Letters used by people, submitted for informational and entertainment purposes.

Answer person made liable

(date)

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

(Address)

(Attention)

From: (Your name)   (Your address)

This is in answer to your letter dated (date of correspondence).

Sometime ago it occurred to me that various employees of the Internal Revenue Service in the past have acted upon misinformation in regards to myself being a person made liable and "that person" required to make a return and therefore inducing me to rely upon it to part with some valuable thing or to surrender a legal right by requesting that I fill out various forms, such as a waiver and others under penalties of perjury, when in fact the law may not require it of me.

An article published in the Anchorage Daily News, Thursday March 22, 1993, was brought to my attention, the heading of the article was, "IRS Demand Letters Are Wrong Nearly Half of the Time." The article states "Nearly half the 36 million letters the IRS mailed to taxpayers last year demanding additional tax and penalties were erroneous." The article went on to say, "Taxpayers confused by the law and afraid of challenging the Internal Revenue Service forked over $7 billion that they did not owe. Clearly, individuals are caving into questionable demands for more money that would propel them to the phone in a second if the bill came from some bank or credit-card company."

I can understand why you are so confused as you are trying to do your job. I must admit, I am utterly intimidated by the voluminous 6000 plus pages of the Internal Revenue Code. It is so vague, confusing and impossible to understand that even commissioner Roscoe Egger, Jr., IRS, admitted to an audience on November 30, 1984, in Baltimore that he didn't understand it.

"Any tax practitioner, any tax administrator, any taxpayer who has worked with the Internal Revenue Code knows that it is probably the biggest "mish-mash" of statutes imaginable. Congress, various Administrations and all the special interest groups have tinkered with it over the years, and now a huge assortment of special interest and pet economic theories have been woven into the great 'hodgepodge' that is today's Internal Revenue Service." IR-840123, 11-3-.84.

Even former President Reagan, while he was president has attested to the fact that the Code is impossible to understand. The President said in a 1984 Associated Press (AP) release:

"The government has the nerve to tell the people of the country, 'you figure out how much you owe us - and we can't help you because our people don't understand it either and if you make a mistake, we'll make you pay a penalty for making the mistake."'

Let me refer you to the government's own official publication No. 21 "UNDERSTANDING TAXES", issued by the Internal Revenue Service (1982). The IRS says that "you must decide whether the law requires you to file a return".

The income tax laws are so vague and contradictory, that it has become an impossibility for a law person to comprehend in order to abide by under penalty of perjury. One can not be bound to do what is impossible. Even tax experts can no longer positively ascertain a proper amount due.  The income tax laws contradistinctions exist throughout.  The complete Internal Revenue Code, January 1993 Edition, contains 2115 pages. Thus, fundamental fairness requires that,

"no man be held responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed." (Schull v. Virginia, 359 US 3448.)

This view is expressed in the maxim that

"an act does not render one guilty unless the mind is guilty."   (Actus non factim reum, nisi mens sit rea.)

And it has been held that

"a statute must set up ascertainable standards. "

(Winters v New York, 333 US 507, 92 L Ed 840, 68 s ct 665.)

"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law." (Champlain Refining Co. v. Corporation Cam. 286 US 210.)

"The Constitution does not require impossible standards."

(United States v Petrillo, 332 US 1, 1591 L ed 1877, 67 S Ct 1538.)

and

"the Constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden." (United States v Harris, 341 US 612.)

Since "impossibility" is a remedy that exists within the laws of contract, it has further been held that

"the law does not compel impossibility."   (Boyden v Untied States. 13 Wass 17)

and

"no man can be obliged to perform an impossibility."    (Jones v. United States, 96 US 24.)

And generally,

"where a legal impossibility of performance appears on the face of a promise there is not contract in respect to it." (Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 272 351.)

And even though the parties have entered into a binding contract and subsequently performance becomes impossible, the question arises whether the party undertaking to perform is excused from further performance so as not to be liable in damage for breach. In determining this question the courts have considered the presumed intent of the parties and the nature of the cause of impossibility. Reviewing the numerous decisions on the subject, it is believed that the general rule is supported by a weight of authority.

"Contracts against public policy or morality or contrary to statute as to consideration or thing to be done, are unenforceable." (Burke v child 21 Wall 441. 22 L Ed 623.)

Further and logically, according to law, "where the thing undertaken is impossible of performance, according to human experience, the agreement will be void."

