Dave Champion and the Rules of Construction

As many of you know, I appeared on Dave Champion’s radio show a few days ago. During the show and in a follow-up email to me, Dave used an argument based around the Rules of Statutory Construction.

Being the person I am, I could not let such an argument slide without investigating it.

I am still gathering my research, but I can tell you one thing: Dave Champion has not read the Rules of Statutory Construction. Look for the full rebuttal in a day or two.

*Edit*

Some may have misconstrued my above statements regarding whether or not Dave has read the Rules of Construction or not. To clarify my thoughts, what I have found in reading over the Rules is that they are not binding to judges nor do they call for such a narrow definition of words and meanings, especially as they relate to the income tax code. In this manner, it feels to me as if Dave is reading from a different set of rules than Sutherland’s, for example.

Once I am able to post my full rebuttal to Dave’s argument, he will obviously have the chance to respond with a clarification of his own.


*Edit*

The following are the original comments made to this post up to the most recent time:


What creates the obligation?
I have listened to your debate with Dave twice now, and I am interested to know, Brian, if you can tell me primarily how a tax obligation is created. This question is intended to open up a host of other issues, but I ask this because most people do not know, and during your discussion with Dave, neither one of you mentioned this basic element to the tax debate.
Monday, August 7, 2006 - 01:45 PM

Parcival
Your question is a bit broad. In general, a tax obligation is created by a statute imposing the tax together with, in the case of indirect taxes, the occurence of an event or creation of a thing subject to the tax.

In the case of the income tax, the tax is imposed in IRC §1. IRC §6012 requires anyone with sufficient gross income to make a return. IRC §6151 requires the person who makes a return to pay the tax.
Monday, August 7, 2006 - 02:56 PM

What creates the obligation?
Thank you for your response. I had not planned to respond with a missive, but I feel the need to articulate my points, as set forth below.

While my question may seem "a bit broad", it is actually very narrow and specific. Your answer, however, is based on the legal opinion of whoever wrote the statutes. Factually, the correct answer is that a tax obligation is created by one's claim, either express or implied, to being a "citizen", or a "resident". This is where the "voluntary" component of "voluntary compliance" begins. A taxpayer, is a "person", who at some point, has created a legal presumption or declaration that that they are liable for a tax by either claiming, or failing to rebut, a legal status as a citizen or resident. Tax payments are one form of expression of allegience to a political organization. How that allegience is extracted determines whether or not you have a republic, or a democracy.

In the so-called American Republic, in return for voluntary allegience to the state, i.e. the People, something is contractually owed, i.e. a reciprocal obligation, by the government to the citizen which the government does not provide: protection of life, liberty, and property. Courts have declared repeatedly that there is no such obligation for the government, which begs the next question:

If the government has renegged on its duty to protect the individual's life, liberty, and property, how can it impose a duty of allegience, or taxation, on a citizen, or resident, without their consent, that is, if the citizen or resident truly lives in a "free society"? Why should someone have to pay for a service that is not provided. Last time I checked, this is the way the mafia does business.

Concerning the notion of government created obligations, one grossly overlooked fact regarding the Constitution is that neither the legislative or executive branches of the "government" were given jurisdiction, or authority, in what is known as "Equity" (see Article III), i.e. the law of compelled performance. The "government" was given not one bit of power to make or enforce "laws" to compel a Citizen to perform any particular act. This omission effectively nullified any possibility that the "government" could make slaves out of the people, and expands the provision in the Declaration of Independence that people should only be governed by their individual consent, that such consent had to be freely, intelligently, and voluntarily given.

In his debate with Mr. Champion, Brian's position was completely devoid of any reference to Common Law (which is the foundation of American Constitutional Jurisprudence), and an individual's right to make legal determinations for himself. His position was based solely on the government's purported statutory authority, and the opinions which claim to support it. These have nothing to do with real Law, and such arguments fail to recognize that when statutory clauses, such as the so-called 16th Amendment, which contains statutory elements, are incorporated into the Constitution, that entire instrument is converted to a statute instrument by implication if nobody reverses it, or clarifies. This is a post Civil War phenomenon. It cannot be both since the words "constitution" and "statute" are distinguishable from each other, and when you get into the original meanings, the terms "law" and "statute" are distinquishable from each other as well.

