RSS

Title 26 is not the Internal Revenue Code

27 Apr

United States Internal Revenue Service Crimina...

Image via Wikipedia

The United States Code (USC) consists of 51 “Titles”.  Each “Title” deals with a different subject matter.  For example, Title 26 deals with internal revenue tax laws.

Roughly half of those 51 Titles have been enacted into “positive law”; about half have not.

Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law.

A friend mine, Dick Clark, passed away a few years ago.  He’d been at war with the IRS for most of 20 years before he passed, and had written a book on the subject.   As part of his research, Dick asked the National Archives for a list of those Titles in the USC that had been enacted into “positive” law and those Titles that had not.  The National Archives provided the requested list.

I never saw the list.  But Dick told me that, surprisingly, of the 51 Titles on the National Archive list—only one, Title 26, had an asterisk and associated footnote at the bottom of the list.  The footnote said something like “Title 26 is identical to the Internal Revenue Code”.

The implication was extraordinary.  Title 26 was not the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)  Title 26 and the IRC were two different documents.  Yes, they might be “identical” in terms of verbiage, but they were not identical in terms of authority.

•  To illustrate the difference between Title 26 and the IRC, suppose I published Adask’s Internal Revenue Code”.  My revenue code could be word-for-word, comma-for-comma identical to Title 26.  Nevertheless, while Title 26 would presumably have some legal authority, Adask’s Internal Revenue Code would not.

You and I might enter into a private agreement wherein you consented to be bound by Adask’s Internal Revenue Code, but so long as Adask’s Internal Revenue Code was not published with governmental authority, that revenue code would also be just private law and enforceable (like any contract) only with the consent of both parties to any resulting taxes.

In the case of Title 26 and the “Internal Revenue Code,” Title 26 would apparently have legal authority while the IRC did not.  If so, then if you were charged with violating 26 USC 7201 you could be in a lot of trouble since you were charged with violating the public law, but if you were charged with violating Section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code you might be in comparatively little trouble since you were only charged with violating some private agreement under private law.

Under 26 USC 7201 you could be charged criminally.  Under Section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code you could only be charge “civilly”—much the same as you might be charged civilly for failing to repay the debts you’d run up on your credit card.  The bank that issued the credit card to you could sue you civilly to collect the unpaid balance due to the bank on the credit card.  That’s only fair.

But what if you didn’t have a credit card with that particular bank?  Could Bank of America sue you to collect an outstanding balance on a BOA credit card if you never entered into an agreement with BOA to use a BOA credit card?

No.

Similarly, suppose Dick Clark’s discovery is correct that Title 26 and the “Internal Revenue Code” (IRC) are two entirely different “authorities”.  Suppose you were charged civilly with some offense under the “IRC” (apparently, private law).  If the IRC is private law, you might be able to quash those civil charges if you could defeat the presumption that you have entered into some private agreement with the “Internal Revenue Service”.

I.e., if you haven’t entered into a private agreement with BOA to use a BOA credit card, then BOA can’t sue you for some outstanding balance on a BOA credit card.  Likewise, if you haven’t entered into a private agreement with the (private?) “Internal Revenue Service,” then you should not be subject to charges under the private law of the IRC.

The possibility that the IRC may be “private law” is indirectly supported by evidence that the IRS might be an association of private debt collectors rather than a singular, governmental agency.  According to Dun & Bradstreet, there are over 44,000 different “private companies” associated with the name “Internal Revenue Service”. (See, http://www.manta.com/mb?search=Internal+Revenue+Service )  Many of those “private companies” appear to be individual IRS facilities.  This implies that the IRS is not a singular governmental agency, per se, but rather a conglomerate of “private companies” or even franchises somewhat like different McDonald’s fast food franchises or different H&R Block tax preparation offices.

If this conjecture were true, we’d have one or more private companies known as the IRS enforcing private law known as the IRC.

•  IF Title 26 and the IRC are really based on two different authorities (one, public law, the other, private agreement), it would be of enormous legal and political significance.  If the IRC did not carry the authority of law, why did it even exist?  If Title 26 and the IRC were based on two different authorities, wouldn’t that be evidence that our tax system is based on some fantastic fraud perpetrated by the government against the people?

The problem with all this conjecture is that I don’t recall actually seeing Dick Clark’s list from the National Archives that contained the footnote that indicated that Title 26 and the IRC were two different instruments.

I never doubted Dick Clark’s integrity or intelligence for a moment.  But when it comes to law, it’s not what you know that counts—it’s what you can prove.  Even if I had the original letter/list from the National Archives, I’m not sure that that instrument would be admissible as evidence in court.  Even if it were admissible, I doubt that it would carry much weight.

So, although I have “known” (pretty much) for 10 years that Title 26 and the IRC are two different instruments based on two entirely different “authorities,” I couldn’t prove it.

•  But last night on my radio show (American Independence Hour, see http://adask.wordpress.com/radio/ ), my guest (“lloyd smith”) brought Section 204 of Title 1 to my attention and provided irrefutable evidence (not necessarily “proof”) that Title 26 and the IRC are two different instruments.

You can verify this assertion for yourself by visiting Findlaw.com and navigating to “1 USC 204” (Title 1, Section 204 of the United States Code) at http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/1/3/204 .  If you do, you’ll find, in part:

“1 U.S.C. § 204 : US Code – Section 204: Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements” which include five sub-paragraphs ((a) through (e)).  At the bottom of the page (just below sub-section (e), you’ll find a hyperlink labeled “Notes”.

Click on “Notes” and you’ll be taken to another page listing the various historical changes to 1 USC 204 since A.D. 1947.

Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the Notes page to the last paragraph and you’ll read:

TITLE 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

“The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 1. Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that the Internal Revenue Title enacted Aug. 16, 1954, as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended, may be cited as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986″. The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”

That language is somewhat ambiguous and requires serious analysis for full comprehension.  Nevertheless, three phrases jump out at me:

1.  “TITLE 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE” includes a comma to separate the two subjects (“TITLE 26″ and “INTERNAL REVENUE CODE”) from each other.  If the two subjects were synonymous, why not use a colon or a dash instead of a comma?  Why not put “INTERNAL REVENUE CODE” in parentheses?

It might be going too far to suspect that the use of a mere comma would indicate that Title 26 and the IRC are two different entities.  But let’s consider a list of guys who are going bowling next Friday:  Bob, Jim, John, Alfred, Alfred, and Wayne.  Clearly, Bob, Jim, John and Wayne are separate individuals.  But what’s the deal with “Alfred” and “Alfred”?  Have we listed the same “Alfred” twice (in which case the 2nd “Alfred” is redundant, confusing and unnecessary)?  Or does our bowling team include two different “Alfred’s”?

The comma is normally used to indicate a separation of items in a list.  If that’s the proper implication of the comma in “TITLE 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,” then it appears that Title 26 and the IRC are two different instruments.

2.  “The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code . . . .”

Presumably, by “code” they mean one of the 51 Titles of the United States Code.

Presumably, by “separate code,” they mean one of the separate “codes” that comprise the 51 Titles of the USC.

If these presumptions are roughly correct, the IRC of 1954 was apparently not enacted as an actual “code” (one of the Titles of the USC), but instead enacted only in the “form” of one of the “codes”/Titles of the USC.

The significance of “form” might be illustrated by a comparing the fate of a man who chooses between giving his fiancé an engagement ring with a large diamond and engagement ring of identical form that includes a cubic zirconium.  By means of using the identical “form” of the cubic zirconium ring, the man can fool his fiancé and save a bunch of cash (which he can spend when he goes bowling next Friday).  His trusting fiancé may be equally impressed by either ring, but if she later discovers that her engagement ring includes a cubic zirconium that’s only in the “form” of a diamond , there’s gonna be some real trouble when she screams “Why did you give me a cubic zirconium engagement ring?!!!  Why did you allow me to make a fool of myself in front of all my friends?!!!  Why did you deceive me?!!!”   (And of course, “Where can I find a good, bloodthirsty divorce attorney?!!!“)

With regard to the apparent dichotomy between Title 26 and the IRC, the American people might similarly scream, “Why was the IRC of A.D. 1954 enacted in the form of a code/Title rather than as an actual code/Title?!!!  What possible purpose could the government have for enacting a ‘form‘ of a code/Title rather than an actual ‘code’–other than to deceive the American people?!!!

(It’s conceivable that the man giving his finance’ a cubic zirconium engagement ring did so simply so he could screw his purported “finance’.  It’s similarly conceivable that our government created the IRC so it could screw the American people.)

The “form” of a “code” only provides the appearance of authority. The “form” of a code might be “de facto” as compared to the “de jure” status of an actual “code”/Title.   Insofar as the IRC appears to be a “form of a code” rather than an actual “code,” the IRC may be as counterfeit as a cubic zirconium stone masquerading as a diamond.

•  The previous items 1 and 2 (supra) are “iffy”.  They could be interpreted as evidence that Title 26 and the IRC are two different instruments.  They might also be defended by gov-co as “innocent” statements whose meanings are ambiguous but merely the unfortunate result of a bad choice of words.

But I read item #3 (infra) as extremely strong and unambiguous evidence that Title 26 and the IRC are two entirely different and separate instruments:

3.   “The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”

I’m unable to imagine any way to read the previous sentence without concluding that Title 26 and the IRC are two separate instruments.

Let’s first consider the word “identical”.

I remember that there were two “identical” twins in my grade school:  Billy and Bobby Fanter.  They were “big kids” (a year old than me).  In second grade, they stopped me while I was walking home.  They bullied me a little and wouldn’t let me go until I told them a joke.  I told a joke, they let me go. (Tough guys, hmm?  I grew up on the “mean streets” of Crystal Lake, Illinois (pop. 3,000).)

But that incident caused me considerable confusion and anxiety.  I was not simply outnumbered 2 to1, I was facing two “big” kids who looked “identical”.  I think it was the first time I’d ever seen twins and I was bewildered.

The point to this anecdote is that while “Billy” and “Bobby” were “identical,” they were not the same.  They looked just like each other, but Billy was one person and Bobby was another.

That same principle should apply to understanding the sentence, “The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”  Because the sections of Title 26 and the IRC look exactly like each other, they may be “identical”—but they are not the same.  Title 26 and the IRC are just as separate and distinct as Billy and Bobby.  Use of the word “identical” illustrates that dichotomy.

The difference between Title 26 and the IRC is further emphasized by use of the word “sections”:  “The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”  Technically, that sentence implies that while the “sections” of the two instruments may be “identical”—there is some fundamental difference between the two instruments.

Let’s rewrite that sentence in the Notes to include reference to Adask’s Internal Revenue Code (my private, identical copy of Title 26):

“The sections of Title 26, United States Code, and the sections of Adask’s Internal Revenue Code are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”

Q:  How many of you doubt that you could be imprisoned for violating section 7201 of Title 26?

A:  Virtually no one should doubt that you could be imprisoned for violating section 7201 of Title 26.  Insofar as Title 26 is evidence of the Public Law, the gov-co has authority under 26 USC 7201 to put people in prison.

Q:  But how many of you think you could also be imprisoned for violating the word-for-word identical Section 7201 of Adask’s Internal Revenue Code?

A:  All of you should be smart enough to see that although the words in Section 7201 of Adask’s Internal Revenue Code are identical to the words in Section 7201 of Title 26, nobody should go to jail for violating section 7201 of Adask’s Internal Revenue Code because “Adask” doesn’t have any authority to put people into prison.

Q:  OK—then, if the Internal Revenue Code is (like Adask’s Internal Revenue Code) also not enacted as public law, what is the authority of the IRS to imprison folks for violations of their IRC?

A:  Apparently, zee-ro.

Thus, the “Notes” published by the federal government at Section 204 of Title 1 of the United States Code includes a reference to “Title 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE”.  This reference offers compelling evidence that while Title 26 and the Internal Revenue Code may be “identical,” they are as different as Billy and Bobby Fanter.

•  I can’t yet prove it, but the only difference that I can imagine that’s worth mentioning between Title 26 and the IRC is that of authority.  Title 26 appears to have authority of public law that can be imposed upon you without regard to your consent. (Your consent is implied by your election of various congressmen, senators and presidents who enacted Title 26 as public law).   The Internal Revenue Code, however, appears to be private law that (much like an ordinary contract) can have authority over you only if you’ve consented to be bound by that private law.

So—make no mistake.  Even though the IRC may be some species of “private law” or “private agreement” and therefore lacks the authority of public law, the IRC can still be civilly enforceable (somewhat like a mortgage) if you have consented to be bound by that private law/private agreement.

Did you borrow money from a bank to buy a home?  Did you consent to be bound by the terms of a mortgage?   Then, based on your consent to be bound, if you violate your agreement to repay the loan, the bank can foreclose on your house.

But.  Based on your private agreement (mortgage), the bank can only proceed against you civilly.  The bank can’t proceed against your criminally.  You can’t be imprisoned for failure to pay your mortgage.   And the bank can’t proceed against you at all, if the bank can’t provide evidence that you have consented to enter into a private agreement with the bank.

Similarly, it appears that if Title 26 and the IRC are two separate instruments (Title 26, evidence of public law; IRC, evidence of (or perhaps even an “offer” to enter into) a private agreement), then you may not be subject to the terms of the IRC unless you have previously manifested your consent to be bound by that private law/agreement.