In light of all this I decided I should start reading and studying the law. I read the Internal Revenue Code, Income Tax Regulations, IRS publications, and Internal Revenue Manuals made available to me. I read in IRS Publication #21, where IRS states, "you must make the decision if you are required to make a return and liable for the tax. "

In publication #334, I read where the IRS states,     "We follow Supreme Court decisions."

In the Legal Reference Guide for Revenue Officers, at 332, Constitutional Limitations, it states in part...

"However, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual rights must not be violated."

And in the Supreme Court case, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113 (1943), 1 read where the court declared,

"State may not impose an excise on individuals, exercising an enjoyment of a right secured by the Federal Constitution. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

In the Opinion of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.s. 746, 762, it was said by Mr. Justice Bradley, in the course of his concurring opinion in that case, that

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an in alienable right.  It was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal,' that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

and,

"The right to labor and its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law-right.  Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry." 48 Am. Jur. 2d, sec. 2, page 80.

Further, in this Supreme Court case, Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, at 589 (1897):  

"The liberty mentioned in the (14th) Amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of his faculties- to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; 'top pursue any livelihood or vocation and for that purpose, to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."'

Then I found in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1.

"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise tax entitled to be enforced as such... "

Also, the courts have said that:

..the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities as are also reached by the states in order to support their local governments. " Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.s. 107, at 154 (191 1).

It was also stated in this same case,

"...The limitation of uniformity was deemed sufficient by those who framed and adopted the Constitution. The courts may not add others."

And in this Supreme Court ruling:

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property -­partaking of the nature of each -- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property." Coppage v. Dansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915).

In the Supreme Court Case, Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, ph. 502 (1930), it was stated,

"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..."

Also it was stated

"...in view of the rule which requires taxing acts, including provisions of limitation embodied therein, to be construed liberally in favor the taxpayer."

In the Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 13 7, (1803). I found,

"The Supreme Court of the United States has not power to issue a mandamus to the Secretary of State of the United States, it being an exercise of original jurisdiction not warranted by the connotation. Congress have not power to give original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, in other cases than those described in the constitution."

and,

"An act of congress, repugnant to the constitution, cannot become a law.  The courts of the United States are bound to take notice of the constitution."

I found this stated in another Supreme Court case, Hale v. Henkel, 26 S. Ct. 370, 379 (1906),

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminal him.  He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefore, beyond the protection of his fife and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state.  It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved so long as it obeys the laws of its creation."

With all of the information and court cases that have already decided this issue in my favor, I am curious to find out why you still insist that I am a "person made liable" in section 6001 or 6011 in the IRS Code. May I please receive a logical explanation?

Sincerely,   (Your name)


Letters used by people, submitted for informational and entertainment purposes.


re: Frivolous return 1040 Form 1819

(Date)

Internal Revenue Service

(address)

(Attention)

From:   Name    Address

In your letter, form 1819, dated (date of correspondence), you claim that my tax return is a frivolous return.  You base your conclusion on the presumption that I have omitted income amounts specifically includible under IRS Section 61. I did a little research. You will be interested in my findings.

In the present Internal Revenue Code, properly named Title 26 of the United States Code in defining Gross Income, Congress has determined, by enacting Section 61(a), that every type of gain should be taxed unless it has been specifically excluded in some other part of the tax code. Section 61(a) provides:

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.. "

Notice that gross income in Section 61(a) is defined by using the term income, a term that has been defined by the Supreme Court as being gain on investment.

The "except as otherwise provided" clause anticipates specific non recognition provision.  A good example of a non recognition provision is IRC Section 103 which excludes the interest from certain state and local bonds from gross income. Or, those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government.

The 1939 26 CFR Section 9.22 (b)l has been omitted from the present code, but omitted does not mean repealed.  It has not and cannot be repealed, as this section is what enables a judge to say that the income tax is constitutional without perjuring him or herself.

The 1939 tax laws, once ratified, will remain valid until repealed as exemplified by the following statement found in 26 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1 (4-1-92 Edition), page 5:

Generally, the procedural rules of the [Internal Revenue] service are based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the procedural rules in this part apply to the taxes imposed by both Codes except to the extent specifically stated or where the procedure under one Code is incompatible with the procedure under the other Code.

Now, let us see if this is true. All we have to do is go to the part of Title 26 that talks about The Tax Court. that is found in Section 7442: JURISDICTION.

