Misc RM 7    Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Cases and more Cases and even More Cases

GARVEY v. FREEMAN - 397 F2d 600   397 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES - Page 600

GARVEY v. FREEMAN - 397 F2d 600 Page 601  397 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES -   #9

Factual determinations of an ad­ministrative agency are not final and conclusive unless supported by the record.

GARVEY v. FREEMAN - 397 F2d 600   397 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES - Page 601 #10

An order of an administrative agency without factual support is without due process .

GARVEY v. FREEMAN - 397 F2d 600   397 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES - Page 602 #13

Administrative due process must be found in the administrative record

GARVEY v. FREEMAN - 397 F2d 600   397 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES - Page 602 #17

"Due process" is not necessarily judicial due process for "due process" is elusive, undefinable, and varies to em­body the differing rules of fair play, which through the years have become associated with differing types of pro­ceedings .

GARVEY v. FREEMAN - 397 F2d 600   397 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES - Page 602 #19

The basic concepts of fair play are inexorable safeguards for due process .

Fair play of Due process

GARVEY v. FREEMAN - 397 F2d 600   397 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES - Page 602 #22

A fair hearing before administra­tive body contemplates full disclosure .

Full disclosure

5USC552 - (A) In America, all persons are entitled to due process of law under the Administrative Procedures Act. The provisions of this Act within the law apply to ALL government agencies, including the IRS.

5USC556 - (d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.

5 U.S.C. 558  -   (b) A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.

8 MTT 584 MAXITROL v MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

The respondent Department may not make modifications to Federal "Adjusted Gross Income."

The Department may not make modifications to the Federal 'Adjusted Gross Income" calculated pursuant to the IRC.

The starting point on the MI-1040, as established by the Michigan Legislature, is the Federal AGI.   The exception of changing the Federal AGI is if a mistake was made in the computation of the Federal 1040 which is later discovered through an audit by the Internal Revenue Service or by the individual.   At that time, an amended Michigan tax form is then filed recomputing the tax liability with the recalculated AGI .

The guiding principle in determining whether the Department can make modifications to Federal AGI has been set forth in several Michigan cases.  "Governmental powers of taxation are controlled by constitutional and statutory provisions ... It is not possible to adjudicate issues arising under taxation laws by the general application of equitable principles."

While petitioners have the burden of proving that the tax is unjustified under the facts of the case, the Department has the burden of pointing to a specific statutory power that grants it the authority to impose the tax in issue.

17 U.S. 316 (Wheat.) M CULLOCH v STATE OF MARYLAND

Congress, by the constitution, is invested with certain powers; and as to the objects, and within the scope of these powers, it is sovereign

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.

The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission

They are given by the people of the United States , to a government whose laws, made in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single state cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them

That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.

192 U.S. 397 SPRECKELS SUGAR v McCLAIN

Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid seeking to lay a tax on me   do not understand  will not answer letters  not in good faith  must follow due process   192us397  sugar  clear language doubt of tax   file saved

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.   They relate to taxpayer s, and not to nontaxpayers.  The latter are without their scope.   No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, 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 of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.  Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (Ct.Cl. 1972). (Emphasis added).

3.  The term "taxpayer " in this opinion is used in the or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954). A nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.  Economy, supra, fn. 3, at 590. (Emphasis added).

Internal Revenue Code section 7701 (a)(14), to which the Economy Court referred, reads as follows:

Sec. 7701.  Definitions.

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-    Taxpayer.  The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. 

26 U S C. 7701(a)(14). (Emphasis added).

The term "taxpayer" is also defined in section 1313(b) of the Code, as follows:

Sec. 1313.  Definitions.

(b) Taxpayer.

Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer" means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.   26 US.  C. 1313 (b). (Emphasis added).