Statutes are not Law, and there is not a single valid statute that the so-called congress has ever passed that applies to me if it purports to be compulsory. I can only be held to answer for violations of Common Law principles, i.e. "do not tresspass upon the life, liberty, or property of another human being", and Equity, i.e. "My word is my bond, and I shall honor my agreements". If anyone can produce a single fact that proves otherwise, I will literally eat my shorts and post the video on the internet.

Brian's argument ended with the comment that compulsory taxation upon everyone is necessary because the functions of government had to be paid for somehow, and that he had a right to "military protection". Who says so? and why does any of this have to be paid for at anyone's expense but Brian's? It is certainly not stated in the Constitution that he has a right to such services at the involuntary cost to someone else. There is a stated optional provision for the Congress to provide and maintain a Navy, but a permanent standing army on American soil is strictly forbidden. And, as stated before, the courts have affirmed that Brian has no right to an expectaion of such protection anyway, so how can it be stated honestly that without Brian's consent, with no lawful authority, and without honoring its end of the contract, that the "government" can violently impose any obligation on Brian, or anyone else.

Okay, I've used more than enough space for now.
Monday, August 7, 2006 - 05:55 PM

Pete Sagi
Brian,

I am listening to the taped discussion you had with Dave Champion. I am impressed with both sides, keeping the discussion to a discussion of issues without personal attacks, at least half way through. Bottom line ... it's really not as complicated as either of you would make it. It goes like this: the US Supreme Court in the Brushaber decision, in 1916, upheld the income tax as within the bounds of the Constitution, stating that the tax was/is an indirect or excise tax on privileged activity measured by the income, or profit, derived from the use of said privilege. A privilege is ALWAYS taxable by the grantor of the privilege. A RIGHT cannot be taxed without being destroyed as a right.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not grants of privilege but rather a set of restrictions placed upon the federal government against infrin
gement. There are lots of rights that were NOT enumerated, it would have been too tedious to do so. One of the rights NOT specifically enumerated was the right to your own time and labor and therefore the fruits of your labor, BUT, later on, after the Civil War, an ammendment was passed SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING involuntary servitude. If the tax is as you would have us believe (and as the current IRS commissioner would have us believe) ... that if you earn, you owe ... the tax would clearly be in violation of the prohibition against involuntary servitude.

No, quite simply, it doesn't work that way. The way it DOES work is this ... they first get you to be a "taxpayer" (specific legal definition) by using a social security number. According to the social security administration, the number is "not required to live OR WORK in the United States." Don't take my word for it, write the social security adminstration and ask them. In theory, following the law AS WRITTEN, you are supposed to be able to obtain work without that number. According to IRS publication 515, on page 2, in any year PRIOR TO 2000 (BEFORE they had to put all of their publications on the web) all you need do as a "citizen or resident of the United States" was to provide your employer with a written statement as to your citizenship or residency and that relieved your employer of any duty to withhold. This was in lieu of a W-4 (that the IRS admits is voluntary) and/or providing a social security number. One copy was to be retained by your employer and the other copy sent to the IRS office in Philadelphia ONLY, no other. The publication was "Withholding Requirements for Non Resident Aliens" and the statement, the little give-away, was in there as an "oh, by the way". The IRS deliberately buried that little goodie, and, when people found out, they would deny the existence of the publication, first on their toll free number and by the mid 90's the local offices would either deny the existence of that publication or always be out of it.

The bottom line is that unless you work for the federal govt. or a federally owned corporation, or are a withholding agent for non resident aliens, or are a non resident alien deriving an income from within the United States, or are a citizen deriving an income from without the United States (under the protection of the flag, therefore privileged) you totally do the income tax to yourself by volunteering for social security. Involuntary servitude is prohibited but VOLUNTARY servitude is OK. The government and society in general tend to coerce you into "volunteering" through ignorance or fear on this point. You claimed to be somewhat of a non conformer to the usual societal garbage, why not try getting by without that number?

Social security is THE KEY to the income tax on individuals living in any of the 50 states working at occupations of common right. Without that number, you may receive "remuneration" or "compensation" but WITH the number you receive "wages" or "salary" or "commissions" which have specifically defined legal meanings within the codes.