The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title, by chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Internal Revenue Code or 1939, by title II and title III of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 10-87), or by laws enacted subsequent to February 26, 1926 Source: Sec 1101, 1939 Code, substantially unchanged

To reiterate, the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution has not been changed except as to separate the source if incomefrom the income itself, permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income, by leaving the source (wages, salaries, fees for service, and first time commissions) free of tax (Brushaber supra) despite how some politicians interpret the 16th Amendment.

Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber supra, it was true under sec. 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is likewise true under sec. 61 (a) of the IRS Code of 1954. If there is no gain there is no income... Congress has taxed income and not compensation.

... one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them. 
Edwards v. Keith, 231 F111 (1916)

 

The U.S. Supreme Court said:

The liberty mentioned in that (14th) amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways- to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling to pursue any livelihood or avocation., and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, at 589. (1897)

The U.S. Supreme Court said:

As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent fights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" -- now that is so plain that its truth is recognized upon its mere statement --'that all men are endowed' - not by edicts of Emperors, or decreed of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' - that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime --'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these'- not grant them but secure them -­governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'"

Butchers, Union Co. V. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757 (1883)

 

The U.S. Supreme Court continues by saying:

Among these inalienable rights as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

 

It has been well said that, 'The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing, this strength and dexterity, in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.'

Butchers, Union Co. V. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 757 (1883)

 

In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

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 many or other forms of PROPERTY.

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915)

At least one court has declared that the term income is not even defined in the IRC.6 So, can I safely conclude that the lawful definition of Income is gain on investment and that it does not include wages, salary or first time commission?

U.S. v. Ballard 535 F.2d 400. 404 (8th Cir.)

Before you charge a frivolous penalty, I suggest you go back to the law library and do your own research.  You will find that what I am telling you is true.

Sincerely, (name)


Letters used by people, submitted for informational and entertainment purposes.


Me? I owe no State Income Tax

Date

State of California

Franchise Tax Board

P.O. Box 942867

Sacramento, CA 94267

In response to letter dated Date (see enclosed) I owe no State Income Tax.  I have no filing requirement with the State. I am not challenging or objecting to state taxes on constitutional, religious or moral grounds.  I am challenging them on Legal grounds. Legal objections cannot be considered "frivolous or lacking in merit.

STATEMENT OF BELIEF

I am not a taxpayer as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, and by extension the California State Code.  I have previously revoked all signatures with your organization. This revocation and rescission is based upon my rights in respect to constructive fraud as established in, but not limited to the cases of Tyler v. Secretary of State, 184 A,2d 101 (1962), and also El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d. 240 (1979) which stated, "Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument."

According to Title 28 sec. 2201 neither the courts nor the IRS have the authority to change my status as declared, from "NONTAXPAYER" to "taxpayer. I am now and continue to be outside of your jurisdiction.

The United States courts have ruled:

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.  THEY RELATE TO TAXPAYERS, AND NOT TO NONTAXPAYERS. The latter are without their scope. NO PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR NONTAXPAYERS, and NO attempt is made to ANNUL any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the SUBJECT nor of the OBJECT of the revenue laws"' Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238. (1922); Economy Plumbing and Heating- v. U.S., 470 F. 2d 585, at 589. (1972) (Emphasis added)

The ability to tax is given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.

The IRS does not have the ability to impose taxes. It may only carry out rules and regulations passed by Congress.

The Internal Revenue Service does not have the power to tax. Rather, it is responsible for administering and enforcing the internal revenue laws and related statutes which have been passed by Congress. (Congressional Research Services, 1988)

Congress may only impose taxes that are Constitutional.

The 16th amendment did not give Congress any additional power to tax. It effectively kept income taxes properly classified as excise taxes.

There are two forms of taxes described in the Constitution.

The United States Constitution divides all taxes into two classifications; direct taxes and indirect taxes. Direct taxes must be levied according to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes must be levied according to the rule d(uniformity. (Congressional Research Services, The library of Congress, 1984)

 

It is important to note and emphasize that these are classifications for purpose of how they may be levied, not denials of taxiing power. The Federal government may enact direct taxes, but if it does so, they must be apportioned among the States. (Congressional Research Services, The library of Congress, 1984)

The classification of direct taxes and the rule of apportionment is set forth in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census on Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The classification of indirect taxes and the rule of uniformity is set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which states:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

There are two types of direct taxes that must therefore be apportioned: taxes on property (real or personal) and "Capitation" taxes (head taxes). Congress has in the past levied taxes on property.

