'Truth-in-taxation' forum ends in D.C.

We don't need no steenkin' corrupt Mexican tax system here in the U.S.A.

They won't answer anything unless you take them to court.

Who doesn't answer?

Problem is Shulz isn't questioning Congress who is responsible for the tax mess that is the income and payroll tax system of this country. He insists on questioning the mininons and they have answered in no uncertain terms through the IRS, DOJ and the Courts.

As far a challenging the law per-se, its Congress, no other real choice exists.

It's Congress you have to go after and hold accountable.

Here's the IRS written positions and answers based on Congress' express intent:

FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861

NonFiler Enforcement Program

Here's the Department of Justice's written position on 16th amendment and other common tax protest positions:

DOJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE MANUAL, Section 40 TAX PROTESTORS

And a comprehensive FAQ compiled by a lawyer of all the Tax Protest arguments that have failed repeatedly and why:

THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ

And there are of course the many Court cases from the Article III Courts, (i.e. federal district, appellate, & Supreme Court) that support all the above.

The ultimate place to go for the answers, is Congress. They, afterall are the ones ultimately responsible for the condition of the Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders. It is Congress in the end the enacts the enabling legislation and accepts or rejects the content of all Regulations and E.O.s.

The Courts have made it abundantly clear that the arguments presented in the above texts are failed and decided, and provide no relief to the defendant. Infact they have also made it very clear as to where to turn for relief from the very beginning as regards the income tax law.

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."

Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

And the standard you must meet to have a successful court case as regards arguments of Tax Law constitutionality:

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

And finally, for a blow by blow of the judgements of more current cases:

Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery

Study the losses, find out why they occurred then build a strategy around something new instead of repeating the same old tired and dead as a door nail tactics. Judges get bored too, and when a Judge gets bored he throws the argument out as frivolous (we heard it before and weren't impressed) and tacks on a few more $K (FRNs acceptable but they will take payment in gold if you insist) on top of whatever else has been laid on you.

Better yet, pound on Congress Critters, and get the law changed. A much more likely scenario than using the same old arguments that have failed hundreds of times.

But then there are those who insist on doing it the hard way:

If you don't like the answers, its time to take Congress to task, not the minions doing Congress Critter's dirtywork.

And you have the *GUTS* to call this "hype."

I certainly do. Not one argument that Schulz and folks offer has the least shred of validity in the courtroom. Any who rely on this garbage are in for one whale of a beating in the courtrooms where such thing will inevitable be decided.

A person stripped of wealth and liberty in a courtroom because he is using failed and totally useless arguments sold to him by some TP guru scam artist, is rendered completely ineffective in any real fight to get rid of the income tax or in any way do anything to change this countries law.

I for one choose to let the diver know about the empty pool. Looks more like some around here are more interested in watching the bloody splat when the poor guy hits the concrete.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a "person" under the tax code.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.

The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.

We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.

By the way, New American, the house publication of the John Birch Society sees things pretty much as I do.

Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm

I think you played a solid 'punch' of beating around the bush. What you seem to ignore is that this meeting was set up months in advance for public education by the government.

All your links are worthless to me. The truth is, the government will not address public greivances based upon petition. You have have fallen into the love of government stroking you.

But don't worry. They, the government, will get around to you, too. And when you petition the government for address of grievances ... your shouts will fall upon deaf ears, too.

Corporate income taxes are NOT a cost that can be passed along to the consumer.

What an utter pile of bovine excretement. Any business that fails to recover taxes remitted to government from their sales goes bankrupt and is no longer a business. You are forgetting the little things like the payroll excises on employment, unemployment taxes, the costs of complying with the tax code that amounts to $0.65 or more for every tax dollar collected and the plethora of other miscellaneous leveys on business by government, figuring a business makes no profit at all on which to pay a "Corporate Income Tax".

That individual income tax return that captures everyone's attention each April, is nothing more an accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out. It puts a blinder on the eyes of the voter, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact of taxation in their lives and provide the lever for government into the lives, property and down right control over the individual citizen.

As an IRS memorandum quoted in the March 1980 Saturday Review explained, "Agents should be able to discover errors in 99.9 percent of all returns if they want."

Heck the don't even need a return to go after someone, just the lack of one and suspucion they might have income to tax is sufficient.

As pointed out in the following article the tax system is actually fuelled from the dollars we spend which pays gross wages, and investment returns to individuals who are the ultimate purchases of consumed good and service and hence the payers of all taxes.

We spend "disposable income", (i.e. "aftertax" income) which finances all income that is taxed. Viewing from the perspective of consumption dollars, where it is all generated, we get an entirely different perspective on what is being done to us.

Between business income taxes and payroll taxes, the burden on citizen as reflected through higher prices, lower wages, and lower return on investements are indeed horrendous.

The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

The percentage used in the above article is somewhat off target in that it is based on a percentage that excludes individual income tax and SS/medicare contribution extracted out of individual wages & salaries. The 24% in the article considers only those factors actually paid to government out of impositions on the business in complying with the income, payroll, excise & tariff tax laws.

The total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone. Why? Because wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipt to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure). If we add in the cost of compliance of more than $600billion/year, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income payroll tax system increases to about a 47% of family consumption expenditures.

Total fed taxes as reflected through gross family income is 23.5% (taxfoundation)
Total state taxes reflected through gross family income is about 10.2% (taxfoundation)
The current net personal savings/investment rate is about 1.2%.(BEA)

Tax as % of current family retail expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =

23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%

Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $600billion(Paine '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000) additional dollars are passed on in consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.

Percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+600)/1900 = 47.36% as passed through consumption prices. Reduce the taxes on business and simplify them in any way possible ultimately means a lower price and higher standard of living for the citizen.