One last point ... if the tax is as you say, the IRS would have no problem in being forthcoming with answers. Instead all they provide is NON answers. Again, don't take my word for it. Ask them for a specific legal definition for taxpayer and ask them a simple yes or no question like "I worked as a widgit maker in Missouri last year. I am an UNCOVERED worker, having chosen not to participate in social security. Is my remuneration taxable? Yes or no, pick one." If you were to send them such a letter, you will get all manner of horse$#!+ about tax protesters leading you astray and similar rot, as opposed to just a yes or no answer and a code citation.

You struck me as a basically decent fellow, listening to your interview. I hope you wake up and smell the tyranny, and soon.

Pete
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 05:01 AM

Parcival
"It goes like this: the US Supreme Court in the Brushaber decision, in 1916, upheld the income tax as within the bounds of the Constitution, stating that the tax was/is an indirect or excise tax on privileged activity measured by the income, or profit, derived from the use of said privilege. "

Wrong. The Court said the tax was a tax on income and that all taxes on income are excises. The Court never mentioned privileges.

"A RIGHT cannot be taxed without being destroyed as a right."

Also wrong. The constitution gives Congress the power to lay taxes, not just taxes on privileges.

" If the tax is as you would have us believe (and as the current IRS commissioner would have us believe) ... that if you earn, you owe ... the tax would clearly be in violation of the prohibition against involuntary servitude."

By that line of reasoning, property taxes would be a taking of property without just compensation. They are not.

"In theory, following the law AS WRITTEN, you are supposed to be able to obtain work without that number."

And you can. But once you get the job, you have to obtain a social security number to put on your W-4.

"According to IRS publication 515, on page 2, in any year PRIOR TO 2000 (BEFORE they had to put all of their publications on the web) all you need do as a "citizen or resident of the United States" was to provide your employer with a written statement as to your citizenship or residency and that relieved your employer of any duty to withhold."

That, of course, is just a bald-faced lie. Publication 515 deals with the special withholding taxes on non-resident aliens, not with income tax withholding of US citizens and resident aliens. More to the point, the statement Pete refers to does not appear on page 2, or any other page, of the 12/97, the 12/98 or the 12/99 revisions of Publication 515.

"This was in lieu of a W-4 (that the IRS admits is voluntary) ..."

Are you a pathological liar, Pete? Or are you merely grossly misinformed? Form W-4 is not voluntary.

"Social security is THE KEY to the income tax on individuals living in any of the 50 states working at occupations of common right. "

The current income tax is the same tax imposed in the 1913 act. Social security wasn't created until the 1930's. What was the basis in 1913? The Supreme Court said it was Article I, section 8, the taxing power. But Pete thinks he knows more about the law than the Supreme Court.

Pete, you're not Pete Hendrickson, are you? Maybe you better wait until the government's suit against you is resolved before you pontificate on a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 04:07 PM

Anonymous
Parcival,

Its funny how some people uphold the position of government as if they had a special compensation from it, such as yourself. Its amazing the lies that you must come up with to create the illusion that eveyone must confrom like the borg.

What Pete was trying to convey to you, is that there is the Constitution, and there are Statutes. The Constiution is the Supreme Law of the land, refer back to Marbury v Madison.

There are two seperate types of Citizens. Those that fall under the Statutory law, and those who fall under the Constitution.

"There is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, "There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship" 256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro vs. Jordan 1928

Those of National Citizenship, or Federal, like yourself, MUST adhere to statutes and regulations, while those who elect to be state citizens, elect to live within the Constitution.

Social Secutity in itself is a law form entiltling those who participate to be Federal (U.S.) Citizens, please read 5 USC 552a(a)(13) and 552a(a)(2) through the
Ashwander Doctrine (One who avails himself of the Statute may not complain of an unconstitutional condition). I understand you enjoy this distinction, Im happy for you.

All US citizens (Federal Personell) MUST PAY a tax on the taxable income they receive. Read 26 CFR 1.1-1.

Those not of U.S. Citizendhip need not worry about income, having to file or other needless quandries unless they derive a taxable benefit from the federal government such as interest on bonds, savings accounts in fdic banks, contracts and business related to the u.s. government or some other nexus.

But I am happy about your decision to file and pay. Someone's got to do the dirty work ;)
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 05:52 PM

Pete Sagi
The last time I was able to obtain a copy of pub 515 was back in 1991. In 1990, the people at 1-800-tax-1040 were denying the existence of pub 515, but I was able to obtain a copy via the local office in Van Nuys, California. By 1992 the Van Nuys office people would get visibly upset if asked about pub 515. The last time I saw a copy of pub 515 was mid 90's. They may have hidden the weenie earlier than I thought.

