Tax facts to ponder about....greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
WE CHALLENGE ANYONE TO DISPROVE THESE FACTS ABOUT INCOME TAX LAW
FACT 1. RESIDENTS OF THE STATES OF THE UNION ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO FILE FORMS 1040 AND THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF A TAX ON "INCOME" UNLESS THEY ARE WITHHOLDING AGENTS.
There is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code imposing an "income" tax on monies received by citizens or resident aliens residing within the states of the union, regardless of the amount, unless the money is received on behalf of, or paid to, a nonresident alien, or other foreign entity.
FACT 2. AMERICANS ARE MISLED AND DECEIVED INTO BELIEVING THAT THE "INCOME" TAX APPLIES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
For years, the Internal Revenue Service has RULED the American people in a manner equaled only by the Nazi Gestapo. FEAR and BLUFF have been the I.R.S.'s major weapons. Americans have been led to believe that they owe a tax on their earnings; that it is their "patriotic duty" to pay it, and that there is no alternative to the I.R.S.'s abuse. These beliefs are simply untrue. Because accountants, tax preparers, and others profit from the fraudulent misapplication of the law, most of them are reluctant to admit the truth about the law when they are confronted with it.
FACT 3. THE I.R.S. ADMITS THAT THE "INCOME" TAX SYSTEM IS DEPENDENT ON THE VOLUNTARY FILING OF TAX RETURNS.
In the decision of U.S. v. Flora, 362 U.S. 145, (1960),on p. 176, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. If a law requires you to do something, your compliance with the law is mandatory, not voluntary. But if a law requires certain other people, (not you) to do something, then your compliance with that law is voluntary.
The I.R.S. has repeatedly stated that: The mission of the Internal Revenue Service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of 'VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE' with the tax laws and regulations... (I.R. Manual Sec. 1111.1)
FACT 4. CITIZENS IMPOSE AN "INCOME" TAX ON THEMSELVES WHEN THEY VOLUNTARILY FILE A 1040 INCOME TAX RETURN.
Citizens voluntarily comply and "self assess " a tax upon themselves when they file a 1040 tax return, thereby acknowledging under penalty of perjury that they owe a tax that the I.R.S. Code does not impose on them.
FACT 5. THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE ANY DIRECT TAX ON THE PEOPLE IN THE STATES OF THE UNION.
Two provisions in the U.S. Constitution prohibit the imposition of direct taxes on the people or their property by the U.S. government. The first is Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires the amount of any direct tax to be divided among the state governments In proportion to the population of each state. The second provision is in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, which prohibits any capitation tax (a tax on people) or other direct tax unless apportioned among the states. Direct taxes have been imposed only five times in U.S. history. All were imposed on state governments (not individuals). The last direct tax was imposed in 1861.
FACT 6. THE U. S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE "INCOME" TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INDIRECT (EXCISE) TAX, BUT NOT AS A DIRECT TAX (a tax on the general public).
In the 1916 decisions of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment (the "income" tax amendment) to the U.S. Constitution created no new power of taxation and that it did not amend or nullify the constitutional prohibition against direct taxation of the people within the slates of the union.
The Court ruled that the "income" tax is constitutional as an indirect excise tax on the receipts of foreigners, but not as a direct tax on the American people. In the decision of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, the U.S. Supreme Court defined an "excise" as a tax on activities involving the exercise of a privilege.
FACT 7. THE I.R.S. ADMITS THAT THE BRUSHABER DECISION RELATES TO "INCOME" ACCRUING TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS ONLY.
Treasury Decision 2313, issued Mar. 21, 1916 by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to inform collectors of internal revenue of the significance of the Brushaber decision states: Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby hold that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.
TD 2313 also states: The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or business raffled on within the United States, shall make (file) a full and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their nonresident alien principals. This document shows that the "withholding agent" receiving "income" on behalf of a nonresident alien, must pay the tax and file a 1040 for his nonresident alien principal.
FACT 8. FORM 1040 IS AN INCOME TAX RETURN FOR NONRESIDENT ALIENS.
IR Code Sec. 871 (a) imposes a tax of 30% on the amount received by non-resident aliens from sources within the United States. Sec 871 (b) states that the nonresident alien shall be taxable under Sec. 1, thus authorizing the use of the charts in Sec. 1 to compute and reduce his tax, so he can get a tax refund from the 30% which is withheld under the provisions of Sec 1441. Also, under I.R.S. Code Sec. 874 (a), the nonresident alien is entitled to the benefit of deductions and credits by filing or having his agent file, a 1040, as stated in TID 2313.
FACT 9. "INCOME" IS MONEY RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF, OR PAID TO, A NONRESIDENT ALIEN.
I. R. Code Sec. 1441 (a) and (b) state that ... interest, ...dividends, refit, salaries, wages,premium annuities, compensations, remuneration's, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodic gains, and profits... are "income" when received on behalf of, or paid to, a nonresident alien or other foreign entity. Also, courts have ruled that profits of corporations are "income." But... There is no provision in the I.R.S. Code stating that receipts belonging to citizens or residents of the country are "income."
Thus, a citizen's own receipts are not "income," "gross income," or "taxable income" under the I.R.S. Code. Within the states "Income" is property derived from activities Involving the exercise of a government granted privilege.
FACT 10. IT IS A PRIVILEGE FOR A NONRESIDENT ALIEN TO DO BUSINESS, TO INVEST, OR TO WORK IN THE USA
The U.S. government can prohibit foreigners from working, investing, or doing business within this country, and allowing such activity is a privilege subject to an excise tax, similar to the government granted privilege to do business as a corporation. But Americans have a nontaxable RIGHT to work, invest or do business in this country. The U.S. Supreme Court in Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.105 stated: A state may not impose a tax for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
FACT 11. THE "INCOME" TAX IS AN INDIRECT EXCISE TAX ON PRIVILEGED ACTIVITIES, NOT ON "INCOME." THE "INCOME" IS MERELY THE MEASURE OF THE TAX.