(This may explain the failure of many defendants to compel the IRS to “show me the law” that compels me to pay income taxes.  The IRS typically does not respond to that demand.  Why?  Maybe it’s because the IRC is not public law; it’s only a private agreement.  Maybe the IRS doesn’t show the “law” because, under the IRC, there is no (public) “law“–only a private agreement.  If so, defendants might do much better by demanding that the IRS “show me the agreement, contract or pledge on which you base your presumption that I have voluntarily and knowingly consented to be bound by the IRC.”)

•  My limited experience with the IRS suggest that virtually all of their claims are expressly based on sections in the IRC rather than Title 26.  Insofar as that’s true, virtually all of the IRS’s claims are based on the presumption that the alleged “taxpayer” has voluntarily and knowingly contracted or pledged to be bound by the private law of the IRC.

It’s virtually certain that the IRS has evidence that supports its presumption that you, for example, have knowingly and voluntarily entered into some private agreement to be bound by the IRC.  That evidence might include your application for a So-So Security Number, your first 1040, a W-8, etc.. Some or all of these instruments might be construed by the IRS and the tax courts as evidence that you’ve consented to be bound by the (apparently) private law of the IRC.

But what if you could effectively challenge and defeat the presumption that you’d knowingly and voluntarily entered into a private agreement with the IRS (a private debt collector?) to be bound by the private law of the IRC?  Could the IRS proceed against you with any more authority than the BOA trying to collect an outstanding debt on BOA credit card that you’d never applied for or used?

Maybe not.

And what if:

1) You had sufficient knowledge to prove that Title 26 and the IRC were two different instruments?

2) You could reference Manta.com to show that the “IRS” was apparently a conglomerate of “private companies” (private debt collectors?) hired to collect private debts under the IRC?

3) You could prove that you had never knowingly and voluntarily entered into a private agreement with the IRS under the IRC; that you had always assumed that your signatures had been merely as witness to documents filed under public law of Title 26 and government authority rather than private law?  And,

4) You were sufficiently articulate to explain all that knowledge to a jury?

In sum, this list of “what if’s” is not easily achieved.  But, would the IRS be inclined to take you to court to collect what might ultimately be proved to be nothing but an alleged private debt?

Probably not.

Would the IRS be inclined to create a public record (court transcript) of a trial wherein the defendant persuaded a jury that he had never knowingly and voluntarily contracted or pledged to be bound by the private law of the IRC?

Probably not.

This conjecture suggests that raising issues concerning the Title 26/IRC dichotomy might be useful for keeping the IRS at bay.

•  What’s missing from this article is the “Why?”.

It’s not too hard to read the Notes under 1 USC 204 and conclude that Title 26 is (almost certainly) something other than the Internal Revenue Code.

It’s not hard to presume that the fundamental difference between Title 26 and the IRC is authority.  Title 26 seems to be evidence of public laws and therefore carries authority.  The IRC, on the other hand, appears to be private law without any authority other than each alleged “taxpayer’s” consent to be bound by the IRC.

But these conclusions and presumptions will remain somewhat unconvincing (especially to others) until we discover why the federal gov-co has been forced to stoop to deceiving the people into paying taxes rather than simply imposing those taxes with genuine authority.

There’s no way that the feds would go to all the effort to devise an IRC that’s substantively different from Title 26, unless there was a compelling reason to do so.

For some reason, the feds couldn’t effectively enforce Title 26 against every American citizen and were therefore forced to resort to the massive and audacious fraud of devising the IRC to accomplish privately what could not be accomplished by public law.

My first guess is that there’s some fundamental (constitutional?) principle that absolutely prevents the feds from subjecting everyone in the States of the Union to the income taxes under Title 26.  I’m guessing that in order to extort trillions of dollars from the American people in violation of that fundamental (probably, constitutional) principle, the feds therefore devised the private law of the IRC.

My second guess is that Title 26 might only (or mostly) be enforceable in a criminal proceeding.  If so, the high burden of proof required to prove a crime, the difficult issues of intent, and constitutional protections provided to criminal defendants would make it incredibly difficult and expensive for the gov-co to enforce the income tax laws.  On the other hand, compared to criminal enforcement, civil and/or administrative enforcement of the income tax laws would be child’s play.

Does the IRC offer the huge advantage of civil or administrative enforcement of violations that would be criminal under Title 26?

Whatever the fed’s reason for devising the IRC as (apparently) private law, discovering that reason may provide the final nail in the IRS’s coffin.  Without that reason, trying to argue to a jury that Title 26 and the IRC are “different” will be a tough sell.

OK—maybe we can show good evidence of the Title 26/IRC dichotomy, but the average person is still going to say, “But whyyyy?”  Until we can provide evidence of the “why,” the average person (read,”juror”) is unlikely to be convinced that the IRC is a private agreement rather than public law.

Yes, the IRC walks like a duck, but why would the feds go to all the trouble of creating this damn “duck”?  What was their reason?  What was their motive?

Find evidence of the “why” and we can kill the IRS.

I’ll be looking.  You should look, too.

If you find that evidence, let me know.

•  We have a ways to go before we can fully stop the IRS. But, by finding evidence at 1 USC 204 that Title 26 and the IRC are two different instruments, we have already come a long ways.

Written at arm’s length by Alfred Adask within the venue of The County of Dallas, within The State of Texas, a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America” on April 27th, A.D. 2011.

12.00

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

The American people might similarly scream, “Why was the IRC of 1954 enacted in the form of a code/Title rather than as an actual ‘code’?   What possible purpose could the government have for enacting a ‘form’ of a code/Title rather than an actual ‘code’—other than to deceive the American people?”
About these ads
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

96 responses to “Title 26 is not the Internal Revenue Code

  1. Jim

    April 27, 2011 at 5:45 PM

    The Fanter boys never would have guessed they helped disambiguate the worlds greatest con.

     
    • Joe Skelton

      August 19, 2014 at 9:35 AM

      I believe that is why it is very important to ensure that any IRS agent sign “under the penalty of perjury”. I have yet convinced any of them to sign any document or letter this way.But that does not stop their harrassment.My suggestion is to keep on keeping on with the fight’

       
  2. Rich H.

    April 27, 2011 at 6:41 PM

    Interesting. I would agree on the authority issue. If the government supposedly in power is actually de facto, then wouldn’t they have to trick those who are free into contracting/supporting them? In other words, in order to tax a people, the people would have to be citizens of their system. In everything that I have read, their code applies to a U.S. citizen or resident. So this makes me think that being a U.S. citizen or resident of any STATE would place me under their jurisdiction.

    But what if I was aware and corrected such legal status? Hence, not being a U.S. citizen or resident would place me outside the jurisdiction of their private law. I would be considered as foreign. The big question would be then, will they recognize and honor this?

    It’s not an honorable system so this is where the struggle persist. By the way, I attended a court hearing when someone I knew was illegally arrested and detained because of a so-called “tax evasion”. During that hearing it was stated that his offense was NOT a criminal act. The courts are very corrupt. The agencies violate so many rights, and even their own laws, that it is almost unreal.

     
  3. bill disbrow

    April 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM

    very interesting article on irs. nice to see someone figuring it out. private law-in other words, contract, which you made with them upon signing and sending to them your first 1040 form, which was actually an amendment to your first will ( the declaration of independence) in the form of codicil, so why not file a second codicil, amending your amended will, and allege fraud against them? fraud vitiates all contracts!!!

     
    • Adask

      April 27, 2011 at 9:52 PM

      Not necessarily “contract”. Contract requires two signatories who are both equally bound by the agreement/contract. The “hook” may be a document with a single signature (yours). These single signature documents have been called “unilateral contracts” but I believe that’s a misnomer. I don’t think you can have a real “contract” of any kind without at least two signatures. I strongly suspect that it may be more accurate to describe the single signature documents as PLEDGES.
      The possibility needs study.

       
      • Joe Skelton

        December 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

        I certainly believe that it takes two signatures to make a legal, binding contract. I also have been told that the tax forms that you file can determine your liability . The Form 1040 is for persons who are federal employees. Form 1041 is for trusts and such. It may be construed by the IRS that you are consenting to their jurisdiction by filing the improper tax return. Just an idea to consider.

         
      • Dave Miner

        December 22, 2011 at 5:41 PM

        Joe Skelton —

        You said “I also have been told that the tax forms that you file can determine your liability . The Form 1040 is for persons who are federal employees. Form 1041 is for trusts and such. It may be construed by the IRS that you are consenting to their jurisdiction by filing the improper tax return. Just an idea to consider.”

        You err in your discussion of a Form 1040. Or, more accurately, you may have been told that, but the person who told you that was in error. The Form 1040 is not required from and limited to federal employees. It is required from and limited to individuals who are engaged in an activity that is taxable for revenue purposes. Anyone can participate in a revenue-taxable activity, and will, as a result, be required to file a tax return. The current form demanded by the IRS as an individual tax return is a Form 1040. Your EMPLOYER is not the issue, it is your ACTIVITY. And there is no statute that levies an income tax on the activity of being employed by the federal government that I know of. If I am wrong, please point out the statute so I can add that to my files.

        The return you file establishes two FACTS in the eyes of the law. First, it establishes prima facie evidence that you are subject to and liable for an income tax. And second, it calculates the amount of tax you are claiming under penalty of perjury that you owe.

        If you are NOT engaged in an activity that is taxable for revenue purposes, then you are NOT required to file a Form 1040, and you do not owe income taxes. It is just that simple.

         
  4. bill disbrow

    April 27, 2011 at 8:43 PM

    and by the way–i think the best wat to reign gov;t spending is to stop contracting with them!!

     
  5. bill disbrow

    April 27, 2011 at 8:43 PM

    and by the way–i think the best way to reign in gov;t spending is to stop contracting with them!!

     
    • TaxAnswers

      August 28, 2011 at 10:13 PM

      And exactly HOW are you contracting with the government?

       
      • LGore

        September 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM

        Everything you have ever signed for “The District” is a contract.
        Birth Cert.
        Driver’s License
        Voter Registration
        Bank Acct.
        and endless others.
        Don’t believe me, check for yourself.

        http://www.freedom-school.com/invisible-contracts.pdf

         
      • Adask

        September 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM

        Insofar as those documents have only one signature (yours), I doubt that they are true “contracts”. I suspect that a document with a single signature might be more accurately described as a “pledge”.

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

        When you file a form 1040, you are admitting that you are an employee of the government. Employee according to the tax code means employee of the government or under the jurisdiction of the government by place of residence or voluntarily agreeing to submit to them. Form 1041 is the form to file for trusts and trusts are tax free. If you file for the power of attorny for the fiction name(all capital letters) then you can file the 1041. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that a person is exempt from income tax if the person is not a US Citizen(federal citizen). If you are a citizen of the united states of America, you are lawfully exempt. In other words, you are intitled to keep 110% of your earnings unless you voluntarily give it to the IRS.

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM

        I made a mistake when I said that you could be allowed to keep 110% of your earnings. It should have been 100%

         
      • Rich H.

        January 3, 2012 at 3:13 PM

        I was wondering where the extra 10% came from. Only corrupt governments allow themselves to take more than you have to give. Sadly, the unearned income tax credit can give people back more than they have had taken from them. They surely got that term correct. Unearned… to the end.

        I wouldn’t use the argument that being a “citizen of the united states of America” exempts you from their income tax. I know where you are going with that. “United (S)states” has many different meanings, but there is clear difference between a national and a citizen of a country. If you aren’t expressing that your “state” is a true country, then what are you? A subject of some “(U)united (S)states”? Playing around with the caps doesn’t necessarily change the form. Yes, the US is a corporation and has been from the beginning. Nothing new there. If you willingly participate in their scheme then you are subject to all of its fine print.

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 3, 2012 at 10:39 PM

        ! don’t have my references by my side at the moment, but,there are several rulings by the Supreme Court that affirms what I have said. When anyone files a 1040 tax return, he/she is volunteering their services to the IRS. Not only that, they are submitting to the jurisdiction of the Federal government. The supreme court has also ruled that the 16th amendment does not change the way that people are to be taxed. Taxation still must be by apportionment. I will find the rulings and get back to you later.

         
      • Dave Miner

        January 4, 2012 at 5:16 AM

        Joe, I don’t mean to be picking on you, but there are so many “facts” in this post that are so clearly wrong that it is hard to decide how to respond.

        You said: “! don’t have my references by my side at the moment, but,there are several rulings by the Supreme Court that affirms what I have said. When anyone files a 1040 tax return, he/she is volunteering their services to the IRS.” There is no US Supreme Court case that says this. In fact, there is no court case in America that says this, and I have read every income tax case in America since 1916.

        You said: “The supreme court has also ruled that the 16th amendment does not change the way that people are to be taxed.” That is not quite accurate. The S.Ct. HAS stated that the “16th Amendment confers no new powers of taxation.” (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112) Close, but the legal implications are substantially different.

        You said: “Taxation still must be by apportionment. ” This is only half true. There are two classes of taxes that the Constitution allows Congress to levy. The first class is DIRECT, which is a tax on persons or on property. The second class is INDIRECT, which is a tax on certain activities or on certain privileges. Direct taxes must be apportioned to the States, and cannot apply to individuals. America has not had a direct tax since shortly after the War Between the States. Indirect taxes must be uniform across the area in which they apply. We have all sorts of federal indirect taxes in America.

        The so-called income tax is an indirect tax in the form of an excise. as such, it is a tax on certain activities and on certain privileges. If you are engaged in an activity or privilege that is taxable for revenue purposes, then you are subject to the income tax. If you are not engaged in an activity that is taxed for revenue purposes, then you are not subject to the income tax.