Pub 515 was, in fact, about the withholding requirements for non resident aliens. I said as much. However, BECAUSE it was discussing non resident aliens, it mentioned "citizen or resident of the United States" AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE when it comes to backup withholding. Backup withholding occurs when no form W-4 is filled out and/or no social security number is provided. If you do not fill out a W-4 and/or do not use a social security number, you can avoid backup withholding via the statement of citizenship or residency.

Regarding the Brushaber decision, what I wrote was a paraphrase. You went onto discuss property tax. Property tax derives from the fact that the property being taxed IS NOT BEING HELD IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE. If you have free and clear title on property, you still do not TRUELY OWN IT, not unless you obtain a land patent. The tax is more in the way of a rent.

The same is true of motor vehicle registration. You turn in or your dealer turns in the bill of origin, which is true title, to your DMV. DMV then issues you a lesser title known as Certificate of Title, also known as a "pink slip". It is a colorable title subject to various rules ane regulations and licensure, wheras the true title is not.

The current income tax, or what most people know as the income tax, really has not a great deal to do with the way things were in 1913 or even earlier, where corporate profit was taxed going back to 1910. What most of us know as the income tax goes back to 1943, where it started as the so-called "victory tax" which people were told would expire in two years time, since it was just a "temporary wartime measure".

Withholding for social security started on January 2nd, 1937. People at that time KNEW IT WAS VOLUNTARY. They signed up for it because they thought it was a good deal. But those who held out were increasingly coerced by corporate America, the true enforcer of the tax, until by 1943, there were virtually zero holdouts. It seems that 63 years later, the public is stupified on this issue to the point where most believe that there is actually a law requiring enumeration at birth. Anyways, obtaining and using that number is still voluntary, at least on paper, and not required to live or work or work or work in the United States. Write the social security adminstration and ask them. There is no requirement in law to obtain a social security number after you get a job should you get a job without a number.

Form W-4 ... go to http://www.nossn.com also
http://www.save-a-patriot.org they have reams of information on the voluntary nature of form W-4

I am not Peter Hendreckson nor do I have any lawsuit problems. Nor am I nearly the expert on the minutia of the tax codes as are some people. I like to break things down to the simple things ... either I have a right to live here or I do not, if I do, I have a right to make a living here without participating in a totally voluntary welfare scheme or a govenment issued number. That is just common sense.

Finally, I don't appreciate being called a liar or a pathological liar, etc.

Pete
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 05:56 PM

Parcival
"Finally, I don't appreciate being called a liar or a pathological liar, etc. "

Then quit telling such transparent lies. It's possible you're not aware that you are lying. If so, then you must be completely indifferent to the truth value of your statements. Calling nonsense a "paraphrase" doesn't make it one. The Court in Brushaber did not say what you said. It said nothing close to it. You made it up or read it somewhere and never bothered to see if it were true.

I see you've changed your position on Publication 515. Before, you said that information in Pub 515 on IRC §1441 withholding was referring to IRC §31 withholding. Now, you've switched to IRC §3406, backup withholding. And you're still wrong!

"Property tax derives from the fact that the property being taxed IS NOT BEING HELD IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE. If you have free and clear title on property, you still do not TRUELY OWN IT, not unless you obtain a land patent. The tax is more in the way of a rent."

No, federal property taxes derive from the general taxing power in Article I, section 8 of the constitution. State property taxes derive from similar grants of power in state constitutions.

"The current income tax, or what most people know as the income tax, really has not a great deal to do with the way things were in 1913 or even earlier, where corporate profit was taxed going back to 1910. What most of us know as the income tax goes back to 1943, where it started as the so-called "victory tax" which people were told would expire in two years time, since it was just a "temporary wartime measure". "

I'm not sure what you mean by the rather broad reference to "the way things were in 1913". All I said was that the current tax is essentially the same tax as that in the 1913 tax act. The definition of gross income, for example, is identical. The victory tax DID expire in 1945, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The victory tax was in addition to the income tax and its expiration did not affect the income tax at all.

"Withholding for social security started on January 2nd, 1937. People at that time KNEW IT WAS VOLUNTARY. "

I assume you mean some people at that time THOUGHT it was voluntary Social security withholding was never voluntary.

