I, ________, the undersigned, on the date noted below, declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief the following facts are true and I so affirm in this affidavit, to wit:

1. That I was unaware that a completed, signed, and submitted "Form 1040" or "Income Tax Return" and/or a "Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate", the authorization document that allows an employer to withhold a worker's money from his pay, are voluntarily executed instruments which could be used as prima facie evidence against me in criminal trials and civil proceedings to show that I had voluntarily waived my constitutionally secured rights and that I had voluntarily subjected myself to the federal income/excise tax, and to the provisions and jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service (hereafter referred to as the IRS) by signing and thereby affirming under penalty of perjury that I was in effect a "taxpayer", that is, a person subject to the tax.

2. That I was unaware of the legal effects of signing and filing a so called income tax return as shown by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the 1974 ruling in the Morse v. U.S. 494 F2d 876, 880, wherein the court explained how a citizen -could become a "taxpayer" by stating, "accordingly, when returns were filed in Mrs. Morse's name declaring income to her for 1944 and 1945, and making her potentially liable for the tax due in that income, she became a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code."

3. That my attention has recently been directed to the fact that an official IRS form letter (FL1264) states, "(The) fact that you sent us (the IRS) this Form 1040 shows that you recognize your obligation to file.."; that it has never been my intention or desire to show the IRS or anyone else that I recognize any such obligation; and that as a free person I legally do not have such an obligation.

4. That I understand that if the exercise of the rights of the people were subject to taxation, those rights could be destroyed by increasing the tax rates to unaffordable levels, and that therefore courts have repeatedly ruled that government has no power to tax the exercise of any rights of citizens, as shown by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) in which the court stated, "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."

5. That for years past I have been influenced by numerous and repeated public warnings made by or on behalf of the IRS via radio, television, the printed press and other public communication media warning of the "deadline" for fling a "Form 1040, U.S. Income Tax Return" and/or other IRS forms and documents.

6. That I was influenced by the common and widespread practice of employers who either knowingly or unknowingly mislead their employees to believe that they are all subject to withholding of "income taxes" from their earnings, either with or without their permission, based upon the employers' possibly mistaken assumption that they, as employers, are required by law to withhold "income taxes" from the paychecks of their employees.

7. That said "Form 1040" contained no reference to any law or laws which would explain just exactly who is or is not subject to or liable for the so-called income tax, nor does it contain any notice or warning to any person that merely send in a said completed to the IRS would waive my right to privacy secured by the 4th Amendment and my right not to be compelled to be a witness against myself secured by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the Unite7d States of America, and that the "Form 1040" would in itself constitute legal evidence admissible in a court of law that the person filing said form is subject to and liable for the income/excise tax even though and regardless of the fact that I, or any person, as a free individual, am not actually and legally subject to or liable for any income/excise tax and have no legal duty or obligation whatsoever to complete and file a "Form 1040."

8. That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the IRS, by any of its agents or employees, nor by any attorney at law, certified public accountant, or tax preparers of the fact that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, as correctly interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in such cases as Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. C., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) identified the income tax as an indirect excise tax in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, and that the 16th Amendment does not authorize a tax on individuals.

9. That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the IRS. by any of its agents or employees, nor by any attorney at law, certified public accountant, or tax preparer of the fact that because of various rulings of the United States Supreme Court in such cases as Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), and Pollock v. Farmers's Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 492 (1895), the indirect excise tax on incomes identified by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is actually a tax upon corporation privileges granted by government and measured by the amount of corporate income (see Corporations Tax Act, Statutes at Large, 1909, Vol. XXXVI, section 38, page 112); that this excise tax may also be imposed on certain other privileges provided by government and measured by the amount of corporate (see Corporations Tax Act, Statutes at Large, 1909, Vol. XXXVI, section 38, page 112); that this excise tax may also be imposed on certain other privileges provided by government and measured by income; that such occupations of privilege include attorneys at law [see Springer v. U.S. 586 (1881)]; and that this excise tax may also be imposed upon criminal gains or profits.