The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Volume 89, Part 2, on page 2580 for March 27, 1943 states: The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measuredly reference to the income which they produce. The income is not to subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court in the decision of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, in discussing income tax as an excise tax, stated on p. 165 It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income.
FACT 12. WITHHOLDING AGENTS ARE REQUIRED TO WITHHOLD FROM PAYMENTS OF "INCOME" TO FOREIGN PERSONS ONLY.
IRS Code Sec. 7701(a)(16) states: The term "withholding agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461. These sections apply to money received on behalf of, or paid to, nonresident aliens, foreign partnerships, foreign corporations, and other foreign entities only, not to money received by citizens on their own behalf.
Because the U.S. Government has no authority over foreign citizens living in a foreign country, the only individuals who can be required to deduct and withhold the tax on foreigner's receipts and can be made liable for payment of the tax are withholding agents who are within this country.
FACT 13. THE ONLY PERSON MADE LIABLE IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR PAYMENT OF "INCOME" TAX IS A WITHHOLDING AGENT.
Subtitle A of the I.R.S. Code contains the provisions of the law imposing "income" tax. In Subtitle A, Sec.1 461 is the only section making any person liable for (subject to) payment of "income" tax. The only individual made liable is the "withholding agent" he is required to withhold from "income" of foreign persons, ONLY.
FACT 14. THE ONLY WAY A PERSON CAN BE "MADE LIABLE" FOR ANY INTERNAL REVENUE TAX IS BY A PROVISION IN THE LAW. (a statute)
...In the decision of Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F. 2d 509 (1961), the United States Court of Appeals explained that there is only one way that a tax liability can be created. It stated... Moreover, even the collection of taxes should be exacted only from persons upon whom a tax liability is imposed by some statute. In Sutherland's Rules of Statutory Construction, an authoritative reference book on interpretation of statutes, section 66.03 states: ... the obligation to pay taxes arises only by force of legislation... Legislative action is the passage of a statute (a law). For anyone to be "liable" for income tax, It must be so stated in the I.R.S. Code.
FACT 15. PROVISIONS MAKING ANYONE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF A TAX MUST BE STATED IN CLEAR UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGE.
In the decision of Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160, head note 2 states: Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax. Sutherland's Rules of Statutory Construction, under Section 66.01 filled, "Strict construction of statutes creating tax liabilities." refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, which states: In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strong against the government and in favor of the citizen.
FACT 16. I.R.S. CODE PROVISIONS IMPOSING LIABILITY ARE CLEARLY STATED AND USE THE WORD "LIABLE".
The word "liable" is found in I.R.S. Code Sections 4401 (c), 5005(a), 5703(a) and 1461, which create liabilities for wagering tax, distilled spirits tax, tobacco tax, and "income" tax, respectively. Section 1461 is the ONLY section in the I.R.S. Code imposing a liability for payment of "income" tax. That section applies to WITHHOLDING AGENTS ONLY (those required by Sec 1441 to deduct and withhold from payments of "income" owed to foreign persons). Sec. 1461 states: Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax.
FACT 17. I.R.S. PUBLICATION 515 EXPLAINS THAT WITHHOLDING APPLIES TO MONIES OWED TO FOREIGN PERSONS ONLY, NOT TO CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Page 2 of IRS Publication 515 instructs those who pay wages, rents, dividends, Interest, etc. that... if an individual gives you a written statement, in duplicate, stating that he or she is a CITIZEN or RESIDENT of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you may accept this statement and are relieved from the duty of withholding the tax.
FACT 18. I.R.S. CODE CHAPTER # 24, PROVIDES FOR WITHHOLDING FROM "EMPLOYEES." IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYER. (See Sec. 3401 (c) & (d))
Chapter 24 of the I.R.S. Code contains provisions that authorize the U.S. Government, the District of Columbia, their agencies and instrumentality's, to set up and administer a voluntary withholding system for their employees. Without such statutory authority, no official of the government could legally create a withholding system in government.
Please note - Chapter 24 imposes NO tax on any government or non-government employee.
FACT 19. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD MONEY FROM A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS HE AUTHORIZES IT.
The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, states that no Individual can be deprived of property without due process of law (a hearing in a court of law). The ONLY way a United States citizen or resident alien can legally have "income" tax withheld from his pay, is if he authorizes it by voluntarily signing an IRS Form W-4, "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate," thus indicating that he is in the same status as a nonresident alien. That is why the IRS pressures employers to obtain the voluntary execution of IRS Form W-4 by all people being hired. However, no federal law or regulation requires any individual to sign a Form W-4 to quality for a job.
FACT 20. CITIZENS LIVING AND WORKING ABROAD ARE SUBJECT TO "INCOME" TAX.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the decision of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), ruled that: Congress has power to tax the income received by a native citizen of to United States domiciled abroad from property situated abroad. The constitutional prohibition of un-apportioned direct taxes within the states of the union does not apply in foreign countries.
FACT 21. A RETURN FOR CITIZENS LIVING AND WORKING ABROAD IS THE ONLY RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY CITIZENS UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE I.R.S. CODE.
The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that any form on which Information is required to be submitted must first be approved by the Office Of Management and Budget and must be given an "OMB" number. The chart listing the OMB numbers of the forms required to be used for compliance with the various I. R. Code sections is found in Chapter 600 of the I.R.S. Regulations. That chart shows there is only ONE FORM REQUIRED to be filed by citizens for compliance with Sec. 1, which contains the same tax tables that are found in the 1040 instruction booklet. That form is identified by OMB number 1545-0067, which is on Form 2555, a return to be filed by citizens living and working abroad.