From the Social Security Act of 1935:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.

DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM WAGES

SEC. 802. (a) The tax imposed by section 801 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. Every employer required so to deduct the tax is hereby made liable for the payment of such tax, and is hereby indem
nified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.
(b) If more or less than the correct amount of tax imposed by section 801 is paid with respect to any wage payment, then, under regulations made under this title, proper adjustments, with respect both to the tax and the amount to be deducted, shall be made, without interest, in connection with subsequent wage payments to the same individual by the same employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try doing at least a little research before you spout off.
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 06:45 PM

Anonymous
Parcival,

Please produce the constitutional authority that mandates everyone to have a social security number. THERE IS NONE! its against the 10th amendment right to contract. Its a political question. I really do not understand your cognitive disident. You must get paid fairly well from government.

Social Security IS voluntary unless working for government. PERIOD.
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 09:28 PM

Anonymous
good exchange of words guys but remember we need to keep educating ourselves and this exchange is very informative for us who not a lot less than you to keep reading and listning. You guys touched on two topics that really interest me and if you have more info or can steer me into the right direction I would be greatful first land patient how do you go about doing that and number two When you buy a car can you ask the dealer for the bill of origin or does he by law must send it to DMV?
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:41 PM

Doug
I listened to your interview with Dave Champion and, like Dave, I agreed that you came across as intelligent, well spoken, and logical. It is obvious that you've studied this subject, but it is also obvious that you have gotten only so far in your research and have fallen into the same traps as most everyone else who supports the government's position. There were many times where I cringed as you backed yourself into a corner with your arguments. Dave was gracious enough not to pounce on you at those times, but instead chose to use the Socratic method of asking questions to draw you back out. You quoted sections of the Internal Revenue Code as well as some court cases to support your argument. Do you think that we have not read those same code sections as well as the same court cases? Did you honestly think that you were going to present some new information?

I have worked with Dave, and he clearly has a vast and deep knowledge of the entire income tax subject. It is unfortunate that you demean Dave on your web site by stating that he has not read the rules of statutory construction. This was a cheap shot, and your editorial post script does not make things better.

If you study the legislative history, as well as the Supreme Court decisions, a path emerges that clearly points to an income tax whose subjects are very narrowly defined and clearly do not include Citizens of the 50 states working in private business. A fascinating treatment of this is in Larkin Rose's Theft by Deception video. There he shows the actual legislative construction as well as the history of the various permutations of the Internal Revenue Code. It becomes obvious that the underlying law hasn't changed since its inception, but that the code has been modified with the intent to deceive. But the basic legal foundation is still the same, and quite clearly does not impose an income tax on the remuneration paid to private citizens.

But let me switch positions for a moment and ask you a very profound question: Why do you support a personal income tax anyway? Even a cursory examination of the Federal Reserve system, as well as statements made by those who put it together, make it clear that the income tax is not necessary for revenue purposes. President Reagan's Grace commission, as well as other studies, have reached the same conclusion: The income tax is designed for social control and policy enforcement, not revenue. I'll let you research the details of this.

You stated that a personal income tax is necessary to pay for military forces to protect us. This is a worn-out and naïve excuse that has no merit. First of all, most of the expenditures of the federal government do not have to do with the military or other essential services, but rather involve income redistribution and various welfare programs, none of which are justified by the Constitution. If we eliminated all the expenditures that were not constitutionally authorized, the federal budget would drop drastically. (I'm not even going to go into the Federal Reserve System fraud and the fact that all of our so-called money is simply fiat currency anyway.) Second, there are numerous excise taxes already in place that would more than pay for all the military and other constitutionally authorized expenditures. We do not have to be forced into unconstitutional slavery in order to pay for these expenditures. I have to tell you, Brian, your credibility plunged when you made that statement.

A graduated income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. Why do you support a Communist principle? For a guy who quotes Jefferson, you sure don't seem to be into the spirit of American freedom very much. Dave's point about the income tax creating involuntary slavery is right on target. Why do you defend such a system, especially when it is fraudulently applied? Do you think this makes you a good and patriotic citizen? On the contrary, a true patriot fights for truth and is willing to stand up to government corruption. You said something during the interview about railing against the system, but your actions betray your words.

