Quest for Fair Trial in Concord, NH
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
1:07 PM
Sign the Ed and Elaine Petition
(click on image for addresses)
PLEASE WRITE TO Ed & Elaine!
Let them know that we still care!
To contribute to their commissary accounts,
GO TO the links below and click on "Inmate money page"
Click here to contribute to Ed's commissary account
Click here to contribute to Elaine's commissary account
Click here to read the legal pleadings in Ed & Elaine's case
Click here to read about the great "capstone right" of We The People: our "Right To Petition"
Click here to read about the Right-to-Petition “V” Protest
If you have not already done so, please register an account at MakeTheStand.com so that we may alert you to important news alerts regarding the Ed & Elaine stand.
*****************************
Business Speaker
ShowEdTheLaw.com
Aaron Russo RIP
1943 - 2007
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
SITEMETER
41 Comments:
Uh ... that is totally untrue. A comment to a post was posted on this website when the offer was first made showing them the law.
Nobody with any sense has any illusions that the "reward" will be paid.
Unless you have an impartial decider to determine whether the proof is satisfactory, and so long as Ed and Elaine are the ones who get to decide if the proof is adequate, I suspect that Ed and Elaine will "conveniently" fail to find *any* proof which would satisfy them.
This is the typical m.o. for these types of offers ... "show me the law, but I get to decide if the law you show me is actually the law." Of course, not surprisingly, nobody can ever show them the law.
Sorry you're wrong brian, no one has shown the law. I personally have been looking for it for over 7 years! Still no law in site that makes me liable to pay........
I guess there must be no law, no one seems to be able to find it.
Enlighten yourself watch “America: From Freedom to Fascism”. Watch Sheldon Cohen former IRS commissioner get cornered by Aaron Russo, and then drop the ball through his own fallacious arguments proving without a shadow of a doubt that there is no law.
Like I said, there's nothing anyone can say to you guys that will ever convince you.
I've been showing people the law for years ... and surprise, surprise ... tax protestors just don't see it.
But that's because they don't *want* to see it ...
I'm offering a million dollar reward to anyone who can tell me the correct answer to 2 + 2. I refuse to accept 4 for the answer, though.
Ok smart guy, what law makes the average American liable for an income tax?
If you have the answer back your word up on this thread. If you don’t, then don’t bother leaving another comment.
I know for a fact that you cannot site a statute that expressly demonstrates a tax liability.
And your failure to respond will be the proof.
2 + 2 (in base 3) = 11
May I have my million dollars, please. :)
IRC Sections 1, 63, and 63.
As cited by the DOJ in the Ed and Elaine Brown criminal trial motions.
Yawn.
The ironic part is that the dental practice property is no longer Ed's to pledge. The jury ruled that he forfeited the property, and the court issued a restraining order explicitly prohibiting him from pledging the property.
Not only that, but there's already a lien of $368,000 on the real estate since Elaine evaded New Hampshire business taxes as well.
I’m sorry you are incorrect. “IRC Sections 1, 63, and 63” do not convey liability. Please try again, send in your answers to Ed@ShowEdTheLaw.com.
The equivalent of "nuh huh" is all you have?
I have said it many times here and yet not a word about coming up with a way to prove one way or the other. The fact is there is no law but until there is a way to prove one way or the other the million dollar reward is mute.
My suggestion is to use the 537 questions from the we the people class action law suite. I would have to say that anyone who can answer those questions in the right way should win the million dollar prize if it still exists.
Joey tryed to use the IRS FAQ but we have disputed this false document. We have also made it very clear simply stating the 16th amendment is not an answer.
You must start with the constitution and the supreme court opinions following the enactment of the 16 amendment. So I say lets use the 537 questions and have those who are offering a prize to put it in writing, otherwise those who say it is all just garbage are right. I mean get real, there is no million dollars unless it is in trust, with rules set up and a way to answer and win. So far it is all hot air.
If ed is for real, then do as I suggest. His credibility is already falling by the way side.
Casey says:
"I’m sorry you are incorrect. 'IRC Sections 1, 63, and 63' do not convey liability. Please try again, send in your answers to Ed@ShowEdTheLaw.com."
Throw in sections 6012 which requires a person with a certain level of gross income to file a return, and section 6151 which requires that the person filing the return "shall pay" the tax shown on the return.
Even Irwin Schiff agrees that the words "shall pay" connotes liability. See page 83 of the Federal Mafia. But then, Irwin somehow manages to ignore section 6151.
As Casey proves, there's nothing anyone can ever say or show that will ever make them believe there is a law.
Tax protestors don't want to believe there's a law, so they've closed their eyes and they cover their ears while they shout "la la la la la la la la la la la la ... I am not hearing you ... la la la la la la la la la la la la."
You keep up bringing these pseudo arguments that have nothing to do with the foundation of the claim. The best way I can begin to describe this to you is by having you watch former IRS commissioner Sheldon Cohen literally bury the IRS when he retreats from solid argument with respects to the validity of the tax code.
Tax code is not positive law; Cohen claims that the code is given its power by the 16th amendment. Yet the lower courts do not always conform with the supreme court with respects to the interpretation of the 16th amendment.
Supreme court has always held that the 16th amendment gave the IRS no new taxing powers in both the following cases.
Supreme Court on the 16th Amendment:
__________________________
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
__________________________
“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...”
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
__________________________
These cases have never been overturned, Sheldon Cohen effectively dug the IRS’s own grave in this interview.
http://tinyurl.com/2krzsl
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
Yep, because as the court also noted (and which you omitted) Congress already had a complete and plenary power of taxation.
The 16th Amendment was not a grant of power, it was a clarification of how income taxes were to be categorized.
Congress ALREADY had the power to tax in Article I, section 8.
But tax protestors can't be bothered with inconvenient facts.
Congress does not have the power to lay and collect an ‘indirect excise’ tax on Americans, only direct taxes, or excise taxes, in which must be apportioned uniformly. The income tax is an indirect excise tax, which is unconstitutional as it applies to the American people.
The definition of income in the Constitution was given in the Eisner v. Macomber case and it turns on gains or profits that are made from some corporate activity, not wages or labor.
Doyle versus Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179, 1918. Here's what it said. The idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. In other words, it (income tax) doesn't mean wages. It doesn't mean dividends. It doesn't mean alimony. It means a gain or a profit arising from corporate activity.
How can I fill out a 1040 without violating my fifth amendment inalienable rights, especially considering that it is not a legal form, and does not conform to the paper work reduction act by displaying a valid Office of Management and Budget or (OMB) number?
How come government will not answers we the peoples questions? See questions here:
http://tinyurl.com/2lzsfw
Sigh ... Casey continues to prove that there's nothing that will convince him.
He says Congress can't lay an "indirect excise" when excises are most assuredly not direct taxes. Excises, duties and imposts, since the founding of this country, have not been considered to be direct taxes (meaning, that they're indirect taxes). Of course, logic is never the tax protestor's strong suit.
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros is not an income tax case, it's a case dealing with the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909. The court stating in the very first line: "This was an action to recover from the Collector additional taxes assessed against the respondent under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909"
Of course when the court is dealing with a CORPORATE tax they're going to talk about the income being from CORPORATE activities. I mean, duh. What did you think they'd talk about? Individual income?
As for Eisner v. Macomber, in the Glenshaw Glass case the Supreme Court clearly said that the definition of income used in that case was not exhaustive.
And also, can't forget Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, where the Supreme Court said that there is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them.
And now, Casey will attempt to again throw out more inappropriate and out of context court cases, all the while ignoring that I have pointed out the law which requires you to file and pay the tax ... look at sections 1, 61, 63, 6012, and 6151.
“We the People” have attempted to get the government to answer our questions and petition for redress.
The government has failed to respond, to the questions because if they were to answer these questions it would prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are operating constitutionally.
Here are the questions, the government will not answer them. Will you? No Answers, no Taxes!