Before we proceed, it is important to point out that Congress can define a term for purposes of a particular law just about anyway it chooses.   Congress cannot, however, change the meaning of, or adopt its own definition for, a term used in the Constitution, for reasons explained by the Eisner Court previously cited.  Also, it is important to point out that the term " taxpayer" is defined in different ways in different books.   Dictionaries provide a general definition as used in ordinary speech and pretty much define the term " taxpayer" as any person who pays a tax.  This dictionary definition could apply to one who pays a property tax or any other kind of tax.   So when we are discussing the term "taxpayer" for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, it is important to specify the particular definition we are using.   For example, if you determined that you are not subject to any federal revenue tax, it would not be adequate for you to say: "I deny being a " taxpayer".  To be precise, and more effective, one would say: "I deny being a " taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code." Or you could say: "I deny being a " taxpayer" as that term is described in the Economy Case." It is very important to be very specific when you are using terms relating to taxes.

Also, it is not wise to claim that you are a nontaxpayer.   Not only will this statement likely be misinterpreted, even if it is interpreted the way you mean, you have placed the burden of proof on yourself to prove that you are not subject to the revenue laws.  It is better to keep the burden of proof on the party who is claiming you are subject to the revenue laws.   Let that person prove, if he can, that you are subject to a revenue law.

470 F2d 585 589-590  1972 ECONOMY PLUMBING & HEATING CO. , INC. v. UNITED STATES

470 F2d 585 589

In Long v. Ras­mussen, the court said:  * * * They [the revenue laws] re­late to taxpayers, and not to nontax­payers.   The latter are without their scope.  No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.   [Long v. Ras­mussen   281 F. at 238.]

Long v. Ras­mussen 281 F. at 238

The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without them is vital. See De Lima v. Bid­well, 182 U. S. 176P 179

470 F2d 585 590 - 3.  The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense con­templated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subjejt to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.

470 F2d 585 596 "an amount paid as tax shall not be consid­ered not to constitute an overpayment solely by reason of the f act that there was no tax liability in respect of which such amount was paid."

[412 U.S. 391, 400] And if the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be [412 U.S. 391, 400] able to rely on our decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such reliance. Cf. Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 283 (1972); Wallace v. M'Connell, 13 Pet. 136, 150 (1839).

In the early tax case of Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.  Co. , 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918), the Court said:    Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports, as used here, some­thing entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rath­er the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.   As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285: "Income may be defined as the gain de­rived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

While Congress has defined "gross income" to mean all income, Congress has not defined the term "income"; a fact verified in the Ballard Case

Plus the fact that in 1976, the Eighth Circuit, in the Ballard Case previously cited, correctly stated that the general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

Income Cannot Be The Subject Of Any Tax.

The term "income" is not defined in the laws.

The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 405 (8th Cir. 1976).

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as income, but it does not define the term "income".

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.  Co. , 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918),

in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285:

245 U.S. 151 GOULD v. GOULD

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 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. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.

263 U.S. 179 UNITED STATES v MERRIAM

But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most [263 U.S. 179, 188] important for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 53.

362 U.S. 145 FLORA v. UNITED STATES.

362us145  vol ass to get into system

Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint

362 U.S. 145 FLORA v. UNITED STATES.

If the Government is forced to use these remedies [distraint] [362 U.S. 145, 177] on a large scale, it will affect adversely taxpayers willingness to perform under our voluntary assessment system

GUARDIAN TRUST & DEPOSIT CO. v. FISHER, 200 U.S. 57 (1906)

200us57 68  69      200 U.S. 57

An individual may be [200 U.S. 57, 69] under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do the particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it.

301 U.S. 548 CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO.   V. DAVIS.

A capitation or other 'direct' tax it certainly is not

319 U.S. 105   MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and seven other cases.

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution

319us105  state may not impose

340 F.Supp. 1130 (1972) WESTERN TRADING COMPANY

4.  Internal Revenue  1281

An "assessment" is an administra­tive determination of tax liability and until the assessment has been made the tax has not been found to be owing. 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1954) § 6203.

"Found to be owing," as used in this section, means "assessed." The Internal Revenue Code provides for a specific procedure for assessment (26 U.S.C. § 6203).  An assessment is an administrative determination of tax liability.  Kurio v. United States , 281 F.Supp. 252 ( S.D.Tex.1968); United States v. Miller, 318 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1963).   And until the assessment has been made, the tax has not been found to be owing.