        And I DO have my references by my side at the moment. In the even you are interested in facts and documentation, just let me know and I will post them.

        Dave Miner

         
      • Rich H.

        January 4, 2012 at 9:55 AM

        I actually have to deal with the IRS and it comes to turn out that they owe me and not the other way around. So, under threat, duress, coercion, AND without giving up any of my natural rights (not using UCC), I will file the forms they want, and demand that they stop harassing me. I haven’t engaged/participated in any privilege or activity deemed to be taxable for most of 2010 and all of 2011, nor am I a US citizen/resident/person, etc.(it has been declared and they have been properly notified) to which one is required to file under that status.

        I know their standard form of “payment”/refund is via check, but it is pretty much worthless(in more ways than one) especially since I don’t have a bank account. If I had a choice I would want my payment in gold or silver, but I don’t realistically believe they would ever agree to that.

        Does anyone really feel that their private scheme is honest? Before I mentioned the earned income credit, which I called unearned because a lot of people get more back than they paid in. I know of one individual who received thousands yet only paid in about 1000. Well, stuff like that upset me so much that I just left their system altogether.

        So I agree with Dave on the point of being subject to if participating in their program/privilege/system, etc. It appears working for an “employer” is participation. If you are lucky to find work at the same rate of pay without signing any W4 or other paperwork, then more power to you, but I doubt most companies/corporations will bother hiring you. There are too many others out there who are willing to participate/sign the papers. It seems the enemy isn’t just the IRS, Federal Reserve, and US gov, but most of the sheople out there. The IRS, Fed Res, and US gov only exist because of participation. Participation is consent. Consent makes one subject.

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

        It seems to me that you are saying the same thing that I am only in more words. You are refusing their jurisdiction by not participating. I am refusing their claim that I am under the jurisdiction of corporation of Delaware. IRC 26 DESCRIBES that an employee as pertains to the Code is anyone under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.(Some one who receives earnings from the government,and anyone who lives in a government territory. I do not live in one of these territories and do not work for an employer as described in the IRC 26. Congress has never defined income,but as for all the information that I have found,income is profit,one’s earnings is not profit nor whatever is left after taxes is not profit. If you file a 1040 return,you are volunteering to their jurisdiction. The income tax is based upon VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM

        Look up Caha V US 152 US 211…………….Employment Development Department v. United Postal Service,No.80-5694,D.C. # CV-78-4014 HP and Franchise Tax Board v. United Postal Service, No. 80-5700,D.C. # 78-4746-HP 698 F.2d 1029 (9th Circuit, 1983)…………….
        New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)…………Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244…………U.S. v. Lloyd Long, CR-1-93-91,cont……………….Peck v. Lowe, 247 US 165…………..
        Please read this one………………”All subjects over which the soverign power of the state extends [ie. corporations] are subjects of taxation but those [ie. sovereign natural born Citizens] over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principle, EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. This proposition may almost be pronounced as self evident. The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority or exists by its pemission.” McCulloch v. the State of Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316

        there are several more, ifyou would want to take the time to research them.

         
      • Rich H.

        January 5, 2012 at 10:19 AM

        Was the emphasis added/implied by you, or was it part of the record?

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 5, 2012 at 11:07 AM

        I didn’t add anything. Another supreme court summary that maybe you should read is…………
        Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 5, 2012 at 11:31 AM

        Rich H.

        I found the decision that you said did not exist……………

        The right to labor and to 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.” [100% of the Fruits] 48 Am Jur 2d 2, Page 80

         
      • Rich H.

        January 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM

        It says “man” so I agree. When you go into their court you are not a “man” but rather a person/citizen/subject. Their laws/statutes are private in nature and NOT intended for man but for person/citizen/subject. A “man” doesn’t take part in their benefits/privileges, but still can have access to court through the common law. They love to bypass common law and place you into statute/civil/private law. It is a matter of status and jurisdiction. Quaelibet Jurisdictio Cancellos Suos Habet. Judici Officium Suum Excedenti Non Paretur.

         
  6. Rich H.

    April 28, 2011 at 12:39 AM

    It does sound like a one sided deal and they would naturally use it against you as their proof. One thing for sure… I always keep the phrase “canceled(void) ab initio for legal cause” handy. Basically meaning that it never existed.

    And yes, the best way to defeat them is to not contract with them in any area. We just need more to join in with that frame of mind.

     
  7. Jethro

    April 28, 2011 at 9:40 AM

    Here are two recent actions against the same person, one civil:

    http://irx-solutions.com/files/civil_complaint.pdf

    one criminal:

    http://irx-solutions.com/files/criminal_complaint.pdf

    Note both allege violations of “26 U.S.C.” – no mention of violations of IRC. How would this effect the theory made in this article?

     
    • Adask

      April 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM

      The IRC is mentioned 3 or 4 times in the civil complaint, but both the civil complaint (December A.D. 2010) and the criminal complaint (March, A.D. 2011) are predominately based on Title 26.
      I’m only guessing, but IF the IRS intends to file criminal charges against a defendant, they may focus from the beginning on Title 26. If so, in this case, they might start with the civil complaint (Dec. A.D. 2010) based on Title 26 and then go to the criminal complaint (March, A.D. 2011) also based on Title 26. Perhaps there must be some consistency between civil and criminal cases filed against the same defendant.
      On the other hand, if they don’t intend to file criminal charges, they might rely strictly on the IRC for their civil complaint.
      This is pure speculation.
      As I wrote in the article, there appears to be “some reason” why the IRS is prevented or inhibited from filing charges under Title 26 that might might be filed more “conveniently” filed under the IRC. But I can only speculate as to what that “reason” might be.
      This much seems highly probable: The IRC is not Title 26. If there is a fundamental difference between the two “instruments,” that difference must be crucial. But what that difference is, remains to be seen.
      How do the two complaints you referenced “effect the theory made in this article”?
      I’m not sure. They complicate that theory. They may contradict it. In the end, they cast some light upon the confusion.
      In the end, we see that the IRS can use Title 26 as grounds for both civil and criminal complaints. Can they do the same with the IRC? I.e., I believe the IRC has been used as a basis for filing civil complaints. Are there any instances in which the IRC is used as grounds for filing criminal complaints?
      More, it would be helpful to see the first notices (if any) that were sent to the defendant. Was he originally notified that he was in violation of the IRC or Title 26? What if the proceedings began with reference to the IRC and then “switched” to references to Title 26?
      Is it possible that the US Attorneys who are fronting for the civil and criminal complaints in the Miner cases can only act based on Title 26? Is it possible that the US Attorneys can only act administratively or in tax court (or not at all) if the charges are based on the IRC?
      I don’t the answers.
      But as I wrote in the article, insofar as Title 26 and the IRC appear to be two different instruments, that dichotomy can’t be accidental. Something important but as yet not clearly understood provides the reason for that mysterious dichotomy. In order to be able to “prove” the dichotomy to most people, we need to discover the REASON for that dichotomy.
      The two complaints you’ve provided comprise an attempt to discover that “reason”. If the reason is hinted at in those two cases, I don’t yet see it.
      Still, we’re looking. That’s good.
      The fundamental issue is whether Title 26 is fundamentally different from the IRC. The text in the Notes under 1 USC 204 make it fairly clear that there is a dichotomy. Why that dichotomy exists and how that dichotomy might be exploited remains to be discovered.

       
      • Joe Skelton

        January 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

        I am going to read the IRC Regulations as they are written. According to this document, this confirms that compensation earned through a Fundamental Right is not taxable.
        26 CFR 9.22(b)(1) “Exemptions; exclusions from gross income. Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) [ie. compensation] are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income…..

        (1)Those items of income which are, under the Constitution,not taxable by the Federal Government.”

        Treasury Decision,Internal Revenue Vol. 26 No. 3640. p.769(1924): “Gross income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by statute or fundamentalnlaw, free from tax.”

         
    • TaxAnswers

      August 27, 2011 at 4:43 PM

      Excellent question, Jethro. One would have to do some actual research to find the answer, rather than the 100% conjecture with no real research, like in the article above. And I think I can answer that questions for two reasons. First, I am the one charged in both of those cases you mentioned above. Second, I have spent 21 years helping people get free from the IRS, and I have been so successful at it that the IRS decided it had to stop me. So it filed BOTH a civil and a criminal case against me.

      First, a bit of historical FACT would be a great addition to the article above, rather than just speculation. The IRC of 1954 was not part of Title 26 USC because THERE WAS NO TITLE 26 IN 1954. In fact, there was no Title anything – the United States Code was not created, or even imagined, yet. The Internal Revenue Code was a separate grouping of public laws, just like the Code of Military Justice was a separate grouping of public laws, and all the other laws at that time. It was not until AFTER 1954, actually in 1986 (see the article’s reference from Title 1), that we setup our laws into the United States Code with 50 Titles. When that occurred, Title 26 was the Internal Revenue Code, and it could be referenced by either “USC Title 26, Internal Revenue Code” or “26 USC” or “Internal Revenue Code” or “Internal Revenue Laws” or “Income Tax laws.” They all mean the same thing, they are all references to a long list of disorganized Public Laws,and they are all “Prima Facie” evidence of the actual laws (the relevant Public Laws).

      Before the United States Code (USC), all laws were public laws, and all public laws were the actual statute passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. They were listed in numeric order, and not organized in any form or format, which made it extremely difficult to research any given law or statute, especially when we had no computers at that time. So someone decided on an organizational structure, to make study easier and reference simpler, which became the United States Code (USC), and which was broken into 50 logical groupings, or Titles, for easier study. “Positive Law” was nothing more than the claim that what is written in the Title was an exact copy of what was written in ALL the public laws relevant to that grouping (or Title). Even today, the actual “LAW” is the Public Law and one can rely on referencing one of the Titles in the USC without cross-reference to the Public Law if that Title is Positive Law. If that Title IS NOT Positive Law, then one references the USC at one’s own risk, and should always backup that reference by reviewing the Public Law.

      What WAS the “Internal Revenue Code” before 1954 BECAME “USC Title 26, Internal Revenue Code” after 1986. And USC Title 26 changes so frequently that it is not possible to have all of the relevant Public Laws incorporated into Title 26 before more Public Laws are passed into tax law. Title 26 changes just too frequently for more than 10,000 pages to be reviewed and confirmed before another 30 or 100 pages are passed by Congress.

      THAT is why that Title 1 section referenced above mentioned the Internal Revenue Code and Title 26 separately.

      It is too bad that speculation and conjecture are so clearly substituted for actual research here… In both the article and in the comments on the article.

      Dave Miner

       
      • Adask

        August 27, 2011 at 6:15 PM

        First people think–then–if their curiosity is aroused–they research. Conjecture and speculation are the first steps towards thinking, becoming curious, and beginning to see for yourself. Conjecture and speculation are the hypotheses that inspire research to confirm or deny that hypothesis.

        Research is absolutely necessary, but without preliminary conjecture and speculation, that research often lacks meaning. Without the hypothesis seen in conjecture and speculation, the research can have no context necessary to understanding. To simply acquire someone else’s research and copy it, without an underlying hypothesis and foundation for inquiry can be every bit as dangerous and self-defeating as proceeding with only conjecture but without any research.

        The first purpose for my article is not to teach, but to advance an hypothesis to cause people to think and inquire on their own and learn to discern between truth, lies and mistakes.

        More, the second purpose for my article was not to teach, to present an hypothesis to my audience in hopes that some would follow up with research to teach me. You comment tends to fulfill that second purpose.

         
      • TaxAnswers

        August 28, 2011 at 10:10 PM

        Sounds like a wonderful excuse for writing something that required very little thought and absolutely no knowledge. In fact, even a little knowledge would have thrown out the article for lack of evidence.

        Rather than making your inaccurate and easily disproved conjecture, you COULD actually try doing some research and proposing a rational model for discussion. Of course, that would actually take some work…

        I could never justify speculating in such a way that I point less knowledgeable people in the wrong direction. The results range from me wasting their time to me pointing them in a direction that gets them fined or thrown in jail.

        Come on, man, use your forum to educate and challenge rather than speculate about rabbit trails and erroneous dreams. Like, try going to my WordPress page and comment or ask. There you won’t get daydreams and wild speculation, you will get clear evidence based on facts.

         
      • Adask

        August 29, 2011 at 12:58 AM

        All of your current research started with your own personal conjecture or speculation that there was “something wrong” with the substance or application of the Internal Revenue laws. In the beginning, you hadn’t done any research. You didn’t know a thing about the IRC. But a feeling in your mind or gut told you that there was “something wrong” with the IRC. That “feeling” was speculation and conjecture and they launched you on your current path towards doing your own research.

        More, once you became convinced that your conjecture and speculation were correct (that there was “something wrong” with the Internal Revenue laws), you might’ve saved yourself a lot of trouble by simply and blindly following any one of scores of income tax gurus who had also followed their initial conjecture and speculation that there was “something wrong” and therefore conducted their own research to find evidence to support their conjecture/speculation (hypothesis). I.e., if you had simply followed the example of Phil Marsh, or Irwin Schiff, or any one of scores of other gurus, you wouldn’t have had to do any research on your own.

        But, instead of simply and blindly following a particular guru, you apparently chose to do your own research. Why? Because you again engaged in the personal conjecture and speculation that that there was “something wrong” not only with the IRC but also with the tax-resisting gurus’ various lines of research.