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
LIABILITY
1. Admit that the Internal Revenue Code is found at Title 26 of the United States Code.
2. Admit that Title 26 of the United States Code is broken down into Subtitles.
3. Admit that income taxes are set forth in Subtitle A of Title 26.
4. Admit that Subtitle A contains Sections 1 through 1564.
5. Admit that estate and gift taxes are set forth in Subtitle B of Title 26.
6. Admit that Subtitle B contains Sections 2001 through 2663.
7. Admit that employment taxes are set forth in Subtitle C of Title 26.
8. Admit that Subtitle C contains Sections 3101 through 3510.
9. Admit that miscellaneous excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle D of Title 26.
10. Admit that Subtitle D contains Sections 4041 through 4999.
11. Admit that alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle E of Title 26.
12. Admit that Subtitle E contains Sections 5001 through 5872.
13. Admit that procedures and administration to be followed with respect to the different taxes addressed in Subtitles A through E are set forth in Subtitle F of Title 26.
14. Admit that Subtitle F contains Sections 6001 through 7872.
15. Admit that Congress enacted the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
16. Admit that when the Internal Revenue Service requests information from an individual, the Privacy Act requires the IRS to 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 which authorizes the solicitation of the information and
whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
(b) the principal purpose or purposes 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.
17. Admit that Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act at 44 U.S.C. § 3504(c)(3)(C).
18. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to include with any information requests, a statement to inform the person receiving 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.
19. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service complies with the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act by setting out the required statements on the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet.
20. Admit that the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act statements
which the Internal Revenue Service currently uses with respect to the federal income tax state that: "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. Your response is mandatory under these sections."
21. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 states: "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 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)."
22. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6011 states: "(a) General
Rule. When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for 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 . . .(f) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C."
23. Admit that subparts B and C referred to at Internal Revenue Code Section 6011(f) contain Internal Revenue Code Sections 6012 through 6017a.
24. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone
"liable for" a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5005, which states that: "(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1)."
25. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone
liable for a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5703, which states that: "(a)(1) The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed therein by section 5701."
26. Admit that the persons made liable at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5005 and 5703, for the taxes imposed at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5001(a)(1) and 5701, respectively, are the persons described at Sections 6001 and 6011 required to make returns and keep records.
27. Admit that Section 1461 is the only place in Subtitle A of the
Internal Revenue Code where Congress used the words: "liable for."
28. Admit that the person made liable by Congress at Section 1461 is a
withholding agent for nonresident aliens.
29. Admit that there is a canon of statutory construction, "expressio
unius est exclusio alterius", which means the express mention of one thing means the implied exclusion of another.
30. Admit that Congress could have, but did not, make anyone else other than the withholding agent referred to in Section 1461, "liable for" any income tax imposed in Subtitle A.
31. Admit that up until 1986, the statement required by the Privacy and Paperwork Reduction Acts set out in the IRS Form 1040 instruction booklet, mentioned only Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001 and 6011 as the authority to request information.
32. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has held in C.I.R. v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 89 (1959), and in U.S. v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 358-359 (1957), that a regulation that purports to create a legal requirement not imposed by Congress in the underlying statute is invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JURISDICTION
33. Admit that at Section 7608(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms.
34. Admit that at Section 7608(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than Subtitle E.
35. Admit that the term "person" as that term is used in Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 and 6011 is defined at Section 7701(a)(1).
36. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(a)(1) states: "The
term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."
37. Admit that trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies and corporations do not have arms and legs, do not get married, do not eat, drink and sleep, and are not otherwise included in what one not trained in the law would recognize as a "person."
38. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6012(a) states that: "(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 or more . . . ."
39. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain "persons," who are "individuals" and "estates and trusts." (See 26 U.S.C. § 1.)
40. Admit that the "individual" mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 is the same individual as mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 1.
41. Admit that the "individual" mentioned by Congress in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 and Internal Revenue Code Section 1 is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.
42. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is the Treasury Regulation that corresponds to Internal Revenue Code Section 1.
43. Admit that at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a)(1), the individuals identified at Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are those individuals who are either citizens of the United States, residents of the United States, or non-resident aliens.
44. Admit that the "residents" and "citizens" identified in 26 C.F.R. § 1.1- 1(a)(1) are mutually exclusive classes.
45. Admit that as used in 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-1, the term "resident" means an alien.
46. Admit that 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) states that: "Every person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen."
47. Admit that a person who is born or naturalized in the United States but not subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.
48. Admit that on April 21, 1988, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, in the case of United States v. James I. Hall, Case No. EV 87-20-CR, IRS Revenue Officer Patricia A. Schaffner, testified under penalties of perjury that the terms "subject to its jurisdiction" as used at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) meant being subject to the laws of the country, and that meant the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.
49. Admit that in the same case, Patricia A. Schaffner testified under oath the term "subject to its jurisdiction" could have no other meaning than the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.
50. Admit that when Patricia A. Schaffner was asked to tell the jury what facts made Mr. Hall subject to the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States, the prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Larry Mackey objected, and the court sustained the objection.
51. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is never required by the Federal courts to prove facts to establish whether one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
52. Admit that the United States Department of Justice and United States Attorneys, and their assistants, always object when an alleged taxpayer demands the Government prove that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the federal courts always sustain those objections, which means that the federal courts routinely prohibit the introduction of potentially exculpatory evidence in tax crime trials.
52(a). The IRS keeps a system of financial records on federal judges, IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agents, and U.S. Attorneys, which records cannot be accessed by the subject(s) under the FOIA or Privacy Act.
53. Admit that unless specifically provided for in the United States Constitution, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction in the states.
54. Admit that on December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental committee was commissioned on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell, Jr., and approved by President Eisenhower and his cabinet, named the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, and charged with the duty of studying and reporting where the United States had legal authority to make someone subject to its jurisdiction. (Note: this report hereinafter referred to as "the Report.")
55. Admit that in June of 1957, the "Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States" issued "Part II" of its report entitled "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States."
56. Admit that the Report makes the following statements:
a. "The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place."
b. "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,"
c. "The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,"
d. "On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government."
57. Admit that the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment means subject to both the jurisdiction of the several states of the union and the United States.
58. Admit that the "subject to its jurisdiction" component of the
definition of citizen set out at 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) has a different meaning than the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
59. Admit that a Treasury Regulation cannot create affirmative duties not otherwise imposed by Congress in the underlying statute. corresponding Internal Revenue Code section.
60. Admit that Congress defined a "taxpayer" at Section 7701(a)(14) of
the Internal Revenue Code, as any person subject to any Internal Revenue tax.
61. Admit that one who is not a citizen, resident, or non-resident alien, is not an individual subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
62. Admit that an individual who is not subject to the tax imposed by
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, is not an individual required to make a return under the Requirement of Internal Revenue Code Section 6012.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT/AMBIGUITY OF THE LAW
63. Admit these facts: the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Some of the State legislatures ratified the proposal on these dates: Maryland, on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; Delaware on January 28, 1790; Vermont on November 3, 1791; and Virginia, on December 15, 1791. This number of States was not sufficient for ratification of this amendment. Then some 84 years later on May 6, 1873, Ohio ratified this amendment. Interest in this amendment was rekindled when on March 6, 1978, Wyoming ratified this amendment. After this, other States ratified the amendment: Colorado on April 22, 1984; South Dakota on February 1985; New Hampshire on March 7, 1985; Arizona on April 3, 1985; Tennessee on May 28, 1985; Oklahoma on July 10, 1985; New Mexico on February 14, 1986; Indiana on February 24, 1986; Utah on February 25, 1986; Arkansas on March 13, 1987; Montana on March 17, 1987; Connecticut on May 13, 1987; Wisconsin on July 15, 1987; Georgia on February 2, 1988; West Virginia on March 10, 1988; Louisiana on July 7, 1988; Iowa on February 9, 1989; Idaho on March 23, 1989; Nevada on April 26, 1989; Alaska on May 6, 1989; Oregon on May 19, 1989; Minnesota on May 22, 1989; Texas on May 25, 1989; Kansas on April 5, 1990; Florida on May 31, 1990; North Dakota on May 25, 1991; Alabama on May 5, 1992; Missouri on May 5, 1992; Michigan on May 7, 1992; and New Jersey on May 7, 1992.