FACT 22. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR INCOME TAX APPLY TO CITIZENS LIVING ABROAD AND NONRESIDENT ALIENS ONLY.
Internal Revenue Manual (1-6-87) Sec.1132.75, describes the limited scope of criminal investigations. It states: The Criminal Investigations Branch enforces the criminal statute applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws... "involving United States citizens residing In foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements...."
FACT 23. TO UNDERSTAND THE I.R.S. CODE, ONE MUST LEARN WHICH WORDS ARE USED IN THE CODE AS LEGAL TERMS.
In the I.R.S. Code, many words of common usage are used as legal terms that have meanings more limited in their application than when defined for common usage. Words such as taxpayer, taxable income, taxable year, employee, employer, wages, United States, State, person, etc. are legal terms that have limited meanings when used in the Code. Some legal terms have different meanings when used In different parts of the Code. To understand the true meaning of the code, it is necessary to learn the various definitions of those terms and where in the Code the definitions apply.
FACT 24. THE I.R.S. CODE APPLIES TO "TAXPAYERS" ONLY (those who are "made liable" for a tax by a statute).
This fact has been clearly stated through the years in many court decisions Including Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922), Stuart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Phoenix, 168 F.2d 712 (1948), First National Bank of Emlenton, Pa. v. U. S., 161 F. Supp. 847 (1958), Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 509 (1961), and Economy Plumbing v. U.S., 470 F.2d 589 (1972) "Taxpayer" (one word not two), is a legal term defined in I.R.S. Code Sec 7701 (a) (14) which states: The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any Internal revenue tax. For a person to be subject to a tax, there must be a provision in the law stating clearly that his activity makes him "liable" for the tax. Paying a tax such as a sales tax or real estate tax does not place one in the legal status of "taxpayer" as that term is used in the I R Code.
FACT 25. THE TERMS "TAXABLE INCOME" AND "TAXABLE YEAR" APPLY TO "TAXPAYERS" ONLY.
These terms, defined in I.R.S. Code Sec. 441 (a) & (b), apply to "taxpayers" only, and to those who file returns, thus stating (in effect) under penalty of perjury, that they are "taxpayers". Also, "Taxable year" is a key legal term in Sec. 6012(a)(1), a section that the I.R.S. cites when claiming that individuals are required to file income tax returns. Since a withholding agent is the only person in the I.R.S. Code "made liable" for payment of income, he is the only individual in the legal status of "taxpayer" in respect to "income tax" thus a withholding agent is the only one who has a "taxable year" under Sec.6012 (a)(1).
FACT 26. CERTAIN "PERSON(S)" ONLY ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES
Those "person(s)" who are subject to the criminal penalties in the Code are defined and limited by I.R.S. Code Sec. 7343 to those required to act on behalf of a corporation or partnership. Sec. 7343 states: The term person' as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. When an individual is not in such a capacity, his prosecution under the Code is illegal.
FACT 27. KARL MARX WROTE IN HIS COMMUNIST MANIFESTO TEN PLANKS NEEDED TO CREATE A COMMUNIST STATE. THE FIRST PLANK WAS THE ABOLITION OF THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY. THE SECOND PLANK WAS A PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX.
If the government could legally tax citizens' earnings, government would then have first claim on those earnings (his property). His circumstances would be like the slave who is allowed to have only that which is left after the master takes whatever he wants.
It is morally wrong for the government to intimidate and deceive the people into believing that they must pay an "income" tax that is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution to be imposed on the general public. Officials who are notified, or become aware of the IRS's illegal action to force ordinary citizens to pay an "income" tax, who then do nothing to stop it, violate their oaths of office to uphold and enforce the Constitution. (Facts 5 & 6)
Click here to find out more about the tax issue!
-- Sandy W. (email@example.com), June 18, 2000
Sandy...you go first using these arguements. Tell us how it goes.
-- Who Me (WhoMe@no.where), June 18, 2000.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 18, 2000.
My husband is self employed and in 1989 he learned that the income tax was the biggest fraud in American history, and he has not filed since. Off course we took precautions first and put all our assets in different Trusts.
We still live in our home and still own all our other property, including all cars. The IRS threatened, but it was all bluff. It is great to be a FREE American!!! We've invested all the extra money that we used to pay in income tax. We are about to retire from those investments.
Too bad most Americans are scared to stand up for their rights!
If those who fought for independance from England had been scared, you'd be paying income tax to the Queen of England. Thank Heavens we still have a few hero's amomg us.
-- Sandy W. (email@example.com), June 18, 2000.
WHOSE EARNINGS ARE "INCOME"?
THIS KEY QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
CITIZENS ARE DECEIVED AND MISLED BY THE IRS
There is much confusion and misunderstanding as to the meaning of the term "income" when it is used in tax law to describe monies received by individuals. People who study the Internal Revenue (I.R.) Code, (Title 26 of the U.S. Code, available in public libraries) to find the meaning of "income" are surprised when they cannot find a definition of the term "income" in the Code. It cannot be found because it is not there, as explained in the decision in the case of U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, p. 404 (1976).
The Court states: "The general term 'Income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code: (emphasis added)
The Court's statement causes most people to accept the false idea promoted by the IRS that all monies that "come in" to individuals are "income". This idea sounds very logical to most people.
Those individuals who study further often rely on court decisions that make statements about "income" such as the words of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, p. 415 (1913), a corporation case arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909.
The Court stated: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined:"
This statement might lead to the conclusion that if there is a profit or gain to an individual, then it is "income". As will be shown, this may, or may not, be true depending on the citizenship of the recipient. Most of the court statements on which these people rely involve corporations or individuals who voluntarily filed "Income" tax returns, thus voluntarily acknowledging under penalty of perjury that their receipts are "income".