        Without your own initial conjecture and speculation about: 1) the IRS laws; and 2) other gurus, you would never have done your own research.

        All real advances in knowledge start with conjecture and speculation. Conjecture and speculation form the hypothesis in the scientific method used to ultimately test and discover “truth”. Those who denigrate conjecture and speculation, denigrate the advance of understanding. I celebrate conjecture and speculation (hypotheses) because they make people think. Conjecture and speculation make people begin to appreciate fundamental principles. Once folks get a handle on those principles, they become competent to better judge both the IRS laws and the IRS gurus.

        In truth, the conjecture and speculation usually have a longer shelf-life than most of the resulting research. For example, your own conjecture and speculation led you to suppose 1) there’s something wrong with the IRS laws; and 2) there’s something wrong with the gurus.

        But, now that you’ve become a guru, you declare that you could “never justify speculating in such a way” as to “point less knowledgeable people in the wrong direction”.

        Never? Not even once?

        Isn’t your opinion (that you, personally, would never mislead the less knowledgeable) based on your own speculation and conjecture that you are the one “true guru” who has found the “one true way” to defeat the IRS? How do you know that your strategy for dealing with the IRS does not ever “point less knowledgeable people in the wrong direction”? Has your strategy resulted in a 100% success rate? If your strategy has failed just once, it’s evidence that your speculation (that you would never mislead the less knowledgeable) is false.

        I’m prepared to speculate that, since most gurus’ knowledge is incomplete or otherwise imperfect, so is yours. Proof? You’re spending time on my lowly blog. If your “TaxAnswers” are as good, complete and perfect as you imply, your blog should be overrun with readers and supporters who are making so many requests and comments that you could not possibly have time to come comment on my own various rabbit trails and speculation.

        I’ve been following these rabbit trails and guru trails for 28 years, and I’ve yet to hear of a single “guru” who has an absolutely fool-proof strategy. I’ve seen plenty of gurus who claim that, for a modest (or sometimes substantial) fee, they will teach the “less knowledgeable” the one absolutely fool-proof strategy that’s guaranteed to work. But those fool-proof strategies come and go. They may work for some people for a while, and then they fail. The guru takes his money and disappears.

        But, who knows? Maybe you are the one man in 28 years to devise an absolutely fool-proof strategy for dealing with the IRS. It could happen.

        But if you are still researching anything in the IRS laws, aren’t you implicitly admitting that even you don’t have complete faith in whichever strategy you’re promoting? Doesn’t your continuing research indicate that even you believe your research to date is imperfect? If you don’t think your own research is already perfect, then you must admit that your research is incomplete and potentially erroneous. If your own research is imperfect or incomplete, it’s not only possible, it’s likely that, by virtue of your imperfect research, you are “pointing less knowledgeable people in the wrong direction.” If so, your assertion that you do not “point less knowledgeable people in the wrong direction” is at best pure speculation–and probably false, besides.

        I don’t tell anyone that my articles are “God’s truth”. I warn people regularly not to believe anything because they hear it from me. I don’t lead anyone (“less knowledgeable” or otherwise) “in the wrong direction”. I don’t lead. I speculate in order to (hopefully) teach people how to think independently and lead themselves. And, in case you haven’t noticed, I sell nothing on this blog. I don’t sell books, I don’t sell seminars. If you want what I offer, it’s free. If you don’t want what I have to offer, that’s fine with me. Because I don’t try to sell anything, I don’t have to alleged that my strategies are “perfect” or “guaranteed to work”. Instead, because I’m not selling anything, I’m free to tell the truth that my strategies speculative and quite probably imperfect.

        It’s only the folks who are selling a particular strategy, or perhaps two books with a value of $80, or maybe some legal assistance in implementing the strategy who are compelled to allege or imply that their strategy is perfect. After all, who would buy an admittedly imperfect strategy for dealing with the IRS?

        My speculation and conjecture are not intended to provide answers; they’re intended to provide questions. In the end, I suspect that my questions will still be valid long after most gurus’ “research” has been discarded as imperfect or even fraudulent. I suspect that the people who understand my questions may be among the first to discern not only whether there are fundamental defects in the IRC, but also whether a particular guru is promoting valid research or merely selling hogwash to make a buck.

        So, “come on, man”–why don’t you use this forum or perhaps your own to show a little humility; admit that your current strategy may be imperfect and that anyone (including you) who alleges your IRS strategy to be “perfect” is engaging in pure speculation and conjecture that might lead the “less knowledgeable” to make the wrong choice?

         
      • CiaW

        November 22, 2011 at 5:37 PM

        I disagree with some of what you’re saying about 26 USC, though I haven’t researched it thoroughly. I do recall, when I spent a lot more time researching this topic 8-10 years ago, that the DOJ attorneys and/or the writers of the regulations usually referred to ‘Title 26′ or the ‘Internal Revenue Code’ rather than 26 USC.

        In addition, if you look at the 1939 IRC it refers to Revised Statutes (RS) and NOT ‘public law’ or Pub. L. I’m not exactly sure when the RS became Public Law, but it has not always been Public Laws. I’m also not sure of the distinction between the two, but that might be an interesting topic too.

         
      • TaxAnswers

        November 23, 2011 at 2:40 PM

        CiaW – Not sure who you are disagreeing with because you didn’t say. But allow me to add a comment.

        You said, “I do recall, when I spent a lot more time researching this topic 8-10 years ago, that the DOJ attorneys and/or the writers of the regulations usually referred to ‘Title 26′ or the ‘Internal Revenue Code’ rather than 26 USC.” I have read more than 400 income tax cases and every one of them used all three – Title 26, Income Tax code, and 26 USC. I mean, what do you think Title 26 IS if it is not Title 26 of the United States Code?

        You said, “In addition, if you look at the 1939 IRC it refers to Revised Statutes (RS) and NOT ‘public law’ or Pub. L. I’m not exactly sure when the RS became Public Law, but it has not always been Public Laws.” You need to be careful when going back to the Code of 1939. That far back we had an entirely different structure and organization to our laws. We did not have 50 Titles to the USC. There were revised statutes rather than the Internal Revenue Code. “Revised Statutes” were an early attempt to categorize and organize the public laws. Ultimately, the codification into 50 Titles was adopted. You still hear “revised statutes” in some State courts, but not in federal courts.

         
      • Joe Skelton

        August 21, 2014 at 10:11 AM

        I am Joe Skelton and most of the comments on this blog in my, name, are not mine.Though most of them have merit they are not my posts.

         
  8. James Davis

    May 20, 2011 at 10:13 AM

    The “Why” or “reason” may be the gov. falisfied the adoption of the 16TH adminement and they do not want to open that can of worms.

     
  9. tony

    July 1, 2011 at 6:52 PM

    Well it is my believe that a private contract can be enforce in all of the 50 states of the union where as title 26 only applies to a particular act, function, and/or position. So you are thinking that they are getting you for title 26 code when it is internal revenue private law which is contract or agreement.

     
  10. vanessa rojas

    July 19, 2011 at 2:48 PM

    you guys really!?? Im saying this once and maybe it can help.. the federal reserve is a PRIVATE BANK! they loaned money to America before it was even named america. The virginia company still applies! they only changed their name. the “america” corporation went bankrupt (yes we are all walking corporate stocks, see red number on birth cert. thats security code, its like a war game or monopoly)the federal reserve came along (rothchilds!!) once federal reserve act was signed (1913) it slowly brought along, FBI, DEA, CDC, FDA, NSA, TSA, FEMA aka holocaust camps, CIA, MK Ultra, Monsanto and many many other programs that are ALL NON government. The IRS was formed to regulate the deal tht the bankers had. in the 1930s Britian, France many other including USA officially declared bankruptcy..the banksters said either ask us for the loan or there wont be any loans anywhere else to take them out of this great depression (of course they formulated the problem, reaction and solution and thats another story altogether) so the countries accepted official bankruptcy to the global banking system and this meant, in effect, that the banks hve owned those countries ever since.. the federal reserve has never even been audited by congress! they sneaked in here since the corporation(countries) went bankrupt n weve been in debt paying them off while the federal reserve print their own bills..not the treasury! money doesnt exist. why print their own bills? because debt is MEANT to not be paid off so they can take over the lands slowly. (see: The United States Congressional Record of March 17 1993 vol. 33, page H-1303 for James Traficant of OH statement to the house regarding this corporate bankruptcy) for all u still kinda confused, YES we have BEEN witnessing the establishment of a social communist order (new world order) at this rate FEMA will be the new congress. they are seperate because feds and govt are two different entities! they depend on the peoples ignorance AND the politicians dont say much cause they are either ignorant, being payed well to not read or do their job, or blackmailed. that is if theyre not a freemason.. once u understand real history u will understand WHY.. the worlds poorest countries are handing over control of their land and resources to the illuminati banksters because they cant pay back the vast loans made, on purpose, by the banks to ensnare them in this very situation. ALSO illuminati is diminishing the true meaning of words slowly.. if u can control what words mean u control how theyre used and those who use them. the best part is that the stockholders of this private bank arent even american and they do still own the US corporation… the british crown only changed the name from virginia company to america after the manufactured “victory” in the American War of Independence”… we arent even under law of the land.. we are a fascist place country whatever, under MARITIME law… yesss and the moon is also a spacecraft and the digital signals finalized means no more transmissions in n out of space so bye bye NASA.. which is also federal.. ooo yeah!! America just asked the federal reserve to lend them more money.. theyre about done with the poor now lets tax all the rich people! no wonder donald trump is stepping up to the plate.. did i mention is was about 13 trillion dollars they asked for like literally the other day..?

    if everyone got together in simple non rioting non compliance then the system would fall like a house of cards. its not about money to them.. its social hieararchy.. we are only business to them and a gambling game brought to u all the way from interdimensional war games to prove how silly humans are when misguided. LOVE is the only thing thats real.. knowing is only half the battle.. and in the end one decision must be made: love or fear?

    hope this helps.. now i have a question.. how do i get hired without filling out a W2 and being bound??? or do i just not file? or i do file but with a very “good” acct?

    spread love not riots

    Vanessa

     
    • patrick clarida

      July 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM

      I believe that could be found in filing a W-8

       
  11. JJ

    August 11, 2011 at 4:25 AM

    There is not an actual law requiring you to file a 1040 Federal tax return. But even with that said and proven you can still find yourself in jail for not paying your taxes, just ask Wesley Snipes and all the others.

     
    • TaxAnswers

      August 27, 2011 at 4:51 PM

      Snipes is not in jail for not paying his taxes.

      Snipes was charged with one count of Conspiracy (a felony), one count of Income Tax Fraud (a felony), and six counts of Willful Failure to File (all misdemeanors). He was found not guilty of the conspiracy charge and not guilty of the fraud charge.

      His six counts of Willful Failure to File fell into 2 categories. The charges on the earlier 3 years involved years where Snipes filed tax returns showing zero income and zero taxes due. Yet he attached at least one Form 1099 to each return without presenting evidence why the Form 1099 showed money that DID NOT constitute “taxable income” as the IRS defines the word. You cannot show a Form 1099 and claim no income at the same time unless you document WHY the “income” shown in the 1099 was not subject to taxation. Let me explain.

      A Form W-2 or a Form 1099 is a claim that you made money that is subject to taxation. When you attach either to a Form 1040, you are “claiming” that you made money subject to taxation. By filing the way he did, Snipes was attaching evidence of taxable income while CLAIMING no taxable income and no taxes due at the same time. You cannot do that, and Snipes found that out.

      Snipes claimed that he believed that he made no taxable income for those years and that was why he had indicated zero income and zero taxes due on that income. The IRS convinced the jury that Snipes broke the law, and he actually did. Snipes did not convince the jury otherwise and it found him guilty as charged.

      The most recent 3 Failure to File charges were a different matter. He actually filed no returns for those years. He had learned that to claim zero income and zero taxes on a tax return while attaching a form 1099 that declared income to that same return was illegal. Since he still believed that he made no income that was taxable, he discovered that he was not required to file a return at all for those years. So he filed no return at all for those three years. For those three years that had no return at all, the IRS KNEW it could not prove that was illegal and it dropped the charges when challenged before the trial.

      In other words, Snipes proved that if you honestly do not believe that you earned taxable income, it is better to not file at all than it is to file a return trying to claim no taxable income.

       
    • Joe Skelton

      January 3, 2012 at 11:16 PM

      If a person files false reports, then he can be charged with fraud. There may be no law that requires one to file a 1040 tax return, but you must decline lawfully. There is a right way and a wrong way and maybe if you check out Wesley Snipes’ case you may find why he lost. Willey Nelson was charged with fraud because his accountant filed false reports. By the way Willey was exhonerated but his accountant was not. There are certain ways to deal with the IRS but you must use their own rules against them and you must have everything done just right or else. I do not know if there is any fool-proof way to do this but I do know that you can keep them at bay if you use the right forms and claims.

       
    • Joe Skelton

      August 19, 2014 at 9:47 AM

      In my research,I have found that the Form 1040 Return is for government empoiyees only.If you are not a government employee,you are committing fraud by filing a 1040.You must file a 1041 on your trust social security number. I could use further confirmation on this.

       
      • AmeriCorps International GmbH

        August 21, 2014 at 4:59 AM

        I don’t believe you go to jail if you don’t pay federal income taxes. I know them to be voluntary.

