A REPORT ON TAX EXEMPT WAGES AND SALARIES
It is rumored that the author of the following Treatise was an Attorney who was employed by employees of an Internal Revenue Service Center. It appears that over the years at the upper level of the IRS; administrators have not been claiming their "Wages" as taxable income on their tax returns. Being under pressure from an "internal office directive", any new administrator coming into the IRS was not to be informed that his/her wages was not classified as "taxable income" under the Internal Revenue Code. Fearing reprisals, the employees found the need to have the issue of "taxable income" to be briefed and defined.
The following Treatise has been used successfully in destroying IRS criminal investigations. Here is how it was done –
The moment you receive a letter from the IRS, that is the beginning of an IRS investigation. That letter is giving you notice of "Due Process of Law" to be heard and the IRS has now begun an "Administrative Record" under "Administrative Law."
You must respond to that letter for it is your only opportunity to create an "Administrative Record" for yourself. This is very important, for under Administrative Law, a Judge can only review the "Administrative Record" of the executive agency. THE JUDGE CANNOT HEAR ANYTHING NEW. By the time you have reached the Court, it is too late to create a defense.
You may need to make alterations to the Treatise to meet your needs. At the end of the Treatise, you should make a request of the IRS to correct any misunderstandings that you may have. This will show a "good faith" effort on your part. (The IRS has never given an answer which shows "bad faith" on their part.)
The next step is to make an "Affidavit of Mailing" that describes the contents of the mailing (the "Treatise") and the name and address of the friend that is "Certify Mailing" the "Affidavit" and "Treatise" to the Internal Revenue Service. If you don't know how to make an "Affidavit of Mailing," your local Clerk of Court should be able to help you.
Why is it important to have a friend mail your response to the IRS via "Affidavit of Mailing?" The main purpose is so that you may have a witness that can introduce your "Administrative Record" (the "Treatise") into the "Record of the Court" (if you find yourself in the Court as a Defendant). Your friend can testify that he did the mailing under oath and that he can describe the contents of the mailing. There is nothing the Judge can do to stop your "Administrative Record" from going before a jury.
Your "Administrative Record" destroys the issue of "Willful" and no conviction can be had. Furthermore, anything that goes into the "Record of the Court" is "public record" that can be published by the press. Do you see why the IRS will always drop a criminal investigation?
A word of warning: What is described above is for the criminal side of the IRS Code, it has nothing to do with the civil aspects of that Code. The only defense for a civil issue appears to be a Common Law "Plea in Abatement" which is beyond the scope of this Treatise.
There are both Civil and Criminal sanctions for violations of the Internal Revenue Code, which is found in Title 26, U.S. Code. We will address the criminal side, but the elements of criminal tax evasion and civil tax fraud are identical, (See Gray v. Cir., [C.A. 61983], 708 F2d 2243, cert. denied 104 S.Ct. 1709) and we must remember, that government invocation of the civil penalty does not bar a criminal proceeding for the imposition of fines or imprisonment (Spies v. U.S., , 63 S .Ct. 364, 317 U.S. 492). Among the more common criminal offenses for which an individual might be charged are:
Aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring commission of an offense against the United States (18 USC 2). This includes one who contributes consciously to the commission of an offense against the provisions of the Code. (See 47B CJS 1255, note 33).
Any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat a tax is guilty of a felony
(26 USC 7201) (See 47B CJS 1256, note 43).
Any person who willfully fails to keep records required for Federal income tax purposes may be providing the Government with an indictable offense. (26 USC 7203 & 5603).
Any person required to file an income tax return who willfully fails to do so is guilty of a misdemeanor. (26 USC 7203; Spies v. U.S., [N.Y. 1943] 63 S.Ct. 364) (See 47B CJS 1258, note 86).
Any person who willfully fails to pay a tax required by law is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(26 USC 7203) (Sansone v. U.S., [Mo. 1965] 85 S.Ct. 1004, 380 U.S. 343).
Any person who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information to his employer with respect to the withholding tax requirements is guilty of a punishable offense. (26 USC 7205 as amended.) Economic Recovery Act of 1981 increased the penalty to $1,000. The excuse that Fed. Reserve Notes are not dollars was a valid defense (U.S. v. Tissi, [C.A. Mo. 1979] 601 F2d 372).
Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document which declares that it is made under the penalties of perjury and which such person does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter is guilty of a felony. (26 USC 7206(1)) (See 47B CJS 1261, note 44).
Any person who willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under the Internal Revenue laws, or a return, affidavit, claim or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any information whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to represent such return, affidavit, claim or document is guilty of a felony. (26 USC 7206(2)) (See 47B CJS 1262).
A person who attempts to interfere forcibly with the administration of the Internal Revenue laws by a federal office or employer acting in an official capacity is guilty of a punishable offense. (26 USC 7212(a)) (See 47B CJS 1265).
Revenue officers or employees who commit specific acts or omissions constitute criminal offenses. (See 47B CJS 1271).
Taxation of Firearms, Bombs, Stills, etc., are incorporated in the tax code. (Firearms; 26 USC 5811, 5812, 5841, 5849, 5852, 5861, 5871) (Bombs; 26 USC 5845, 5861) (Stills & Alcohol; 26 USC 5601, et. seq.)
The most common criminal charges we as individuals might face from those attempting to tax our wages are "Tax Evasion" and "Willful Failure To file."
DEFENSE OUTLINE SUMMARY
Income is not specifically defined in the IRS Manuals nor is it defined in the IRS Code. Congress did not define it. Income has always been defined by the Courts as to exclude wages. Therefore persons whose income (NOT WAGES) filing singly with less than a given amount need not file a return or pay a tax.
If an individual has earned dividends, interest from bank accounts, or other moneys which are less than the minimum established, he/she need not file, nor pay any tax. He/She is exempt, as wages need not be counted.
Make sure the prosecutor and your lawyer are both aware of the implications should the case not be nolprossed, as this information will become public, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney probably won't be in line for any kind of promotion for endangering the proverbial "goose" when you are found not guilty, and the information goes public to a media already promoting the tax reform.
If you are actually tried Criminally, stress to the Judge your reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court in not filing or paying taxes on WAGES, and cite either the Sullivan, Bishop or Cheek case, which states that willfulness is negated if you rely on a previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you are tried Civilly, have your lawyer move for "Summary Judgment" using the citations that follow or others of which he may be aware.
TAX LAW ORIGINS AND AUTHORITY
Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 US 1). This power was subject to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according to population (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., [N.Y. 1895] 125 S.Ct. 673, 157 US 429). The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Feb. 25, 1913) giving Congress power to:
"Lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration" Evens v. Gore, [Ky 1920] 40 S.Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245, Kasey v. C.I.R., [C.A. 91972] 457 F2d 369, Cert. denied 93 S.Ct. 197, 409 U.S. 869
It did not limit or expand the power of Congress to tax under the constitutional provisions authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes but instead merely provided for taxation of income without apportionment (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. 493; Simmons v. U.S., [CA Md 1962] 308 F2d 160).
The Brushaber court ruled that the 16th Amendment separated the source (capital) from the income (profit) permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income, but leaving the source (wages, salary, compensation, fees for service, first time commissions and capital) untouched and free of tax. If these things were to be taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax, unquestionably in violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax in income void.
There still remains the question as to what is constitutionally allowable as "income" which can be taxed, as Congress is not constitutionally free to define "income" in any way it chooses (Simpson v. U.S., [D.C. Iowa 1976] 423 F.Supp. 720, reversed on other grounds, Prescott v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [C.A.] 561 F2d 1287). Further, the labels used do not determine the extent of the taxing power (Simmons v. U.S., [C.A. Md. 1962] 308 F2d 160; Richardson v. U.S., [C.A. Mich. 1961] 294 F2d 593, cert. denied 82 S.Ct. 640, 360 U.S. 802, 7 L.Ed.2d. 549).
To reiterate; the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution has not changed except as to separate the source of "income" from 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.
The Brushaber court referred to an earlier case, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601  which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, as it's effect would have been to leave the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way, what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. This result, the court held, could NOT have been contemplated by Congress.
Since the general term: "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, (U.S. v. Ballard,  535 F2d 400) and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives it's power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised (Eisner v. Macomber,  252 U.S. 1889).
