Misc RM 26 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.
Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.
Response to 'Frivolous" 1040 X Returns
Certified Mail #:
This is to rebut the erroneous presumption of your letter ate of correspondence),(attached), that my amended 1040X returns for December 31, (Year), were frivolous. The 1040X is the appropriate form for a Claim for an overpayment of income taxes. The authority for filing such a Return is found in your own regulations. Are you stating that IRS Regulations are frivolous?
301.6401-3 _ Special rules applicable to income tax.
(1) In general, in the case of an overpayment of income taxes, a claim for credit or refund of such overpayment shall be made on the appropriate income tax return.
(2) In general, in the case of an overpayment of income taxes for a taxable year of an individual for which a Form 1040 or 1040A has been filed, a claim for refund shall be made on Form 1040X...(Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return).
... (5) A properly executed individual income tax return or an amended return (on 104OX) shall constitute a claim for refund or credit within the meaning of section 6402 and section 6511 ...
301.6511 (a)-l- Period of limitation of filing claim.
(1) If a return is filed, a claim for credit or refund of an overpayment must be filed by taxpayer within three years from the time the return was filed or within two years from the time the tax was paid, whichever period expires later.
Further, your position that I have requested such a refund for overpayment on the claim that wages are not gross income is in error and frivolous. I have not made and would not ever make such a claim. I have not ever earned "wages" as such term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
Sec. 3401 (a) as: (a) Wages -- ". . . the term 'wages means all remuneration ... for services performed by an
employee for his employer ..."
I am not an "employee" as such "term" is defined in Law and in the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Register, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 1943, Sec. 404.104, pg. 12267:
Employee: "The term 'employee' specifically includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed of the United States, a State, a territory, or political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any more or more of the foregoing."
Sec. 3401 (c) EMPLOYEE -- "For the purposes of this chapter, the term employee includes [only] an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, of the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term also includes an officer of a corporation."
Because I am not an "employee" as Previously defined, I cannot and do not earn "wages" as such terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
I, therefore did not make the frivolous claim that "wages" are not "gross income."
Further, pursuant to the Public Salary Act of 1939, Title I, Sec. 1, I do not earn "gross income" as such term is defined therein.
Public Salary Act of 1939, TITLE I -- SECTION 1. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the definition of " gross income " (is amended after the words "compensation for personal service") includes [only] personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any Political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."
My claim for a refund of an overpayment of taxes is based upon the legitimate and lawful claim that I had "zero" income in 1994 according to the lawful meaning of income and the Supreme court's definition of income. The courts have ruled that "A (1040) form with 'zeros' inserted in the space provided ... qualified as a return." See U.S. vs. Long, 618 F.2d 74 (9th Circuit 1980); U.S. vs. Kimbal No. 87-1392 D.C. No. Cr 86-0017-ECR (9th Cir. filed 2/26/1990); and U.S. vs. Moore, 627 F. 2d 830 (7th Cr.)
According to U.S. vs. Ballard, 535 F. 2d. 400, 405, the word "income" is not defined in Title 26 U.S.C. or the Internal Revenue Code. In Merchant's Loan & Trust Company vs. Smietanka, 255 U.S., pg. 518, 519 (1921), the supreme court held, "There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word (income) must be given the same meaning in all Income tax Acts of Congress that was given to in it the Corporation Excise Tax Act and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of the court." That definitely settled meaning of income was clearly stated in 1918 in the supreme court decision of Doyle vs. Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179, 330: "Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here ... the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities ... We must reject ...the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts, everything that comes in are income within the proper definition of the term 'cross income'..."
"Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than in that of 1901 (See Stratton's
Independence vs. Hauberk, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417) ... we assume that there is no difference in its meaning as used two acts" Southern Pacific vs. John Z. Owe, Jr., 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918)
I earned no income as defined by the Corporation Excise Tax or the lawful meaning of income.
Further the supreme court case of Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 ruled: "...it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation , alter the Constitution, from which it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations, alone, that Power can be lawfully exercised.." [Income is] Derived--from--capital--the--gain--derived-from--capital, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a Profit, something of exchangeable value ... severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived", that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description..." (emphasis from original ruling).