         
    • Joe Skelton

      August 19, 2014 at 9:51 AM

      There is a difference in tax evasion and tax avoidance……..Which did Wesley Snipes do? Income taxes can be avoided,but you must proceed with caution and research to find the correct ways to proceed.

       
  12. tony

    August 27, 2011 at 7:52 PM

    Ok just fyi our are not being taxed for an income tax… The informational returns that are being sent to the IRS ARE CLASS 5 forms and have nothing to do with with a income tax per say.. look into this and learn what the IRS is really trying to tell you who and what you are. Once oh learn this then hu will be able to understand why the courts are constantly ruling that all the arguments against income tax is frivolous.

     
    • TaxAnswers

      August 28, 2011 at 9:59 PM

      You are absolutely correct, but totally irrelevant. There is NO procedure, with the IRS or in federal court, for challenging the Information Returns Program (IRP) or any records the IRS maintains on you, based on the Tax Class of the form used in the IRP. The IRS will ignore your claims, call them frivolous, and you will get no traction in court with this idea. On the other hand, all Forms 1099 and W-2 (IRP forms) are submitted to the SSA and it is with the SSA that we have established procedures to fight the info returns. We help people do that. And we help people correct inaccurate IRS data files. I would bet you $50 that the IRS has you listed as a business and as someone filing income information to a false SSN. I have reviewed thousands of Individual Master Files and every one of them state that.

      So while you will get no where challenging the Tax Class of your Form 1099, you will see the IRS disappear from your life if you effectively challenge both the info returns with the SSA and the accuracy of your permanent records with the IRS.

       
  13. TaxAnswers

    August 29, 2011 at 3:07 AM

    Adsask, you are certainly good at making speeches. And very adept at speculating. Your opening premise in your most recent post is a fine example of this, where you proclaimed for all the readers here that “All of your current research started with your personal conjecture or speculation…”

    I really don’t want to offend you, but you are just plain wrong. Just because you speculate, then write, and possibly sometimes you then study, doesn’t mean that others do this.

    I never ask, “What if…?” and then research to find the truth, because most of the time you do that you have a vested interest in proving your point. This is how we came up with global warming…

    I always ask, “What does it say?” and keep reading if it is an issue important to me or to someone who needs to know.

    I have been a financial and business consultant for more than 30 years (securities licensed, insurance licenses, certificate, etc), and most of what I did for clients had an impact on their taxes. I NEVER speculated. When I made statements it was in response to questions. And when I answered those questions, people would follow my advice. And when they followed my advice, they would make money or they would lose money. In my business, speculation costs dearly.

    Then I was challenged by someone that showed me some sections of the Internal Revenue Code indicating that what I believed about the IRC was not correct. He did not ask me to speculate about something; he did not ask me to think about something; he did not ask anything near “what if?” He told me I was wrong in some of the things I said and that my errors were going to cost some of my clients dearly.

    When it comes to a FACT, two people cannot both be right if they disagree about that fact. So I was driven to study in order to find out which one of us was correct. Speculation and pontification never entered into the situation.

    The bottom line is simple. You like to appear knowledgeable by speculating and drawing people out and tantalizing them into digging deeper. Asking “what if…?” is important to you. Not so with me.

    You say, What if the IRC isn’t Title 26, raising all sorts of legal questions about my civil and criminal charges? Then I follow your teaching as my defense in court and I go to jail for 5 years and pay $300,000 in fines. You go to sleep that night thinking that you gave me the opportunity to learn and grow, and giving me that opportunity was valuable in your eyes. I go to sleep that night believing that you lied to me, and dreaming about what I can do to you to cause severe and lasting pain. [That was a fictitious scenario. I would NEVER follow your teaching without thoroughly researching it first. Also, my spiritual beliefs do not allow me to dream about hurting others in vengeance. And the REALLY bad part is that through my military training I actually KNOW how to cause you severe and lasting pain. Man, am I glad I am a changed man.]

    There is no similarity between how you try to teach and how I try to teach. You aren’t even close to the Socratic Method where he taught through asking questions. You were presenting your speculations AS IF they were fact. When later challenged, you were, I must admit, honorable enough to admit that you did not know. Or else you were a coward and you back-peddled from your earlier position as quickly as possible. I am not yet sure which was the case…

    But look what your style of teaching brought about. The next several posts following your soliloquy brought out a number of other speculations, each fictional and dangerous and each putting its adherents in jail. I doubt ANYONE was motivated to go out and dig deeper because of your teaching style until I took a counter position and challenged you. Further, your speculations didn’t even motivate you to do any research, as is evidenced by the positions you took.

    No matter how much you deny it, you were teaching in that article. You presented all sorts of statements AS IF they were fact, and quoted all sorts of references without ever reading them thoroughly. It was clear you had only read bits and pieces of the legal references you quoted, because a thorough READING (I am not even talking about a thorough study!) of those passages reveal clearly what was going on. Your representations as to what was going on in those passages were not even close.

    You like to wax eloquent. I like to make sure that I NEVER pass on a statement that I have not first checked out thoroughly. We are not similar.

    Dave

     
  14. Rich H.

    August 30, 2011 at 8:59 AM

    You are changed man Dave? Changed from what?
    I would like you to disprove my statement that the taxation in question IS for US citizens and/or residents. If this statement is false, then to whom do these taxes apply to?
    I could really care less about whether or not the IRC is Title 26 or if the 16th Amendment was really ratified. If you are a “citizen”, then you are under the jurisdiction of whatever system you are citizen of. Therefore, they can toy with you as they please. You may not know you are a party to a contract (not a real contract as we would think one to be) or trust, but your signature on whatever forms, documents, etc. is their proof that you are a party to whatever they are trying to hook you on. As you stated before, it is better to NOT have filed anything than to file (evidence against yourself)..

     
    • TaxAnswers

      August 31, 2011 at 8:56 AM

      How many court cases do you want? How many times does Congress need to say it? The so-called income tax has nothing to do with citizenship and nothing to do with your residence and nothing to do with ZIP codes and nothing to do with trusts and nothing to do with using FRNs and nothing to do with adhesion contracts and on and on and on. Issues like you raise MIGHT have some effect on federal jurisdiction in general, but nothing to do with the so-called income tax.

      The income tax is an indirect tax in the form of an excise. As such, the tax is levied on certain activities and certain privileges. If you are engaged in one of those activities or privileges, you are subject to and liable for the income tax. If you ARE NOT engaged in one of those activities or privileges, you ARE NOT subject to or liable for the income tax.

      It is just that simple.

      I have spent the last 21 years helping people get free from the IRS, and I am good at it. I have also spent entirely too much time over these 21 years helping people avoid jail after taking your view and acting on it. There is not one income tax court case that I have ever seen or heard about, and I have reviewed all 484 of them since 1909, where anyone sporting your view got any benefit except a free room (small) with 3 meals a day.

      And I have a question for you. If you do not know that you are a party to a contract, and you never signed said contract, and there was never any “consideration” that exchanged, what part of Contract Law says you can be held accountable to it? In fact, what part of Contract Law calls it a contract? Or can you point to any part of Contract Law, case law, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or Federal Rules of Evidence, that says signing a tax form is a contract in any form? Further, is there any court case where this was argued successfully? Other than argued and still barely stayed out of jail?

      I am sorry, but you are wrong.

      Dave Miner

       
      • Rich H.

        August 31, 2011 at 1:24 PM

        Actually Dave, I am correct and you verified my point by your own words: “the tax is levied on certain activities and certain privileges. If you are engaged in one of those activities or privileges, you are subject to and liable for the income tax.”
        And who engages in such activities and/or privileges? Citizens do! That is precisely what separates/distinguishes a citizen from say a free man/woman. Let me also include that placing a signature on a form(like 1040) is an activity, The tax has everything to do with citizenship because citizens ARE the ones engaging in activities or privileges(like using a Social Security Number).

        P.S. If they don’t have jurisdiction, they cannot proceed with any case, or make a plea, or do anything. They may try to depending on how corrupt they are and I bet they are pretty corrupt.

         
  15. tony

    August 30, 2011 at 1:34 PM

    It is amazing how people believe they are being taxed and why. It is a trust that is being taxed and you are the trustee for the trust. The trust was set up when the SSN was created. The rest you will have to learn on your own. If you choose to belive this then great follow the path to freedom. If not continue to make all those frivolous arguments.

     
    • TaxAnswers

      August 31, 2011 at 8:58 AM

      There is no country on this planet that recognizes a trust unless there is paperwork declaring that trust, with signatures. Have you ever seen the paperwork with signatures declaring your trust? Or have you ever seen paperwork with signatures declaring anyone’s trust?

       
      • Adask

        August 31, 2011 at 12:01 PM

        Not true. American courts routinely proceed in equity based on IMPLIED trust relationships that are neither written nor spoken, but may be “construed” by the judge based on the apparent relationship of the plaintiff and defendant. An implied trust relationship is not enforceable, but once the judge “construes” that implied trust relationship, it becomes a “constructive trust” which can be enforced. Trust relationships can be and are routinely enforced wherein the words “trust,” “grantor,” “fiduciary” or “beneficiary” are never said nor written nor even understood by the plaintiff or defendant.

        For example, the courts can find a trust relationship exists when it comes to caring for an infant or child or other dependent. The courts can and will enforce that trust relationship despite the fact that an infant has no capacity to understand any of the words or concept associated with a trust.

        It happens every day. It is a fundamental principle in courts of equity.

         
      • Joe Skelton

        January 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM

        When you received a social security number, you became a trust. If you file a UC 1(fudiciary claim) and then file the Power of Attorney in Fact,you become the trustee of the trust.You then are allowed to file Form 1041. A trust is non taxable. These documents(Power of Attorney and UC1) must be recorded by the court recorder.If you are the tax expert that you say you are, then you should know this.

         
      • Dave Miner

        January 4, 2012 at 4:55 AM

        Joe —

        You said: “When you received a social security number, you became a trust.” An individual cannot BE a trust, or BECOME a trust. An individual can CREATE a trust by creating a trust Indenture, but the individual is separate from the trust.

        Where is the statute or regulation or court case that supports your claim?

        You said: “A trust is non taxable.” A trust is required by statute to file a Form 1041. If the trust were NOT taxable it would not be required to file a return at all.

        Where is the statute or regulation or court case that supports your claim?

        Title 26 Sections 641 through 685 cover the creation and taxability of trusts, along with other issues related to trusts.

        I have been using and creating trusts for more than 20 years. I have been contracted by a number of attorney firms to train their members on pure trusts, a specific type of trust.

        You said: “If you are the tax expert that you say you are, then you should know this.” I AM a tax expert and I say you are wrong. I have the statutes and regulations and court cases that SAY you are wrong. You have your opinions that say I am wrong. And I am sure everyone here thanks you for your opinions.

        Dave Miner

         
      • Joe Skelton

        August 19, 2014 at 10:05 AM

        I believe that there are signatures on my birth cirtificate.Also I believe that the birth cirtificate was the cause of the Social Security Trust that was implemented in my All capital letter name trust.

         
  16. Rich H.

    August 30, 2011 at 7:51 PM

    Are you saying that my argument is frivolous?
    Go ahead and use the ‘I don’t have to pay because you made me a trustee’ as an argument in court. I’d would like to see that one on record.
    People are obligated through political status. Period! If your status is that of a legal entity which may or may not be in conjunction with a trust, then good luck with claiming rights.
    Correct your status and stop utilizing anything the US so-called Gov has to offer. There is an in law remedy to do so.

     
  17. TaxAnswers

    September 1, 2011 at 12:47 PM

    Adask, I think it is obvious to everyone here that we are speaking of two separate issues. What was brought up and discussed as a trust, meaning a legal entity with rights and responsibilities and trustees, is totally different than the trust relationship between parents and babysitter regarding a child.

    Just as one cannot “construe” the existence of a corporate entity, one cannot “construe” the existence of a trust entity.

    But thanks anyway for your opinion.

     
  18. sohila zadran

    June 26, 2013 at 9:27 PM

    It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d without a doubt donate to this superb blog! I guess for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to new updates and will share this website with my Facebook group. Chat soon!

     
  19. Big M

    July 27, 2013 at 4:02 PM

    I’m coming really late to the argument here, but I’m confused as to why the author states categorically right at the beginning that Title 26 is not positive law (which is true), but then goes on to state numerous times that you can be charged criminally for violating sections of it. Another thing that should be mentioned is that if you check Title 28, Section 1340, it states that federal district courts only have CIVIL jurisdiction over matters related to internal revenue.

     
    • Adask

      July 27, 2013 at 4:53 PM

      A lot of people (sometimes including me) use “criminal” and “penal” as if they meant the same thing. They don’t. It’s my understanding that “criminal” refers to the subject matter or jurisdiction of a true “crime” (complete with the element of “intent”).

      “Penal,” however, refers to a civil process (that probably does not include the element of intent) but which nevertheless has an “attached criminal penalty”.

      More than likely, the IRC is “penal” (civil) in nature rather than truly “criminal”. If so, the IRC can include “criminal penalties” even though it’s a civil (“penal”) process.

      The advantage to the “penal” process is that, being a civil process and without a need to prove the element of “intent,” it’s far easier to gain a conviction for a “penal” (civil) offense than it is for an actual crime (which, again, requires evidence of criminal intent which is often very difficult to prove).

       
      • Big M

        July 28, 2013 at 12:45 PM

        Thanks for the reply, and for your site, which seems like a place to glean much useful info. Let’s flesh this court thing out, as simply as shortly as possible.