10. That my attention has been called to Report No. 80-18A, titled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws" published by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, updated January 17, 1980; that this publication described the tax on: income identified in the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution as an indirect excise tax; that this report stated, "Therefore, it can clearly be determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax," thus proving in my mind that the "income tax" is not a tax on me as an individual, but is rather a tax as described by the United States Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), wherein the Court defined excise taxes as "...taxes laid upon the manufacture, sales, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.", none of which classifications apply to ME.

11. That I was unaware of the truth of rarely publicized statements by the IRS and its officials, such as the Commission of Internal Revenue, that the "income tax system' is based upon "voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax"; that it has never been my intention or desire to voluntarily self-assess any excise tax upon myself; that I always believed that compliance was required by law, which I now am informed and believe not to be true.

12. That I have examined sections 6001, 6011, 6012, 7203, and 7205, of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26, U.S.C.) and I am convinced and satisfied that I am not now, and never was any such "person" or individual referred to by said sections.

13. That after careful study of the Internal Revenue Code, and consultations about the provisions of the said Code with attorneys at law, tax accountants, and tax preparers, I have never found or been shown any section or provision of said Code that imposes any requirement on me, as a free sovereign unprivileged individual, to file a "Form 1040, U. S. Individual Income Tax Return", or that imposed a requirement upon me to pay a tax on "income", or that would classify me as a "person liable", a "person made liable", or a "taxpayer", as the term "taxpayer" is defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701 (a) (14) which states, "The term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to internal revenue tax.".

14. That after the study and consultations, the only mention of any possible requirement upon me, as an unprivileged individual, to pay I a tax on "income" that I could find or be shown in 26 U.S.C. was the title, and only the title of Part I under Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, which is deceptively titled "Tax on Individuals"; that a careful study and examination of this part of the Code showed no provision in the body of the statutes imposing any liability or requirement upon me as an individual for payment of a federal excise tax on "income"; that my study and consultations showed that the law is determined by actual wording, contained in the body of a statute, and not by the title; that the title of a statute is merely a general guide to the contents of the statute, and the title has no force or effect at law as confirmed by IRC section 7806 CONSTRUCTION OF TITLE (b) "...any... contents of this title be given any legal effect."

15. That after study and consultations, my attention was called to Internal Revenue Code Chapter 21 titled "Federal Insurance Contribution Act" (known as Social Security), to Subchapter A of Chapter 32 titled "Tax on Employees", which includes section 3101 wherein the (Social:5ecurity) tax is identified as a-tax on "income", not as an "Insurance Contribution", and not as a "Tax on Employees", or on wages or earnings; that my attention was further called to the following facts: There is no provision in the Code that imposes the tax on employees or requires them to pay the tax. A voluntarily signed completed "W-4 Employees Withholding Allowance Certificate" allows an employer to withhold money from an employee's pay for (Social Security) "income" tax, even though the worker has claimed on the form to be "exempt" from the graduated "income" tax. An employer has no authority to withhold money from a worker's pay for the (Social Security) "income" tax, or any IRS imposed penalty or assessment if there is no voluntarily signed "W-4" form in force.

16. That after study and consultations my attention was called to Section 61 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code which lists items that are sources of "income" and to these facts: The IRS Collection Summons Form 6638 (12-82) confirms that these items are sources, not "income", by stating that the following items are "sources": "Wages, salaries, tips, fees, commissions, interest, rents, royalties, alimony, state or local tax returns, pensions, business income, gains from dealings in property, and any other compensation for services (including receipt of property other than money).", that sources are not income, but sources become ";.income" if they are entered as "income" on a signed "Form 1040" are "income" to the signer, that section 61(b) clearly indicates which Sections of the Code identify and list items that are included in "income" by stating, "For items specifically included in gross income, see Part H (sec. 71 and following).