And taking state taxes and the cost of regulation into account we get even a worse picture:

We must . . . End Tax Slavery Now; Nov '97
by Jarret B. Wollstein

HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY PAY?
     According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes - 34.2% total.
     But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:

Compliance costs - record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.
Enforcement costs - IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.
Emotional, moral and cultural costs - families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.

     For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:
Federal taxes              22.4% of income
State & local taxes      11.8%
Compliance costs        22.2%
Regulatory costs         12.7%
70.1% of your income is now consumed by government

The Flat Tax; Hall & Rabushka, '95:

What the Income Tax Cost the American People

The science of estimating compliance costs and indirect economic losses is, as noted, relatively new, and findings differ widely. Payne, for example, estimated the total costs of the federal tax system in 1985 at $363 billion, or 65 percent of actual collections. Others have reached higher costs in some categories of compliance and lower costs in others.

***
Total Costs

It’s time to sum the figures. Direct compliance costs, both in filing and in buying expert advice, exceed $100 billion. Direct tax-planning costs—consulting with lawyers, accountants, purveyors of tax shelters, and financial planners—exceed $35 billion. Revenue lost to the Treasury due to evasion exceeds $100 billion. Distortions from pursuing tax-advantaged investments in the form of lost output may exceed $100 billion. Finally, the lobbyists who inhabit Washington’s K Street corridor probably cost the economy more than $50 billion. Total individual and corporate income taxes for the 1993 fiscal year (October 1, 1992–September 30, 1993) were about $625 billion

***
Notes & References:

A comprehensive review of all the studies that attempt to measure the costs associated with the federal income tax appears in James L. Payne, Costly Returns: The Burdens of the U.S. Tax System (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, 1993). Payne summarizes the estimates of compliance costs that appear in the following studies: Joel Slemrod and Nikki Sorum, "The Compliance Cost of the U.S. Individual Income Tax System," National Tax Journal 37 (December 1984): 462–65; Arthur D. Little, Inc., Development of Methodology for Estimating the Taxpayer Paperwork Burden (Washington, D.C.: Internal Revenue Service, 1988), pp. III–23; James T. Iocozzia and Garrick R. Shear, "Trends in Taxpayer Paperwork Burden," in Internal Revenue Service, Trend Analyses and Related Statistics, 1989 Update (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p. 56; Annual Reports of the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; and a variety of other IRS memoranda

Plunder Patrol
by Robert W. Lee, New American April 18 '94

Selective Enforcement
Writing in The Freeman for March 1994, tax analyst James Payne observed that to function efficiently, a tax system needs citizen cooperation, but in "the United States, high tax rates and the impossibly complex tax code have made tax evasion and avoidance a major industry." Since the tax laws are so complex, virtually everyone can be branded a tax violator at the whim of the IRS. As an IRS memorandum quoted in the March 1980 Saturday Review explained, "Agents should be able to discover errors in 99.9 percent of all returns if they want."
***
Counting the Cost
"Tax analyst James Payne pinpoints more than 30 separate burdens which the current tax system imposes on individuals, businesses, and society as a whole, including the costs of compliance and enforcement."
"When the visible and hidden costs associated with tax collection (the vast majority of which have been piled without remuneration onto the private sector) are totaled up, Payne estimates that it costs 65 cents to collect every $1.00 in taxes. For fiscal 1992, that expense would be more than $622 billion, making tax collection the most expensive of all government programs (more than double the defense budget and nearly five times the expenditures on Medicare). "

Mexico has a national sales tax of 15%.
That's partly how the corrupt, ruling-elite PRI keep the peons in economic slavery.

Why didn't you tell the entire story, it just like the Russian miracle "13%" flat tax, right along with its VATs.

Seems the Russians have been learning from the Europeans and our Liberals on how to out fox the electorate:

RUSSIA: PART TWO OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TAX CODE

August 10, 2000

Alexander Chmelev and Evgeny Astakhov

Baker & McKenzie, Moscow Office

Sent by BISNIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, http://www.bisnis.doc.gov

Judith_Robinson@ita.doc.gov, Tel: 202-482-2293. BISNIS sends this report as a courtesy to the U.S. business community. This is not to be construed as endorsement or sponsorship of any information or group.

On August 5, 2000, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin signed into law four chapters of Part Two of the Russian Federation Tax Code and Federal Law No. 118-FZ ôOn the Implementation of Part Two of the Russian Federation Tax Code and Amendments to Certain Federal Laws on Taxationö (the "Implementation Law"). The chapters of the Tax Code signed into law by the President are Chapter 21 - VAT, Chapter 22 - Excise Taxes, Chapter 23 - Personal Income Tax, and Chapter 24 - Unified Social Tax. These four Chapters and the Implementation Law were officially published in Rossijskaya Gazeta on August 10, 2000, and, with few exceptions, will become effective on January 1, 2001.

The most sweeping changes introduced into the Russian tax system by this new legislation are as follows:

1. VAT (Chapter 21 of the Tax Code)

Although Chapter 21 of the Tax Code does not change VAT rates or the general VAT structure, it contains numerous provisions, which will significantly affect most businesses in Russia. Most notably, Chapter 21 substantially modifies the "place of service" rules, which generally determine whether for VAT purposes a particular transaction has occurred in Russia and is, therefore, subject to Russian VAT. Effective from July 1, 2001, Chapter 21 also will treat export sales to CIS countries in the same way as sales to all other foreign countries, and will exempt them from VAT. On the downside, Chapter 21 will repeal a number of long-standing and important VAT exemptions, including an exemption for license fees for the use of intellectual property (such as, patents, copyrights, and trademarks), and will significantly narrow the VAT exemption for pharmaceuticals.