Since the Rules contained in the I.R.S. Manual, even if codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, do not have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Horne, [C.A. Me. 1983] 714 F2d 206) and the power to promulgate regulations does not include the power to broaden or narrow the meaning of statutory provisions beyond what Congress intended (Abbot, Procter & Paine v. U.S.,  344 F2d 333, 170 Cl.Ct. 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself is without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution (C.I.R. v. Van Vorst, [C.C.A. 1932] 59 F2d 677).
Since the ultimate Appellate Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, we must look to that Court for a definite answer on the question of conformance and affirmation that Wages are not classified as income which can be taxed.
The Court has recognized that:
"... It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not `income' ..." Eisner v. Macomber,  252 U.S. 189
and determined that:
"... `income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in, the true function of the words `gains' and `profits' is to limit the meaning of the word `income'"
(So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847);(U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917); 247 U.S. 30 )
The Court determined that:
"... the definition of income approved by the Court is:
`The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'" Eisner, supra.
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and in such connection gain means profit ... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal" Staples v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737, (U.S. Dist. Ct. EDPA, 1937)
In the case of Lucas v. Earl,  281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that:
"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service." [Emphasis added]
The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v. Edwards,  255 U.S. 527 and in 1969, the Court ruled in Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187, that:
"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 sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income .... Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation."
"... one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them." Edwards v. Keith,  231 F. 111
Even at the state level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court:
"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law." Oliver v. Halstead,  196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858
"Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered in not profit." Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews,345 Pa.239, 47 A.2d. 277, 280 
Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect to what is or is not income, we find the word "income" does not mean all monies that come into the possession of an individual, but profit or gain FROM the money one takes in, such as interest, stock dividends, profit from an employee's labors, but not from an individual's wages, which are compensation for his labor. This means that the average person in America, who has no large investments or riches upon which he receives interest, dividends, etc., in excess of the amounts listed above (1992) but merely works for wages, has income insufficient in amount to be required to file a tax return.
HANDLING A JURY TRIAL
While you might be better off with a bench trial, which may never be tried due to the nature of the suit, there may be a time when you are tried by jury. Both "Tax Evasion" and "Failure to File" require "willfulness." Again we look to the U.S. Supreme Court and find that:
"The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met, therefore if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of the court." U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 93 S.Ct. 2008, U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259
Since any reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent person filing a return, invoking this argument MUST rely on U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of "income," that person, when brought into court, may rely on the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to negate the element of "willfulness". Make sure those jury instructions are made to the jury, and bring them up in testimony if you like. As if this was not enough, any question in a juror's mind can be swayed in your favor with this citation:
"Statutes levying taxes should be construed in case of doubt, against the government and in favor of the citizen." Miller v. Gearing, 258 F. 225
HANDLING YOUR OWN DEFENSE
Make sure to read 47B C.J.S. 1283 among other sources regarding parameters of jury instructions.
Determine what returns you are being charged with evading or not filing, as:
"income tax liability for any one year constitutes a single cause of action." Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281
Determine whether they are beyond a statute of limitations to sue since Congress has consented to a defense to which in effect is a statute of limitations (Lucia v. U.S., [C.A. Tex. 1973] 474 F2d 565) and under the Code (26 USCA 6502) a suit is barred when not brought within the statutory limitation period, and move to dismiss any counts which are past the statute of limitations.
Refuse to produce anything the government does not already have on you from payroll. You may refuse any I.R.S. Summons not judicially enforced, as long as the attack is in "good faith" and the Statute usually referred to is 26 USC 7210 which prescribes criminal punishment for anyone refusing to obey an Internal Revenue Summons for production records, was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reisman v. Caplink, 375 U.S. 440. The Court stated:
"Non compliance is not subject to prosecution thereunder, when the summons is attacked in good faith. ... And by the same token, it seems that one who makes a good faith challenge to specific questions on a 1040 tax return is not subject to successful prosecution."
The Courts have also stated that:
"Broad discretions given tax officers with regard to investigations, is for legitimate tax investigations and is not a license for official harassment of the citizenry" U.S. v. Cutter, 374 F.Supp. 1065
If our rights are not given to us during a verbal conversation as enumerated in the Mathis decision, (No. 726, May 6, 1938, 3910 Winterhaven. n. 1) then you move to suppress the evidence gathered through that conversation.
Prepare a Motion to Dismiss, using this document as reference.
Prepare requests for Jury Instructions or Requests for Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law.