64. Admit that in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921), the Supreme Court concluded:
We do not find anything in the article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the states may be separated from that in others by many years and yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. These considerations and the general purport and spirit of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of to-day, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal.
65. Admit that the date of September 25, 1789, when the 27th Amendment was first proposed, is "widely separated in time" from the date of March 6, 1978, when Wyoming ratified this amendment.
66. Admit that pursuant to the United States Constitution, Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes.
67. Admit that the constitutionality of the 1894 income tax act was in question in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and that in this case, the Supreme Court found that Congress could tax real and personal property only by means of an apportioned, direct tax. Finding that the income from real and personal property was part of the property itself, the Court concluded in this case that a federal income tax could tax such income only by means of an apportioned tax. Further finding that as this particular tax was not apportioned, it was unconstitutional.
68. Admit that for Congress to tax today real or personal property, the tax would have to be apportioned.
69. Admit that for Congress to tax income from real and personal property without the authority of the 16th Amendment, such taxes would have to be apportioned.
70. Admit that in 1913, the following law, Revised Statutes § 205, was in effect:
"Sec. 205. Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States."
71. Admit that Revised Statutes § 205 provided that "official notice" of a State's ratification of an amendment must be received at the State Department.
72. Admit that on or about July 31, 1909, Senate Joint Resolution 40 proposing the ratification of the 16th Amendment was deposited with the Department of State and the same was published at 36 Stat. 184, and that this resolution read as follows:
SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.
JOINT RESOLUTION.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
J.C. CANNON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
J.S. SHERMAN,
Vice-President of the United States, and
President of the Senate.
73. Admit that on July 27, 1909, the same Congress adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which read as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine, respecting the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.
Attest: Charles G. Bennett
Secretary of the Senate
A. McDowell
Clerk of the House of
Representatives
74. Admit that not only did this resolution request that certified copies of favorable State ratification resolutions be sent to Washington, D.C., the States were expressly informed to do so by Secretary of State Philander Knox, who sent the following "form" letter to the governors of the 48 States then in the Union:
"Sir:
"I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a Resolution of Congress, entitled 'Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,' with the request that you cause the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your State for such action as may be had, and that a certified copy of such action be communicated to the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States. (See overleaf.)
An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. C. Knox"
75. Admit the following facts:
a. When California provided uncertified copies of its resolution to Secretary of State Philander Knox, Knox wrote the following to California Secretary of State Frank Jordan: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, transmitting a copy of the Joint Resolution of the California Legislature ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in reply thereto I have to request that you furnish a certified copy of the Resolution under the seal of the State, which is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States".
b. When Wyoming Governor Joseph Carey telegraphed Philander Knox news that the Wyoming legislature had ratified the 16th Amendment on February 3, 1913, Philander Knox telegraphed in return as follows: "Replying to your telegram of 3rd you are requested to furnish a certified copy of Wyoming's ratification of Income Tax Amendment so there may be no question as to the compliance with Section 205 of Revised Statutes."
76. Admit that on February 15, 1913, a State department attorney, J. Rueben Clarke, informed Secretary of State Philander Knox, in reference to the State of Minnesota, "the secretary of the Governor merely informed the Department that the state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment."
77. Admit that, in the official records deposited in the Archives of the United States, there is no certified copy of the resolution of the Minnesota legislature ratifying the 16th Amendment.
78. Admit that in the documents possessed by the Archives of the United States, there are no certified copies of the resolutions ratifying the 16th Amendment by California and Kentucky.
79. Admit that Mr. John Ashcroft is currently the Attorney General of the United States.
80. Admit that when Mr. Ashcroft was Governor of Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court rendered the following decision in a case involving Mr. Ashcroft, that case being Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985), where the Missouri Supreme Court held:
The senate and the house must agree on the exact text of any bill before they may send it to the governor. There may not be the slightest variance. The exact bill passed by the houses must be presented to and signed by the governor before it may become law (laying aside as not presently material alternative procedure by which a bill may become law without the governor's signature.) The governor has no authority to sign into law a bill which varies in any respect from the bill passed by the houses.
81. Admit that during hearings regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment in Massachusetts, Mr. Robert Luce made the following statement to the Massachusetts Committee on Federal Relations: "Question by the committee: Are we able to change it? Mr. Luce: No, you must either accept or reject it."
82. Admit that on February 11, 1910, Kentucky Governor Augustus Willson wrote a letter to the Kentucky House of Representatives wherein he stated as follows:
This resolution was adopted without jurisdiction of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States which had not been transmitted to and was not before the General Assembly, and in this resolution the words 'on incomes' were left out of the resolution of the Congress, and if transmitted in this form would be void and would subject the Commonwealth to unpleasant comment and for these reasons and because a later resolution correcting the omission is reported to have passed both Houses, this resolution is returned to the House of Representatives without my approval.
83. Admit that no State may change the wording of an amendment proposed by Congress.
84. Admit that on February 15, 1913, J. Reuben Clarke, an attorney employed by the Department of State, drafted a memorandum to Secretary Knox wherein the following statements were made: "The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording" (page 7). "Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment."
85. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
86. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and from any census or enumeration."
87. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to census enumeration."
88. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or renumeration."
89. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
90. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever sources derived without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, which amendment was approved on the ---- day of July, 1909."
91. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration."
92. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, with-out apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration:"
93. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:
"Article XVI. The congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and did submit the same to the legislatures of the several states for ratification;"
94. Admit that state officials who prepare and send "official notice" of ratification of constitutional amendments to federal officials in Washington, D.C., do not have any authority to change the wording of the ratification resolution actually adopted by the State legislature.
95. Admit that the "income" tax at subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code cannot be lawfully and constitutionally collected if the 16th Amendment is not a valid amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
96. Admit that the income taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not
apportioned, so if the 16th Amendment was not ratified, the taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not constitutional under Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
97. Admit that in 1913, Congress passed the following income tax act:
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum . . . and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.
98. Admit that Mr. Brushaber challenged this income tax as being unconstitutional. (See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1915).)
99. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the tax on income was an excise tax.
100. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent the income tax from being taken out of the class of excise taxes where it rightly belonged.
101. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court discarded the notion that a direct tax could be relieved from apportionment, because to so hold would destroy the two great classifications of taxes.
102. Admit that the Union Pacific Railroad was a United States Corporation located in the Utah Territory.
103. Admit that the privilege of operating as a corporation can be taxed as an excise.
104. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held a tax on income was a direct tax, but could be imposed without apportionment because the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
105. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Eisner:
a. The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, under the Act of August 27, 1894, c. 349, section 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553, it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the States according to population, as required by Art. 1, section 2, c1.3, and section 9, cl.4, of the original Constitution.
b. Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." 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.
c. 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. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be over ridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.
d. In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income" as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
106. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Second Circuit take the position that the income tax is an indirect tax.
107. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit take the position that the income tax is a direct tax.
108. (Note: Question to be provided later)
109. Admit that when Supreme Court Justices, Judges of the Courts of Appeals, and Presidents of the United States are unable to determine what a law is, that law is ambiguous.
110. Admit that when a law is ambiguous, it is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.
111. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution recognized two classes of taxes, direct taxes and indirect taxes.
112. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 and Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 4, required apportionment of all direct taxes.
113. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1, required all indirect taxes to be uniform.