2. Personal Income Tax (Chapter 23 of the Tax Code)

Chapter 23 of the Tax Code will replace the current progressive tax rates ranging from 12% to 30% with a flat tax rate of 13%. This 13% rate will apply to almost all categories of income earned by individuals who are Russian tax resident. A 30% rate will apply to dividends, and to any Russian source income received by individuals who are not Russian tax resident. A 35% rate will apply to income from gambling, lottery prizes, deemed income from low-interest or interest-free loans, certain insurance payments, and excessive bank interest.

3. Unified Social Tax (Chapter 24 of the Tax Code)

Chapter 24 of the Tax Code will replace the existing employersÆ contributions to four separate social benefit funds (which currently are imposed at an over-all rate of 38.5%) with one unified social tax. This unified social tax will have a regressive tax scale from 35.6% to 2% of an employee's salary with the lowest rate applicable to the portion of an employeeÆs annual salary in excess of 600,000 Rubles (approximately US$22,000 at the current exchange rate). It should be noted that under the Implementation Law, as a transition rule, the lower rate of this tax will be 5% rather than 2% during 2001.

4. Excise Taxes (Chapter 22 of the Tax Code)

As a countermeasure to reducing rates of other federal taxes, Chapter 22 of the Tax Code provides for an increase in excise tax rates for gasoline and other oil products by almost 300%. It also provides for a less dramatic increase of excise tax rates for tobacco products and certain passenger cars.

5. The Implementation Law

a. Turnover Taxes

Effective from January 1, 2001, the Implementation Law repeals the Housing Fund Tax of 1.5% and reduces the Road Users Tax from 2.5% down to 1% and completely repeals the Road Users Tax effective January 1, 2003. These taxes are imposed on gross sales and have been among the most onerous taxes on business in Russia.

b. Regional Tax Concessions

The Implementation Law reconfirms the right of regional authorities to provide tax exemptions for the regional portion of federal taxes retroactive to April 1, 1999. This reconfirmation resolves an issue that arose in 1999 as to whether the regional portion of profits taxes could be reduced pursuant to regional incentive laws.

c. Profits Tax Rate

Apparently in compensation to local budgets for the cancellation of turnover taxes, the Implementation Law authorizes municipal governments to introduce an additional "municipal" profits tax of up to 5% of a taxpayer's taxable profits. Thus the maximum overall profits tax rate may be increased from 30% to 35%.

This report is provided courtesy of the Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS)

The NRST has no income tax, or Vat. to bugger anyone in a game of hide the tax so the little guy keeps his favorite Congress Critter pump'n bennies.

The Crisis of Democracy

The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon
"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."

Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:

"If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

You wouldn't be looking for a seat at a Tuesday Night professional wrestling match would you? :O)

What you seem to ignore is that this meeting was set up months in advance for public education by the government.

I know very much what this is about, and it is very much a hyped up constituent's briefing that was canceled because Schulz totally oversold it to the point the one Congressman who was willing to support the meeting, backed out when it became apparent he was being used by scam artists.

I've been watching this thing from the beginning and its whole tone has been nothing but a sales pitch by TP gurus scamming marks from the day one with the USA Today Ad:

7-7 USA Today full page ad Income Taxes are illegal

I will say it once again and unequivocally, not one of the arguments presented by these folks has any utility in ending the income tax, and will do a great deal of harm to those who fall into applying any of it in there own financial lives.

I have no interest in support what I see to be a sham and attempt to misinform people as to the real nature and dangers of of the nation's Income/Payroll tax system.

If you don't know the real enemy, I can guarantee you are not going to be successful for lack of doing what is necessary to end the menace. In fact, I see more harm to be done from reducing the effectiveness and credibility of all grassroots efforts to seek change in government whether taxes or any other are such as 2nd amendment issues and abortion.

What you seem to ignore is that this meeting was set up months in advance

What you and these other folks have ignored:

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

The Schulz crowd is hitting the wrong constitutency and have the wrong message thus are completely outvoted coming out the gate. They have no and will continute to have no true political clout.

The bottom 60% of the electorate perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% continue to clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of tax payers to pay. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating ever more participants from the Individual Income Tax rolls.

The key is to hit Congress, not the dissaffected choir that has heard and continues to believe the TP chant. The Schulz folks are singing to each other and no one else, because their message doesn't hit home where it matters, among the voting electorate.

Until you can convince the person at the bottom end of the tax rolls that he is getting reamed royally by the government, you are going nowhere.

That is why the:

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

message is so important, yet is the one that is ignored by Schulz and friends. That super market hits everyone. Especially the bottom.

It is the bottom rungs of the wage scale, the welfare moms, the burger flipper, the agricultural worker, that will make or break tax reform and truth in taxation. Not the dissaffected, Individual Income tax payer.

I can guarantee you won't get the desired change without a significant portion of those folks angry over the grocery tax, and pushing for change.

If you don't like the answers, its time to take Congress to task, not the minions doing Congress Critter's dirtywork.

Actually, a year or so ago, they did invite Congress to attend one of these hearings. They hand delivered invitations to almost every congressman. Oddly enough, not one of them showed up either.

As I have pointed out:

The Schulz crowd has no credibility due to their stands and their primary felon, con artist leaders, and is hitting the wrong constitutency with the wrong message thus are completely outvoted coming out the gate. They have no and will continute to have no true political clout thus no interest from Congress Critters.

The bottom 60% of the electorate perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% continue to clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of tax payers to pay. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating ever more participants from the Individual Income Tax rolls.

Congress is only interested in votes, not your opinions.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

The votes lay with those not paying or paying very little taxes now and demanding more government because they do not perceive the federal burden on themselves.