Having full knowledge of the above well settled definitions of income, I can only swear under penalty of perjury that I have earned zero income for 1994 and all other previous years. Any other statement would not be true and would subject me to criminal penalties. Although I am not liable for the graduated individual income tax or for filing a Form 1040, I am aware that citizens have been illegally prosecuted for the non-existent "crime" of allegedly failing to file a 1040 income tax form. Therefore, this return, and other tax returns I previously filed, were not filed voluntarily but were filed out of a fear of being illegally penalized and prosecuted for failure to file a return. I, hereby, demand an immediate refund or the overpayment of taxes made on my previously filed 1040 X Returns. If you do not provide my lawful refund for my overpayment of taxes, I will file action against you, pursuant to your regulation, pursuant to 26 USC Section 7422 and 26 CFR Section 301.7422. I will further sue in state court for damages.
Sincerely, (your name) (Your address)
(Your Name Address City, State zip)
Director of Personnel (Your Company)
Certified mail #
Re: DEMAND FOR FULL PAYMENT OF WAGES AND DEMAND EMPLOYER CEASE AND DESIST WITHHOLDING OF WAGES UNDER THE GUISE, PRETEXT, SHAM AND SUBTERFUGE OF WITHHOLDING TAXES FROM EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME OR OTHER REVENUE TAXES, AND PAYMENT OF ALL MONEYS UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD .
Please take notice that I, (name), hereby demand full payment of my contracted wages and demand that you cease and desist withholding any of my wages under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of withholding taxes.
You know full well that my job description does not involve any revenue taxable activity, event or incident, and you know that, as your employee, I have not incurred any tax liability, and therefore I am not subject to any revenue tax or tax withholding.
You know full well that the free exercise and enjoyment of the God-given and constitutionally secured right to lawfully acquire property or compensatory income, by lawfully contracting one's own labor in innocent and harmless activities, for lawful compensation, cannot be (and therefore has not been) taxed for revenue purposes .
You know that a constitutionally secured right is the antithesis of and must never be confused with revenue taxable activities such as doing business in a corporate capacity or the pursuing of certain occupations for profit or gain such as the practice of law.
You know full well that the Internal Revenue Code does not concern any person who is not involved in any revenue taxable activity, and therefore the code makes absolutely no reference and has no application of any kind whatsoever to anyone, except only those persons who are subject to revenue taxation as a result of their revenue taxable activities. You know that the United States courts have ruled:
"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." Long v. Rasmussen 281 F. 236, at 2'38. (1922); Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F. 2d 585, at 589. (1972) (Emphasis added)
You know that the legal term "taxpayer" is very narrowly defined in the Internal Revenue Code at sections 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14).
(b) Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer" means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law. 26 IRC 1313(b)
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent hereof
(14) Taxpayer. - The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax . 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14)
You know that the term "taxpayer" clearly applies only to those persons who are subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
You know that the "income tax" is an indirect, and not a direct, tax on incomes. You know, of course, that the U. S. Constitution makes a clear distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes.
"In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes THE TWO great classes of .direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition MUST be governed, namely The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." Pollock v Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, at 557j (1895); and Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 13 (1916)
You know, of course, that the Sixteenth Amendment was placed in our U.S. Constitution in 1913. The Sixteenth 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."
You know that the only class of tax that can be laid on incomes without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, is an indirect tax. You know that it is the "without apportionment" language that confines an "income tax" to the class of indirect taxes.
You know, of course, that in the cases of Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 U.S. 10', the U. S. Supreme Court (1916) ruled the Sixteenth Amendment and the income tax passed under it are constitutional because they p& concern indirect taxes, and because the Amendment does not authorize the direct taxation of incomes or even confer any new power of taxation, nor does it in any way alter, change, enlarge or affect the taxing power originally conferred upon Congress by Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
"(T)he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax ... is ... wholly without foundation..." Brushaber v Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U. S.1 at 13. (1916)
"(T)he Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but @l prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress FROM THE BEG G from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged ..." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, at page 112. (1916)
"(T)he 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 ..." Brushaber, supra, at pages 16-17.
You know that the income tax, being in its nature an excise tax, is not actually on income as property, but on revenue taxable events, incidents or activities, from which the income is merely used for measuring the tax. Hence, the name "income tax". It is according to the income, and not upon the income itself. The class of taxes which are indirect include duties, imposts and excises, and such taxes are never upon any kind of property, but only upon revenue taxable activities, which include, but not limited to, the exercise of certain procured privileges, such as doing of business in a corporate capacity, where the measure of the amount of tax is typically income, sales, inventory, etc.