114. Admit that in 1894, no one doubted that an excise tax was an indirect tax as opposed to a direct tax.
115. Admit that in 1894 Congress passed the following income tax act:
Sec. 27. That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and until the first day of January, nineteen hundred, there shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and every person residing therein, whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from any kind of property rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, a tax of two per centum on the amount so derived over and above four thousand dollars, and a like tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States. And the tax herein provided for shall be assessed, by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and collected, and paid upon the gains, profits and income for the year ending the thirty-first day of December next preceding the time for levying, collecting, and paying said Tax.
116. Admit that Mr. Pollock, a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, challenged the 1894 income tax on the grounds that the tax imposed was a direct tax that was not apportioned.
117. Admit that the majority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court found that the 1894 tax at Sec. 27 was a direct tax.
118. Admit that the minority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court in the Pollock case believed the 1894 tax at Sec. 27 was an indirect tax.
119. Admit that the United States Supreme Court held the 1894 income tax was unconstitutional as being in violation of the apportionment requirements for direct taxes.
120. Admit that in 1909, President Taft called a special session of Congress for the purpose of amending the apportionment requirement of income taxes.
121. Admit that during the congressional debate on the income tax amendment, it was stated that the income tax would not touch one hair of a working man's head.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGHT TO LABOR
122. Admit that it was the intent of Congress to require "individuals" to make income tax returns based upon receipt of more than a threshold amount of gross income even if the individual ends up not "liable for" a tax on that gross income.
123. Admit that the "gross income" mentioned in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code is the "gross income" as set forth at Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
124. Admit that Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income" from whatever source derived, but does not define "income."
125. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude what "income" is, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
126. Admit that the definition of income as it appears in Section 61(a) is based upon the 16th Amendment and that the word is used in its constitutional sense.
127. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has defined the term income for purposes of all income tax legislation as: The gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.
128. Admit that in the absence of gain, there is no "income."
129. Admit that there is a difference between gross receipts and gross income.
130. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that one's labor constitutes property.
131. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (concurring opinion of Justice Fields) (1883), that:
It has been well said that, "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.
132. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that contracts of employment constitute property.
133. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1914) that:
The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each-is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.
134. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that a contract for labor is a contract for the sale of property.
135. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has stated in Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908) that:
In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment (5th Amendment). Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor.
136. Admit that Congress recognizes at Section 64 of the Internal Revenue Code that "ordinary income" is a gain from the sale or exchange of property.
137. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Sections 1001, 1011 and 1012 provide the method Congress has set forth for determining the gain derived from the sale of property.
138. Admit that Section 1001(a) states that: "The gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining gain . . . ."
139. Admit that Section 1001(b) states that: "The amount realized from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received."
140. Admit that Section 1011 states that: "The adjusted basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property, whenever acquired, shall be the basis (determined under section 1012...), adjusted as provided in section 1016."
141. Admit that Section 1012 states that: "The basis of property shall be the cost of such property . . . ."
142. Admit that the cost of property purchased under contract is its fair market value as evidenced by the contract itself, provided neither the buyer nor sell were acting under compulsion in entering into the contract, and both were fully aware of all the facts regarding the contract.
143. Admit that in the case of the sale of labor, none of the provisions of Section 1016 of the Internal Revenue Code are applicable.
144. Admit that when an employer pays the employee the amount agreed upon by their contract, there is no excess amount realized over the adjusted basis, and thus no gain under Section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code.
145. Admit that if one has no gain, one would have no income.
146. Admit that if one has no income, one would have no "gross income."
147. Admit that in the absence of "gross income," one would not be required to make a return under Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code. (See 26 U.S.C. § 6012.)
148. Admit that Section 6017 of the Internal Revenue Code requires individuals, other than nonresident alien individuals, to make a return if they have net earnings from self-employment of $400 or more.
149. Admit that the term "net earnings from self-employment" is defined at Section 1402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as follows:
"The term 'net earnings from self-employment' means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual . . . ."
150. Admit that in the absence of "gross income," one would not have more than $400 of "net earnings from self-employment."
151. Admit that the "taxable income" upon which the income tax is imposed in Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code is defined at Section 63 of the Internal Revenue Code.
152. Admit that the term "taxable income" is defined differently for those who itemize deductions and those who don't itemize deductions.
153. Admit that for those who do itemize deductions, the term "taxable income" means "gross income" minus the deductions allowed by Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, other than the standard deduction.
154. Admit that for those who do not itemize deductions, the term "taxable income" means "adjusted gross income" minus the standard deduction and the deduction or personal exemptions provided in section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code.
155. Admit that for individuals, the term "adjusted gross income" means gross income minus certain deductions.
156. Admit that in the absence of "gross income" an individual would have no "adjusted gross income" and no "taxable income."
157. Admit that in the absence of taxable income, no tax is imposed under Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
158. Admit that employment taxes are contained in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code.
159. Admit that the taxes imposed in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code are different than the taxes imposed in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.
160. Admit that The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax contained in Subtitle C at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is imposed on the individual's "income."
161. Admit that the rate of the tax set out at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is a percentage of the individual's wages.
162. Admit that the term "income" as used at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is the same income as used in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.
163. Admit that if one has no income, one is not subject to the tax imposed at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code.
164. Admit that The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on employers contained in Subtitle C at Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code is an excise tax on employers with respect to their having employees.
165. Admit that at Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code, employers are directed to withhold from wages paid to employees, a tax determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
166. Further admit that Congress does not identify the Section 3402 "tax determined" as either a direct tax, an indirect tax, and/or an "income" tax.
167. Admit that Congress made the employer liable for the Section 3402 tax at Section 3403 of the Internal Revenue Code.
168. Admit that at Section 3501 of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to collect the taxes imposed in Subtitle C and pay them into the Treasury of the United States as internal revenue collections.
169. Admit that Congress has not anywhere imposed the tax described at Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code.
170. Admit that at Section 31 of the Internal Revenue Code, the amount of the Section 3402 tax on wages is allowed as a credit against the income tax imposed in Subtitle A.
171. Admit that if one does not have any tax imposed at Subtitle A for any reason whatsoever, the law enacted by Congress at Section 3402(n) of the Internal Revenue Code constitutes an exemption of the tax described at Section 3402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
172. Admit that a typical American family works until noon of every working day just to pay its alleged tax obligations.
173. Admit that the typical American family pays more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.
174. Admit that there are currently over 480 tax forms.
175. Admit that the federal tax code contains over 7 million words.
176. Admit that over 1/2 of Americans are paying some sort of tax professional to help them comply with alleged tax law requirements.
177. Admit that each year the Internal Revenue Service sends out approximately 8 billion pages of tax forms and instructions, generating enough paper to stretch 28 times around the Earth.
178. Admit that Americans spend approximately 5.4 billion labor hours and $200 billion dollars per year attempting to comply with alleged tax requirements - more time and money than it takes to produce every car, truck, and van each year in the United States.
179. Admit that in 1913, the average American family had to work only until January 30th before earning enough to pay all alleged tax obligations. (See Tax Facts.)
180. Admit that the average American family had to work all the way through May 12th in order to pay their alleged federal, state, and local tax bills for the year 2000.
181. Admit that economist Daniel J. Mitchell recently observed that: "[Medieval serfs] only had to give the lord of the manor a third of their output and they were considered slaves. So what does that make us?"
182. Admit that the average Wisconsin citizen had to work until May 9th this year to pay all alleged tax obligations.
183. Admit that Americans own less of their labor than feudal serfs.
184. Admit that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
185. Admit that if Congress can constitutionally tax a man's labor at the rate of 1%, then Congress is free, subject only to legislative discretion, to tax that man's labor at the rate of 100%.
186. Admit that "peonage" is a condition of servitude compelling a man or woman to perform labor in order to pay off a debt.
187. Admit that "peonage" is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
188. Admit that the U.S. Congress abolished peonage in 1867.
189. Admit that holding or returning any person to a condition of peonage is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1581.
190. Admit that involuntary servitude means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for another by use or threat of physical restraint or injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or legal process.
