944 (1981); People ex rel. Anonymous v. Saribeyoglu, 131 Misc. 2d 647, 501 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1986); Byrd v. Hodges, 44 N.C.App. 509, 261 S.E.2d 269 (1980); Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Parklawn Manor, Inc., 41 Ohio St.2d 47, 322 N.E.2d 642 (1975); Rey v. Means, 575 P.2d 116 (Okl. 1978); Caloric Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 452 A.2d 907 (Pa. Comwlth. 1982); Ex Parte Stringer, 546 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.App. 1985); Smith v. White, 695 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.App. 1985); Affleck v. Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, 655 P.2d 665 (Utah 1982); Eastham v. Arndt, 28 Wash. App. 524, 624 P.2d 1159 (1981); and In re Grant, 83 Wis.2d 77, 264 N.W.2d 587 (1978).

END NOTES:

[1] Pursuant to the 1982 TEFRA, summonses may now be issued solely for a criminal investigation, thus these decisions no longer have any effect.

[2] The statutory provisions regarding immunity grants are found in 18 U.S.C., §§ 6001, et seq.

Other Supreme Court Decisions

"The income tax system is a self-reporting and self-assessing one. It is based upon voluntary assessment and payment not distraint" Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 176

"Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government" Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863

"The legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted" Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465

"Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may adopt, conclude thematter, 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 expressed." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

"Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress" Blatt Co. v. United States, 59 S. Ct. 472

"The extension of tax by implication is not favored" Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon" Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635

"The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune. It was intended only to remove all occasions for any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary" Evans V. Gore, 253 U.S. 245

"In numerous cases where the IRS has sought enforcement of its summons pursuant to statute, courts have held that a taxpayer may refuse production of personal books and records by assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination." Hill v. Philpott, 445 F2d 144, 146

"To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self-incriminatory, is beyond the power of Congress" United States v. Lombardo, 228 F. 980,981

"The requirement of an offence committed willfully is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court" United States v Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 361

"A personal right that is not transferable or assignable is also not taxable. Damages for alienation of affections, defamation of personal character do not constitute income" United States v. Kaiser, 80 S.Ct. 1264

"Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or

employed. Income is not a wage or compensation fro any type of labor" Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739

"Tax on income derived from property was the equivalent of a direct tax on the

income-producing property itself and must be apportioned in accordance with provisions of Article I of the Constitution" Home Mutual Insurance Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 639 F2d 333

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making orlegislation which would abrogate them" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

"Because Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction, the presumption is that it is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Grace v. American Central Insurance Co., 109 U.S. 278

"Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in statutes." Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143

"The Fifth Amendment applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings" McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34

"If the defendant had a subjective good faith belief, no matter ow unreasonable, that he was not required to file a tax return, the government cannot establish that the defendant acted willfully" Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192

"(b) A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public program. It is true that the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial" Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana..., 450 U.S. 107

"The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233. On the other hand, [374 U.S. 398, 403] the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." Braunfeld v. Brown, 329 U.S. 14. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398

"It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege. 6 American [374 U.S. 398, 405] Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 390; Wieman v Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183,191-192; Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155-156. For example, in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, the Court recognized with respect to Federal Social Security benefits that "[t]he interest of a covered employee under the Act is of sufficient substance to fall within the protection from arbitrary governmental action afforded by the Due Process Clause." In Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, we emphasized that conditions upon public benefits cannot be sustained if they so operate, whatever their purpose, as to inhibit or deter the exercise of First Amendment freedoms." Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398

"Certain aspects of religious exercise cannot, in any way, be restricted or burdened by either federal or state legislation. Compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship is strictly forbidden. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166." Braunfeld v Brown, 366 U.S. 599

"For religious freedom - the freedom to believe and to practice strange and, it may be, foreign creeds - has classically been one of the highest values of our society. See, e. g., Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943); Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943); Martin v.City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 510 (1946). Even the most concentrated and fully articulated attack on this high standard has seemingly admitted its validity in principle, while [366 U.S. 599, 613] deploring some incidental phraseology. See Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 89, 95-96 (1949) (concurring opinion); but cf. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956). The honored place of religious freedom in our constitutional hierarchy, suggested long ago by the argument of counsel in Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 600 (1845), and foreshadowed by a prescient footnote in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), must now be taken to be settled" Braunfeld v Brown, 366 U.S. 599

"We conclude then that government regulation that indirectly and incidentally calls for a choice between securing a governmental benefit and adherence to religious beliefs is wholly different from governmental action or legislation that criminalizes religiously inspired activity or inescapably compels conduct that some find objectionable for religious reasons. Although the denial of government benefits over religious objection can raise serious Free Exercise problems, these two very different forms of government action are not governed by the same constitutional standard. A governmental burden on religious liberty is not insulated from review simply because it is indirect, Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-718 (1981) (citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, at 404); [476 U.S. 693, 707] but the nature of the burden is relevant to the standard the government must meet to justify the burden." Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693

"Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists." Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717- 718 (1981)

"The federal government has nothing approaching a police power" United States v. Lopez

"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar" United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95

"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction 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 territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction"

[New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]

"All legislation is prima facie territorial" [American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213, U.S. 347 at 357-358]

"There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States." [U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222]

"the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ..." [Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223]

"... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government" [Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82]

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction" [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist."

[Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." [Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]

"... Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown." [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633]

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative

agency and all administrative proceedings" [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528]

"If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." [Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42]

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously"....Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example....Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. [Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]

THE POLITICAL DIFFERENCE

DEMOCRAT	LIBERTARIAN	REPUBLICAN
	STAND FOR:
LIBERAL	MORAL	CONSERVATIVE
BIG GOVERNMENT	WE THE PEOPLE	BIG BUSINESS
WELFARE STATE	FREE STATE	POLICE STATE
DEPENDENCE	INDEPENDENCE	WARFARE
DEPARTMENTS	RIGHTS	INSTITUTIONS
SOCIALISM	LIBERTY	FASCISM
NO PRIVACY	YOUR PRIVACY	THEIR PRIVACY
WELFARE	CHARITY	GREED
REGULATION	COOPERATION	CONFISCATION
UNREALISTIC LAW	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW	EXISTING LAW
NO MORALITY	YOUR MORALITY	THEIR MORALITY
NO RELIGION	YOUR RELIGION	THEIR RELIGION
PAPER MONEY	SOUND MONEY	GOLD & SILVER
THE PRINTING PRESS	HARD WORK	THE PRIVATE MINT
TAX THE RICH	TAX CONSUMPTION	TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS
MAN IS THE ENEMY	LIES ARE THE ENEMY	NATURE IS THE ENEMY
REDISTRIBUTION	SHARING	HOARDING
"PASS THE CASH"	"FREE TO CHOOSE"	"LET THEM EAT CAKE"
METHADONE	TAX THEM	PRISON
JOSEPH STALIN	GEORGE WASHINGTON	ADOLPH HITLER
KARL MARX	THOMAS JEFFERSON	BENITO MUSSOLINI
GOVERNMENT ANARCHY	CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC	PRIVATE OLIGARCHY
SUBSIDIES	TOLERANCE	INTOLERANCE
LEFT	ADVANCED	RIGHT
POLITICAL ELITE	NO ELITE	RICH ELITE
BANKS	FARMS	BUSINESSES
BORROWING	SAVING	SPENDING
GOV’T. ABORTIONS	PERSONAL PROBLEM	NO ABORTIONS
REGULATED MARKET	FREE MARKET	PRIVATE MONOPOLIES
TOTALITARIAN	LIBERTARIAN	AUTHORITARIAN
BUREAUCRACY	INDIVIDUALS	ARISTOCRACY