713 F.2d 1405 (1983) BOTHKE v FLUOR ENGINEERS

Because income tax system is based on voluntary self-assessment, rather than

dis­traint, Internal Revenue Service may assess ­tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures. 26 U.S. C.A. § 6331(a).

713 F.2d 1405 (1983) BOTHKE v FLUOR ENGINEERS

For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer or one procedurally proper by the IRS.   Because this country's income tax system is based on voluntary self-assess­ment, rather than distraint, Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176, 80 S.Ct. 630, 646­47, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960), the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures.

713 F.2d 1405 (1983) BOTHKE v FLUOR ENGINEERS

With Internal Revenue Service's broad power which may disrupt taxpayers lives must come concomitant responsibility to ex­ercise that power within confines of law.   U.S.C.A. Const.  Art. 1, § 8, el. 1; Amends. 3-5, 8, 10, 14, 16.

713 F.2d 1405 (1983) BOTHKE v FLUOR ENGINEERS

Internal Revenue Service, with its expertise, is obliged to know its own govern­ing statutes and to apply them realistically .

713 F.2d 1405 (1983) BOTHKE v FLUOR ENGINEERS

With the IRS's broad power must come a concomitant responsibility to exer­cise it within the confines of the law.   The Court has emphasized that no official is above the law, and that broad powers present broad opportunities for abuse. Butz, 438 U.S. at 50546, 98 S.Ct. at 2910-11.Cf. Mark v. Groff, 521 F.2d at 1380 n.4.

754 f.2d  804 Page 5 BOSMA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

expert 754 f.2d  804 5  ad   prop  burden of proof  5usc556d

Under section of Administrative Proce­dure Act providing that "except as other­wise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof," "burden of proof" means burden of going forward with evidence. 5 U.S.C.A. § 556(d).

7214  offences

26 USC 7214 Offenses by officers and employees of the United States

(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or

(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law

Stare decisis = Courts are to adhere to binding judicial precedent

Those who drafted the tax legislation which was ultimately enacted by Congress, left it up to the individual to assess himself by filling out forms which provide prima facie evidence that he is subject to and/or liable for a tax

The individual who files has provided prima facie evidence which indicates that he is a " taxpayer", without regard to whether or not he itemized deductions.   But for the individual who does not file, the situation is entirely different.

Fortunately, the old 1040 forms, as well as W-4 forms, are merely pieces of prima facie evidence which can be rebutted with the defendant's testimony.

the instruction is to "encourage" the individual to "voluntarily" provide the prima facie evidence of " taxpayer" status.  If the employee does not provide prima facie evidence of being a " taxpayer", the employer has absolutely nothing to support any conclusion that the individual is subject to any tax. 

515 P.2d 1217 STATE of KANSAS v   HAREMZA

"Prima facie evidence" is evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports , but which may be contradicted by other evidence.

LATCHES - An equitable doctrine used by courts to bar a legal claim or prevent the assertion of a right because of undue delay or failure to assert the claim or right.

69 F.(2d) 160 Liability for taxation must clearly ap­pear from statute imposing tax.

200 U.S. 57

An individual may be [200 U.S. 57, 69] under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do the particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it

GUARDIAN TRUST & DEPOSIT CO. v. FISHER, 200 U.S. 57 (1906)

84 F.2d 821 HOUSTON STREET CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Phrases "liable for such tax" and "sub­ject to a tax" are interchangeable, and connote payment of a tax .

The 1926 Revenue Act (section 2 [26 U.S.C.A. § 1696]) and all subsequent acts have this definition of taxpayer: "The term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to a tax imposed by this act [title]."

.  We see no distinction between the phrases "liable for such tax" and "subject to a tax."

We consider the terms interchangeable

A person liable for a tax is a person subject to a tax and comes squarely within the definition of a   taxpayer in the statute.