191. Admit that if an American stops turning over the fruits of his or her labor to the federal government in the form of income tax payments, he suffers under the risk of possible criminal prosecution and incarceration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRA - APA - REGULATIONS
192. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq., mandates that forms and regulations of federal agencies that require the provision of information must bear and display OMB control numbers.
193. Admit that 1 C.F.R. § 21.35 requires that OMB control numbers shall be placed parenthetically at the end of a regulation or displayed in a table or codified section.
194. Admit that the following tax regulations contain OMB control numbers at the end of these regulations:
26 C.F.R. §1.860-2
26 C.F.R. §1.860-4
26 C.F.R. §1.897-1
26 C.F.R. §1.901-2
26 C.F.R. §1.901-2A
26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-1T
26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-2T
26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-3T
26 C.F.R. §1.1445-7
26 C.F.R. §1.1461-1
26 C.F.R. §1.1461-2
26 C.F.R. §1.1462-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6046-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6050J-1T
26 C.F.R. §1.6151-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6152-1
26 C.F.R. §1.6154-4
26 C.F.R. §1.9200-2
26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)(8)(A)-1
26 C.F.R. §31.3501(a)-1T
26 C.F.R. §301.6324A-1
26 C.F.R. §301.7477-1
195. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6012 does not specify where tax returns are to be filed.
196. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6091 governs the matter of where tax returns are to be filed.
197. Admit that by the plain language of §6091, regulations must be promulgated to implement this statute.
198. Admit that in 5 U.S.C. § 551, a "rule" is defined as:
"(4) a 'rule' means the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or p
articular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency . . . ."
199. Admit that 5 U.S.C. §552 describes in particular detail various items which must be published by federal agencies in the Federal Register, as follows:
"(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public--
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the
members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain
information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all
formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at
which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and content of
all papers, reports, or examinations;
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by
law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability
formulated and adopted by the agency; and
(E) each amendment, revision or repeal of the foregoing."
200. Admit that the Department of the Treasury as well as the IRS acknowledge the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in 31 C.F.R. § 1.3 and 26 C.F.R. § 601.702.
201. Admit that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue promulgated the Treasury Regulation set out at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 to collect and display 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.
202. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service intended that 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 comply with the requirements of OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, for the display of control numbers assigned by OMB to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations. (See 26 C.F.R. § 602.101.)
203. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 602.101(c) displays a table (the "Table") which on the left side lists the CFR part or section where the information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service is identified and described, and on the right side, lists the OMB control number assigned to the OMB-approved form to be used to collect the information so identified and described.
204. Admit that the Table displayed at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 in the 1994 version of the Code of Federal Regulations lists 1.1-1 as a CFR part or section that identifies and describes information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.
205. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 relates to the income tax imposed on individuals by 26 U.S.C. § 1.
206. Admit that the OMB control number assigned to the form to be used to collect the information identified and described at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is 1545-0067.
207. Admit that the OMB control number 1545-0067 is assigned to the IRS Form 2555.
208. Admit that the IRS Form 2555 is titled "Foreign Earned Income".
209. Admit that the IRS Form 2555 is used to collect information regarding foreign earned income.
210. Admit that the OMB control number assigned to the IRS Form 1040 Individual Income Tax Return is 1545-0074.
211. Admit that the Table set out at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 has never displayed the OMB control number 1545-0074 as being assigned to the collection of individual income tax information identified and described by 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.
212. Admit that the OMB has not approved the IRS Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return as the proper form on which to make the return of individual income tax information identified and described at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.
213. Admit that the Table displayed at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 in the 1995 version of the Code of Federal Regulations does not list 1.1-1 as a CFR part or section that identifies and describes information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.
214. Further admit that the Internal Revenue Service caused the entry for 1.1-1 to be deleted from 26 C.F.R. § 602.101, by publishing the deletion at 59 FR 27235, on May 26, 1994.
215. Further admit that the published deletion was accomplished under the supervision of Internal Revenue Service employee Cynthia E. Grigsby, Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
216. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service tracks every working American through a computer-based records system.
217. Admit that Treasury System of Records 24.030 is titled as follows: "Individual Master File (IMF); Returns and Information Processing. D:D:R--Treasury/IRS".
218. Admit that the Individual Master File relates to: "Taxpayers who file federal individual income tax returns (i.e., forms 1040, 1040A) and power of attorney notifications for individuals."
219. Admit that the Privacy Act codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) states that: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall- . . . . maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determinations about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination . . ."
220. Admit that the Privacy Act codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6) states that: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall- . . . . prior to disseminating any record about an individual to any person other than an agency, unless the dissemination is made pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section, make reasonable efforts to assure that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes . . ."
221. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is subject to the Privacy Act requirements codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) and (6), which requirements are set out in relevant part at 219-20, above.
222. Admit that the Individual Master File computer records use various codes to represent agency actions, determinations, and transactions regarding taxpayers.
223. Admit that Document 6209 is the IRS reference guide which describes the meaning of most of the codes used on the Individual Master File record.
224. Admit that the Law Enforcement Manual 3(27)(68)0 is the underpinning authority for the Document 6209.
225. Admit that the taxpayer's IMF account number is the taxpayer's social security number.
226. Admit that all returns and transactions processed on the Individual Master File must contain the taxpayer's correct social security number.
227. Admit that an account freeze is placed on an Individual Master File record to indicate that the social security number on the record is invalid.
228. Admit that no transactions can be posted to an Individual Master File entity module which is identified by an invalid social security number.
229. Admit that a "VAL-1" code posted on an Individual Master File record means an invalid social security number freeze has been released.
230. Admit that the "VAL-1" invalid social security number freeze release indicator is effective only during the calendar year to which it has been posted.
231. Admit that the "VAL-1" invalid social security number freeze release indicator allows the Internal Revenue Service to post transactions to an Individual Master File record which has been frozen because the social security number on that IMF record is invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURTS ARE CLOSED
232. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 7203 imposes a penalty for the crime of willful failure to file a tax return.
233. Admit that Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. 7203 in August, 1954. (See 26 U.S.C. 7203, credits and historical notes.)
234. Admit that the United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) stated: "[w]e assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation."
235. Admit that Congress enacted 44 U.S.C. § 3512 in 1980.
236. Admit that 44 U.S.C. § 3512 states that:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control
number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to
the collection of information that such person is not required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
237. Admit that United States Supreme Court Chief Judge Taney in 1863 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.
238. Admit that United States District Court Judge Walter Evans, in 1919 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.
239. Admit that United States Circuit Court Judge Joseph W. Woodrough in 1936 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.
240. Admit that United States District Court Judge Terry J. Hatter and other federal court judges in the 1980s protested the constitutionality of taxes as applied to them.
241. Admit that even in criminal cases where a loss of freedom can be the result, American citizens who are not judges are precluded by the federal judiciary, and with the express approval and consent of the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney, from arguing the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to them.
242. Admit that the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government label Americans who challenge the legality of the federal income tax as "tax protesters."
243. Admit that United States Supreme Court Chief Judge Taney submitted his protest in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury.
244. Admit that letters of protest written to the Secretary of the Treasury by American Citizens are used by the Executive branch of government, and accepted by the Judicial branch of government, as proof of income tax evasion and conspiracy against those who write the letters.
(NOTE: questions 245 - 254 do not exist at this time)
255. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, the statutory procedure authorized by Congress for the determination of the amount of tax due is the "deficiency" procedure set forth at subchapter B of Chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code, commencing at Section 6211.
256. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, Congress mandated at Section 6212 that the individual is required to be served a "notice of deficiency" setting forth the amount of tax imposed by Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code per Section 6211 of the Internal Revenue Code.
257. Admit that the tax imposed upon individuals required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is imposed upon the individual's "taxable income."