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

The call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

Schulz & Company merely looks to join thePauls of the world assuring perpetual growth of government and creeping socialism.

and there was that time Clinton's staff agreed to send representatives, and they cancelled.

it's funny, everytime someone posts anything related to taxing, there's a million pieces of NRST literature copy and pasted.

and there was that time Clinton's staff agreed to send representatives, and they cancelled.

Yes, I forgot that bit.

Ok wise guys, I want you to prove ANY of these points about the income tax incorrect. State exactly why it isn't true, and any sources of information.

1. Admit that the Internal Revenue Code is found at Title 26 of the United States Code.

2. Admit that Title 26 of the United States Code is broken down into Subtitles.

3. Admit that income taxes are set forth in Subtitle A of Title 26.

4. Admit that Subtitle A contains Sections 1 through 1564.

5. Admit that estate and gift taxes are set forth in Subtitle B of Title 26.

6. Admit that Subtitle B contains Sections 2001 through 2663.

7. Admit that employment taxes are set forth in Subtitle C of Title 26.

8. Admit that Subtitle C contains Sections 3101 through 3510.

9. Admit that miscellaneous excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle D of Title 26.

10. Admit that Subtitle D contains Sections 4041 through 4999.

11. Admit that alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle E of Title 26.

12. Admit that Subtitle E contains Sections 5001 through 5872.

13. Admit that procedures and administration to be followed with respect to the different taxes addressed in Subtitles A through E are set forth in Subtitle F of Title 26.

14. Admit that Subtitle F contains Sections 6001 through 7872.

15. Admit that Congress enacted the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).

16. Admit that when the Internal Revenue Service requests information from an individual, the Privacy Act requires the IRS to inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual –

(a) the authority which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;

(b) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used;

(c) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and

(d) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information.

17. Admit that Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act at 44 U.S.C. § 3504(c)(3)(C)

. 18. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to include with any information requests, a statement to inform the person receiving the request why the information is being collected, how it is to be used, and whether responses to the request are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory.

19. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service complies with the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act by setting out the required statements on the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet.

20. Admit that the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act statements which the Internal Revenue Service currently uses with respect to the federal income tax state that: "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections."

21. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 states: "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with Section 6053(c) and copies of statements furnished by employees under Section 6053(a)."

22. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6011 states: "(a) General Rule. When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary and person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations . . .(f) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C."

23. Admit that subparts B and C referred to at Internal Revenue Code Section 6011(f) contain Internal Revenue Code Sections 6012 through 6017a.

24. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone "liable for" a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5005, which states that: "(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1)."

25. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone liable for a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5703, which states that: "(a)(1) The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed therein by section 5701."

26. Admit that the persons made liable at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5005 and 5703, for the taxes imposed at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5001(a)(1) and 5701, respectively, are the persons described at Sections 6001 and 6011 required to make returns and keep records.

27. Admit that Section 1461 is the only place in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code where Congress used the words: "liable for."

28. Admit that the person made liable by Congress at Section 1461 is a withholding agent for nonresident aliens. 29. Admit that there is a canon of statutory construction, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" , which means the express mention of one thing means the implied exclusion of another.

30. Admit that Congress could have, but did not, make anyone else other than the withholding agent referred to in Section 1461, "liable for" any income tax imposed in Subtitle A.

31. Admit that up until 1986, the statement required by the Privacy and Paperwork Reduction Acts set out in the IRS Form 1040 instruction booklet, mentioned only Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001 and 6011 as the authority to request information.

32. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has held in C.I.R. v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 89 (1959), and in U.S. v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 358-359 (1957), that a regulation that purports to create a legal requirement not imposed by Congress in the underlying statute is invalid.

JURISDICTION

33. Admit that at Section 7608(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms.

34. Admit that at Section 7608(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than Subtitle E.

35. Admit that the term "person" as that term is used in Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 and 6011 is defined at Section 7701(a)(1).

36. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(a)(1) states: "The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."

37. Admit that trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies and corporations do not have arms and legs, do not get married, do not eat, drink and sleep, and are not otherwise included in what one not trained in the law would recognize as a "person."

38. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6012(a) states that: "(a) General Rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount or more . . . ."

39. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain "persons," who are "individuals" and "estates and trusts." (See 26 U.S.C. § 1.)

40. Admit that the "individual" mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 is the same individual as mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 1.

41. Admit that the "individual" mentioned by Congress in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 and Internal Revenue Code Section 1 is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.

42. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is the Treasury Regulation that corresponds to Internal Revenue Code Section 1.

43. Admit that at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a)(1), the individuals identified at Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are those individuals who are either citizens of the United States, residents of the United States, or non-resident aliens.

44. Admit that the "residents" and "citizens" identified in 26 C.F.R. § 1.1- 1(a)(1) are mutually exclusive classes.

45. Admit that as used in 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-1, the term "resident" means an alien.

46. Admit that 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) states that: "Every person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen."

47. Admit that a person who is born or naturalized in the United States but not subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.

48. Admit that on April 21, 1988, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, in the case of United States v. James I. Hall, Case No. EV 87-20-CR, IRS Revenue Officer Patricia A. Schaffner, testified under penalties of perjury that the terms "subject to its jurisdiction" as used at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) meant being subject to the laws of the country, and that meant the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.

49. Admit that in the same case, Patricia A. Schaffner testified under oath the term "subject to its jurisdiction" could have no other meaning than the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.

50. Admit that when Patricia A. Schaffner was asked to tell the jury what facts made Mr. Hall subject to the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States, the prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Larry Mackey objected, and the court sustained the objection.

51. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is never required by the Federal courts to prove facts to establish whether one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

52. Admit that the United States Department of Justice and United States Attorneys, and their assistants, always object when an alleged taxpayer demands the Government prove that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the federal courts always sustain those objections, which means that the federal courts routinely prohibit the introduction of potentially exculpatory evidence in tax crime trials.