26 US.  C. 1313 (b).

The term "taxpayer" is also defined in section 1313(b) of the Code, as follows:

Sec. 1313.  Definitions.

(b) Taxpayer.

Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer" means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

26 US.  C. 1313 (b).

Section 7701(a)(14) defines the term "taxpayer" to mean "any person subject to any internal revenue tax".  

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tells us that:  We see no distinction between the phrases "liable for such tax" and "subject to a tax".  

Houston Street Corp. v. CLR., 84 F.2d 821, at 822 (5th Cir. 1936).

288 F.2d 504  BOTTA v. SCANLON

Tax officials are not vested with ab­solute power of assessment against in­dividuals not specified in statutes as per­sons liable for tax without opportunity for judicial review of status before per­sons property is seized and sold

Moreover, even the collection of taxes should be exacted only from per­sons upon whom a tax liability is imposed by some statute

The only "person" liable for such penalty is the "person required to collect, truthfully account for, or pay over any tax.

It is equally well setted [sic] that the Revenue laws relate only to taxpayers.

However, a reasonable con­struction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with ab­solute power of assessment against in­dividuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of "tax­payer" is bestowed upon them

Stare Decisis (The Principle of Precedent, The Basis of the Common Law, Judge-Made law- Chapter 4 of Foundations of Law)

QUERY: What is the nature of a legal system based on a judicial elite which depends on prior judicial authority to decide new disputes and make new law?

The principle of stare decisis is explained in Chapter Four but it should be considered and pondered during the entire course since it is in many ways the foundation of legal thinking and reasoning in the American system.

Stare decisis is a Latin term which has been translated as "Let the decision stand." It refers to the principle of precedent, which is an ancient and powerful policy in Anglo-American law which requires judges to decide their cases by following the principles that previous judges have established in similar cases. Although precedent may be overruled, judges are reluctant to do so unless it is apparent that the former rule would be clearly unjust in present circumstances.

For most of Anglo-American legal history, law was made primarily by judges, resting their decisions on the wisdom of former cases. Although the modern era has seen legislation rise as a dominant form of lawmaking, in our system, we still search the cases (judicial decisions) to analyze the law, and, especially, to predict the outcome of a dispute if it were to be tried in a court of law .

It may not be immediately clear why this principle is so important. Perhaps you will begin to understand how it works and its importance as you do the exercises related to case briefing.

Vocabulary of Case Law - Stare decisis = Courts are to adhere to binding judicial precedent.

When a court has formulated a principle of law for a given situation, it will apply that same principle when the same situation arises again.

Researchers are thus expected to turn to prior cases when formulating legal arguments.

Therefore, access to prior case law is crucial.

5 U.S. 137 Marbury v Madison a law repugnant to the constitution is void

397 F2d 600 Page 601 - GARVEY v. FREEMAN

Factual determinations of an ad­ministrative agency are not final and conclusive unless supported by the record.

397 F2d 600 Page 601 - GARVEY v. FREEMAN

An order of an administrative agency without factual support is without due process.

397 F2d 600 Page 602 - GARVEY v. FREEMAN

Administrative due process must be found in the administrative record.

397 F2d 600 Page 602 - GARVEY v. FREEMAN

"Due process" is not necessarily judicial due process for "due process" is elusive, undefinable, and varies to em­body the differing rules of fair play, which through the years have become associated with differing types of pro­ceedings.

397 F2d 600 Page 602 - GARVEY v. FREEMAN

The basic concepts of fair play are inexorable safeguards for due process.

397 F2d 600 Page 602 - GARVEY v. FREEMAN

A fair hearing before administra­tive body contemplates full disclosure.

5 U S C 552  U S C  TITLE 5

(A) In America, all persons are entitled to due process of law under the Administrative Procedures Act. The provisions of this Act within the law apply to ALL government agencies, including the IRS.

5 U S C 556  U S C  TITLE 5

(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof .

5 U S C 558  U S C  TITLE 5

 (b) A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law

17US316 Page 323 -  (Wheat.) M CULLOCH v STATE OF MARYLAND

Congress, by the constitution, is invested with certain powers; and as to the objects, and within the scope of these powers, it is sovereign.