I.R. CODE IS TRICKY
Most people, including many accountants and attorneys, do not know that the taxes on "income" apply to the receipts of a certain legal class of individuals only, not to all individuals, and that the I.R. Code identifies the legal class of individuals to whom the laws apply. In order to understand the true meaning of the I.R. Code, it is absolutely necessary to learn whose monies ARE "income" and whose monies ARE NOT "income" according to the Code. I. R. Publication 1140 (Rev. 4-87) tells how to determine facts about the tax laws. it states:
"Research the Internal Revenue Code to determine if it allows the issue. The Code is the highest authority that you can cite and should be used in lieu of any other legal instrument."
Since there is no definition of the term "income" in the I.R. Code (see U.S. v. Ballard above), to find an answer to the key question we must see if receipts of any kind are listed or identified as being "income" in the Code. Any such provision would answer the key question, "Whose earnings are income?", without being a definition of the term "income".
Sec. 1461, in chapter 3 of the I.R. Code, is well known by those who have studied the Code to be the ONLY section making anyone liable for the payment of "Income" tax. Therefore, sec. 1461 is a logical place to start in determining what monies are involved in the creation of liability for payment of "income" tax. Sec. 1401 states:
"Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax..." The words "this chapter" mean Chapter 3 which is titled,'WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS".
SEC. 1441 ANSWERS THE KEY QUESTION
The only section in Chapter 3 requiring anyone to "deduct and withhold any tax" is sec. 1441 in which subsection(a) states: "...all persons ... having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of any of Items of Income specified in Subsection (b) (to the extent that any of such items constitutes gross Income from sources within the United States), of any nonresident alien individual, - or of any foreign partnership shall... deduct and withhold from such items a tax equal to 30 percent thereof..." (emphasis added).
Subsection 1441 (a) applies to "items of Income specified in subsection 1441(b) ... of any nonresident alien individual or of any foreign partnership", but NOT TO RECEIPTS OF CITIZENS.
Subsection 1441(b) identifies the receipts of nonresident aliens and foreign partnerships as being "Income". It states:
"Income items. The items of Income referred to in subsection (a) are Interest.... dividends, rents, salaries, wages premiums, annuities, compensations, remuneration's, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and Income." (emphasis added)
This section of the law very clearly shows that THE LISTED MONIES ARE "INCOME" WHEN RECEIVED BY NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN PARTNERSHIPS ONLY - BUT NOT BY CITIZENS OR RESIDENT ALIENS.
LAW MEANS ONLY WHAT IS STATED
Of vital importance is the fact that there is nothing in sec. 1441 or elsewhere in the I.R. Code that identifies receipts belonging to individual citizens as being "income". Many people who learn about sec. 1441 mistakenly assume that, because the receipts of nonresident aliens are "income", the receipts of individual citizens must also be "income". The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the tax law means only that which is stated and nothing more. In the decision in Gould v.Gould, 245 U.S. 150 (1917) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the Government, and in favor of the citizen." (emphasis added)
When discussing the meaning of the term "Income" as used In the I.R. Code, IRS agents sometime cite see. 61 (a) as being a section defining "Income". That section defines "gross Income" as being all "Income from all sources, but it does not define the term "Income"." Sec. 61 (a) lists 15 sources of monies that could be "Income" to an individual, but only if that individual is a nonresident alien, according to I.R. Code sec. 1441 quoted above.
According to the law, money from these sources would NOT be Income if received by a citizen because NOWHERE IN THE I.R. CODE DOES IT STATE THAT RECEIPTS OF CITIZENS ARE "INCOME". Note that sec. 61 (a) does not explain that, for the monies coming from the various sources to legally be "income" to an individual, the recipient must be a foreign person only (as stated in sec.1441); not a U.S. citizen.
TAXING FOREIGNERS' RECEIPTS IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Those who have studied the legality of the "income" tax know that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., Inc., 240 U.S. 1 (1915) is the cornerstone decision establishing the constitutionality of the "income" tax when applied as an indirect excise tax. The IRS relies on this decision when the constitutionality of the "income" tax is challenged.
However, the IRS, in its own document, T. D. (Treasury Decision) 2313, clearly shows that the "Income" involved in the Brushaber decision Was MONEY ACCRUING TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS, NOT TO CITIZENS. T. D. 2313 states:
"...It is hereby held that INCOME ACCRUING TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS.. IS SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX..." (emphasis added)
In essence, the Court ruled that it is constitutional to impose an excise tax on the receipts ("income") of nonresident aliens, but it did not rule that the receipts of citizens could constitutionally be taxed. In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 prohibits various actions of Congress. Clause 4 of Section 9, very pointedly states: "No capitation,......" This means no tax on individual citizens. Black's Law Dictionary defines a capitation as:
Capitation- "A tax or imposition upon the person"
In the decision in the case of Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918) the U.S. Supreme Court, commenting on the "income" tax, stated:
"The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects... Neither can the tax be sustained as a tax on the person, measured by Income. Such a tax would be by nature a capitation rather than an excise..." (emphasis added)
I.R. Code sec.1, which imposes "income" tax, is under Part 1 in the table of contents of the I.R. Code. Part I has the heading, "TAX ON INDIVIDUALS", but careful reading shows that sec.1 imposes a tax on "taxable Income" - not on individuals as implied by the heading of Part 1.
Careful reading also shows that I.R. Code, Chapter 21, sec. 3101, which imposes the so called "Social Security" tax, likewise imposes the tax on "income". It is not imposed on "wages" as many people mistakenly believe and it is a "TAX ON EMPLOYEES", as deceptively stated in the heading of Subchapter A in the table of contents at the beginning of Chapter 21.
