FORMER IRS AGENT NOT FILING A TAX RETURN

Devvy Kidd April 12, 2000

As regular readers to this site know, Joseph Banister is a former IRS Criminal Investigator. After thoroughly researching the tax code, Joe came to the indisputable conclusion that most Americans are not required to file tax returns. Joe resigned his high-paying position with the IRS in 1999 because he could not reconcile his oath of office with the fraud being perpetrated against the American people by the very organization he worked for. I ask Joe if he would share with the people what his plans were for this tax year as relates to whether or not he would be filing an income tax return or the paying of "income" taxes. Below are my questions to Joe and his responses:

Q: April 15, 2000 is just around the corner. People are wondering whether or not, you, as a former IRS, CID agent will file an income tax return on what is traditionally known in the tax movement as "April Fools Day"?

A: I know it would be easier to answer your question with a simple yes or no. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the issues involved, the implications of my answer for all of those who will read it, and my desire to be very truthful and honest in conducting my affairs, I must include a detailed explanation with my answer. I will also try to be as specific as possible so that my intentions will be very clear.

First, please allow me to introduce myself for the benefit of those who don't know about me. After graduating from college, earning my certified public accountant certificate, and spending approximately 7 years in the private sector, I accepted an appointment as a Special Agent for the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division and was sworn in as such on November 15, 1993. In December of 1996, I heard you speaking on the radio and making what, at the time, seemed to be incredible and outrageous claims.

You claimed, among other things, that filing of federal income tax returns and the payment of federal income taxes was voluntary for most Americans. You claimed that the 16th Amendment (income tax amendment) to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified. You claimed that federal income tax money is not even used to pay the government's operating expenses. I set out to disprove your claims, because I believed at the time that you could not possibly be correct. I wondered how you could possibly be correct in claiming that the federal income tax was not compulsory for most Americans when the IRS had issued me a badge, gun, handcuffs, and other enforcement equipment to ensure that all Americans did comply.

After spending many evenings and weekends over a 2 year period carefully researching your claims, I concluded that you were telling the truth. The information you provided, and my subsequent research, led me to conclude that in order for the federal income tax to be administered within the confines of our federal Constitution, the federal income tax laws and regulations were written in such a way that comparatively few Americans are legally and constitutionally required to pay it. I also verified your claim that the 16th Amendment was never ratified and that the U.S. Government largely finances its operations with debt currency/funds rather than federal income tax revenues. These were obviously not the conclusions I expected to reach.

Nonetheless, when I reached these conclusions, I knew I had a duty to discuss them with my supervisors in the Internal Revenue Service. I gathered some of the more compelling facts and evidence supporting my conclusions about your claims and submitted them to IRS officials in the form of a report. In keeping with my oath of office, I informed IRS officials of my sincere. concern that the rights of Americans were very likely being violated and I asked them to show me the error of my analysis, if any. They rebuffed my concerns and encouraged my resignation. I resigned on February 25, 1999.

With that history in mind, I can now address your question. The last time I recall being asked to provide a public answer to the question about my own filing was on July 2, 1999 at a tax symposium held in Washington, D.C. at the National Press Club. I gave a necessarily long-winded answer on that day. I think this would be an appropriate venue to repeat my answer plus offer some additional explanations.

As you know, the IRS, the Clinton Administration, the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Treasury Department, the U.S. Justice Department, and other federal agencies were formally invited to the July 2nd symposium, televised nationally on C-SPAN2, to debate the conclusions of the report I submitted to the IRS as well as the conclusions of other learned researchers such as Larry Becraft, Bill Benson, Bill Conklin, and yourself. (www.givemeliberty.org ).

As you also know, not a single government official came to discuss, debate, or argue against our conclusions. To date, the IRS has refused to meet with me or with any of the afore-mentioned researchers or to debate the mountains of evidence pointing to the voluntary nature of the federal income tax.

Having held a C.P.A. certificate since 1991 and having worked for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division for over five years, I know the agency's expectation is that everyone should file an income tax return. Having done over three years of research into the requirements for filing federal income tax returns and paying the federal income tax, I have concluded that the statutes and regulations do not require most Americans to file federal income tax returns or pay federal income tax.

I have spent many sleepless nights wondering whether fulfilling the agency's expectation is the proper course or whether obeying the statutes and regulations is the proper course (since my findings indicate that the agency's expectation appears to me to be in conflict with the statutes and regulations). Since I have found a conflict between the agency's expectation and my good faith reading of the statutes and regulations, I must choose between them. I must choose to obey the statutes and regulations.