17US316 Page 327 -  (Wheat.) M CULLOCH v STATE OF MARYLAND

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

17US316 Page 429 -  (Wheat.) M CULLOCH v STATE OF MARYLAND

All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.

17US316 Page 429 -  (Wheat.) M CULLOCH v STATE OF MARYLAND

The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission

17US316 Page 429 -  (Wheat.) M CULLOCH v STATE OF MARYLAND

They are given by the people of the United States , to a government whose laws, made in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single state cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them.

17US316 Page 431 -  (Wheat.) M CULLOCH v STATE OF MARYLAND

That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.

192US397 Page 416 SPRECKELS SUGAR v McCLAIN

Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid

470 F2d 585 Page 589 - ECONOMY PLUMBING & HEATING  v. UNITED STATES

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.   They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers.  The latter are without their scope.   No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, 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 of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws. 

470 F2d 585 Page 590 - ECONOMY PLUMBING & HEATING  v. UNITED STATES

3.  The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense con­templated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.

26 U S C. 7701(a)(14).

Internal Revenue Code section 7701 (a)(14), to which the Economy Court referred, reads as follows:

Sec. 7701.  Definitions.   When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-    Taxpayer.  The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. 

26 US.  C. 1313 (b).

The term "taxpayer" is also defined in section 1313(b) of the Code, as follows:

Sec. 1313.  Definitions.   (b) Taxpayer.   Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term " taxpayer" means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

I deny being a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

I deny being a "taxpayer" as that term is described in the Economy Case."

Congress cannot change the meaning of, or adopt its own definition for, a term used in the Constitution, for reasons explained by the Eisner Court.

470 F2d 585 Page 589 - ECONOMY PLUMBING & HEATING  v. UNITED STATES

In Long v. Ras­mussen, the court said:  * * * They [the revenue laws] re­late to taxpayers, and not to nontax­payers.   The latter are without their scope.  No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.  

[Long v. Ras­mussen  281 F. at 238.]

281 F. at 238 - LONG v. RASMUSSEN

The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without them is vital     See De Lima v. Bid­well, 182 U. S. 176 P179

182 U.S. 176 Page 197 - DE LIMA v. BIDWELL

While a statute is presumed to speak from the time of its enactment, it embraces all such persons or things as subsequently fall within its scope, and ceases to apply to such as thereafter fall without its scope.

Stare decisis is a Latin term which has been translated as "Let the decision stand." It refers to the principle of precedent, which is an ancient and powerful policy in Anglo-American law which requires judges to decide their cases by following the principles that previous judges have established in similar cases.

412US391 Page 400 - UNITED STATES v. MASON

And if the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to rely on our decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such reliance. Cf. Flood v. Kuhn,

407 U.S. 258, 283 (1972); Wallace v. M'Connell, 13 Pet. 136, 150 (1839).

407US258 Page 277 -  FLOOD v. KUHN

If stare decisis be one aspect of law, as it is, to disregard it in identical situations is mere caprice.

Vocabulary of Case Law - Stare decisis = Courts are to adhere to binding judicial precedent.

When a court has formulated a principle of law for a given situation, it will apply that same principle when the same situation arises again.

Researchers are thus expected to turn to prior cases when formulating legal arguments.

Therefore, access to prior case law is crucial

535F2d400 Page 404 - UNITED STATES v BALLARD

In the early tax case of Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.  Co. , 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918), the Court said:    Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports, as used here, some­thing entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rath­er the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.   As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed . 285: "Income may be defined as the gain de­rived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

535F2d400 Page 404 - UNITED STATES v BALLARD

The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code .

247US179 Page 185 - DOYLE v MITCHELL BROS

Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.

Income Cannot Be The Subject Of Any Tax.

The term "income" is not defined in the laws.

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as income, but it does not define the term "income".

245 U.S. 151 Page 153 GOULD v. GOULD

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 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. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States,  24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.