You know that in 1916, when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment and the nature of an income tax, the court relied on the earlier ruling, it had made in 1911 in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107. The U. S. Supreme Court held in Flint that a tax measured by the income of corporations or insurance companies Is not a tax directly on income as property, but an indirect, or excise, tax upon the business activity or corporations which is a lawful subject or taxation. The U. S. Supreme Court said:
"Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity ..." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, at 150 (1911)
"We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the States in order to support their local government." Flint, supra, at 154,
"Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations ... the tax must be measured by some standard ..." Flint, supra, at 165
"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the fight to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure or taxation is found in the income ..." Flint, supra, at 165
You know very well that the free exercise of a constitutionally secured right is not a legitimate subject of taxation. You know that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a fight granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania , .319 U. S. 105, at 113. (1943)
You know that the federal government and the state governments cannot, and therefore have not taxed the free exercise of constitutionally secured rights. You know that one who lawfully contracts his own labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities in exchange for lawful compensation cannot be taxed for revenue purposes, and therefore is not a "taxpayer" as defined by statute, and is therefore a NONTAXPAYER and is entitled to ALL the fruits of his labor.
"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry." 48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, p.80.
You know that an indirect tax is never a tax upon the tangible fruit, but rather upon the taxable event or activity.
"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirec t tax ... " Tyler v. U. S., 281 U S 497, at 502. (1930)
Knowing that the so-called income tax is an indirect tax and in its nature an excise, you know that an excise tax cannot be (and therefore has not been) imposed upon any individual or upon an individual's free exercise of a natural fight secured by the U.S. Constitution.
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an EXCISE cannot be imposed."
Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819. (1930)
You also know that in the landmark cases of Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, '301 U6 S. 548, (19')7), and Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, (1937), the Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security taxes are also indirect taxes and that the Social Security Act lays a "special income tax upon employees ". In Helvering v. Davis the court described title VIII of the Social Security Act as follows:
"Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an 'income tax on employees,' and ' excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. para 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid 'with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. para 804 ... The two taxes are at the same rate. para 801, 804 ... The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way para 807(a)." Helvering v. Davis , 301 U. S. 619 at 635
You know full well that the Internal Revenue Code sections ') 102(a) and '3402(a), which provide:
The tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. 26 U.S.C 3102(a) (In Part),
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." 26 U.S.C. 3402(a)(1) (In part),
refer only to the wages of persons (employees who are "taxpayer(s)", that is, those who are subject to a tax under the applicable revenue laws as a result of their revenue taxable activities.
You know full well that the legal criterion or standard by which your employees are to be determined as to whether or not they are employed in a revenue taxable activity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how much wages or money they earn, but instead, is determined exclusively by the factual description and precise nature of their employment in terms of what they actually do or did and whether or not it involves any kind of activity which cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. A revenue tax liability is not incurred by the free exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right, and therefore unlimited income derived from such activity is not taxable for revenue purposes. You know full well that a revenue tax has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of wages earned by the free exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You know full well that one incurs a tax liability in the same way any other kind of liability is incurred, that is, by doing something that affects the rights of others, or of the public, and as a result of which a duty arises to answer for damages. One answers according to the same duty which a witness has before a grand jury to answer, upon being granted immunity from criminal prosecution. (See Garner v. U.S. 424 U.S. 648, at 652.) In other words, you will no be criminally prosecuted for being involved in a revenue taxable activity, provided, you truthfully and timely report, or make a return, regarding your income from that activity, and computing the tax thereon. The amount of income which you have procured from that taxable activity is not directly taxable as such, but it is confiscable or seizable as a product of that taxable activity, and under the revenue law's taxing schedules or tables it is the basis for measuring or computing the amount of tax on such activities.
You also know that the legal status of your employees who are not subject to income taxation, which includes the Social Security tax, does not involve the declaring of exemptions or an exempt status on a W-4 form, since that form can only be legally used by those who are subject to the tax because of their revenue taxable activities, and who are legally defined in the Internal Revenue Code as "taxpayers(s)", and yet you willfully and corruptly exerted undue influence and pressure upon your employees, who are not subject to revenue taxation, to fill our and sign W-4 forms and to provide you with Social Security numbers.
You know that you cannot, as a condition of employment, compel or require an employee, especially one who is not employed in a revenue taxable activity, to submit a W-4 form. you know that a W-4 form, when signed by anyone who is not engaged in a revenue taxable activity, is NULL and VOID.
You also know that the law, namely Treasury Regulation 1. 3402(f)(2)- 1(g)(2) which has full force and effect of law, absolutely forbids an employer from sending any W-4 form to the Internal Revenue Service if such form has been signed by an individual who is not subject to any revenue tax.