I.R. Code sec. 7806(b) explains that words in the table of contents have no legal effect. The words, "TAX ON INDIVIDUALS" and "TAX ON EMPLOYEES" placed in the table of contents tend to confuse and deceive citizens into mistakenly believing that the taxes are imposed on them personally, even though the laws impose all taxes on "income" not on individuals.
Since the term "income" applies to receipts of foreign persons only, but not to receipts of citizens, according to the I.R. Code, BOTH THE GRADUATED INCOME TAX AND THE SO-CALLED, SOCIAL SECURITY TAX APPLY TO RECEIPTS OF FOREIGNERS ONLY. These facts are proven by I.R. Code sec. 1461 which is the ONLY section making anyone liable for payment of "income" tax. Sec. 1461 makes certain persons liable for payment of "Income" taxes required by sec.1441 to be withhold from receipts of foreigners only, but not from the receipts of individual citizens.
Unfortunately, most citizens have been deceived and misled into believing that their receipts are "income" and that they are liable for payment of a tax on that "income", so they file returns. When they file Form 1040 "income" tax returns (voluntary actions), they certify under penalty of perjury that their receipts are "income" and that they are liable for payment of "Income" tax. These certifications are considered by the IRS and by the courts to be grounds for presumptions establishing that the citizens receipts are "income" and are subject to the "Income" tax.
The above facts may surprise many people, but millions of citizens have already learned the truth about the misapplication of the income tax laws by the IRS and they have stopped filing Income tax returns, according to a report in USA TODAY on September 30,1992. The report stated: "As many as 10 million people and businesses didn't file for 1990, the IRS says." In subsequent years there have been even larger numbers of non-filers reported.
INFORM PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS. SHOW THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS! REPRINT THIS ARTICLE. DISTRIBUTE IT. POST THIS ON THE INTERNET.
Click Here to learn even more!
-- Sandy W. (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 18, 2000.
The TRUTH About Income Tax!
LEARN THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!
Recent discoveries prove that you may be paying an income tax you don't owe! The following is rock solid information from the U.S. Constitution and 200 years of consistent Supreme Court decisions.
Do you still have these inalienable rights? Are you sure? When is the last time you used them? The IRS, and the court systems claim that the state and federal constitutions are no longer valid and that you no longer have inalienable rights. Is that true? If it is, when did we lose them?
In fact, just WHAT ARE your inalienable rights of property? How do you know if you are waiving them if you do not know what they encompass? If I could legally prove to you that today's income tax is legal ONLY when you waive your inalienable rights of property, would you be interested? Would you care?
The TRUTH is that you HAVE waived your inalienable property rights, when you pay personal income tax. You have traded a non-taxed inalienable right for a taxable privilege. Do you think that was a good trade? If not, you need this information. You need to reclaim your inalienable right of property!
As Esau did in the Bible, (Genesis 25:29) you too have traded your birthright for a bowl of stew.
(1) The U.S. of A. Constitution requires all federal taxes to be either 'direct' or 'indirect'. This includes taxes on income. What's the difference between them?
Hylton v. United States 3 U.S. 171 (1796) "The great object of the Constitution was, to give Congress a power to lay taxes, adequate to the exigencies of government; but they were to observe two rules in imposing them, namely the rule of uniformity, when they laid duties, imposts, or excises; and the rule of apportionment, according to the census, when they laid any direct tax."
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust 158 U.S. 601(1895) "As heretofore stated, the Constitution divided Federal taxation into two great classes, the class of direct taxes, and the class of duties, imposts, and excises; and prescribed two rules which qualified the grant of power as to each class. The power to lay direct taxes apportioned among the states in proportion to their representation in the popular branch of Congress, a representation based on population ascertained by the census, was plenary and absolute; but to lay direct taxes without apportionment was forbidden." "The power to tax real and personal property (labor) and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded: that such a tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied: ..." "We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes." An excise duty is an inland impost, levied upon articles of manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades or to deal in commodities. In the Constitution, the words "duties, imposts and excise" are put in antithesis to direct taxes. A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon his property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution.
Taxes upon property of any type, or the income from that property, must be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment. A tax on your whole income is essentially a tax on the receipts of your whole property, and is a direct tax. Isn't this what the Supreme Court just said? Is the Constitution still valid law?
Knowlton v. Moore 178 U.S. 41 "Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon possessions and enjoyment of rights. Indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange."
A 'direct' tax is 'directly' on your property, real or personal (inalienable rights, your body, or your real estate), and it is always apportioned. It is basically a property tax. It is on something you OWN! A tax on income from property is legally the same as a tax on the property itself. Both taxes (on property v. the income from property) must be direct taxes with apportionment.
The Inalienable rights of property are taxed with a direct tax!
There are presently NO federal direct taxes imposed!
An 'indirect' tax is a tax on a privileged (licensed) activity, (such as distilling alcohol, licensed occupations, or corporate business activity) and the tax can be passed on to the consumer 'indirectly'. (An excise, duty, or impost.) An indirect tax must be first 'imposed' on the privilege to be valid. It is basically a privilege tax. It is on something you DO!
Licensed privileges are taxed with an indirect tax!
(2) The Supreme Court rules that contracts for personal employment are inalienable rights.
Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915) 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.
The Colorado Constitution, Article II Section 3, states: "Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property;"
The inalienable right of property, secured by your state Constitution, (check yours) applies to real estate and to personal property (your labor or investments). Personal property includes personal possessions and your own body. Using your body to engage in labor is an inalienable right. To contract out this labor, in exchange for money, is an inalienable right, and is what freedom and liberty is all about. At least according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Are your inalienable rights, secured by your state Constitution, still valid?
LABOR IS PROPERTY!