In the Act of August 2, 1813, 2 Stat. 53, Congress levied a direct tax on property totaling three million dollars, which the statute apportioned among the eighteen states and then wrong the counties (parishes) of each State. Thus, for example, $369,018.4:-4 was apportioned to Virginia and $6,354.50 of that amount apportioned to Fairfax County. Provisions for assessing and collecting the tax were contained in the Act of July 22, 1813, 3 Stat. 22. A direct tax on property totaling $20 million was levied in 1861, apportioned among the States, territories, and the District of Columbia. Act or August 5, 186 1, Section 8 12 Stat. 295 Congress has never enacted a "head tax'.(Congressional Research Services, The library of Congress, 1984)

All taxes which are not direct are indirect and subject to the rule of uniformity.  The rule of uniformity requires that an indirect tax shall not discriminate geographically. United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U. S. 74 (1983). !For example, it would violate the rule of uniformity to enact a special income tax rate for residents of the State of Texas; however, it does not violate the rule to have a special income tax rate for individuals throughout the Untied States who make over $50,000 per year.

Federal income tax is an indirect excise tax authorized under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Excise taxes are imposed on taxable activities.

A person's activities can be classified in two categories:

1. Activities which are taxable for revenue purposes.

2.    Activities which only involve the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as earning one's living by engaging in lawful, innocent and harmless activities.

 

It is important to make a distinction between these two types of activities because, as the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution". Murdock v. Pennsylvania 3 19 U.S. 105, at page 113. (1943)

Another reason for making this distinction is that as the Oregon Supreme Court said:

"Me individual, unlike the corporation cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing.  The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual's right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an EXCISE cannot be imposed." redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at page 819. (1930) (Emphasis added)

As a constitutionally protected right, a nontaxpayer's activity must be lawful, innocent and harmless.

The U. S. Supreme Court said:

"The liberty mentioned in that (14th) amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned." Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, at 589. (1897)

Citizens' unalienable rights, mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the Constitution are rights upon which the governments cannot impose a charge.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

The U.S. Supreme Court Said:

"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' -­not that is so plain that their truths is recognized upon their mere statement -- 'that all men are endowed' -- not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' -- that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime -- 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these' -- not grant them but secure them --?governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757. (1883)

The new 'evangel of liberty' is not new law, it's just good news about the 'law that is', and part of that law is, "Thou shall not steal"' By definition, an unalienable right cannot be legally or justly transferred to another. Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court make a distinction between the 'granting of rights' and the 'securing of rights, but made it clear that these inalienable rights cannot be legally taken away even by 225 million people with the help of their representatives in Congress.

In the United States, the majority, not even 225 million people, cannot vote away any individuals God-given rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court continues by saying:

"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their-faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

"The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have -been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore, be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.

"It has been well said that, 'The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property."' Butchers, supra, at 757.

The California Constitution further expounds on unalienable rights, which include the right to acquire property.

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. "Constitution of the State of California, Article 1, Sec. 1

In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property -- partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are EXCHANGED for money or other forms of PROPERTY. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14. (1915)

Excises are measured by income. Income is not the subject of the tax. All such taxes are indirect taxes, which are taxes imposed upon the happening of taxable events.

Income is not the subject or object of the tax, but merely the method of measuring the tax.  "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference on income which they duce. The income is not the, the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.' House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.

The only person who can be subject to such indirect taxes, and thus be a "taxpayer' as defined, is one who is involved in taxable events. So when the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on "taxable income' (see 26 U.S.C. 1), it is imposing a tax on the taxable events.

Because of the above facts, the courts have ruled:

(L)iability for taxation must clearly appear. Higley v. C.I.R. , 69 F. 2d 160 at 162-163 (8th Cir. 1943);

and,
reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals­ not specified in the states as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before appellation of "taxpayer" is bestowed upon them an (their property is seized and sold. A fortiori is the case where the liability is asserted by way of a penalty for a willful act. Botta v. Scanlon 288 F. 2d 504, (5nd Cir. 1961)

Therefore, the only person who can be subject to or liable for such a tax is one who is involved in a taxable event.

There are many ways in which a person can be involved with a taxable event. Here are four examples:

1. Be employed by the Federal Government.

Salaries and pay of officers and persons in the service of the united states.