The statutes and regulations indicate to me that I have no federal income tax return filing requirement and no requirement to pay the federal income tax. Until I can resolve the conflict between the agency's expectation and the plain language of the statutes and regulations, I can not in good conscience file a federal income tax return. I believe that for me to file such a return without resolving this conflict, I would be committing perjury upon signing the document. My position will continue to be that I may file a federal income tax return in the future, but only if my research shows me that I am required by law to file such a return and/or the IRS helps me to understand what law requires me to file or how I can file a return without waiving any of my rights.

It is important to note that the statutory and regulatory reasons I have researched do not even take into consideration the 5th Amendment implications to the filing of federal income tax returns developed by Bill Conklin and others, the evidence of the lack of ratification of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution investigated by Bill Benson and Red Beckman, and the opinions of all of the professionals I have consulted with who have confirmed my conclusions.

Q: The biggest fear (a mind set brutally beat into the America people by the IRS) an individual has in making the decision as to whether or not they will file, is: Will I be prosecuted and thrown in jail? Second to losing their freedom, Americans' greatly fear, as they should, the IRS simply coming in and stealing their money and other assets.

Since you have decided not to volunteer this April 15, 2000, could you please tell us what your first step was to protect your assets and deal with the IRS' first goal: getting your money? (The check you sent in-

A: In order to answer your question more completely, I'd like to provide some background information. First, Americans need to understand that there is a difference between filing a federal income tax return and paying federal income tax. The two are related but they are not necessarily dependent on each other. Paying the federal income tax is done primarily through withholding out of your paycheck throughout the year or through estimated payments made every three months. Filing a federal income tax return is something that is done only once per year, and the return is used to report taxable income and to compute an income tax on that taxable income and compare the computed income tax to the amount of withholding or estimated payments. The result of the comparison is either an "amount you owe" or a "refund."

Once a person learns this information, they will likely find themselves torn between what they know to be the truth (that they are not required to file a federal income tax return or pay the federal income tax) and the fact that the truth has not prevented people from ending up in prison or losing all of their property. In my experience, the truth may not be an absolute shield against the IRS for a number of reasons. The primary reason for this is that the IRS frames the payment of income taxes in terms of paying one's "fair share" rather whether or not one has a legal duty to pay it. In a criminal prosecution for not paying taxes, the government often uses jealousy and envy to convince a jury that the accused should be convicted. The prosecutor will generally try to convince the jury that the defendant did not pay his "fair share" rather than try to convince the jury that the defendant "broke the law." The prosecutor wouldn't dream of discussing what law required the defendant to file a federal income tax return or pay the federal income tax.

Why discuss such things when the raw emotions of 12 jurors who have been stuck paying their "fair share" will obtain a guilty verdict quite nicely. In my opinion, this is the reality of income tax enforcement and for this reason, people should educate themselves and exercise extreme caution if they decide to take any action on any of this information.

As to the IRS "getting your money," I am personally less concerned with the IRS getting my money than I am concerned with the deceitful way they administer the income tax and the suspicious silence on their part when asked to clarify these issues. Based on my knowledge of the government's administrative and enforcement tactics, I realized I had to formulate a way to inform the American people about the fraudulent way the income tax is administered without having my message diluted by a government accusing me of not wanting to pay my "fair share."

I wanted to ensure that everyone understood that my opposition to the IRS isn't about opposition to taxation as much as it is about opposition to collecting taxes through fear, intimidation, deceit, and color of law. In order to accomplish this, I have written, in good faith, a check to the U.S. Treasury as a bond to cover more than the "fair share" I would have paid had I been required to file a federal income tax return, even though my research of the statutes and regulations has shown me that no payment is required. I will subsequently demand that the IRS adhere to every administrative procedure (including, but not limited to, an examination hearing and collection hearing) to determine whether or not the money I have paid to the IRS is legally theirs to keep.

After exhausting my rights to administrative due process of law and civil suit, if necessary, I will hopefully have determined once and for all whether or not I am required to file a federal income tax return and/or am liable to pay the federal income tax. If I am required to pay the federal income tax, then the IRS already has my money. If I learn during this process that I am required by law to file a federal income tax return, I will file one immediately in order to comply with the law.

Q: Last November 13, 1999, you were one of the panel members at the National Press Club in Washington, DC for Symposium II. A man named David Bosset was there and he covered his long battle with the IRS to force them to adhere to the law as it's written. The thrust of Mr. Bosset's argument is the Section 861 "source income" argument. I understand that this is the foundation for the process you have undertaken in not filing a 1040 "income" tax return. Could you please give the readers an explanation, something readable in this century! - about this 861 argument? I say something readable in this century, because as you know, Title 26 alone can take years to read.