The Declaration of Independence states that we all have EQUAL inalienable rights, and that those rights encompass life, liberty and property. Inalienable rights cannot be taxed without the permission of the sovereign American people. To raise revenue for the federal government, the American people gave the federal government permission, via the U.S. Constitution, to tax people and property, and the income from both, but limited it to a direct tax to be apportioned according to census. At the same time, the people reserved their inalienable rights through the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Is the Constitution still valid law?
Receiving income from labor (personal property), or rental income from real property, is NOT taxable as a 'privilege', because it is an inalienable right. Inalienable rights can only be taxed with a direct tax.
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. 111 U.S. 746 (1883) "As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: "We hold these truths to be self- evident" - that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement - "that all men are endowed" - not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or Acts of Congress, but "by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" -- that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime -- " and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these" -- not grant them but secure them-- "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ORDINARY TRADES AND PURSUITS, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore, be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.
It has been well said that, "The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.
Your labor is your 'property', and is the original foundation of all other property, according to the Supreme Court. Exchanging your labor for money, is exchanging one form of property for another form of property. It is an inalienable right, not a franchise or privilege granted by the government. And this personal property income can only be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment among the states.
As we have seen, the Constitution DOES allow federal taxation of property, real and personal, and the income from that property, but ONLY with a direct tax, through apportionment.
Are you exercising an inalienable right in your occupation? Or did you trade it in for a licensed privilege? And if you are engaged in a licensed occupation, has a tax been imposed on that licensed occupation?
A 'lawful' business or occupation is one you can engage in without a license. To engage in it without a license would be unlawful.
(3) The U.S. Constitution requires all direct taxes to be apportioned.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers ..."
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
As the Supreme Court stated earlier, there are only two classes of taxes in the Constitution. Direct and indirect. The direct tax limitation of apportionment was so important that the founding fathers put it in twice, since it affects inalienable rights. Since today's income tax is not apportioned, it can only be classified as an indirect tax. The Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is in its nature an excise tax, which is an indirect tax. Is the Constitution no longer valid? If that is the case, is the whole Constitution now invalid, or just certain non-important parts? If just certain parts are valid, what parts?
(4) The Supreme Court rules that the 16th Amendment did not change anything!
Did the 16th Amendment change the Constitutional requirement for apportionment of direct taxes?
The 16th Amendment states: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Note: Indirect taxes, never did have to be apportioned, and never have been since the Constitution was written. Indirect taxes are on privileges, and Congress has the power to tax privileges, based on the income received, from whatever source of privileged activity.
Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920), The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 16th Amendment is valid, but, did not grant any new powers of taxation! Congressional Reports and Record backs up this ruling.
Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged..."
Peck & Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 165, 172 (1918) "The Sixteenth Amendment . . . does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects . . .
In the above Stanton case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment was implemented to PREVENT the taking of the income tax from out of the class of excises, duties and imposts, and placing it in the class of direct taxes. If this is not true, then when and how did it change?
Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920) "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."
Since income taxes are not presently apportioned, they obviously fall into the indirect category, which they have always been in.
16 Am Jur 2d - Constitutional Law- Sect 219. "In construing statutes with relation to constitutional provisions, the courts take into consideration the principle that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution."
Therefore, if the IRS's interpretation of a statute appears to violate the constitution, it is probably being misinterpreted. The statutes are valid as written. The IRS and the courts claim that the statutes do not mean what they plainly say either, because they are based on the Constitution.
The 16th amendment did NOT change the Constitutional requirement that a direct tax must be apportioned. It did not change the income tax from a direct tax to an indirect tax. It just reemphasized the fact that the income tax was always an indirect tax, based on a taxable (privileged) activity, and therefore could be collected without apportionment, from whatever taxable source derived. It is, and always was, an indirect tax, applied only to a taxed licensed activity or privilege. In a 'free' republic, the IRS is bound by the constitution, from which its powers are derived. Emphasis on the word 'free'.
Is the IRS violating this Constitutional mandate and taxing your property income (labor) with an indirect tax as a privilege? You bet they are! Can you get them to stop? Yes, if you can get the courts to uphold the Constitution and your inalienable rights. The federal courts claim that relying on the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, or your inalienable rights are just frivolous arguments. Is this true? Are we just slaves of the government now?
(5) THE U.S. SUPREME COURT has ruled that the income tax is an indirect excise tax, imposed on a privileged (licensed) activity.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1, 16- 17. (1916) "The conclusion reached in the Pollock case . . . recognized the fact that taxation on income was, in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such." also See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. 158 US 601 at 637. (1895)
What is an excise tax?
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1910) "Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain (regulated) occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privilege." "It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself is considered non-taxable."
These are Supreme Court cases that have never been overturned. The income tax is an indirect EXCISE tax based on the exercise of a PRIVILEGE, and the income received from the privileged activity, is used to determine the amount of the tax. The income received from the "taxable" activity is called "taxable" income. There is no 'requirement' to engage in a privileged activity, therefore the tax is voluntary. It only becomes mandatory when you voluntarily engage in a taxed activity. Is receiving income from real property, or labor (also property), a privilege granted by the government? NO! It is an inalienable right, secured by both state and federal constitutions. Check your state constitution to see if you have the inalienable right of property. Check with your state Governor and your federal Congressman to see if you still have this inalienable right of property.
Jack Cole Company vs. McFarland 337 S.W. 2d 453. " Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege" (Taxation Key 53) "The right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and the realization and receipt of income is therefore not a " privilege that can be taxed." (Taxation Key 933)
The Internal Revenue Code only applies to "taxpayers", those engaged in a taxable activity.
Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States 470 F2d 585, 589 and Long v. Rasmussen 281 F 236, 238 "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. THEY RELATE TO TAXPAYERS AND NOT TO NON-TAXPAYERS, the latter are without their scope. NO PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR NON-TAXPAYERS, and NO attempt is made to ANNUL any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the SUBJECT nor the OBJECT of the revenue laws."