52(a). The IRS keeps a system of financial records on federal judges, IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agents, and U.S. Attorneys, which records cannot be accessed by the subject(s) under the FOIA or Privacy Act.

53. Admit that unless specifically provided for in the United States Constitution, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction in the states.

54. Admit that on December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental committee was commissioned on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell, Jr., and approved by President Eisenhower and his cabinet, named the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, and charged with the duty of studying and reporting where the United States had legal authority to make someone subject to its jurisdiction. (Note: this report hereinafter referred to as "the Report." )

55. Admit that in June of 1957, the "Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States" issued "Part II" of its report entitled "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States."

56. Admit that the Report makes the following statements:

a. "The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place."

b. "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,"

c. "The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,"

d. "On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government."

57. Admit that the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment means subject to both the jurisdiction of the several states of the union and the United States.

58. Admit that the "subject to its jurisdiction" component of the definition of citizen set out at 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) has a different meaning than the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

59. Admit that a Treasury Regulation cannot create affirmative duties not otherwise imposed by Congress in the underlying statute. corresponding Internal Revenue Code section.

60. Admit that Congress defined a "taxpayer" at Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code, as any person subject to any Internal Revenue tax.

61. Admit that one who is not a citizen, resident, or non-resident alien, is not an individual subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

62. Admit that an individual who is not subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, is not an individual required to make a return under the Requirement of Internal Revenue Code Section 6012.

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT/AMBIGUITY OF THE LAW

63. Admit these facts: the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Some of the State legislatures ratified the proposal on these dates: Maryland, on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; Delaware on January 28, 1790; Vermont on November 3, 1791; and Virginia, on December 15, 1791. This number of States was not sufficient for ratification of this amendment. Then some 84 years later on May 6, 1873, Ohio ratified this amendment. Interest in this amendment was rekindled when on March 6, 1978, Wyoming ratified this amendment. After this, other States ratified the amendment: Colorado on April 22, 1984; South Dakota on February 1985; New Hampshire on March 7, 1985; Arizona on April 3, 1985; Tennessee on May 28, 1985; Oklahoma on July 10, 1985; New Mexico on February 14, 1986; Indiana on February 24, 1986; Utah on February 25, 1986; Arkansas on March 13, 1987; Montana on March 17, 1987; Connecticut on May 13, 1987; Wisconsin on July 15, 1987; Georgia on February 2, 1988; West Virginia on March 10, 1988; Louisiana on July 7, 1988; Iowa on February 9, 1989; Idaho on March 23, 1989; Nevada on April 26, 1989; Alaska on May 6, 1989; Oregon on May 19, 1989; Minnesota on May 22, 1989; Texas on May 25, 1989; Kansas on April 5, 1990; Florida on May 31, 1990; North Dakota on May 25, 1991; Alabama on May 5, 1992; Missouri on May 5, 1992; Michigan on May 7, 1992; and New Jersey on May 7, 1992.

64. Admit that in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921), the Supreme Court concluded:

"We do not find anything in the article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the states may be separated from that in others by many years and yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. These considerations and the general purport and spirit of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of to-day, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal."

65. Admit that the date of September 25, 1789, when the 27th Amendment was first proposed, is "widely separated in time" from the date of March 6, 1978, when Wyoming ratified this amendment.

66. Admit that pursuant to the United States Constitution, Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes.

67. Admit that the constitutionality of the 1894 income tax act was in question in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and that in this case, the Supreme Court found that Congress could tax real and personal property only by means of an apportioned, direct tax. Finding that the income from real and personal property was part of the property itself, the Court concluded in this case that a federal income tax could tax such income only by means of an apportioned tax. Further finding that as this particular tax was not apportioned, it was unconstitutional.

68. Admit that for Congress to tax today real or personal property, the tax would have to be apportioned.

69. Admit that for Congress to tax income from real and personal property without the authority of the 16th Amendment, such taxes would have to be apportioned.

70. Admit that in 1913, the following law, Revised Statutes § 205, was in effect:

"Sec. 205. Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States."

71. Admit that Revised Statutes § 205 provided that "official notice" of a State's ratification of an amendment must be received at the State Department.

72. Admit that on or about July 31, 1909, Senate Joint Resolution 40 proposing the ratification of the 16th Amendment was deposited with the Department of State and the same was published at 36 Stat. 184, and that this resolution read as follows:

SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.

JOINT RESOLUTION.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

"Article XVI. The Congress shall have 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."

J.C. CANNON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
J.S. SHERMAN,
Vice-President of the United States, and
President of the Senate.

73. Admit that on July 27, 1909, the same Congress adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which read as follows:

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine, respecting the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.

Attest: Charles G. Bennett
Secretary of the Senate

A. McDowell
Clerk of the House of Representatives

74. Admit that not only did this resolution request that certified copies of favorable State ratification resolutions be sent to Washington, D.C., the States were expressly informed to do so by Secretary of State Philander Knox, who sent the following "form" letter to the governors of the 48 States then in the Union:

"Sir:

"I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a Resolution of Congress, entitled 'Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,' with the request that you cause the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your State for such action as may be had, and that a certified copy of such action be communicated to the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States. (See overleaf.)
An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. C. Knox"

75. Admit the following facts:

a. When California provided uncertified copies of its resolution to Secretary of State Philander Knox, Knox wrote the following to California Secretary of State Frank Jordan: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, transmitting a copy of the Joint Resolution of the California Legislature ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in reply thereto I have to request that you furnish a certified copy of the Resolution under the seal of the State, which is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States"

b. When Wyoming Governor Joseph Carey telegraphed Philander Knox news that the Wyoming legislature had ratified the 16th Amendment on February 3, 1913, Philander Knox telegraphed in return as follows: "Replying to your telegram of 3rd you are requested to furnish a certified copy of Wyoming's ratification of Income Tax Amendment so there may be no question as to the compliance with Section 205 of Revised Statutes."