17. That my attention was then called to the said Part H, titles, "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income"; that I studied sections 71 through 87 and noticed that wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest, dividends, pensions, rents, royalties, etc., are not listed as being included in "income" in those sections of said Code, and that, in fact, those items are not mentioned anywhere in any of these sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

18. That after further study it appears clear to me that the only way that property received by me as a free, sovereign unprivileged individual in the form of wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and/or pensions could be, or could have been legally considered to be "income" is if I voluntarily completed and signed a "Form 1040, U.S. income Tax Return", thereby affirming under penalty of perjury that information on the "Form 1040" in the "income" block is "income", thereby acknowledging under penalty of perjury that I am, or was subject to the tax and have, or had a duty to file a "Form l040 Income Tax Return" and/or other IRS forms, documents, and schedules, none of which instruments I have ever signed with the understanding that they were voluntarily signed.

19. That with reliance upon the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court rulings and upon my constitutionally protected 5th and 9th Amendment rights to lawfully contract, to work, and to legally acquire and possess property, I am convinced and satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever, subject to, liable for, or required to pay any income/excise tax, that I am not now and never was a "taxpayer" as the term is defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code, and that I have never had any legal duty or obligation whatsoever to file any "Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate", or other IRS forms, submit documents or schedules, pay any income tax, keep any records, or supply any information to the IRS.

20. That by reason of the aforestated facts, I do hereby exercise my rights as a free sovereign citizen of the United States of America, upheld by various court decisions to revoke, rescind, cancel and to render null and void, both currently and retroactively to the time of signing, based upon the constructive fraud perpetrated upon me by the United States Congress and the Internal Revenue Service, all "Form 1040, U.S. Income Tax Returns", all "Form W-4 Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificates", all other IRS forms, schedules, and documents ever signed and/or submitted b me, and all my signatures on any of the aforementioned items, to include the (Social Security) account, bearing the account number _______; that this revocation and rescission is based upon my rights in respect to constructive fraud as established in, but not limited to the cases of Tyler v. Secretary of State, 184 A-2d 101 (1962), and also El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d. 240 (1979) which stated, "Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument."

21. That further, I do hereby declare that I am not and never was a "taxpayer" as the term is defined in the said Internal Revenue Code, a "person liable" for any Internal Revenue Tax, or a "person subject" to the provisions 6-f said Code, and declare that I am, and have always been a person described as a "nontaxpayer" as stated by the Supreme Court in Long v. Rasmussen, 281 f.2'06 (1922), and again in Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, 589 (1972) as follows: "The revenue laws... relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers.... for with them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of revenue laws.", such definition being further reinforced in the cases of Delima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176, 179 and Gerth v. United States, 132 F. Supp 894 (1955).

Secretary of Department of the Treasury 15th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. 20220

Please forward the enclosed Affidavit of Revocation and Rescission to the appropriate governmental offices/departments so that proper notification can be taken of its contents.

Are wages income

The most direct way to answer the question of whether or not wages are income in the constitutionally correct sense is to answer the following questions in order.

The Supreme Court has left no doubt that it has the authority to define income. In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1919) we find the following:

"it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not income. Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

Reserving to itself the prerogative of defining the constitutional meaning of the word, income the court does in fact do so. Again, in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 207, we find the following definition:

"Income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets."

Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the Sixteenth Amendment became effective. It was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is likewise true `emphasis on the element of gain. It is recognized by the Court which alone has the right to decide to be -essential- to a proper definition of the term, income. We must now determine the meaning of the term, wages and see whether or not it includes this essential feature.

The notion that wages are one element of an exchange is brought out in Coppage v. Kansas, 238 U.S. 1 (1914):

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of the nature of each is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment by which labor and other service are exchanged for money and other forms of property.'