Since the internal revenue statutes only apply to taxpayers, (those engaged in privileged taxable activities) any non-taxable income would not even be mentioned in the statutes, since only taxable subjects are described, not all the non-taxable subjects. A privileged 'activity' is taxable, only after a tax is imposed on it! The IRS wants you to think that all income is received from privileges, and that you no longer have the inalienable rights of property. Is this now true?
Again, from the legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur.) Chapter 71 Section 94, we read "The (inalienable) right to acquire, possess, or own property cannot, . . . be made the subject of an excise tax. The theory appears to be that a tax upon the right to acquire, possess, hold or own property is tantamount to a tax upon the property itself, and hence, must be regarded as a property tax and not an excise tax."
The inalienable right to own property (real or personal) and receive income from that property (rents or labor income) can only be taxed with a direct tax. Unless you waive those rights!
71 Am. Jur 194 says "A tax on an essential attribute of a thing is a tax on the thing itself, and no tax can be imposed on the right of ownership, which is not also a tax on property. An individual, unlike a corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, nor for the enjoyment of the right to own property."
(6) CONGRESSIONAL research states that the income tax applies only to certain activities and privileges, and is NOT on income itself!
From Congressional Record - House 3-27-1943. pg 2580 "So the amendment (16th) 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. The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
From a report by The Congressional Research Service. Report No. 84- 168A, 784 / 725 titled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws", dated May 25, 1979 and updated Sept. 26, 1984 "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 and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity. Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to RESTRAIN the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property."
Congress writes the laws, and Congressional Records and Reports state that the income tax is based on the exercise of privileges (licenses), privileges that have a tax imposed on them. A tax, to be valid must, be 'imposed'. To exchange labor for money is an exchange of one property for another, and is an inalienable right, not a privilege. Has your Congressman sold you into slavery by violating this right?
(7) No federal direct tax has been imposed on income received from labor (personal property) or from the rental or sale of real estate! It WAS tried once before though!
In 1894 Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1894. In this act Congress attempted to tax people and property income (both taxable only with a direct tax) with an indirect tax, and call it a duty, levied without apportionment. The Supreme court found this part of the Act unconstitutional and ruled:
Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601 (1895) "It is said that a tax on the whole income of property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without apportionment, whether direct or indirect. We do not think so. Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath, and the restriction blown to the winds in another.
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of the opinion that taxes on personal property or on the income of personal property (labor), are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty- seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid."
The inalienable rights of real property income, and 'personal' property income, are both ONLY taxable with a direct tax, with apportionment. 'Income', by itself, is personal property, and not a licensed activity. These categories of real or personal property income, can only be taxed with a direct tax, according to the above Supreme Court decision. The Constitution has not changed the mandate for direct taxes. An indirect tax on property, that was not allowed by the Constitution in 1894, is still in violation of the Constitution today. IF, the Constitution is still valid!
Remember, the tax is NOT on the income itself, it is on a taxed licensed activity that produces 'taxable' income. And a 'taxpayer' is ONLY someone who receives 'taxable income'! Are you a 'taxpayer'?
So you see, once before Congress tried to tax real and personal property with an indirect tax, and the Supreme Court ruled that part unconstitutional because it was not applied as a direct tax and apportioned. The law has not changed. To attempt to collect a federal tax on real property, or personal property, or on the income from either, as a direct tax without apportionment, or as an indirect tax, is still unconstitutional. The part of the Revenue Act of 1894 that was NOT unconstitutional was later incorporated into the 16th Amendment.
Will the courts uphold this direct tax constitutional requirement, or have the American people been lulled to sleep so much that they no longer care about their inalienable rights? Would you care about your inalienable rights if it meant that you didn't have to pay income tax?
The income tax itself is NOT unconstitutional, because it is an indirect excise tax. It all depends on the subject being taxed (property v. licensed privilege), and how the IRS attempts to collect it. The income tax is a tax imposed on a taxed licensed activity, measured by the income produced by that activity, and is not directly on the income itself, and is collected as an indirect excise tax. The current income tax is 100% legal and Constitutional!
Converting labor to cash is not a 'privilege', taxable with an excise (privilege) tax, it is an inalienable right. Converting real estate to cash is not an excise taxed activity. It is an inalienable right to acquire or dispose of property. Do you still value your inalienable rights? Enough to take a stand for them?
(8) So how the HELL does the IRS get away with taxing my inalienable right of property income, with a privilege tax? Is this legal?
This is the best kept secret in America! The IRS CAN tax your inalienable right of property income as a licensed privilege because you have waived your inalienable rights in exchange for the privilege of being taxed! How is this possible you ask?
The whole trick is to understand the legal concept of 'presumption'.
Black's Law Dictionary defines it for us.
Black' Law Dictionary.
Presumption. An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence.
What does this say? An example: If you file a tax return, it creates the presumption that you are a 'taxpayer' and owe a tax, since you wouldn't file the return if you weren't. This evidence, the return, a W-2, a W-4, a 1099, etc., can be used to prove the fact that you believe you are liable for a tax, and you didn't pay. Or past returns can be presented to create the legal presumption that you were liable for a tax, but didn't file this year. Presumption is used to create facts when you don't have any. If the presumption that your income is taxable is not rebutted, then the presumption is accepted as true.
Does the Supreme Court agree with this?
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1, 16-17. (1916) " . . . the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was, in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it, would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise tax would not apply to it." also See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. 158 US 601 at 637. (1895)
There you have the secret! The income tax is 'presumed' to be an excise tax on privileges, unless and until it is determined that the tax must be apportioned as a direct tax! You are 'presumed' to be a 'taxpayer' unless and until it is determined otherwise! If YOU do not rebut this presumption, then the income received from exercising your inalienable right IS taxable as a privilege. You did not demand that your inalienable rights be upheld, and thereby waived your inalienable rights! It is a well grounded legal principle. Claims not made are deemed waived.