76. Admit that on February 15, 1913, a State department attorney, J. Rueben Clarke, informed Secretary of State Philander Knox, in reference to the State of Minnesota, "the secretary of the Governor merely informed the Department that the state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment."

77. Admit that, in the official records deposited in the Archives of the United States, there is no certified copy of the resolution of the Minnesota legislature ratifying the 16th Amendment.

78. Admit that in the documents possessed by the Archives of the United States, there are no certified copies of the resolutions ratifying the 16th Amendment by California and Kentucky.

79. Admit that Mr. John Ashcroft is currently the Attorney General of the United States.

80. Admit that when Mr. Ashcroft was Governor of Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court rendered the following decision in a case involving Mr. Ashcroft, that case being Ashcroft v. Blunt, 696 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. banc 1985), where the Missouri Supreme Court held:

"The senate and the house must agree on the exact text of any bill before they may send it to the governor. There may not be the slightest variance. The exact bill passed by the houses must be presented to and signed by the governor before it may become law (laying aside as not presently material alternative procedure by which a bill may become law without the governor's signature.) The governor has no authority to sign into law a bill which varies in any respect from the bill passed by the houses."

81. Admit that during hearings regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment in Massachusetts, Mr. Robert Luce made the following statement to the Massachusetts Committee on Federal Relations: "Question by the committee: Are we able to change it? Mr. Luce: No, you must either accept or reject it."

82. Admit that on February 11, 1910, Kentucky Governor Augustus Willson wrote a letter to the Kentucky House of Representatives wherein he stated as follows:

"This resolution was adopted without jurisdiction of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States which had not been transmitted to and was not before the General Assembly, and in this resolution the words 'on incomes' were left out of the resolution of the Congress, and if transmitted in this form would be void and would subject the Commonwealth to unpleasant comment and for these reasons and because a later resolution correcting the omission is reported to have passed both Houses, this resolution is returned to the House of Representatives without my approval."

83. Admit that no State may change the wording of an amendment proposed by Congress.

84. Admit that on February 15, 1913, J. Reuben Clarke, an attorney employed by the Department of State, drafted a memorandum to Secretary Knox wherein the following statements were made: "The resolutions passed by twenty-two states contain errors only of capitalization or punctuation, while those of eleven states contain errors in the wording" (page 7). "Furthermore, under the provisions of the Constitution a legislature is not authorized to alter in any way the amendment proposed by Congress, the function of the legislature consisting merely in the right to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment."

85. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows:

"Article XVI. The Congress shall have 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."

86. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:

Article 16: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and from any census or enumeration.

87. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:

Article XVI. Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to census enumeration.

88. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: Article XVI. The Congress shall have 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 renumeration.

89. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:

Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

90. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:

The Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever sources derived without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, which amendment was approved on the ---- day of July, 1909.

91. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows: "Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration."

92. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:

Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, with-out apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration:

93. Admit that the Sixteenth Amendment does not read as follows:

Article XVI. The congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, and did submit the same to the legislatures of the several states for ratification;

94. Admit that state officials who prepare and send "official notice" of ratification of constitutional amendments to federal officials in Washington, D.C., do not have any authority to change the wording of the ratification resolution actually adopted by the State legislature.

95. Admit that the "income" tax at subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code cannot be lawfully and constitutionally collected if the 16th Amendment is not a valid amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

96. Admit that the income taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not apportioned, so if the 16th Amendment was not ratified, the taxes imposed by Subtitle A are not constitutional under Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

97. Admit that in 1913, Congress passed the following income tax act:

"A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum . . . and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere. "

98. Admit that Mr. Brushaber challenged this income tax as being unconstitutional. (See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1915).)

99. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the tax on income was an excise tax.

100. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to prevent the income tax from being taken out of the class of excise taxes where it rightly belonged.

101. Admit that in the Brushaber decision, the United States Supreme Court discarded the notion that a direct tax could be relieved from apportionment, because to so hold would destroy the two great classifications of taxes.

102. Admit that the Union Pacific Railroad was a United States Corporation located in the Utah Territory.

103. Admit that the privilege of operating as a corporation can be taxed as an excise.

104. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205-206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held a tax on income was a direct tax, but could be imposed without apportionment because the 16th Amendment gave Congress 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.

105. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Eisner:

a. "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, under the Act of August 27, 1894, c. 349, section 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553, it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the States according to population, as required by Art. 1, section 2, c1.3, and section 9, cl.4, of the original Constitution."

b. "Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished: "The Congress shall have 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." As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income."

c. "A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be over ridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts."

d. "In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income" as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, 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 alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

106. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Second Circuit take the position that the income tax is an indirect tax.

107. Admit that Judges in the Courts of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit take the position that the income tax in a direct tax.

108. (Note: Question to be provided later)

109. Admit that when Supreme Court Justices, Judges of the Courts of Appeals, and Presidents of the United States are unable to determine what a law is, that law is ambiguous.

110. Admit that when a law is ambiguous, it is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

111. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution recognized two classes of taxes, direct taxes and indirect taxes.

112. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 and Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 4, required apportionment of all direct taxes.

113. Admit that in 1894, the United States Constitution, at Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1, required all indirect taxes to be uniform.