31.-3402(f)(2)-(c,)(2) Exception. A copy of the certificate shall not be submitted under paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section if the employer reasonably expects, at the time the certificate is received, that the employee's wages (under chapter 24 of the Code) from that employer shall not then usually exceed $200 per week. Treasury Regulation 31.3402(f)(2)- 1(g)(2) (In part)
You know full well that Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to those who are engaged in revenue taxable activities. You know full well that you have no reason to expect me to earn $200 per week from revenue taxable activities when I was not even hired to engage in any revenue taxable activity. You know full well that you cannot withhold a tax from one who is not subject to the tax. Only a "taxpayer" can have taxes withheld. The withholding of funds under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of collecting a tax is criminal conversion, extortion, and abuse of corporate privilege, and is depriving that individual of property without due process of law.
Knowing full well that the state and federal taxing agencies rely and depend upon employers, such as yourself, to know which, if any , of their employees are employed in revenue taxable activities and to truthfully identify and report the names of such employees, if any , to said taxing agencies for processing under the appropriate revenue laws, you have willfully and corruptly submitted my name as a misrepresentation of tax status to the Internal Revenue Service as if I was employed in a revenue taxable activity and therefore subject to revenue taxation and tax withholding, which you knew and know to be false, regarding the true nature of my employment by you, and which you knew and know is not of a revenue taxable nature. You have at all times known that I would not, as a result of my employment, incur any revenue tax liability or become subject to any tax under any revenue law.
You know that by submitting to the federal and state collecting agencies the W-4 forms and Social Security numbers or your employees who are not subject to income taxation, you have willfully and corruptly made factual misrepresentation to said agencies, all in the furtherance of the unlawful scheme of procuring from said agencies fictitiously contrived and legally void tax withholding "orders" as your false color and pretense of legal authority for unlawfully depriving said employees of their full contracted wages.
It is assumed, as a matter of law, that you, acting, in a fiduciary capacity, knew, and know, the above stated facts.
Despite your knowledge of the foregoing facts you, nevertheless, have corruptly and falsely represented to the federal and state taxing agencies that I am and was employed by you in a revenue taxable activity, and thereby incurred a revenue tax liability, and became subject to the income tax. As a direct and proximate result of said misrepresentations, you willfully, corruptly and unlawfully procured false orders and instructions from said agencies to unlawfully withhold my wages as if I were employed in a revenue taxable activity and as if my job involved some revenue taxable event or incident and, as if I was therefore subject to a tax under a revenue law.
The fact that I supplied you with a Social Security number and the fact that I signed a W-4 form does not indemnify you from liability. The furnishing of numbers or the signing of forms does not change a non-taxable activity into a taxable activity. It is assumed, as a matter of law, that you know which, if any, of your employees are employed to engage in revenue taxable activities.
By your unlawful acts, you have violated our contract and you have violated my constitutional rights. I therefore demand of you the following:
1. Cease and desist withholding of wages under the sham, guise, pretext and subterfuge of withholding taxes, and
2. Make immediate payment to me of all moneys which you have unlawfully withheld from me, and
3. Pay to me an additional and reasonable amount of money, which will be determined either by negotiation between us or by adjudication in a court, to compensate me for damages which you have done which are in the nature of exemplary, punitive, and other damages.
Duty of a Citizen
When government is properly operating, persons, officers and employees of one of the three branches are prohibited from performing the duties of the other two branches. It then falls to the citizen to challenge all claims made by or on behalf of government. The members of the three branches of government cannot question the authority or integrity of another branch.
The doctrine of the separation-of-powers prohibits a government person, officer or employee from acting outside the legislative, executive or judicial branch, but it takes the constant vigilance of citizens to make certain that persons, officers and employees of branches do not exercise the power of another branch.
The most important principle applicable to all three branches is the lack of power to create new legal duties for citizens.
Part One will show why the three branches of government are governed by a Constitution and why that Constitution can only authorize the legislative branch to create more laws for government.
Constitution of the United States and Declaration of Independence with comments by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land for all governments. It is, however, not law that applies to the People in the states of the Union.
The English common law is the law of the People in 49 states. This course teaches that the events that caused the separation of the People of the United States from the monarchy of England shaped the common law of America. In England equity was administered by the Lord Chancellor of England, who was an officer of the English monarch. In an America without a king there is no place for equity.