A: One of the most concise explanations about the "861 Argument" (outside of www.taxgate.com and www.nite.org ) that I have seen was authored by F. Tupper Saussy in the January 2000 issue of Media Bypass magazine. Mr Saussy said, in pertinent part:

"No income tax is imposed upon incomes derived by United States citizens from sources within the United States. The only persons liable for a tax on income derived from sources within the United States are nonresident aliens and foreign corporations"

"There is no provision in the [Internal Revenue] Code for a tax upon the income of United States citizens living and domiciled in the United States if the income is derived from sources within the United States"

I have interviewed Mr. Bosset at length and I find him to be a very credible and honest man. He has proven to my satisfaction that he presented aspects of the "861 Argument" to the Internal Revenue Service as a basis for amending forms previously filed with the agency. He requested and received a refund for taxes previously paid in. It is my understanding that others have received refunds based on the "861 Argument" also. People can learn more about the subject at www.taxgate.com and www.nite.org .

Q: To get this straight: You will not file a 1040. You have already sent the IRS a check, which they have cashed. You will be preparing a document to submit to them prior to April 15, 2000 requesting a......hearing and working your way through the administrative process, demonstrating good will and an honest attempt to follow the law as it's written. Is this correct?

A: Yes, I can not repeat enough times that I am an honest American who has, in good faith, simply tried to determine what the mandatory tax paying obligations of the average American are. I have concluded that many of the federal income tax obligations that I previously believed to be mandatory are actually voluntary, if one can navigate the incredible maze of the Internal Revenue Code and Code of Federal Regulations. The IRS has been suspiciously silent on the matter and has refused to meet with me to discuss my obligations. In light of the Internal Revenue Service's refusal to assist me, I am left to make my decisions based on my own training, experience, and research. What else can I do? I also intend to utilize all of my rights to due process of law to get an answer to my questions, even if I have to pay for the privilege (with a check to the U.S. Treasury).

Q: I personally know the great burden and challenge your resignation from a secure government career has had on your family. However, I must say that not once have I ever regretted the fact that you heard me on Geoff Metcalf's radio show and as a result of listening to what I had to say about the 16th Amendment and the voluntary nature of the income tax, you made a horrendous life changing decision. I believe with all my heart that this was your destiny, this is what our Lord wanted you to do and while it has been hell for you at times over the past few years, millions of Americans are truly thankful for your sacrifices.

Each day more and more Americans become aware of your courage and commitment to the truth. Many would like to know what you've been doing since your resignation 15 months ago and what you'd like to do in the future - perhaps open your own consulting firm, re-enter law enforcement in some capacity?

A: The remainder of 1999 was very difficult for my family and me but because of the thoughts, prayers, and support of so many people and our faith in God's grace and goodness, we have much to be thankful for. I am confident that the truth will prevail and other honest government officials will learn about the deceitful administration of the federal income tax and speak out as I have done.

* * * *

The deadline for this forced extortion exercise by the IRS is April 17, 2000. Each and every individual in this country must determine their own course and act according to their conscience. The IRS exists only to feed the magical money machine called the "Federal" Reserve Banking System. They are married and this country doesn't need either one. The Unseen Hand, the power cartel behind the scenes - they are the ones who need these two mechanisms to continue funding their global games. It must come to a halt before the system reaches the point of collapse and it will. Despite all the lies about "a prosperous economy," the day will come when the debt load can no longer be met and then the banksters will pull the plug.

This thievery must stop or America's people will never be free. Our children and grand children will remain in bondage as slaves on their knees to people who remain in the shadows, stripping our nation blind while lying politicians chant, "I'm for lower taxes" or "more money for education!" What drivel. If you haven't become a sponsor of The Wallace Institute, please consider doing so today.

We want to fight these battles but court challenges require big bucks and the pooling of dollars will make this possible. Remember: It isn't just once a year (April 15th) that we're being fleeced, it's the forced "voluntary" withholding that also must be exposed for the deceptive, theft device that it is, right along with the "voluntary" social security tax. The Wallace Institute can take these issues to court but we need your support. We need no direct taxation (no flat tax, no VAT, none of these substitutes to feed the "Fed") to run a limited form of Republican government. Agencies such as the EPA and the Federal Department of Education must go and you can help make history with your sponsorship of our institute.

Thank you.

-- willy nilly (willynilly@aol.com), October 21, 2000

Answers

Willy,

Thank you for a %150 waste of time. I kept reading and reading, hoping for some semblance of something that meant anything -- but it just ain't there.

If the speaker were to confront the U.S. Tax Code head-on, and meaningfully dissect it point by point; then you might have something here.

This whole thing amounts to nothing more than vague anecdotal bullshit.

-- Chicken Little (y2k@whatajoke.net), October 21, 2000.

What's this stuff doing here today? The full moon was *last* week.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 2000.