114. Admit that in 1894, no one doubted that an excise tax was an indirect tax as opposed to a direct tax.

115. Admit that in 1894 Congress passed the following income tax act:

"Sec. 27. That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and until the first day of January, nineteen hundred, there shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and every person residing therein, whether said gains, profits, or income be derived from any kind of property rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, a tax of two per centum on the amount so derived over and above four thousand dollars, and a like tax shall be levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States. And the tax herein provided for shall be assessed, by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and collected, and paid upon the gains, profits and income for the year ending the thirty-first day of December next preceding the time for levying, collecting, and paying said Tax.

116. Admit that Mr. Pollock, a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, challenged the 1894 income tax on the grounds that the tax imposed was a direct tax that was not apportioned.

117. Admit that the majority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court found that the 1894 tax at Sec. 27 was a direct tax.

118. Admit that the minority of the justices of the United States Supreme Court in the Pollock case believed the 1984 tax at Sec. 27 was an indirect tax.

119. Admit that the United States Supreme Court held the 1894 income tax was unconstitutional as being in violation of the apportionment requirements for direct taxes.

120. Admit that in 1909, President Taft called a special session of Congress for the purpose of amending the apportionment requirement of income taxes.

121. Admit that during the congressional debate on the income tax amendment, it was stated that the income tax would not touch one hair of a working man's head.

RIGHT TO LABOR

122. Admit that it was the intent of Congress to require "individuals" to make income tax returns based upon receipt of more than a threshold amount of gross income even if the individual ends up not "liable for" a tax on that gross income.

123. Admit that the "gross income" mentioned in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code is the "gross income" as set forth at Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

124. Admit that Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income" from whatever source derived, but does not define "income."

125. Admit that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude what "income" is, 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.

126. Admit that the definition of income as it appears in Section 61(a) is based upon the 16th Amendment and that the word is used in its constitutional sense.

127. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has defined the term income for purposes of all income tax legislation as: The gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.

128. Admit that in the absence of gain, there is no "income."

129. Admit that there is a difference between gross receipts and gross income.

130. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that one's labor constitutes property.

131. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (concurring opinion of Justice Fields) (1883), that:

It has been well said that, "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."

132. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that contracts of employment constitute property.

133. Admit that the United States Supreme Court stated in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1914) that:

"The principle is fundamental and vital. 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 services are exchanged for money or other forms of property."

134. Admit that the United States Supreme Court recognizes that a contract for labor is a contract for the sale of property.

135. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has stated in Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908) that:

"In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment (5th Amendment). Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor."

136. Admit that Congress recognizes at Section 64 of the Internal Revenue Code that "ordinary income" is a gain from the sale or exchange of property.

137. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Sections 1001, 1011 and 1012 provide the method Congress has set forth for determining the gain derived from the sale of property.

138. Admit that Section 1001(a) states that: "The gain from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the excess of the amount realized therefrom over the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining gain . . . ."

139. Admit that Section 1001(b) states that: "The amount realized from the sale or other disposition of property shall be the sum of any money received plus the fair market value of the property (other than money) received."

140. Admit that Section 1011 states that: "The adjusted basis for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property, whenever acquired, shall be the basis (determined under section 1012...), adjusted as provided in section 1016."

141. Admit that Section 1012 states that: "The basis of property shall be the cost of such property . . . ."

142. Admit that the cost of property purchased under contract is its air market value as evidenced by the contract itself, provided neither the buyer nor sell were acting under compulsion in entering into the contract, and both were fully aware of all the facts regarding the contract.

143. Admit that in the case of the sale of labor, none of the provisions of Section 1016 of the Internal Revenue Code are applicable.

144. Admit that when an employer pays the employee the amount agreed upon by their contract, there is no excess amount realized over the adjusted basis, and thus no gain under Section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code.

145. Admit that if one has no gain, one would have no income.

146. Admit that if one has no income, one would have no "gross income."

147. Admit that in the absence of "gross income," one would not be required to make a return under Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code. (See 26 U.S.C. § 6012.) 148. Admit that Section 6017 of the Internal Revenue Code requires individuals, other than nonresident alien individuals, to make a return if they have net earnings from self-employment of $400 or more.

149. Admit that the term "net earnings from self-employment" is defined at Section 1402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as follows:

"The term 'net earnings from self-employment' means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual . . . ."

150. Admit that in the absence of "gross income," one would not have more than $400 of "net earnings from self-employment."

151. Admit that the "taxable income" upon which the income tax is imposed in Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code is defined at Section 63 of the Internal Revenue Code.

152. Admit that the term "taxable income" is defined differently for those who itemize deductions and those who don't itemize deductions.

153. Admit that for those who do itemize deductions, the term "taxable income" means "gross income" minus the deductions allowed by Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, other than the standard deduction.

154. Admit that for those who do not itemize deductions, the term "taxable income" means "adjusted gross income" minus the standard deduction and the deduction or personal exemptions provided in section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code.

155. Admit that for individuals, the term "adjusted gross income" means gross income minus certain deductions.

156. Admit that in the absence of "gross income" an individual would have no "adjusted gross income" and no "taxable income."

157. Admit that in the absence of taxable income, no tax is imposed under Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

158. Admit that employment taxes are contained in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code.

159. Admit that the taxes imposed in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code are different than the taxes imposed in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

160. Admit that The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax contained in Subtitle C at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is imposed on the individual's "income."

161. Admit that the rate of the tax set out at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is a percentage of the individual's wages.

162. Admit that the term "income" as used at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code is the same income as used in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

163. Admit that if one has no income, one is not subject to the tax imposed at Section 3101 of the Internal Revenue Code.

164. Admit that The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on employers contained in Subtitle C at Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code is an excise tax on employers with respect to their having employees.

165. Admit that at Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code, employers are directed to withhold from wages paid to employees, a tax determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

166. Further admit that Congress does not identify the Section 3402 "tax determined" as either a direct tax, an indirect tax, and/or an "income" tax.