        All courts are corporations, and judges are nothing more than 3rd-party corporate debt collectors. They don’t enforce natural or common law. They are involved in private international law, or admiralty law, or law of the seas, and they come under the laws of commerce. The “laws” that they enforce are nothing more than corporate codes or policies, and don’t actually apply to any living, breathing man or woman, unless the man or woman in question CONSENTS to it. This includes statutes, codes, regulations, by-laws, ordinances, legislations, etc. They can only gain jurisdiction or authority over you by using deceitful but “legal” language, and tricking you and/or intimidating you into appearing in their courts, answering questions, pleading to “charges,” etc. There are many ways for avoiding these issues, and I’m not going to go into them here. But that is how they operate. The entire court system in America, as well as many other countries, is outright commercial fraud. The worst thing anybody can possibly do is to show up in court as a defendant, much less hire an attorney (who is an officer of the court in the first place), because unless you do, no court or judge has any jurisdiction or authority over you. And if they issue a bench warrant for your arrest for “failure to appear,” that is illegal, and any cop who comes and hauls you off is acting completely outside their authority, and can and should be prosecuted for kidnapping. 99 times out of 100, the cop has no idea that the judge is setting them up for this, although the judge sure as hell knows it, and the judge also bets that the same odds apply to you knowing about any of this.

        If you have any disagreements about this, I would be very happy to read your opinion(s).

         
      • Big M

        July 28, 2013 at 12:49 PM

        AAAUUUGGHH. I left out something important in my comment about the court system, which was that these corporate codes and the like apply to “persons,” which are actually corporations or legal fictions. Sorry . . .

         
  20. hskiprob

    August 19, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    My understanding of positive law is that they are trying to be deceptive but it does not provide adequate cover for a Statute that never existed, i.e. a Federal individual income tax on personal monetary receipts of Citizens of the Several States operating in a private capacity. That is why the never note the proper or correct Kind of Tax on any of their correspondence.

     
  21. Joseph Sandy

    December 31, 2013 at 9:58 PM

    It has been my actual real life experience that rescinding the SSN with proper notice to the SSA and IRS is enough for a man to contract his labor for any form of barter, including FRN”s. I provide receipts with my contact info and the term “zero-sum transaction” for use by those who use my services and use my receipts for “their” IRS deductions. I have never had a problem, nor has anyone that I have worked for when they filed “their” taxes using my receipt. It is my observation that the SSN is the legal nexus to the IRC or the alleged title 26. Irwin Schiff refused the SSN connection to the IRS and it did not work out well. I have also put my butt on the line for my method and I am not in prison. Yes, it will be a problem if you want to work at Taco Bell or any other BAR attorney controlled business, which may be my next project.

     
    • hskiprob

      January 1, 2014 at 7:51 AM

      Joseph Sandy – It is interesting that you mention Taco Bell. I have an old employment application because of a case of a young highschooler and his sister who worked at Taco Bell without SS numbers. Dad was in the tax honesty movement and helped his kids beat Taco Bell on the issue. Sure as stootten, under the SS# is reads, optional. Haven’t checked one out lately to see if this policy is still in effect at Taco Bell.

       
  22. Joseph Sandy

    January 1, 2014 at 2:49 PM

    Why do you think I picked Taco Bell as an example? At least you caught it. My son has been hired by Little Caesar’s, Texas Roadhouse and Pier 1 without the SSN and this clean cut, non drinker,smoker,druggie ect. was an excellent, on time, honest as the day is long worker, who was well liked by his bosses, was eventually fired. I would argue with the home offices and delay his dismissal till a B.A.R. attorney would demand he be fired. Never could they supply the “law”. The catholic controlled EEOC was less than useless and hateful to deal with on this matter. I have split my own pay with him in an effort to convince him not to give up. I guess my next move should be to go down to magistrate court and sue the local franchisee’s for $5000.00 in a nuisance lawsuit for a quick settlement. It would cost them 3 or 4 times that to defend themselves up to Circuit Court. I highly recommend jurisdictionary.com material. Unfortunately the courts in my county are well aware of my talents for entering into “their” playground and kicking the sand out of “their” sandbox. And now the Federal Court house will not let me inside because I am not possessed by any corporate government I.D. And just try buying tobacco,alcohol or returning merchandise without I.D. among many other activities. I have had some successes with State and County cops running my name, then returning and telling me to have a nice day…

     
  23. AmeriCorps International GmbH

    August 16, 2014 at 8:14 PM

    I suspect the answer is simple, since the Federal Reserve is a private company not directly affiliated with the U. S. Code; therefore, it cannot compel the U. S. to criminalize non-payment of income tax (which, as you seem to know, IS voluntary and which, as you may not know, until Obamacare, did not actually have to be collected by employers). I suspect the fed govt realized after reading your blog and listening to your radio show, that it had what to come up with some legitimate manner to rob citizens; ergo, poof, voila!… PPACA 2010. I’m a dentist and I am a staunch supporter of former America. Descendant of a patriot, Eagle Scout, son of a Vietnam Vet fighter pilot. I hate what America has become. We have to stop all this chat and start biting back. Thanks for your insight. Right now I’m trying to write an article on how the IRS is mandated by Title 26 to target Christians (“church” is never defined except that it is NOT a mosque or a synagogue, and only “church” has IRC regs related to 501 tax exempt status: http://www.americorps.ch/uploads/26_USC_7611_F__78_A.pdf . My WIP article is online at http://www.americorps.ch/uploads/Federal_Authority_for_IRS_to_Discriminate_Against_Christianity.pdf . Keep in touch!

     
  24. Craig

    September 5, 2014 at 2:55 PM

    Does anyone know the critical detail regarding Dick Clark’s request for the list of Titles that were made into ‘positive’ law vs those that were not. The author talks about the asterisk but never tells us if Title 26 was on the ‘positive law’ list or not. This is VERY IMPORTANT. Being identical is important, but being statute is critical.

     
    • Adask

      September 5, 2014 at 4:02 PM

      I don’t recall. What I do recall is that the footnote provided by the National Archive implied that although Title 26 and the “Internal Revenue Code” were word-for-word identical, they were each issued by a different authority and thus of different legal force and effect.

       
      • Craig

        September 5, 2014 at 4:20 PM

        If Title 26 was written (by whomever) and included in the USC but was never made ‘public law’ it is the same as the identical document in the CFR. If it’s not ‘public law’ it’s no more enforceable to a private man than the regulations written in the CFR. But if it was made ‘public law’ then a court’s perception of enforcement will generally be affected.

         
  25. Craig

    September 5, 2014 at 4:24 PM

    I am having a dialogue with Sharon Petrov of the TTB. She has allowed me to ask questions regarding these subjects and has replied in more detail than I have seen with any other federal employee! Here is a copy of her responses regarding my initial list of questions:
    1. Assuming that when you are referring to Title 26 and Title 27, you are talking about the law and not the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 27 of the Code (U.S.C.)(law/statute) is the Federal Administration Act. Title 26 U.S.C (law/statute) is the Internal Revenue Code. They are totally separate and one does NOT supersede the other. If you are referring to Titles 26 and 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is not law, but regulations (Title 26 CFR for the Internal Revenue Code and Title 27 CFR for TTB). As a result of the implementation of the Homeland Security Act (not the Patriot Act), the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was split and as a result TTB was formed as a separate Bureau and has jurisdiction over excise taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms/Ammunition manufacturers/importers only.

    2. Part 70 of 27 CFR to which you are referring is SPECIFIC to TTB and the taxes and commodities under its jurisdiction. Again, the Internal Revenue Service is totally separate. You are absolutely incorrect in your statement that ” The collections of all forms of taxation imposed by 26 USC falls under your authority.” The ONLY taxes under the jurisdiction of TTB are, as I stated previously, excise taxes and any related penalties and/or interest on Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms/Ammunition manufacturers/importers. Income taxes, other excise taxes, etc. are under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service or other agencies. You should refer to the specific parts of the regulations for those particular taxes, in particular Part 26 of the CFR for taxes under the jurisdiction of the IRS. For taxes collected by TTB, you would then refer to Part 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In regard to Part 70 (CFR), subpart D, this is referring only to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms/Ammunition excise taxes that are imposed under the provisions of Title 26 United States Code. Taxes under the jurisdiction of the IRS are not covered here.

    3. In regard to your statement: “Also 26 USC Sections 70.34-70.487 (I will have to double check these but am fairly sure) it states: The Director of Chief Legal Counsel of the ATF/TTB must conduct all lien actions. That is precisely why the ATF/TTB form 5651.24 is the OMB authorized form not the IRS form 668(w)(y). It is my understanding that the IRS cannot act as its own collection agency. Is this something of which you are aware? It seems pretty obscure, but it appears that is how the law is written.” – First 26 U.S.C. Sections 70.34 – 70.487 do not exist, therefore, I’m assuming here that you are talking about 27 CFR 70.34 – 70.487 which are TTB specific regulations and as such, again, relate only to the excise taxes on the commodities under our jurisdiction. As far as your statement as to your understanding that the IRS cannot act as its own collection agency, again we will refer you to the Internal Revenue Service.

    4. In regard to your statement: “In 70.71 is the law regarding the Assessment Authority. “The appropriate TTB officers are authorized and required to make all inquiries necessary to the determination and assessment of ALL TAXES IMPOSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 26USC enforced and administered by the Bureau.” Then it goes on to tell us that ‘taxes’ includes interest and penalties, etc.” – please note the phrase “enforced and administered by the Bureau.” Again, Part 70 of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, is TTB specific and the excise taxes enforced and administered by the Bureau are on alcohol, tobacco and firearms/ammunition manufacturers/importers.

    5. In regard to your statement, “The OMB has approved the TTB/ATF form 5651.24 for that purpose. The IRS currently uses an IRS administrative form 668(w)(y) which is not authorized by the OMB and in fact doesn’t meet any of the legal federal requirements of a NFTL. If by law the TTB is to assess and administer collections for all taxes imposed under 26USC, then you guys are the ones who legally should be doing assessment and collections for income taxes.” – TTB and IRS forms are not interchangeable. TTB Form 5651.24 is for TTB use only in the execution of their duties to enforce the provisions of excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms or ammunition. Again, any questions regarding IRS forms, or any other agency forms other than TTB, needs to be directed to the IRS or the appropriate agency.

    I believe the issue here is that you are confusing law/statute which is the United States Code (abbreviated by U.S.C. in citations) with regulations (abbreviated by CFR in citations). I wish to stress that 27 CFR Part 70, which you seem to be relying on, are TTB specific regulations. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms/Ammunition excise taxes are covered under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) which is why you see the references you do in the regulations. Please understand even though they refer to the IRC, the regulations are only covering the excises taxes under the jurisdiction of TTB.

    I hope I have not confused further. If so, please feel free to contact me.

    Sharon Petroff
    National Revenue Center
    Delinquent Tax Unit

     
  26. AmeriCorps International GmbH

    September 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM

    Amazing, Craig. Thank you… I finished the article. Am still befuddled about §26 USC 7611 and what appears to me to be a contradiction to the Establishment Clause. Can everyone please read it and tell me where/how/if I’m wrong? If I’m even close to correct, how has this gone unresolved for so long? http://amercorps.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/church-restrictions-irc/

     
    • AmeriCorps International GmbH

      September 7, 2014 at 9:42 AM

      Incidentally, I believe it is very important to give credit when and where it is due.

       
    • Craig

      September 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM

      From my research the IRC is identical to USC Title 26. (Thus the asterisk.) They are representing that the USC Title 26 is positive law which Adask disagrees (and I hope he is right!) and by quoting it verbatim (which is rare in non-public law Titles) our government is creating the illusion that all the policies of the IRC are lawful and cannot be challenged. (Of course never addressing federal jurisdiction vs private individuals…) Titles of the USC that are not public law quote fragments of other Titles that are, thereby creating additional applications and expanding upon the original intent of the Titles quoted. Sharon is right that regulations do not supersede public law. So if Adask is correct, there is no public law and the IRC quotes a Title that has no more force of law that any other regulation.
      Also the assumption that all assessment, collections, etc. fall under the jurisdiction of the TTB she says is incorrect. Sharon gives a reference that she claims shows the limit to the TTB jurisdiction, but I cannot find it the way she has written it. I need to ask for clarification.

       
      • Adask

        September 8, 2014 at 1:24 PM

        I think that, regardless of whether Title 26 is positive law or not–it is still some sort of “public law” which is subject to the Constitution.

        I can’t prove it, but I suspect that the Internal Revenue Code may be some sort of private law. If that were true, then the IRC is not subject to constitutional restrictions.

        If so, and if you were charged under some section of Title 26, you’d have access to protections provided by the Constitution. If you were charged under the identical section in the Internal Revenue Code, you’d have no basis for challenging the “law” as unconstitutional.

        This hypothesis suggests that your first questions to the IRS might be to ask if 1) Title 26 and the Internal Revenue Code were of identical authority; 2) if either were private law; 3) if the IRS needed your implied consent (failure to expressly object) to being subject to the IRC rather than Title 26, etc.