Make sure the submitted "Jury Instructions" contain what you want to argue in front of the Jury (See U.S. v. Watkind, Fed Case No. 16.649 [3 Cranch, CC 441 U.S. 1829) as:
"Counsel will not be permitted to argue before a jury questions of law not involved in the instructions asked and submitted to the court."
DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC CHARGES AND CURRENT LAW
Under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USCA 7201), any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat a tax is guilty of a felony (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 43).
The essential elements of the offense are:
Willfulness, (U.S. v. Garbor, [C.A. Fl. 1979] 607 F2d 92) means "a voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty" (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 45) "which may be shown through consistent patterns of not reporting large amounts of income" (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 46). A bonafide mistake, negligence, carelessness, or misunderstanding is not sufficient. So while intent is a necessary element of the statutory offense (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 48), there is no requirement of a showing of evil motive beyond a specific intent to violate the law (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 49).
The existence of a tax deficiency.
An affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of a tax. [An intent to evade taxes is the equivalent of an intent to defraud the government (U.S. v. Miller, [C.A. Cal. 1976] 545 F2d 1204, cert. denied 97 S.Ct. 1549, 430 U.S. 930)].
Generally, conduct which is likely to mislead or conceal is sufficient to raise an inference of an affirmative willful attempt, such as is required to constitute the offense of attempt to evade or defeat the tax (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 67), and if the tax evasion motive plays any part in the conduct of the taxpayer, the offense may be made our even though such conduct may also serve other purposes, such as the concealment of other crime (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 68). Any affirmative act which the taxpayer might do where the effect and reasonable purpose would be to evade or defeat the tax will constitute the offense (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 69).
The filing of a false return is an independent crime and also one aspect of the more comprehensive offense considered here (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 70) and the crime is complete when a fraudulent is knowingly and willfully filed with intent to evade and defeat part or all of the tax (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 71). Where the necessary intention is present, the offense may be committed not only by the filing of a false original return (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 72), but also by the filing of false amended returns, proofs, or affidavit, even though such instruments are not required to be filed (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 73). The crime may be committed by taking fraudulent deduction (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 75). When do wagering excise tax return has been filed, an individual cannot be criminally prosecuted for willfully attempting to evade or defeat the tax, notwithstanding fact that wagering taxes may be due and owing (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 75.5).
The word: "willfully" when used in the Revenue Code which renders certain acts criminal, has the same meaning in the felony provisions as it does in the misdemeanor provisions (47B C.J.S. 1254 note 23). This word as used in the Code's criminal provisions connotates a voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty ([47B C.J.S. 1254 note 24] note 25) and is not equated with mere carelessness or recklessness (U.S. v. Swanson, [C.A. Iowa 1975] 509 F2d 1205). Even gross negligence is not sufficient to establish willfulness (47B C.J.S. 1254 note 27). The willful requirement is not met if the defendant has relied on good faith on a prior decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (47B C.J.S. 1254 note 28).
I.R.S. statutory offenses, where the law contains the words: "with intent to evade", the intent is material to the offense (U.S. v. Buzzo, [Mich 1873] 18 Wall. 125, 21 L.Ed. 418).
The offense is not committed unless the taxpayer has actual knowledge of the existence of the obligation and a wrongful intent to evade it (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 50).
The requirement of "willfulness" is not met if a taxpayer has relied in "good faith" on a prior decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 51).
A persons mistaken belief that his method of recording "income" is proper is a defense (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 52).
Reliance on the advice of counsel in a tax evasion case is not a complete defense, but only a circumstance indicating "good faith" which may be considered on the issue of "willfulness" (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 55). Essential to the claim of reliance on counsel is a showing that the reliance be in good faith, and that the advice be obtained after full disclosure of all the facts to which the advice pertains (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 56). There must also be a showing that the taxpayer actually relied on the advice, believing it to be correct (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 57).
A tax return is not criminally fraudulent simply because it is erroneous; "willfulness" is an essential element of a crime of "Income Tax Evasion" (U.S. v. Garner, [C.A. Fl. 1979] 607 F2d 92).
It is not an offense for the taxpayer to handle his affairs as to avoid or reduce his tax liability, provided that his acts are legal (Continental Oil Co. v. Jones, [D.C. Kohl 1939] 26 F.Supp. 694, aff. 113 F2d 557, cert. denied 61 S.Ct. 64, 34 U.S. 687).