Having determined that wages are the result of an exchange of money or property for labor and/or service, let us look at what the court has to say about the nature of this exchange in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923) the Court points out one aspect of the nature of this exchange in saying that there is a

...moral requirement implicit in every contract of employment viz. that the amount to be paid and service to be rendered shall bear to each some measure of just equivalence ... in principal, there can be no difference between the case of selling labor and the case of selling goods (property).-

Thus our labor is our property which we are morally bound to sell for wages according to "some measure of just equivalence". Of course, this is no news since we are all aware that no employer will pay more than our labor is worth. Clearly, there is no profit or gain in wages, but merely an equal exchange of the employee's property in labor and services for the employer's property in wages. Wages are not profit-sharing based on the gain of a company, but an equal exchange of value for value.

Obviously, and in spite of the common misconception for the term, wages does not mean income in the sense intended by the Sixteenth Amendment since it lacks the constitutionally essential feature for gain or profit. In discussing the intent of Congress in forming the Sixteenth Amendment, the Court while upholding its constitutionality, says it could not have been meant to be a direct tax on such sources. In Brushabor v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 246 U.S. 1 (1915), the Court refers to a former Income Tax Act, that of 1894, and says that it was declared unconstitutional since its operation

" ... would leave the burden of the (income) tax to be born by the professions, trades, employments or vocations and in this way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor (id. p. 367) a result which it was held could not have been contemplated by Congress."

Here is a very important and fundamental issue. The Court says that Congress could not have contemplated a tax on labor. Why not? The answer has two points;

There is much evidence in law that the right to work is a fundamental and constitutional guaranteed right. In Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana, 165 U.S. 5578, (1897) we find the following in reference to the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The liberty mentioned in that amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term as deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in livelihood by any lawful calling to pursue any livelihood or a vocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which my be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose above mentioned."

In Butchers Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 764 the Court quotes directly from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:

"The property which every man has in his own labor as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing his strength and dexterity in whatever manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.-

And again in the same case with reference to the Declaration of Independence the following:

"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document is the right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their facilities, so as to give them their highest enjoyment."

Thus, our right to the use of the property which is our labor is a constitutionally guaranteed right as fundamental as our right to liberty and property.

B) If Congress had the power to tax the exercise of the fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution, it would be able to abolish that right by taxing it out of existence. The Congress would thus have the power to subvert the Constitution.

The reason why the Congress could not have contemplated a tax on labor is therefore obvious. The right to ones labor, as to one' s liberty and property, is a right guaranteed by Constitution and may not be tampered with. The point is made in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (19661

"Where fundamental rights under the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation which can abrogate them."

"An income tax is neither a property tax, nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax... Legislature may declare as privilege and tax as such for state revenue those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right, but has no power to declare as privileges and taxes such for state revenue those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right, but has no power to declare as privilege, and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right."

But, we have seen that an individuals' property in the form of labor is a matter of the most fundamental common right. The reason for the restrictions on taxation was articulated early in this nation's history by Chief Justice Marshall when he said in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316

So if a common and constitutional right could, in principle, be taxed then it would be possible to legislate that right out of existence and thus subvert the Constitution. The most important point is not that the definition of wages does not correspond to the definition of income, but that any attempt under any circumstances to tax a fundamental right could subvert the Constitution. And the Constitution is the only thing that ultimately stands between the individual citizen and tyranny. The Court in fact makes this point in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41:

"The power to destroy which may be the consequence of taxation is a reason why the right to tax should be confined to subjects which may be lawfully embraced therein, even although it happens that in some particular instance no great harm may be caused by the exercise of the taxing authority as to a subject which is beyond its scope."

Clearly, to tax labor would be a subject that would be beyond the scope of any legislation, since it would involve the ultimate power to destroy that right.

The following are some additional cases that tend to bear out the validity of the arguments presented in this paper:

"Congress has taxed income, not compensation." Conner v. U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1189 (1969):

"there is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.- Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992: 86 S.E. 2d 858:

"reasonable compensation for labor or services is not profit." Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v Matthews 345 Pa 239: 47 A. 2d 27-7 280;

Once again in summary, the elements of gain or profit are essential to a constitutionally correct definition for income. Since there is equality of value in the exchange between labor and wages there is no profit or gain and thus, no income. Wages do not fit the constitutional definition of income. And, in fact, wages could not fit that definition without violating fundamental rights secured by the Constitution.