Let's check another Supreme Court case.
Hale v. Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review 302 U.S. 95 (1937) The controversy in New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, decided in the last term, evoked a ruling by this court that a state tax upon net income which included rents derived from land in another state was not equivalent to a property tax imposed upon the land itself. The incidence of a tax on income differs from that of a tax on property. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust 157 U.S. 429 was considered and distinguished. Two rulings emerge as a result of the analysis. By the teaching of the Pollock Case an income tax on the rents of land or even on the fruits of other investments is an impost upon property within the section of the Constitution requiring apportionment of direct taxes among the states.
In line with that conception of the Pollock Case is Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., supra, where the court pointed out (240 U.S. 1) at pages 16, 17 that "the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property", but that to the contrary such taxes were enforceable as excises except to the extent that violence might thus be done to the spirit and intent of the rule governing apportionment.
Income taxes are 'presumed' to be excise taxes on privileges, and may be imposed without apportionment, except when they violate the apportionment rule. If a person does NOT rebut this indirect tax presumption, then the rule of apportionment is not violated when property income is taxed with an indirect privilege tax. The apportionment rule WOULD be violated when the property income was not connected to an excise activity, and the presumptuous attempt was made to tax the income of the property with an indirect excise tax, and this presumption WAS rebutted. Property income, to be taxable with an excise income tax, must be connected to an excise taxable activity. Property income by itself, must be taxed with a direct tax, to be constitutional.
Your inalienable right of property income IS taxable as a privilege, UNLESS AND UNTIL you claim your inalienable right of property, which is taxable only with a direct tax with apportionment. This is the LAW, IF our state and federal constitutions are still valid law. Are they? ONLY IF YOUR DEMAND YOUR RIGHTS! IF YOU DON'T, THEY ARE CONSIDERED AUTOMATICALLY WAIVED AND YOU ARE JUST A SLAVE OF THE GOVERNMENT!
Are the state and federal Constitutions no longer valid? Are Supreme Court decisions no longer valid? Have you waived your inalienable rights? Are ALL the legal authorities of America wrong? Or can we believe what they plainly say? The arguments presented here are based mainly on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
All income taxes must fall into either the category of direct taxes or of indirect taxes.
Direct income taxes are on property. Indirect income taxes are on licensed privileges.
All income is 'presumed' to be from a taxed licensed (privileged) activity, unless and until it is determined otherwise. It is up to you to provide that rebuttal. If you don't, you waive your inalienable right!
Income from the sale or rental of real property is taxable only with a direct tax through apportionment, unless that income is received in connection with a taxed excise activity. Then it is taxed with the excise income tax.
Income from personal property (labor) is also taxable only with a direct tax through apportionment, again, except when it is received in connection with a taxed excise activity.
Labor is an inalienable right. Acquiring property, and selling property, is an inalienable right.
Labor and real property are both forms of property. Income from either of these kinds of property (rights) is taxable only with a direct tax through apportionment.
A licensed occupation is a privilege, granted by the government. Not all privileges are automatically taxable. A tax must first be 'imposed' on each licensed privilege, before it is taxable.
All taxing statutes and regulations apply ONLY to taxes ' imposed'. The entire Internal Revenue Code only applies to the imposition of indirect taxes on certain identified licensed privileges, since there are currently no federal direct income taxes imposed with apportionment.
'Taxable' income is only received from taxed privileges, privileges on which a tax has been 'imposed'.
There are currently no federal direct taxes imposed on the 'inalienable right' of property, real or personal, nor on the income from either one.
If all these legal authorities are wrong, then we no longer have valid laws. The freedoms we have, are going to be lost forever if these plain tax laws are not upheld by the courts. Demand that your inalienable rights be upheld! The IRS is acting entirely within the law, through the power of presumption. It's time to call their bluff!
Since the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, and ARE valid, then so are these arguments that real property income, and personal property income, are not taxable with a federal indirect income tax, because to be taxable it must be received from a privileged (taxable) excise activity, which produces income, from which to measure a tax.
ARE these authorities valid to you? Or are you ready to waive your remaining freedom?
-- Sandy W. (email@example.com), June 18, 2000.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO ADVOCATE OR ACT ON THIS WILL GO TO JAIL FOR TAX EVASION.
-- Mystery Guest (Mystery-Guest@sign-in-please.com), June 18, 2000.
I wish I had to pay a million dollars in taxes.
I like living in the United States. I don't mind paying my share.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 18, 2000.
"Retired@happy" is probably sucking up on a government pension (and I don't mean just social security).
-- A (A@AisA.com), June 18, 2000.
Sandy, are you a 'bot? How about a nice chicken sandwich?
-- (email@example.com), June 18, 2000.
If I find out who you are, I will report you to the IRS. They give out large rewards for turning in scum like you.
-- RepoMan (Bounty@hunter.jigsup), June 18, 2000.
Nope, no government money. I just got very lucky - blind luck.
I worked hard, paid my taxes, lived frugally, invested in technology way back and lucked out.
I like living here. I don't mind paying my share.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 18, 2000.
CPR, er, I mean "mystery guest": I see your copy of the Constitution is missing the First Amendment. I think you need to get a new copy.
-- Sergeant Friday (email@example.com), June 18, 2000.
Retired and Happy, if you are enjoying the tranquility of your servitude, good for you. Repoman, WOO,WOO!
As always, the detractors post fear-based oinions and no actual law. You should at least be willing to admit that fear is what causes you to submit.
-- KoFE (your@town.USA), June 18, 2000.