         
      • Craig

        September 8, 2014 at 3:03 PM

        Well, your instinct I believe is correct. The terms private and public can be interchanged in this example however. The IRC is subject to a specific jurisdiction. (Look in IRC 6331(a) for starters.) None of the IRC or USC technically has anything to do with you or me as private persons. Public law as well as the regulations associated with them deal specifically with the federal jurisdiction. If you are accused by a federal organization, they must prove standing.
        A technique used by the IRS is very cunning. The first thing they ask a person is if they believed they should pay their fair share of income taxes. If you answer, you hang yourself!! If you say yes, they you have acquiesced to that jurisdiction of course. And if you say no, the burden of proof now falls on your back. So if you end up in court, you have to prove to a jury of ‘taxpayers’ that you don’t have to pay income tax. Usually that doesn’t go well…Remaining neutral asking questions such as, ‘I am more than willing to pay income tax if the law applies to me. Please show the relevant statutes and laws that clearly state that as a living man without any federal connections and not residing in a federal zone is subject to the federal income tax statutes and regulations?” Keep the burden of proof on them.

         
      • EarlatOregon

        September 8, 2014 at 7:28 PM

        .
        .
        .
        .

        Private Companies that collect Taxes
        .
        .
        .

        John Law and the Mississippi Company.
        Private Companies that collect Taxes
        .
        .
        .

        The company next purchased the right
        to Mint new Coins …,
        and by October it had purchased the right
        to Collect most French Taxes.

        .
        .

        John Law now controlled all of France’s
        finance and money Creation.

        http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/70/john-law-and-the-mississippi-bubble-1718-1720

         
      • AmeriCorps International GmbH

        September 8, 2014 at 7:49 PM

        And regarding Adask’s comment, “I can’t prove it, but I suspect that the Internal Revenue Code may be some sort of private law. If that were true, then the IRC is not subject to constitutional restrictions,” I would say I’d have to disagree. Nothing unconstitutional should appear in the USC (although it does).

         
      • AmeriCorps International GmbH

        September 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM

        Adask is correct. 26 USC is non-positive law. See footnote on homepage of the Office of Law Revision Counsel: http://uscode.house.gov/browse.xhtml

         
  27. Craig

    September 8, 2014 at 9:33 PM

    Wow! I am new to this blog and it’s really intense. That is good if we are all respectful. I want to share some great information that if you have comments about i would like your input.

    uments/The16th.htm. All emphases are added.

    HERE ARE SOME PLAIN FACTS about the nature of the income tax. Anything you’ve ever heard or had suggested to you about the tax which does not conform to each and every one of these facts is simply not true, no matter how or by whom it was said or suggested to you.

    What you’re going to see proven in the compilation below is that:

    1. The income tax is an excise;

    2. Excise taxes are taxes on privilege;

    3. The preceding facts about the income tax cannot change, because a tax on UN-privileged activities (or the gains therefrom) is a capitation or other direct tax, and the Constitution prohibits capitations and other direct taxes (other than by apportionment); and

    4. The prohibition on unapportioned capitations and other direct taxes has never changed, even by action of the Sixteenth Amendment.

    Then we’ll follow with some discussion of what these facts mean and why this is all very important to you and your kids. Here we go:

    1. The tax is an excise:

    “[The] tax upon gains, profits, and income [is] an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and [] its imposition [is] not, therefore, unconstitutional.”

    United States Supreme Court, Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880) (as summarized in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601, (1895))

    “[T]axation on income [is] in its nature an excise…”

    A unanimous United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

    “I hereby certify that the following is a true and faithful statement of the gains, profits, or income of _____ _____, of the _____ of _____, in the county of _____, and State of _____, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salary, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, or from any other source whatever, from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1862, both days inclusive, and subject to an income tax under the excise laws of the United States.”

    The “affirmation” on the first income tax return form

    “The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2, 1939… …has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16, 1938.”

    Preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code

    “The income tax… …is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.”

    Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943

    2. Excise taxes are taxes on privilege:

    “…the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege.”

    United States Supreme Court, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,, 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

    “The terms ‘excise’ tax and ‘privilege’ tax are synonymous and the two are often used interchangeably.”

    American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (M.D. Tenn. 1937)

    “PRIVILEGE: A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.”

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

    “The ‘Government’ is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed…”

    United States Supreme Court, United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944)

    3. These facts about the tax cannot change, because a tax on UN-privileged activities (or the gains therefrom) is a capitation or other direct tax, and the Constitution prohibits capitations and other direct taxes (other than by apportionment):

    “[A tax laid] according to what is supposed to be [an unprivileged payer's] fortune, by an assessment which varies from year to year [is a capitation].”

    Adam Smith, ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’, Book V, Ch. II, Art. IV (1776)

    “Art. I. Sect. 9. “no capitation tax shall be laid, unless &c”

    Mr Read moved to insert after “capitation” the words. “or other direct tax” He was afraid that some liberty might otherwise be taken to saddle the States with a readjustment by this rule, of past Requisitions of Congs – and that his amendment by giving another cast to the meaning would take away the pretext. Mr Williamson 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to, On motion of Col: Mason “or enumeration” inserted after, as explanatory of “Census” (Con. & S. C. only. no.)”

    James Madison, Notes of the Constitutional Convention

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

    United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

    “CAPITATION, A poll tax; an imposition which is yearly laid on each person according to his estate and ability.”

    Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1856). (The official law dictionary of Congress when the income tax was enacted.)

    “‘[B]y direct taxes in the constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people;…’ [T]he framers of the [Constitution] had [Adam Smith's definition of 'capitation'] in view at the time, and … by direct taxes, meant those paid directly from the falling immediately on the revenue;…'”

    United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

    “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights;”

    United States Supreme Court, Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

    “The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right… 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. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property’. Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, c. 10.”

    United States Supreme Court, Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)

    “Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property”

    United States Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

    “Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.”

    Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)

    4. The prohibition on unapportioned capitations and other direct taxes has never changed, even by action of the Sixteenth Amendment:

    “[The Sixteenth] amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.”

    Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943

    “The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong.”

    Cornell Law Quarterly, 1 Cornell L. Q. 298 (1915-16)

    (The Pollock court had reasoned that even though otherwise proper subjects of an excise tax, a tax on privilege-based dividends and rent was functionally a tax on the personal property from which the gains were derived– the stock and real estate– and therefore was really a direct tax. The Sixteenth Amendment says that the “source” can no longer be considered in this way. If something is “income” in the sense meant in the income tax– that is, a gain from a privilege-based, and thus excisable activity– it can be taxed as such without regard to the source from which it is derived.)

    “In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is “indirect,” rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned.”

    Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)

    “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…”

    Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled ‘Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws’

    “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…”

    U.S. Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

    “[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as [unapportioned-excise taxable] income.”

    U.S. Supreme Court, Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929)

    “[T]he sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1240 U. S. 17-18 (1916)”

    U.S. Supreme Court, So. Carolina v. Baker, , 485 U.S. 505 (1988)

    5. So, it really doesn’t matter at all what the tax is called (whether “excise” or not). Nor does it matter what the State wants you to believe about it. The tax CAN only be Constitutionally-applied as an excise– meaning to privileged activities, measured by the gains they produce. Were it to be applied to UN-privileged activities it would be a capitation or other direct tax and require apportionment.

    In happy fact, the tax IS confined to privileged activities, as written– scrupulously so. It’s just that it is written by geniuses of legal deception, and defended by scoundrels who take full advantage of its deceptive design.

    YOU’VE BEEN FOOLED, PEOPLE (and man, has it cost you in wealth and liberty and security)!

    The income tax is what it always has been, both before and after the Sixteenth Amendment: a tax on federally-granted privilege. It is not a tax on money, or making or receiving money, or anything but profitably exercising a federally-granted privilege.

    That the tax has been effectively applied to non-privileged things (like your earnings) is a consequence of a clever statutory design by which common, actually-untaxable gains can be made to appear to be of the privileged, taxable variety (and the willingness of an always-revenue-hungry state to exploit your ignorance of that design and how it works).

    You have even been made to legally (if unknowingly and unintentionally) agree that your actually unprivileged, untaxable gains are of the taxable sort.

    Do you remember in ‘The Incredibles’ how the insurance company where Mr. Incredible was working had things carefully set up so everyone who dealt with the company was thoroughly exploited by its convoluted procedures and fine print? That’s how the tax laws are set up.

    But when you learn what the exploiters hope you won’t, everything changes.

    Tens of thousands of your neighbors have learned. They’ve been getting all their money back for many years now.

    The government hates this and strives mightily with all manner of corrupt practices from the bowels of its deep and dark armory to keep you from learning the liberating truth and cutting through the bs, too. Part of this effort has involved a lot of shooting, smearing, demonizing, and marginalizing the messenger and message, including by way of a handful of judicial proceedings deploying evasions calculated to give the appearance of opposition while actually constituting admissions, such as those discussed here and here.

    There are others who would rather you didn’t know the truth, also. Pundits who make a living complaining about the size of the government; tax attorneys; CPAs; “tax reform” advocates; and even many folks who present themselves as “tax honesty crusaders” don’t want you to know. Knowing the truth about the tax, you will no longer buy what they’re selling, just as you will no longer lose up to half your hard-earned wealth to a dangerously over-fed State.

    Go to http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm now and get the whole story. Or turn out your pockets and go back into your coma… copper-top. You and your kids will end up eaten alive by Leviathan (or, more accurately, spoon-fed in ever-more pathetic and contemptible bits and pieces to its clients), and you’ll have no one to blame but yourself.

    ***

    NOTES: Any construction of any aspect of the tax which would produce a result inconsistent with the above facts is a manifest misconstruction. For instance, any construction of the nature of what is taxed, or the meaning or effect of “includes”, or of “privileged”, which brings all economic activity or its products into the class of taxable events or taxed objects is self-evidently incorrect.

    This is so, however cleverly the misconstruction may be defended. Any construction with the effect of imposing or justifying an unapportioned capitation or other direct tax is manifestly unconstitutional, even if teasing or arguing out just where the mistakes are being made gives you a headache or is beyond your abilities altogether. You don’t need to be able to argue, understand or defend the relevant physics or the geometry to be able to confidently say that the Earth is not flat.

    ***

    The same principle discussed above applies to “tax honesty” arguments that the tax only falls on corporations, or foreigners, or citizens, or residents, or the use or receipt of Federal Reserve notes, or is interlinked with the UCC, or (to put it succinctly) any construction or argument that the tax is anything other than what it is revealed to be in ‘Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America’. Such notions are just as incompatible with one or more of the facts shown above as is the myth that the tax falls on all economic activity, and thus just as self-evidently incorrect.

    ***

    Some unscrupulous beneficiaries/defenders of the misapplication of the tax have argued that certain of the Supreme Court rulings cited and excerpted above, such as Butcher’s Union v. Crescent City are not actually tax-specific cases. This is pure evasion masquerading as criticism.

    Butcher’s Union is not cited as evidence that the Supreme Court has specifically said that common occupations are not taxable other than by apportionment. The case doesn’t say this, directly.

    Indeed, it is often difficult or impossible to find court rulings which declare the obvious or uncontroversial directly. This is no surprise; after all, what would be the occasion for such a declaration? Has any court ever found itself needing to hold that the Sun rises in the East (so to speak)?

    But Butcher’s Union DOES acknowledge that common occupations are a matter of right. That fact (which we don’t really need any court to tell us, but why not use it when it is there?) conjoins with Knowlton v. Moore’s observation that a tax on the enjoyment of a right is a direct tax, thus requiring apportionment as specified in Article 1, Sec. 9, and with all the Supreme Court rulings declaring that apportionment requirement to continue, even after the Sixteenth Amendment. Taken all together, these are a body of judicial acknowledgement that under the US Constitution a federal tax on common economic activities engaged in by right (or the product thereof) can only be laid per the apportionment rule.

    P. S. Do you think taking care of the misapplication of the tax doesn’t matter? Why It Matters.

    P. P. S. By the way, the systematic exploitation of the income tax’s confusing design to apply it to unprivileged activities only began in the 1940s. Do you want to see what happened when it did? Click here.

    P. P. P. S. This is a very important article with powerful truth-spreading potential. PLEASE share it widely, especially with folks outside the CtC community and especially with those in the media and the legal profession. Copy the whole thing, from the title through these words, and paste it into your emails to others. If you are only able to share a link, it is http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm#1.

    Thank You Pete.

     
    • Adask

      September 9, 2014 at 10:41 AM

      You say the income tax is an excise tax. I think you’re probably right–but where are you right?

      Can you tell me where there income tax is an excise tax? I.e., in what venue is the income tax an excise tax?

      For example, the US income tax is not any kind of tax in Uganda, Brazil or China. Thus, it’s not an excise tax in all venues. So, in which venue(s) is the income tax an excise tax?

      Is the income tax an excise tax within: 1) the States of the Union (that is, States of The United States of America); 2) the territories, possessions, administrative districts and “states” of the United States; 3) Washington DC; 4) all of the above?

      If the income tax were an excise tax in two of the three previous “American” venues (say, in the territories, etc. of the United States and in Washington DC) would it still be an excise tax within the States of the Union?

      If the income tax were an excise tax within the States of the Union, would it still be constitutional within those States of the Union? I suspect the answer is No.

      If the income tax was not a constitutional excise tax within the States of the Union, would it still be constitutional within the territories and Washington DC? I suspect the answer is Yes.

      My point is that I strongly suspect that the income tax is absolutely constitutional within the venue of the territories, administrative districts and “states” “of the United States” but unconstitutional within the venue of the States of The United States of America (States of the Union).

      Every law is venue specific. The laws of England do not apply within the venue of China, but they do apply within the venue of England. The laws of the “United States” (created by the Constitution of the United States first ratified by the people in A.D. 1788) apply within the “United States”. But do the laws of the “United States” also apply within the venue of “The United States of America” (the confederation and perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781 and made “more perfect” by the Constitution of the United States of A.D. 1788)?