258. Admit that the Section 6020(b) requirement for the Secretary to make the required Section 6012(a) return is to require the Secretary to compute the taxpayers taxable income so the correct amount of tax owed can be calculated.
259. Admit that when an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, and the Internal Revenue Service issues a notice of deficiency, the amount of tax claimed as due by the Secretary is not based upon the taxable income, but is computed without regard to the requirements of Sections 62 and 63 of the Internal Revenue Code from which adjusted gross income and taxable income are computed from gross income.
260. Admit that the IRS attempts to obtain assessments of more tax than would otherwise be required by law as an unauthorized additional penalty on those who are required to, but do not, make federal income tax returns.
261. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6001 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to keep records, render statements, make returns and to comply with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
262. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
263. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.
264. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.
265. Admit that Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code states:
If any person fails to make any return required by an 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.
266. Admit that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code has Congress indicated that the word "shall" as used in Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code has a different meaning than as used in Sections 6001, 60011 and/or 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code.
267. Admit that in the absence of a Congressionally declared distinction for a word used in the same Code (here the Internal Revenue Code), in the same subtitle (here Subtitle F), in the same Chapter (here Chapter 61) and in the same Subchapter (here subchapter A) to be given a different meaning, the same word is to be given the same meaning.
268. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, the Secretary of the Treasury does not make the return mandated by Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.
269. Admit that the IRS computer system, the IDRS (Integrated Data Retrieval Systems) was programmed to require a tax return to be filed in order to create a tax module for each taxable year.
270. Admit that if an individual required to make and file a return under Section 6012(a) fails to file such a return, that the Secretary creates a "dummy return" showing zero tax due and owing.
271. Admit that this "dummy return" sets forth no financial data from which the gross income, adjusted gross income or taxable income can be computed.
272. Admit that this "dummy return" is not signed.
273. Admit that a "dummy return" is physically created on the IRS Form 1040.
274. Admit that Congress has not authorized the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations that authorizes the creation of "dummy returns".
275. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS calls such a return a "zero return."
276. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS takes the position that no return has been filed.
277. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS takes the position that the return is "frivolous" and imposes a $500 penalty.
278. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain a signature made under penalty of perjury, the IRS takes the position that no return has been filed.
279. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain a signature under penalties of perjury, the IRS takes the position that the return is "frivolous" and imposes a $500 penalty.
280. Admit that an IMF record bearing the code "SFR 150" indicates that a fully paid IRS Form 1040a was filed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIFTH AMENDMENT
281. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6001 requires the keeping of records.
282. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 7203 makes it a federal crime not to keep the records required under section 6001.
283. Admit that the records required under 26 U.S.C. § 6001 contain information that will appear on the tax returns pertaining to federal income taxes.
284. Admit that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from compelling an American to incriminate himself.
285. Admit that the IRS currently uses the following: Non-Custodial Miranda warning:
In connection with my investigation of your tax liability I would like to ask you some questions. However, first I advise you that under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States I cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information. If such answers or information might tend to incriminate you in any way, I also advise you that anything which you say and any documents which you submit may be used against you in any criminal proceeding which may be undertaken. I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of an attorney before responding.
286. Admit that the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notices currently used by the IRS provides that the information provided in the preparation of a tax return can go to the Department of Justice who prosecutes criminal cases against the filers of tax returns.
287a. Admit that the "United States Attorneys' Bulletin, April 1998 edition, contained an article written by Joan Bainbridge Safford, Deputy United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, entitled: "Follow That Lead! Obtaining and Using Tax Information in a Non-Tax Case," hereinafter "Follow that Lead!".
287b. Further admit that the article states the following:
In any criminal case where financial gain is the prominent motive, tax returns and return information can provide some of the most significant leads, corroborative evidence, and cross-examination material obtainable from any source.
287c. Further admit that the article states the following;
In even the most straightforward fraud case, the usefulness of tax returns should be apparent . . . . the tax return information provides a statement under penalty of perjury which may either serve as circumstantial evidence of the target's misrepresentation of his economic status or as helpful cross-examination material . . . . Disclosure of tax returns may also provide critical leads and impeachment material.
288. Admit that the Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice set out in the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet states the following:
[W]e may disclose your tax information to the Department of Justice, to enforce the tax laws, both civil and criminal, and to cities, states, the District of Columbia, U.S. Commonwealths or possessions, and certain foreign governments to carry out their tax laws.
289. Admit that tax returns are used by the IRS to develop civil and criminal cases against the filers of the tax returns.
290. Admit that tax returns of a filer are used as evidence against the filer in both civil and criminal income tax cases.
291. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has held that a fifth amendment privilege exists against requiring a person to admit or deny he has documents which the government believes is related to the federal income tax.
292. Admit that the Fifth Amendment provides an absolute defense to tax crimes.
293. Admit that the Supreme Court has held that if one wants to assert the Fifth Amendment to an issue pertaining to a federal income tax return, one must make that claim on the form itself.
294. Admit that if one claims Fifth Amendment protection on an income tax form, that act can result in criminal prosecution for failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, or conspiracy to defraud.
295a. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice (the "Notice") set out in the IRS Form 730 instructions states that:
You must file Form 730 and pay the tax on wagers under section 4401(a) if you: Are in the business of accepting wagers, or Conduct a wagering pool or lottery.
295b. Further admit that the Notice states the following:
[C]ertain documents related to wagering taxes and information obtained through them that relates to wagering taxes may not be used against the taxpayer in any criminal proceeding. See section 4424 for more details.
296. Admit that in 1997, 5,335 tax audits resulted in criminal investigations of those tax filers. (Speculation: Tax Facts, etc., Ex. 099-104.)
297. Admit that Judge Learned Hand stated that:
Logically, indeed, he (the taxpayer) is boxed in a paradox for he must prove the criminatory character of what it is his privilege to suppress just because it is criminatory. The only practicable solution is to be content with the door's being set a little ajar, AND WHILE AT TIMES THIS NO DOUBT PARTIALLY DESTROYS THE PRIVILEGE,...nothing better is available.
298. Admit that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
299. Admit that the American people do not have to tolerate an income tax system in which the federal government requires a citizen to give up any constitutional rights.
Hence the tactic of the tax protestors.
Ignore what you post ... and keep asking questions.
Proving that it is pointless to attempt to reason with tax protestors.
Casey does not address the substance of what I wrote, pointing out the statutes which spell out the basic liability for the income tax.
Instead, Casey will keep asking "well, what about this ... and what about this ..."
It will never end.
People like Casey don't want to hear answers. They keep presenting "evidence" in the form of "questions" ... and the questions never end. And when they run out of questions, they just start right back at the beginning.
The careful reader will notice that I responded to Casey's citations, and yet he never responded, or admitted I was right. He simply ignored the response, and moved on to the next pat question and a different topic.
Now, he "responds" by posting a butt-load of questions which he somehow expects answers to.
Yeah, like I want to write a book in my spare time.
Furthermore, it is pointless to attempt to answer because any response or correction is simply ignored. Point out a tax protestor is wrong and they'll never admit it. They're like the Flat Earth Society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
We the people for constitutional education are being stone walled by government. With respects to questions on the income tax. I remember when a reporter asked Mark Evenson if Americans were required to pay the Tax. And even he would not answer the question; he resorted to rattling off opinion vs. addressing the question.
And you claim to be able to trump Sheldon Cohen, and Mark Evenson by fallaciously claiming that there is a law. You sir have not cited a law that requires the average American to pay the tax. You engage in double think and circular arguments, that have no substance.
Simply cite the law that requires me to pay, and end this meaningless trolling spree already. Address the facts, address the substance of the argument. Show us the law.
Section 1 imposes the tax.
Sections 61 and 63 provide (basically) what it means to have gross and taxable income.
Section 6012(a) states:
"(a)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 ..."
So, if ya got gross income over the exemption amount, ya gotta file.
Then, most importantly, section 6151(a) quite clearly states:
"Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax ..."