The grand and petit jurors determine the facts and the law in all serious civil and criminal cases. The Declaration of Independence begins the elimination of the English monarchy in the thirteen states of the new Union that is to be the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation.
Judiciary Act of 1789 This act of Congress established the first thirteen districts for the United States district courts at a time when only eleven states had ratified the Constitution. That document is famous for the first three articles that create the three branches of government. The fourth article provides the government for a substantial amount of territory that has not been incorporated into the original thirteen states. It is this territory and the federal territory within the states of the Union that is the U.S. or United States. The district judges, according to the Act, are required to reside within the district. There is no provision in the Act for a lifetime appointment during good behavior. Provision is not made for continuation in office during good behavior until the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Revenue Act of 1894 (Wilson- Gorman Act) The Federal Income Tax law was declared unconstitutional by the Income Tax Cases: Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust , 158 U.S. 601 (1895). The entire Act can be found in the first footnote to Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust , 157 U.S. 429 (1895). The Supreme Court held the entire act to be unconstitutional, but I have identified Section 29 as the legislation that caused the creation of an unconstitutional direct tax on the property of the People of the States by the imposition of a duty to make a return. Even after the 16th Amendment, language similar to that found in Section 29 will never be found in any future federal internal revenue act.
Revenue Act of 1913 This act imposes a net income tax upon those citizens of the United States over which Congress has legislative power. The three branches of government are named as individuals who are to pay the tax, although only the inferior federal judges not of the Article III judiciary are actually liable. Section G. (page 172) imposes the individual income tax on corporations. Section S. (page 201) of Section III repeals the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909. This then, is the scenario: the federal income tax as a direct tax is declared unconstitutional in 1895; President William Howard Taft, a legal genius, resolves the issue by proposing an amendment affirming the power of Congress to tax itself and the non-Article III judges; the 1913 federal income tax is a tax on the citizens of the United States (members of Congress) and residents (district court judges); the domestic Corporation Tax is repealed and the tax on the national government is imposed on corporations.
Written Address to Congress by President William Howard Taft, June 16, 1909 [Congressional Record—Senate]. This is the first public statement that the federal income tax will be a tax on the national government when the federal income tax amendment is ratified. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land for government, so the Sixteenth Amendment is just more law for government.
Balzac v. People of Porto Rico , 258 U.S. 298 (1922) This Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice William Howard Taft identifies United States district courts as territorial courts. Any federal court calling itself a "United States District Court" will be a court that is limited to federal territory and federal property.
Article IV of the Constitution specifically provides Congress with the power to dispose of the territory not part of the original states and any other property belonging to the United States. This is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.
Mookini v. United States , 303 U.S. 201 (1938) This Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes states that a District Court of the United States is a constitutional court and that vesting a United States district court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States."
The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States."
O'Malley v. Woodrough , 307 U.S. 277 (1939) This case, when read in its entirety practically explains all modern federal income tax issues and the lack of judicial power in the United States district court judges and court of appeals judges.
All the law discussed in this case arises from acts of Congress and all those acts can be traced directly to a legislative power in the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land for government. Where in the Constitution is it written that Congress has power to make laws for the People in the states? That's true it is nowhere there. All the laws Congress makes must be constitutional and therefore must only apply to the federal government, State governments and the territory and other property of the United States.
Article III of the Constitution has no application in O'Malley v. Woodrough , 307 U.S. 277 (1939). Judge Joseph W. Woodrough had never been an Article III.
The reader should also note carefully that Judge Woodrough became a tax protester when he objected to the Collector of Internal Revenue's notice and demand that an income tax was due. All collectors and deputy collectors were abolished in the IRS Reorganization of 1952. After that date all federal internal revenue was collected without notice and demand. From then till now all federal taxes must be voluntarily paid because no constitutional officer has the duty to give a notice and make a demand for payment.
Go East, Young, Man The Early Years, The Autobiography of William O. Douglas, pages 465-467. Beginning at the last paragraph on page 465 Douglas explains the influence the case, O'Malley v. Woodrough , 307 U.S. 277 (1939), had on his life. Douglas assumed, as Felix Frankfurter wanted, that Judge Woodrough was an Article III judge. It never occurred to Douglas to question Frankfurter's honesty or legal ability. He should have, of course.
Cheek v. United States 498 U.S. 192 (1991) The U.S. Supreme Court as the name indicates a territorial court. Cheek was tried by a jury in a territorial federal trial court and was found guilty. Find in the Head Note the sentence: Statutory willfulness, which protects the average citizen from prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, and highlight it.