 

And be it further enacted, That on and after the first day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all salaries of officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress, when exceeding the rate of six hundred dollars per annum, a duty of three percent on the excess above six hundred dollars....' (37th Con Ch. 1f9, 12Stat. 472. Sec 86)

2. Be involved with the production of taxable commodities.

Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax.  Now, the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules ' just will not apply.(Internal Revenue Investigation - Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, March, 1983)

3. Be a corporation:

"The individual, unlike the corporation cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing.  The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual's right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of w6ich an EXCISE cannot be imposed." redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at page 819. (1930) (Emphasis added)

4. Volunteer to donate or pay taxes by filling out a 1040 Form.

The Mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations and to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the integrity of the Service.(Donald C. Alexander, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1974)

 

Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. (Mortimer Caplin, Internal Revenue Audit Manual, 1975)

 

There is no doubt that better taxpayer assistance, more sensitive responsiveness to taxpayer complaints and problems and simpler tax forms and instructions are of great importance in achieving a high level of voluntary compliance with our tax laws.(Jerome Kurtz, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1979)

Which positive Statute law are you relying to determine that my activity can be defined as taxable?   Title 26, The Internal Revenue was never passed by Congress into law. Therefore, it is only prima facie law. The definition of Prima facie law is as follows:

Prima facie. At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary; such as will prevail until contradicted by other evidence.

This question stems from the fact that some titles of the United States Code (U.S.C.) are "positive law' and others are not. Title 26, Internal Revenue, has not been enacted as positive law.

The United States Code is divided into fifty Titles. Of the fifty titles, twenty and part of another have been enacted into positive law. If a title has been enacted into positive law, then the text of that title constitutes legal evidence of the laws in that title. If the title has not been enacted into positive law, then the title is only prima facie evidence of the actual law. The courts have to require proof of the underlying statutes, which are the positive law when the title has not been so enacted. The positive law for the tax code is the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat 1 (1954). Title 26 of U.S.C. is an editorial codification of this act prepared by action of the House Judiciary Committee, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 202.(Congressional Research Services, The library of Congress, 1984)

Positive law 68A stat 1 (1954) is:

An Act to provide for the incorporation, regulation, merger, consolidation, and dissolution of certain business corporations in the District of Columbia.

 

Section 1. This Act shall be known and may be, cited as the "District of Columbia Business Corporation Act.

Section 2. As used in and for the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires--

 

(a) "Corporation" or "domestic corporation", except as used in section 143 of this Act, means a corporation subject to the provisions of this Act, except foreign corporation.

(b) "Foreign corporation" means a corporation for profit organized under the laws other than the laws of the District of Columbia and special acts of Congress.'

As I am not a Business Corporation within or created under the rules of, the District of Columbia, neither Title 26 nor the positive law backing it DO NOT apply to me.

One of the reasons Title 26, was never passed into positive law is because it is a special law.  The definition of a special law from Black's Law Dictionary is as follows:

Special Law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class rather than on the public generally. Blacks Law Dictionary, 1990

The I. R. Code book does not make anybody "liable". It only explains how The Secretary of the Treasury should deal with one who is 'Made Liable.'

The Code does not make any individual liable for any so-called "income' tax, except the withholding agent who is liable for any tax he is required to withhold, whatever that might be. (See 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (16)

In contrast, liability clearly appears with respect to the activities relating to distilled spirits and tobacco products.

(a) GENERAL. -- The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by Section 5001 (a)(1). 26 U.S.C. 5005 (a).

 

(a.3) (1) ORIGINAL LIABILIT'Y. -- The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by Section 5701. 26 U.S.C. 5702 (A) (1).

Taxes relating to these products are also excise taxes. Excise taxes are indirect taxes, which are taxes imposed upon the happening of an event as distinguished from its tangible fruit. The taxable event or activity is the importing, manufacturing or distilling of these products, and the tax is measured by the amount of product involved. Not only do these sections show who is liable, but they also show the activities which are being taxed.

Only taxpayers are liable. The definitions in the 1. R. Code only relate to taxpayers and not nontaxpayers.

The Internal Revenue Code Book itself recognizes that it has 'no legal effect' without properly executed statute laws backing it up.

26 IRS, 7806. CONSTRUCTON OF TTTLE.

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

In order for a tax law to exist, the code must be backed by a statute law passed by Congress.  There is no statute law requiring an individual to fill out neither a 1040 form nor a State return. There also is no statute allowing you to file for me or to assess a debt against me, since I am a "Nontaxpayer".

According to the California State Administrative Code, those who have no filing status with the Federal entity have none with the State. I have no Federal filing status, thus I have no filing status or debt with the State of California.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!


Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.

The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.


Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2010
All Rights Reserved

H O M E