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: , , , , , , , ,

62 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.

     
  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.

         
  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.

       
  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

         
  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…

     

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 1,003 other followers