The legal duty to make a return and pay a tax cannot be found in Title 26 U.S.C . because Congress is without authority to create legal duties for the people of the states. There is simply no place in the Constitution where Congress is given the power to create new legal duties. Congress has authority to create requirements which are administrative obligations but the neglect or refusal to perform those requirements will not result in any prison time.
The decision in Cheek is an attempt to cover-up the complete absence of a legal duty to make a federal income tax return or to pay the federal income tax. Justice Blackmun's dissent speaks volumes on the judiciary's general incompetence in tax matters.
Cheek should have learned why the federal income tax is a constitutional, lawful and an appropriate tax on the individuals over whom Congress has legislative power.
The best defense to any criminal federal indictment is the motion to inspect the grand jury list. If inspection does not establish that each grand juror is a resident of federal territory within one of the counties that comprise the district or division where the indictment was brought, a motion to dismiss the indictment should be immediately brought.
Justice Frankfurter very carefully presented the issue before the Court as follows:
"Is the provision of Section 22 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, 178, reenacted by Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1648, 1657, 26 U.S.C.A. 22(a), constitutional insofar as it included in the "gross income", on the basis of which taxes were to be paid, the compensation of "judges of courts of the United States taking office after June 6, 1932".
Frankfurter knew that the federal income tax applied only to Article IV federal judges, because the duty to make a return in Section of the 1894 federal income tax law had not been placed in the 1913 federal income tax law and subsequent federal income tax laws. Non-Article III federal district judges could be obligated by Article VI of the Constitution to make returns:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Both United States district court judges and the judges of the courts of appeals are judges of one of the States and Article III judges could volunteer to subject their compensation for services to federal income taxation. The tax on federal judge's salaries was constitutional because those judges were not Article III judges.
Despite his varied life experience and class standing in Columbia Law School, Douglas never learned the truth about the federal trial courts. He went to his grave in 1975 with no more knowledge about the federal judicial system than what he had when O'Malley was decided. I wonder what the world would be like today if Supreme Court Justices like Douglas had not believed so many lies about the government.
We know that Joseph W. Woodrough had never been an Article III judge. A judge like any other officer of the United States fills an office and is never the recipient of anything like a title of nobility. All the legislative evidence proves that the first Article III district in any of the States of the Union is not created until 1959, when Congress created an Article III court in the district of Hawaii.
William O. Douglas's life would have been very different if he had known and applied the citizen's first duty: "Question all authority."
U.S. Government Manual 2004-05 Pages 67 to 83—Lower Courts catch the federal government in a lie. The claim that the United States district court for Puerto Rico is established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States is a shameful lie. The United States district courts found in Sections 81-131 of Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C., according to Balzac and Mookini must be Article IV legislative/territorial courts, so the U.S. Government must publish a lie and claim that the United States district court in Puerto Rico is an Article III court.
TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE The first eighteen chapters are presented here to give the student a view of the government printed version of territorial law for the United States. The first sentence in Chapter 5 explains the territorial composition of the districts and divisions of all the federal courts in all the 50 states is the federal territory in the counties on January 1, 1945.
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
W4 Letter for employer
Address City, State Zip
Internal Revenue Service
Address City, State Zip
I received your unsigned letter informing me to disregard my employees signed and sworn W-4 statement, which you claim is "false": Accordingly, I request that you answer the following questions with respect to your letter.
1. What is the name or names of the individual or individuals who determined that my employee's W-4 statement was "incorrect"?
2. What is the basis upon which it was determined that the W-4 statement is "incorrect"?
3. Am I required by law to disregard my employee's W-4 and his affidavit simply because the IRS "directed" me to do so?
4. If your answer to question 3 above is yes, please provide the Code Section that requires me to do so.
5. What are the penalties that I might be subject to if I do not follow your "directive"?
6. What is the Code Section that establishes and enumerates such penalties?
Until I receive satisfactory answers to these six questions, I will continue to honor my employee's W-4 as I am authorized to do by Code Section 3402(n).
Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".
|RM 01 RM 02 RM 03 RM 04 RM 05 RM 06 RM 07 RM 08 RM 09 RM 10 RM 11 RM 12 RM 13 RM 14 RM 15 RM 16 RM 17 RM 18 RM 19 RM 20 RM 21 RM 22 RM 23 RM 24 RM 25 RM 26 RM 39 RM 40|