This is in response to Audit notice received from your office dated (date of Audit notice). As you are obviously not informed of my Nontaxpayer status, or you would not be involved in this action. I have included a declaration of my position

DECLARATION OF BELIEF

I am not a taxpayer as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Due to fraud on the part of the Internal Revenue Service, I have previously revoked all signatures with your organization. This revocation and rescission is based upon my rights in respect to constructive fraud as established in, but not limited to the cases of Tyler v. Secretary of State, 184 A.2d 101 (1962), and also El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d. 240 (1979) which stated, "Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument."

According to Title 28 sec. 2201 neither the courts nor the IRS has the authority to change my status from "Nontaxpayer" to "taxpayer". I am now and continue to be outside of your jurisdiction.

"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 238. (1922); Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F. 2d 585, at 589. (1972) (Emphasis added)

As you have quoted the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 in this matter I feel I must remind you that Title 26 is not positive law. This is per the Congressional Research Service.

This question stems from the fact that some titles of the United States Code (U.S.C.) are "positive law" and others are not. Title 26, Internal Revenue, has not been enacted as positive law.

The U.S.C. is divided into fifty titles. Of the fifty titles, twenty and part of another have been enacted into positive law. If a title has been enacted into positive law, then the text of that title constitutes legal evidence of the laws in that title. If the title has not been enacted into positive law, then the title is only prima facie evidence of the actual law. The courts could require proof of the underlying statutes, which are the positive law when the title has not been so enacted.

Please provide the positive, statute law that makes me a "taxpayer required to file", or, "a person made liable".

Since I have no filing requirement with your organization and I am without your jurisdiction.

Therefore and until you can prove otherwise, I am not a "taxpayer" as defined by your code. I have no debt with your organization. If you continue in this illegal action I will not hesitate to take legal action against you.

In response to letter received from your office dated ______. As you are obviously not informed of my Nontaxpayer status, or you would not be involved in this action. I have included a declaration of my position.

DECLARATION OF BELIEF

As you have quoted the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 in this matter I feel I must remind you that Title 26 is not positive law. This is per the Congressional Research Service.

This question stems from the fact that some titles of the United States Code (U.S.C.) are "positive law" and others are not. Title 26, Internal Revenue, has not been enacted as positive law.

The positive law for the tax code is the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat 1 (1954). Title 26 of U.S.C. is an editorial codification of this act prepared by action of the House Judiciary Committee, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 202."

"Section 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'District of Columbia Business Corporation Act"'. The purpose of this act being "To provide for the incorporation, regulation, merger, consolidation, and dissolution of certain business corporations in the District of Columbia."

I am not a business corporation in the District of Columbia, and the Positive Law does not mention nor apply to Me a "Nontaxpayer". Sections 7201, 7203, and 7205 only to apply "persons required to file". Please provide the positive, statute law that makes me a "taxpayer required to file". I have no filing requirement with your organization and I am without your jurisdiction.

In regards to the "W-4" issue, the CFR (positive law) section 31.3402(p)(2) states:

"An agreement under section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other."

Be aware that I have terminated the "request for withholding" (CFR 31.3402 (p)(b)). There can be no civil or other penalties without a positive, statute law demanding such action to be mandatory. Title 26, a negative law has no force of law in regards to a "Nontaxpayer".

Since there is no law that requires me to fill out a 1040 form and our Federal Tax system is voluntary, and the tax laws are only prima facie, I have chosen not to volunteer any money to the Internal Revenue Service. Therefore I am exempt as a Federal Taxpayer, by declaration. No criminal penalties can be applied without a positive law declaring said action to be mandatory.

Before me, a Notary Public, on this day, personally appeared the above named individuals.

Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association.
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".