I have to assume, Brian, that there is another agenda at work here. You seem too willing to simply read the Internal Revenue Code and some court cases and arrive at conclusions based upon an improper reading of both. Why are you putting so much effort into defending a system that is fraudulently applied and is not necessary for raising revenue in the first place?

I appreciate the fact that you were willing to come on Dave's program. Of course, this opens you up to criticism from listeners. I assume you won't be surprised when it comes your way. I hope you take it to heart.

Sincerely,
Doug
Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 12:47 PM

David C
Pete’s clarity is quite refreshing. I adhere to the Keep It Simple Stupid theory at all time. Parcival’s comments seem to be ‘technically correct’ based on the words he/she has chosen to use. Yes, if u earn ‘wages’ u must write a SSN on the W-4 when u desire to have ur wages ‘withheld’. This is how attorneys and government officials answer questions. So keeping w/ Pete’s framework of being simplistic, please answer the following questions Parcival.

I’ve worked w/o a SSN for the past 7 yrs, and I do not give any payor a W-4 form. I follow the statutes as written and receive 100 % of my compensation for labor. So is the fortune 500 company I work for breaking the law?

Question # 2:

If an American NEVER applied for a SSN, and as an adult works w/o an SSN – what government year-end information form does the working American file?

Question # 3:

Form # 2555 reads “U.S. Citizen”, while Form # 1040 reads, “U.S. Individual”. Logically, the terms U.S. Citizen, and U.S. Individual mean two different entities. Since the Federal government refuses to inform me for the past 7 yrs, would u kindly inform me of the differences?

Question # 4:

Judges have repeatedly stated there are legal taxpayers and legal nontaxpayers. Would u give me an example of an American worker who is a ‘nontaxpayer’ the judges were referring?

Please bear in mind; the judges did not say nontaxpayers are taxpayers who file exempt forms. Taxpayers who file exempt
forms are still taxpayers however they’ve simply filed exempt forms. These are not ‘nontaxpayers’ because the judges have stated congress has made no rules for nontaxpayers.

Question # 5:

What is the difference between ‘work’, and ‘employment’?

Since the SS administration’s letters say something to the effect of u do not need a SSN to work and live in America however u need a number for employment – thus employment must mean something different from simple ‘work’. Otherwise, the SS administrations letter probably would say something to the effect of u do not need a SSN for employment or to live in America.


Question # 6:


From my understanding, a taxpayer is legally defined as:

§ 7701. Definitions
(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

The justices of many, many supreme Courts have repeatedly stated that the words in statutes / codes mean what they say and say what they mean. The justices have also repeatedly warned us (Americans) that we CANNOT freely interpret the statutes /codes.

So, when I read the ‘term’ ‘taxpayer’ is doesn’t say every man, woman, child, who works and makes money anywhere in the world is subject to all revenue taxes.

Therefore is it logical for me to believe that some work and /or compensation for labor may be completely non taxable?

Question # 7:

Would u kindly define ‘compensation for labor’ according to the U.S. supreme Court?

It’s apparently a different term than “compensation for services”, and the IRS will not inform me.

Question # 8:

Next ‘income tax’ filing season, when u and /or ur friends send in a check to the IRS along w/ Form 1040, would u and/or ur friends write ‘U.S. Department of Treasury’ after ‘Pay to the Order of’?

I’ve seen the cancelled IRS checks of taxpayers that have stamped ‘IMF’ (Internat. Mont. Fund. ) on the reverse side and not the U.S. Department of Treasury. After all, u believe that the U.S. Department of Treasury (not to be confused w/ the Department of Treasury)is part of the IRS. So let’s see whether or not the IRS cashes a ‘taxpayers’ check made out to the U.S. Department of Treasury w/o the term “IRS” being written anywhere on the check by said taxpayer.

Thanx for the forum –
Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 03:40 PM

David C
“That, of course, is just a bald-faced lie. Publication 515 deals with the special withholding taxes on non-resident aliens, not with income tax withholding of US citizens and resident aliens. More to the point, the statement Pete refers to does not appear on page 2, or any other page, of the 12/97, the 12/98 or the 12/99 revisions of Publication 515.”

You are incorrect sir. The statement Pete is referring to is on page 3 of the 1998 Pub 515. I’m looking at it as I write.

You stated, “Form W-4 is not voluntary”.