So, if you were required to file the income tax return (your gross income was over the exemption amount) the person who was supposed to make the return "shall ... pay such tax" shown as due on the return.
Not that hard really.
Of course, you will now flail away and tell everyone how you don't have to do any of that because _____ (fill in the blank).
I'm sure you'll come up with a 1,001 reasons why you don't have to pay.
Really, you don't *want* to pay, and so you'll justify it however you want.
I want to make sure that I fully comprehend your answer, your answer confuses me in two ways. Can you kindly answer these two questions for me?
________________
Section 6012(a) states:
"(a)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 ..."
________________
[Question 1]
Can you please define [income] as used in the term “gross income”, without the use of the word income in the text of the definition? What is your source for such definition?
[Example of what not to say:]
Bianary Fligelet: is any fligelet from all sources derived.]
As you can tell from that example I still do not know the definition of a fligelet.
________________
Then, most importantly (you said), section 6151(a) quite clearly states: "Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax ..."
Question 2: When is a return of tax required under this title or regulations?
________________
Brian said...
Section 1 imposes the tax.
Look you, are now saying what we have been saying about others here saying that you don't answer the questions just make more comments and la de da........
This has been going on for years, go to yahoo groups to argue the law. Those of us who have studied the law can dispute all the FAQ the irs putts out there. We bring up 861 t, the iRS says we are saying the tax law is unconstitutional.
The bottom line:::::::::::::::
A) The constitution was written to protect the individual, not governments.
1. Direct taxes must be apportioned
2. Seperations of powers
3. Make no laws abridging ....
B) The 16th amendment did not change the rules of apportionment.
1. the government can still tax us but only through the states.
2. In order for the irs to be right you have to throw away half the constitution and several amendments
C) we the people have our questions UNANSWERED.
How hard can it be.
http://www.givemeliberty.org
/bartlettresponse/
draftquestions01-22-02.html
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Admit or die alone with the rest of government who refuses to put the issue to a real debate
before anyone starts throwing 15,000 pages of regs at you hand them a copy of the measly 300 questions dealing with the topic of taxes found at
givemeliberty.org or on my file share
at http://www.esnips.com/web/bleap
laa tee daaa!!
Very good points, Kosmic.
I want to make sure that I fully comprehend your answer, your answer confuses me in two ways. Can you kindly answer these two questions for me?
You are only confused because you want to be.
And you keep proving my point that the questions will be never ending.
Casey, there will never be a point at which you are satisfied.
*************************
An income is defined to be:
"That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of professional business, or money or stock in funds, etc.; SALARY; especially the receipts of a private person or corporation from property."
This is the natural and obvious sense of the term, and is so used in the constitutional amendment and in this bill.
Senator John K. Shields, Congressional Record, August 26, 1913; pg. 3769
*************************
Notice the use of the word "salary." The definition is basically verbatim from the 1913 Webster's dictionary.
The Supreme Court has stated:
*************************
The starting point in the determination of the scope of "gross income" is the cardinal principle that Congress in creating the income tax intended "to use the full measure of its taxing power." Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 (1940); accord, Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life Ins. Co., 300 U.S. 216, 223 (1937); Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 9 (1935); Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 166 (1925). In applying this principle to the construction of 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 12 this Court stated that "Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature[, but intended] to tax all [434 U.S. 77, 83] gains except those specifically exempted." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429 -430 (1955), citing Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 49 (1949), and Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84, 87 -91 (1934). Although Congress simplified the definition of gross income in 61 of the 1954 Code, it did not intend thereby to narrow the scope of that concept. See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., supra, at 432, and n. 11; H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., A18 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 168 (1954). 13 In the absence of a specific exemption, therefore, respondent's meal-allowance payments are income within the meaning of 61 since, like the payments involved in Glenshaw Glass Co., the payments are "undeniabl[y] accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the [respondent has] complete dominion." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., supra, at 431. See also Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243, 247 (1956); Van Rosen v. Commissioner, 17 T. C. 834, 838 (1951).
CIR v. Kowalski, 434 US 77 (1977)
************************
So, income is an accession to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the person has complete dominion.
And lest you think that only "gain" can constitute income, the Supreme Court does not share your view:
************************
Respondents' principal contention is that Virginia's revised regulations are inconsistent with the meaning of "income" and "resources" as those terms are used in the AFDC statute. To support this argument they first advance the broader proposition that it does violence to common usage to interpret "income" to include personal injury awards. This argument begins from the premise that since personal injury awards are purely compensatory, they do not result in any gain to their recipients. And since both general and legal sources define "income" as involving gain, see, e. g., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1143 (1976) ("a gain or recurrent benefit that is usu. measured in money . . ."); 42 C. J. S., Income, p. 531 (1944) ("In common speech `income' generally is understood as gain or profit . . ." (footnote omitted)); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 [481 U.S. 368, 375] (1920) ("`Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets . . ." (quoting Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918))), respondents conclude that personal injury awards cannot fairly be characterized as income. But the premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. See Watkins v. Blinzinger, 789 F.2d, at 476. Since the gain would have been income, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income. 2 More importantly, however, as Lukhard and the Secretary point out, general and legal sources also commonly define "income" to mean "any money that comes in," without regard to any related expenses incurred and without any requirement that the transactions producing the money result in a net gain. See, e. g., 5 Oxford English Dictionary 162 (1933) ("That which comes in . . . (considered in reference to its amount, and commonly expressed in money); . . . receipts . . ."); 42 C. J. S., Income, p. 529 (1944) ("Generally or ordinarily the term means all that comes in; . . . something which is paid over and delivered to the recipient; . . . without reference to the outgoing expenditures . . ." (footnotes omitted)); Heckler v. Turner, 470 U.S. 184 (1985) ("income" under the AFDC statute means gross income, without reference to expenses reasonably attributable to its earning). Heckler is particularly significant, since there we indicated that the part of an employee's salary that is allocated to work-related expenses - clearly not a gain in the sense that term is used by respondents - is properly treated as "income" under the AFDC statute. Id., at 202. Although that conclusion [481 U.S. 368, 376] was based in part on a provision not involved in this case, it demonstrates that the AFDC statute itself contradicts the theory that payments that do not constitute gain (as respondents use the term) to their recipients cannot reasonably be described as "income."
Lukhard v. Reed, 481 US 368 (1987)
***********************
As to when a return is required, section 6012 quite clearly says that a return is required when you have gross income in excess of the exemption amount.
26 CFR 1.6012-1(6) clearly states which form is used ...
**************************
(6) Form of return. Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this paragraph.
**************************
Glad I could end your confusion.
I assume that will be all the questions you have.
Your reading of the courts rulings make sense only if you realize the government is not specific as to where the federal zone or authority of the federal government is and that the exemptions are also fundamental law as well as in statutes. You have to realize the courts the government and the lawyers for the government are all trying to hide the fact that labor is property and protected under the constitution. There are many inconsistancies in court rulings or we would not be where we are today. Title 26 applies very well to certain groups and those who want it to, but any american who knows the constitution, understands the difference between federal law and living in one of the several states knows the fed gov. has pushed it's way into our lives without justification. That is why you can not answer the question of SHOW ME THE LAW with out answering all the WE THE PEOPLE questions. Everything hinges on what authority does the fed gov have to legislate or me the individual, exercising a GOD given right to labor and property and justice. Proof is more than a statute. It is a complete understanding of the articles of confederation, the constitution, the bill of rights, positive law, supreme court opinions in context and the will and rights of the individuals, not groups, not governments, not the majority.
The income tax as applied today is because of all the encroachment the gov has made over the year and there is no way to undo it all without a hard look at what the founding fathers expected from government. The conversations here proves there is no hope except to go all the way back to the beginning and try again. Our republic has failed due to poor education, too many asleep and those willing to give up over half of their labor so a few federal agencies can control their futures. If an individual can not hold up the constitution and be sure of it's meaning and to be protected by it's clear and written language then we are at the mercy of those who speak in confusing regulations and self made concepts of freedom. We have become slaves of the evil and can not even support our selves or families any more.