"Good faith" listing of three billion dependents on his IRS W-4 Form was ruled proper (U.S. v. Snider,  502 F2d 645).
It is no excuse that defendant had kept no books disclosing his income and expenses
(U.S. v. Zimmerman, [C.Ca III 1940] 108 F2d 370) or that the income in question was derived from unlawful sources (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 54).
Merely aggravating and daring the government to enforce the Code does not create immunity from or constitute a defense to prosecution (U.S. v. Stout, [C.A. III 1979] 601 F2d 325, cert. denied 100 S.Ct. 481, 444 U.S. 979).
Excuse that "Federal Reserve Notes" are not "Dollars" was not a valid defense (U.S. v. Tissi, [C.A. Mo. 1979] 601 F2d 372).
TAX EVASION VERSUS WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE
The felony of attempting to evade or defeat a tax may include one or several of other offenses against the Code (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 63), the misdemeanor of failure to pay the tax. The difference is that an attempt to evade or defeat a tax involves some commission of some affirmative act in ADDITION to willful omission (Sansone v. U.S., [Mo. 1965] 85 S.Ct. 1004, 380 U.S. 343) (Spies v. U.S., , 63 S.Ct. 364, 317 U.S. 492).
WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE
Any person required to file an income tax return who willfully fails to do so is guilty of a misdemeanor
(26 USC 7203; Spies v. U.S., , 63 S.Ct. 364, 317 U.S. 492). (See 47B C.J.S. 1258, note 86).
THE ELEMENTS THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE ARE:
Defendant failed to file a return (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 89)
He must be a person required to make a return (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 93)
He must have done so "willfully" (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 90).
The word "willfully" in the Statute means "a voluntary, intentional violation of the known legal duty to file a return" (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 5), and the taxpayer's motives in failing to file such are immaterial and irrelevant (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 96). Some cases have construed the Statute as not requiring an intent to defraud the government or other similar bad purpose or evil motive (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 98).
"Willfulness" means "a voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty" (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 45) which may be shown through consistent patterns of not reporting large amounts of income.
An act may be done knowingly and intentionally whether as the immediate act of the person charged, or his authorized act through an employee (Prather v. U.S.,  9 App. D.C. 82).
He must have actual knowledge of the existence of the obligation, and a wrongful intent to evade it (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 91).
Defendant's good faith belief that he need not file his tax return (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 99), or a good faith misunderstanding or an inadvertence on his part (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 91) has been said to constitute justification for failure to file a return.
It has been held that a taxpayer, who in good faith, declines to acknowledge his income on an income tax return, asserting instead his Fifth Amendment privilege, has been held not guilty of willfully failing to file a tax return, since he sincerely believes that such 5th Amendment filing is not legal (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 77).
Tax Forms which do not contain financial information upon which the taxpayer's liability can be determined (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 93), such as Forms containing only one's name, address, social security numbers, and occupation (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 94), do not constitute "returns" within the meaning of the Statute.
A taxpayer is not excused from the offense because he had not previously been prompted or notified of his duty to file a return (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 2), because he disagreed with the law (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 3), or because he believed in "good faith" that the Statute (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 4) or the Federal Reserve System (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 5) was unconstitutional.
Defendant's fear of self incrimination for previous violations of the Code is no defense to a charge of "Failure to File a Return" (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 6).
Subsequent conduct of the defendant cannot relieve him from criminal liability for failure to file a return (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 8). It is no defense that the defendant intended to file a return and to pay his taxes in the future (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 9), and even the fact that the taxpayer voluntarily filed delinquent returns does not preclude prosecution (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 10).
Compromise of Civil liability. The prosecution is not barred by compromise of the Civil liability (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 11).
As you can see, by negating wages as income, only profit or gain need to be considered, making most persons ineligible for filing. There is no willful act, no omission, no intent, and no income ... hence no case for the prosecution, and even if confronted by an angry jury, by relying on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, YOU MUST BE ACQUITTED AS A MATTER OF LAW. If you are not acquitted, your lawyer will move for a "Judgment Not Withstanding The Verdict", and/or an Appeal, from which you will be eventually found "not guilty."
Other learning opportunities...
Independent Referral Services
Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)
Path to Freedom Document
Summons To Produce
Books and Records
How to challenge
alleged IRS agent authority