If this is correct, please site the statute /code in its entirety, and state if there are any ‘exceptions’. I ask, because I work for a major company that believes it’s an ‘employer’. I work w/o a SSN and w/o a ‘signed’ Form W-4 – and I receive a 100 % of my compensation for labor. Which is another reason I love my country.

You state, “ The current income tax is the same tax imposed in the 1913 act. Social security wasn't created until the 1930's. What was the basis in 1913? The Supreme Court said it was Article I, section 8, the taxing power. But Pete thinks he knows more about the law than the Supreme Court”.

So based on ur own wording, the current ‘income tax’ is the same ‘income tax’ imposed in the 1913 act, which is the same ‘income tax’ created in the ‘corporate tax act’ of the early 1900’s , correct?

(From my understanding of the supreme Court cases I’ve read, whenever I see the word / term ‘income’, I supposed to equate it w/ the corporate tax act of the early 1900’s. )

You further state, “Wrong. The Court said the tax was a tax on income and that all taxes on income are excises. The Court never mentioned privileges”.

However, many, many other judges have repeatedly stated that excises are equated w/ privileges, so in essence and in fact at law, Pete once again is absolutely correct.

Pete said, “A RIGHT cannot be taxed without being destroyed as a right." You responded w/ “Also wrong. The constitution gives Congress the power to lay taxes, not just taxes on privileges.”

I believe Congress can tax the hell out of wages. Congress can tax 100 % of any person's ‘wages’. Make the 'employee' a complete plantation savage slave. However, Congress cannot tax compensation for labor unless by apportionment. Which I believe Lincoln was the last Pres to do so. And, Congress can only tax outlined by two different methods. PERIOD!

Also, no stupid moronic rule, or piece of crap attorney legislation can interfere w/ my Rights. Which also includes my right to work. See Miranda. Which is another reason I love my country.

Thanx for this forum. Have a great day!
Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 04:23 PM

Bill
Parcival again proves his lack of mental acquity. Property tax proves there is no such thing as private proerty in this country. When you add the layers and layers of State and local code, regulations, edicts and the teaming of the insane whacko environmentalists with your local zoning board, you see that the very idea of private property in the US is laughable at best. Also, telling these idiots that they are doing good and helping educate the masses only encourages them to spew more State worshipping nonsense. It's like cheering for your local public school system. These morons can't even get a clue for themselves, let alone help anyone else learn anything.
Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 05:52 PM

David M. Zuniga, P.E.
Well, here I go again; my second attempt to post a comment. Perhaps, Brian, my comments posed too much of a threat to your passionately-held defense of your position -- which holds no water under scrutiny.

My website offers a free introduction to Tax Honesty -- to the historical background, the constitutional underpinnings, the actual sections of the Tax Code, and the actual rulings of federal circuit courts and especially of the Supreme Court.

Taken together, the mountain of evidence I present on my site, totally obliterates your position, Brian. Perhaps you refused to post my comment because you knew this was the case.

I hope you're more intellectually honest than that. I've received nothing but evasion from the IRS employees and upline managers with whom I've had correspondence over the past 7 years; nothing but evasion, obfuscation, and thinly-veiled terrorist threats.

Please see my website. Here in Texas, our state Penal Code makes the IRS's actions a jailable felony offense -- including the filing of 'Notice of Federal Tax Lien' and the IRS's tactic of sending their totally bogus "summonses' to clients, employers, etc.

It's true: do a Google search for Texas Penal Code Section 32.48 and see that the IRS is committing jailable felonies every day in Texas. They only get away with this palpable lawlessness because most Texans are as inept as Brian at reading the law and cases.

I say this without an ounce of animus toward you, Brian; your motives seem sincere. Of course if you now refuse to post this, my second comment -- I will conclude otherwise.

Grace and peace,

David M. Zuniga
Webservant, American Glasnost
www (dot) american glasnost (dot) blogspot (dot) com
Monday, August 28, 2006 - 05:16 PM

David M. Zuniga, P.E.
Oooops. I see that apparently this site was inoperative when I posted my first comment a fe
w weeks ago. This last one (above) posted immediately.

Sorry, Brian, for casting false apersions!

David

P.S.: My website should be www (dot) then "americanglasnost" with no spaces in it, then (dot) then blogspot (dot) com. It does take several hours to read the whole introduction to Tax Honesty, but you can save many more hours just going through my intro and all its links, than by reading some of the books on the subject. Enjoy!
Monday, August 28, 2006 - 05:21 PM