Brian has posted an apparent quote from some guy in 1913 (SEN. John K Shields) it says....
An income is defined to be:
(That gain) which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of professional business, or money or stock in funds, etc.; This is the natural and obvious sense of the term, and is so used in the constitutional amendment and in this bill."
Senator John K. Shields, Congressional Record, August 26, 1913; pg. 3769
I removed the last sentence from the first paragraph (cuz it looks like it was tacked on) and Brian wants us to "take note of" (the use of the word SALARY)in this (obviously out of context add on) anyway, ...take note below...
(SALARY; especially the receipts of a private person or corporation from property.)"
Well Brian, thanks for that little Easter egg! sounds like Senator John K. Shields agrees with the tax truth movement...(most of us truthers agree that corporate activity should be taxed)... Duh !!!!
The thing is...not everyone engages in corporate activity.(I know that I dont)
Most working Americans work by the hour or (by the job to be done) and dont have any money that just "comes in"......(we gotta go out and get it!)and that means work 40 hrs or get-r-done.!
(maybe one day I will save enough money to invest in Halliburton, Blackwater or Exxon Mobil Texaco)...not!
If I invest enough....(or start a profitable corporation)I will be able to sit back and watch the money just "come in" and then,(only then) I will have "income"
"Lifetimenotfiler" makes and excellent point, income turns on corporate gains not a personal exchange of property. I mean even the IRS code will not be so direct as to define income, because if they did that, they would be hanging themselves in the process.
Now one question I have is were they able to deceive an entire nation into believing that each and every man woman and child are corporate souls, dead fictions vs. living souls?
Who knows maybe by misapplying the principles of English Punctuation, then the average person is willing to be a corporation through their very own ignorance. It’s speculative, its food for thought . And Brian you probably have no clue what I am saying, which is perfectly fine.
As people how can we contract and operate in commerce, how can we sail the high seas of admiralty-maritime without some type of seafaring vessel? Are you the boat, or are you the sailor? If you are the sailor do you own the boat, or does the boat own you?
Hahahaha ... lifetimenonfiler says
I removed the last sentence from the first paragraph (cuz it looks like it was tacked on) and Brian wants us to "take note of" (the use of the word SALARY)in this (obviously out of context add on) anyway ...
Without any real reason for saying it's "out of context" other than his say so.
In other words, lifetimenonfiler doesn't like what it says ... so he'll just pretend I made it up and conveniently "remove" it.
Furthermore, lifetimenonfilers statement regarding "corporate" income ignores that the definition talks about private and corporate receipts. And of course, he simply ignores that "salary" was considered income.
As I said, Shield's definition is an almost verbatim restatement of the definition of income from the 1913 Webster's dictionary. Here is that definition (see no. 3) ...
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=income
The tax protestor will now squirm and wiggle trying to rationalize away the plain meaning of income.
Of course, they now have other reasons why words don't mean what they say, why the court didn't really mean what it said, and they'll continue to have other reasons not to pay.
Tax protestors only prove that it has nothing to do with the law. The only reason they bring the law into it is to attempt to rationalize their silly beliefs. They have no real interest in being intellectually honest ... they just don't want to pay ... period.
I could post information, the law, court cases, treatises, and other legal authority until my hands fall off from typing. None of it will ever matter to tax protestors.
Here's the definition of income from the 1913 Webster's again.
The Supreme Court has held numerous times that "income" is a corporate profit, not wages, salaries, or dividends. You know very well Brian that legal terminology or legalese is a language unto itself.
So the common use of the word income, has nothing to do with the use of the word in the legal sense. Which is why the IRS refuses to define income in the IRC.
Same thing goes with words like: Person, and Individual, the legal definition of these terms vary greatly from the common meaning as understood by non bar members.
You will never see a Webster’s dictionary in a court room. Try again bring me Blacks Law, we are not fools Brian and despite your efforts when the Supreme court determines that income is a corporate profit for the purposes of title 26, then income is a corporate profit. This is why the IRC will not define the word. Check and Mate.
Casey says don't use Webster's.
Never mind that the Supreme Court looked to Webster's in the case of Eisner v. Macomber: "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.) ..."
Furthermore, in Eisner, the Court said it needed a definition of income as commonly understood to determine its meaning in the 16th Amendment.
And Casey says that courts have defined it as corporate profit. Of course, I cited to Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, where the Supreme Court quite clearly said:
"There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them ..."
I know you want to say "checkmate" because it makes you feel better. But I'll simply note that while I cite the statutes, regs, and court cases ... you cite ....????
Oh yeah, you cut-n-paste questions from the We The People website. That's real authoritative.
_______________________
LUCAS v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
"It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not "salaries, wages or compensation for personal service" that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is "gains, profits and income derived" from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service. Salaries, wages or compensation for personal service are not to be taxed as an entirety unless in their entirety they are gains, profits and income. Since, also, it is the gain, profit or income to the individual that is to be taxed, it would seem plain that it is only the amount of such salaries, wages or compensation as is gain, profit or income to the individual, that is, such amount as the individual beneficially receives, for which he is to be taxed."
_______________________
The definition of income in the Constitution was given in the Eisner v. Macomber case and it turns on gains or profits that are made from some activity. (Constitutional Law Professor Edwin Vieira, Jr., in film referring to 1920 U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined taxable income as that arising from corporate activity, not wages or income)
_______________________
Where are the gains Brian, where is the profit...?
Sigh ...
Casey, the "quote" you cited from Lucas v. Earl is from the arguments of the losing attorney. It is not part of the decision.
You can take comfort in knowing that you're not the first tax protestor to make that mistake though.
Furthermore, I'll note that you (again) ignored the clear statement from the court in Lucas v. Earl saying that there is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them.
Since you have continued to demonstrate that you are not intellectually honest, I will not continue to debate with you. I'd have more luck arguing with a tree stump.
___________________
The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, ß ß 210, 211, 212
(a), 213 (a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income
of every individual including "income derived from salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal service . . .
___________________
Brian I don't disagree with the above court opinion, I do believe that income can be taxed from whatever source derived. However the fact still remains that income as defined constitutionally is a corporate profit.
So if a portion of someone’s wages, or salary, falls under the category of being a corporate profit then the tax would apply to the profit portion of the monies received and not the actual remuneration for services rendered.
Now you would like us to believe that the entirety of one’s wages or salary constitutes as an “income” or a corporate profit. Yet you cannot demonstrate the liability, you cannot determine what parts of wages and salary constitute as profit, and what part constitute as remuneration for service rendered or the fair exchange of labor for property.
You know damn well Brian that Wall Mart could pull in over 100 Billion dollars in one year, yet if only one million of that billion dollars is profit, then they pay the income tax on the one million dollars. They pay the tax on the corporations profits for the year.
So yes “income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . .” is taxable. However most Americans do not generate an income from wages, salaries, or compensation for personal service. This is why the IRS’s policy and procedure of voluntary self assessment is set up. It is used to prey on peoples ignorance, most people do not know that the constitutional definition of income is a “corporate profit”.
So they just assume that whatever monies earned that they receive is an income. This is a fallacy and the supreme court has ruled on multiple occasions that Income is a corporate profit. This is the reason that the IRS, will not define income in the IRC. Read it and weap, you know it’s true and you and all your buddies at the IRS, are fueling the destruction of this country. You can sit up there on your high horse thinking that you are a part of something but you’re a government provocateur, and we all know it.
Casey Lee Cobb is exactly correct. Compensation for labor is NOT income according to the Statutes. It doesn't matter what the ordinary definition of "income" is; the Statutory definition is what matters. The Supreme Court has settled the matter, several times: "income" means "gain from corporate activity".
Period, paragraph...
end of story.
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home