      What are the exact venues within which the income tax is mandated by law?

       
      • Craig

        September 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM

        I agree with you regarding venue. You sound like a student of Ed Rivera. So you are familiar with the four pillars or Organic laws? This is a recent message from ed. Tell me what you think.
        Students and Subscribers,

        Jon Roland is a believer. He believes the Constitution of
        September 17, 1787, as amended. He does not cite facts which
        support that belief. He only seeks confirmation of his beliefs
        that “this Constitution” is the supreme law of the land and “the
        Constitution of the United States” was superseded by what he calls
        the “U.S. Constitution.”

        Roland is so blinded by his belief in “this Constitution” he
        refuses to recognize the fact the Constitution of September 17,
        1787, as amended, is only the fourth of the four Organic Laws of
        the United States of America, the pillars of American government
        law. When the legitimacy and the validity of all four Organic Laws
        is recognized, the Constitution of September 17, 1787, as amended,
        simply becomes the supreme law of the land for the territory or
        other property owned by or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction
        of the United States of America.

        Ed

         
  28. AmeriCorps International GmbH

    September 10, 2014 at 2:48 AM

    This all strikes me a bit like what falling down through the rabbit hole would feel like… vast, important and never-to-be-fully understood. I’m fairly well educated – William & Mary and Univ. of Pennsylvania, and I perceive myself lucky just to be able to follow the flow. Like every good scientist, however, I need proofs, not theories, so I eagerly await the final “findings.”

    In the meantime…

    1. While discussion mushrooms re constitutionality of §26 USC, in toto (and though I wonder why discussions regarding Pete’s references to CFR and TTB have all but evaporated), unless I missed it, I’ve not read any comment affirming or denying our assessment that §26 USC 7611 violates the Establishment Clause of the most current revision of the Constitution. For a recap, see the article linked from within one of my most recent comments above (not as much, the earlier-linked WIP draft.)

    2. As I have resided for nearly 50 years on the former Chesepioc Pungo Ridge, 4 miles from “America’s Cape” ▼, where our founding religion and form(s) of law (Virginia Charters) first stepped foot onto American soil (actually, sand), I cannot help but inject into the topic concerning venues (and laws pertaining thereto – particularly germane to the authorities of Great Britain) the reason portions (Sect 2/3) of Article VI regarding treaties was incorporated into the earliest of our Constitutions: the debts America owed to England and France at the time of ratification of the Traité d’Alliance▼ (1778) and Traité de Paix▼ (1783), which would ultimately result in (a) American indebtedness in perpetuity, and (b) the Social Security Orders co-legislated by the United States [ http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Texts/uk.html ] and Great Britain [ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1778/made ]. Therein (and betwixt) exist remnants of the evidence of an expansive, 400 year old and legally significant evolutionary history which must not be ignored when discussing such things as sovereignty and venues of authority. (At least that’s what we “Chesapeake Bay Capes folk” contend.)

    ▼ See following comment for hyperlinks.

    Dr. Matt

     
  29. AmeriCorps International GmbH

    September 10, 2014 at 2:50 AM

    ▼ (Presumed maximum of three hyperlinks per comment.)

    America’s Cape: http://amercorps.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/cape-history/

    Traités de l’Alliance, Paris et Versailles: http://www.norfolkchapter.org/Four_for_the_French.html

     
  30. AmeriCorps International GmbH

    September 10, 2014 at 5:18 AM

    ▼ And for the skeptics: http://www.americorps.ch/uploads/Treaty_of_Paris_Article_I_and_SS-USA_Order_1997_No_1778.pdf (the following section of text from which incorporates embedded hyperlinks):

    Only Article 1 remains in force as of this date.

    The historical record resulting in the dissolution of all other of the Treaty’s articles is not so easily accessible to the public, but noted historians have sporadically cited the numerous and sundry “exchanges” made between the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Ireland (and the Holy Roman Empire), which eventually culminated in “The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 – Number 1778″ between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou), which was last legislatively updated in 2012. (No. 380: art 2, Sch. 1, 2.)

    It is noteworthy that the inception of this Treaty has no official historical documentation, as noted on the United Kingdom’s legislative archives resources webpage for the Order by the text, “there are no associated documents for this legislation;” however, a fairly obvious confirmation exists in the published title’s only numerical texts, both of which also conveniently appear in the Order’s published URL: “1997” and “1778.” (1778 is the year of the signing of the historical first treaty in the successive evolution of this legislation, the Treaty of Alliance, aligning American Patriot forces under command of General Washington with France under command of General Rochambeau and Amiral De Grasse against the forces of King George.)

     
  31. AmeriCorps International GmbH

    September 10, 2014 at 5:48 AM

    My apologies for the succession of comments, but it occurred to me I should provide an additional layer of relevance to this discussion.

    It may be found in Part I, Article 2 (1)(a)(ii) of “The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984,” which is, itself, a revision of a 1975 order, and which states, thus cites: “Chapter 2 and Chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and regulations pertaining to those chapters.”

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1984/1817/schedule/1/made

    It seems to reveal the fact that the 1939 revision has, in fact, been replaced/preempted by the 1954 revision.

    ###

     
    • hskiprob

      September 10, 2014 at 3:45 PM

      It is my understanding that Title 26, is the Internal Revenue Code. It was again enacted in 1986 under Reagan. However, Title 26 is not positive law according to the House of Representatives Office of Law Revision, thus it can be challenged as Prima Fascia evidence in a Court of Law. The Internal Revenue Code is much like a desk reference manual that is written, not by the Legislature but by the Administration/IRS and Treasury. It components must provide the exact wording of the underlying Federal Statute for it to be valid as law in court. Have Judges abused this and allowed the various Sections of Title 26 to be used as material evidence; of course. Have people raised this issue and won; yes. One of the reasons that Individuals can sometimes beat the IRS, is that for most people those who are Citizens of the 50 States, there does not appear to be an underlying Federal Regulation that the IRS or Treasury will ever provide in USC 26.

      The Winners and Losers Against the IRS – https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/harrietrobbins/W2bxvuPSWks

      I was part of a group that even sued them to try to get them to give us the Federal Statute. The Courts said that they did not have to answer our 62 questions relating to the income tax and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. There is no law in my opinion or the government would have long ago provide it. My book, that I’m getting ready to publish, goes through the relevant Statues and cases to provide material and circumstantial evidence. The main thing though is not if the law exists or not. The Notice of Federal Tax Liens being issued by the IRS are almost all incorrect, thus insufficient as valid Liens, thus unenforceable, theoretically, as they do not note the underlying Federal Regulation/”the tax liability given rise to the lien” as required by “real” Federal Regulations. The only reason they do not correctly note the Federal Regulation on the NFTLs being enforced, is there must not be one. Many of us know that many of the Judges are corrupt so how this all works out in the Courts is unknown. I have never seen the Federal Statute that requires Citizens of the 50 States to pay a federal income tax on the labor, as individuals. There seems to be two primary issues, their authority and what jurisdiction does the specific law apply to. They do have the power to tax individual income, just not everyone and legally, in my opinion, not most people.

       
      • Craig

        September 10, 2014 at 6:39 PM

        You and I are on the same page regarding the IRC, etc. But I have a question regarding recording procedures of the NFTL’s at the county level. What has your research shown regarding the IRS’s filing techniques that do not conform with the UCC? Haw your research shown that the IRS is not exempt from the UCC? If the county recorders realize that regardless of what form the IRS uses (668 with any of it’s subsequent letters after…) if that document is not accompanied by the required signatures and court docs, it is not a valid lien or notice and must not be recorded. What say ye?

         
      • ACI Media

        September 10, 2014 at 8:54 PM

        I’ve researched your pending book online. Seems to me to be long overdue; however, social media and sites like YouTube have so increased public awareness, the passage of the PPACA 2010 was an unadvertised necessity if the government ever intended to collect “taxes” legally via the IRS.

        It’s unfortunate more people didn’t know the facts when it could have mattered.

        I’ve always believed the easiest way to defeat a hungry, growing monster is simply to deprive it of sustenance; yet all we do is feed (and feed into) it.

        Re. Wesley Snipes, if you’ll scroll up this blog about halfway, a well-articulated explanation is provided by “Tax Answers.”

        Also I’m not so sure part of every citizens’ defense could get any better than these: :http://youtu.be/42GoSb7KKL0 and http://youtu.be/R7mRSI8yWwg , although the credibility of the latter subject could be questioned.

         
  32. Dude

    September 11, 2014 at 9:53 AM

    I think you are all making this more difficult than need be.
    I read most of the comments… some good, some interesting, some not very relevant.
    What can we all agree on?
    There is deception involved and it is very cunning.
    I have and read Pete’s Cracking the Code book… and it makes good points, but remember… he spent time in jail. Was it because he was right and they just wanted to make an example out of him? Possibly because they want to make example out of anyone who challenges them since fear is their greatest tool… and/or maybe he missed something? You can be 99% correct but that 1% will nail you.

    So let’s say that the income tax is excise off of privilege, or private law, or any and all of those things mentioned in this thread. The key is… how is that applicable to you? Isn’t tax or any law/code dependent upon jurisdiction? I would say yes. So how do they acquire jurisdiction? How are they fooling just about everyone?

    One comment on here nailed it on the head, but it didn’t go deep enough. Do NOT admit because you are doomed if you say yes and doomed if you say no. Ask questions but do not discriminate against yourself. Are you a “US Citizen”? A yes will be instant death. A no will put you at a place where you have to prove it. A question like… what evidence do you have supports any claim to me being a “US Citizen”? is safer.

    They already have evidence against you. Ever fill out a W-2 or W-4 or whatever… and one of those forms “of admission” to being a “U.S. Citizen”? Your “employer” is NOT your friend. They are your enemy because they play along with the scheme. You might think that your work is a right, but it is not. According to them (IRS/government/etc), it is a privilege for you to work and receive benefits. You are considered an “animal” as Alfred has shown in other threads. You use their Social Security Number that you or someone applied for you and that is considered a privilege. Basically, being a “U.S. Citizen” is a privilege AND automatically grants to them jurisdiction no matter where you are.
    Get it yet?

    So, you can read Pete’s Cracking the Code book, but I recommend picking up the book “The Red Amendment” because I had to undo what I did in Pete’s book or end up in jail too. Did you know you are better off NOT filing a return than to file a “frivolous” return? I have a friend in jail for following Pete’s way and those arguments did not fly because… it misses the mark. You can argue “law” until you are purple in the face, but if you are under jurisdiction it doesn’t matter because you unwittingly agreed to the benefits AND penalties.

    So before you go off and get yourself into trouble with the enemy, do yourself a favor and look at every way in which you are involved in receiving any “benefit” or “privilege” from the snake. You might think you “deserve” this or that, but “that” is exactly how they acquire jurisdiction over you and can penalize you accordingly.

    Amen.

     
    • ACI Media

      September 11, 2014 at 5:18 PM

      Dude! Nice.

      Adask: Is there a way to communicate with you outside this public arena? I’d like to end my comments with some information which I think everyone in the group should read, but I don’t want to post it publicly (or if I do, it would have to be coordinated so you could delete the post after about an hour or so). I think you have a way to see my email address. If so, please email me. I can either submit to you the post for approval and to email to everyone who has commented or we can figure something else out. Also I do believe there is relevance to everything I post, even though it may not be starkly apparent nor well defined.

      Lastly, could you either delete my comment containing my real title/first name or delete just that for me? It’s somewhere up ▲ there.

      THANKS.

       
      • Adask

        September 11, 2014 at 6:42 PM

        Even I think there is relevance to everything I post on this blog. Some, however, disagree. They might be right. Relevance is in the eyes of the beholder, not the writer.

        I don’t have time to pussyfoot around publishing, deleting, publishing for 60 minutes (not 59 or 61?) and then deleting according to the whims of those who comment on this blog.

        If you have something civil to say, say it. If you’d rather not say it, that’s OK with me.

        I always stand by my smart remarks. I generally also stand by my stupid remarks. You should also stand by yours.

        I’m not inclined to go fishing for your previous comments, but I did and all I saw was one other “ACI Media” comment and it didn’t appear to include your first name or title, so I didn’t delete it.

        I did see several comments attributed to “AmeriCorps International GmbH” which sound somewhat similar to “ACI Media” but I can’t be sure. Perhaps you are asking me to fish through all of those comments to correct your error(s). Well, I have no intention of reading every one of those sometimes lengthy comments as a favor to you in search of whatever it is that you wish you hadn’t written. There are only so many hours in the day.

        I looked for “ACI Media” (as you requested). I won’t look again.

        I believe my answer was “relevant” to your comment.

         
      • ACI Media

        September 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM

        Thanks, boss. Yes, I changed from Americorps to ACI Media just a couple of days ago. I just needed “Dr. Matt” erased (now from this, too.) I’ll prob come in under a different alias to post what I’d like the group to know… because I like and respect this group, but I also like and respect myself! If you read one which has a sentence in it that says something like, I probably shouldn’t say this… then just delete it (and this one) some day… maybe a week later. I don’t know and, frankly, I don’t care if it does somehow get a drone scope pointed at me. I know my fate. It’s the one unfolding before us, written two thousand years ago and appearing, in part, as the last chapter of the New Testament. Amen.

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,029 other followers