167. Admit that Congress made the employer liable for the Section 3402 tax at Section 3403 of the Internal Revenue Code.

168. Admit that at Section 3501 of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to collect the taxes imposed in Subtitle C and pay them into the Treasury of the United States as internal revenue collections.

169. Admit that Congress has not anywhere impose the tax described at Section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code.

170. Admit that at Section 31 of the Internal Revenue Code, the amount of the Section 3402 tax on wages is allowed as a credit against the income tax imposed in Subtitle A.

171. Admit that if one does not have any tax imposed at Subtitle A for any reason whatsoever, the law enacted by Congress at Section 3402(n) of the Internal Revenue Code constitutes an exemption of the tax described at Section 3402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

172. Admit that a typical American family works until noon of every working day just to pay its alleged tax obligations.

173. Admit that the typical American family pays more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.

174. Admit that there are currently over 480 tax forms.

175. Admit that the federal tax code contains over 7 million words.

176. Admit that over ½ of Americans are paying some sort of tax professional to help them comply with alleged tax law requirements.

177. Admit that each year the Internal Revenue Service sends out approximately 8 billion pages of tax forms and instructions, generating enough paper to stretch 28 times around the Earth.

178. Admit that Americans spend approximately 5.4 billion labor hours and $200 billion dollars per year attempting to comply with alleged tax requirements - more time and money that it takes to produce every car, truck, and van each year in the United States.

179. Admit that in 1913, the average American family had to work only until January 30th before earning enough to pay all alleged tax obligations. (See Tax Facts.)

180. Admit that the average American family had to work all the way through May 12th in order to pay their alleged federal, state, and local tax bills for the year 2000.

181. Admit that economist Daniel J. Mitchell recently observed that: "[Medieval serfs] only had to give the lord of the manor a third of their output and they were considered slaves. So what does that make us?"

182. Admit that the average Wisconsin citizen had to work until May 9th this year to pay all alleged tax obligations.

183. Admit that Americans own less of their labor than feudal serfs.

184. Admit that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

185. Admit that if Congress can constitutionally tax a man's labor at the rate of 1%, then Congress is free, subject only to legislative discretion, to tax that man's labor at the rate of 100%.

186. Admit that "peonage" is a condition of servitude compelling a man or woman to perform labor in order to pay off a debt.

187. Admit that "peonage" is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

188. Admit that the U.S. Congress abolished peonage in 1867.

189. Admit that holding or returning any person to a condition of peonage is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1581.

190. Admit that involuntary servitude means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for another by use or threat of physical restraint or injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or legal process.

191. Admit that if an American stops turning over the fruits of his or her labor to the federal government in the form of income tax payments, he suffers under the risk of possible criminal prosecution and incarceration.

PRA - APA - REGULATIONS

192. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq., mandates that forms and regulations of federal agencies that require the provision of information must bear and display OMB control numbers.

193. Admit that 1 C.F.R. § 21.35 requires that OMB control numbers shall be placed parenthetically at the end of a regulation or displayed in a table or codified section.

194. Admit that the following tax regulations contain OMB control numbers at the end of these regulations:

26 C.F.R. §1.860-2

26 C.F.R. §1.860-4

26 C.F.R. §1.897-1

26 C.F.R. §1.901-2

26 C.F.R. §1.901-2A

26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-1T

26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-2T

26 C.F.R. §1.1256(h)-3T

26 C.F.R. §1.1445-7

26 C.F.R. §1.1461-1

26 C.F.R. §1.1461-2

26 C.F.R. §1.1462-1

26 C.F.R. §1.6046-1

26 C.F.R. §1.6050J-1T

26 C.F.R. §1.6151-1

26 C.F.R. §1.6152-1

26 C.F.R. §1.6154-4

26 C.F.R. §1.9200-2

26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)(8)(A)-1

26 C.F.R. §31.3501(a)-1T

26 C.F.R. §301.6324A-1

26 C.F.R. §301.7477-1

195. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6012 does not specify where tax returns are to be filed.

196. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6091 governs the matter of where tax returns are to be filed.

197. Admit that by the plain language of §6091, regulations must be promulgated to implement this statute.

198. Admit that in 5 U.S.C. § 551, a "rule" is defined as:

"(4) a 'rule' means the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency . . . ."

199. Admit that 5 U.S.C. §552 describes in particular detail various items which must be published by federal agencies in the Federal Register, as follows:

"(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public–

(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;

(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;

(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and content of all papers, reports, or examinations;

(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and

(E) each amendment, revision or repeal of the foregoing."

200. Admit that the Department of the Treasury as well as the IRS acknowledge the publication requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act in 31 C.F.R. § 1.3 and 26 C.F.R. § 601.702.

201. Admit that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue promulgated the Treasury Regulation set out at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 to collect and display the control numbers assigned to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

202. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service intended that 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 comply with the requirements of OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, for the display of control numbers assigned by OMB to collections of information in Internal Revenue Service regulations. (See 26 C.F.R. § 602.101.)

203. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 602.101(c) displays a table (the "Table" ) which on the left side lists the CFR part or section where the information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service is identified and described, and on the right side, lists the OMB control number assigned to the OMB-approved form to be used to collect the information so identified and described.

204. Admit that the Table displayed at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 in the 1994 version of the Code of Federal Regulations lists 1.1-1 as a CFR part or section that identifies and describes information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.

205. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 relates to the income tax imposed on individuals by 26 U.S.C. § 1.

206. Admit that the OMB control number assigned to the form to be used to collect the information identified and described at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is 1545-0067.

207. Admit that the OMB control number 1545-0067 is assigned to the IRS Form 2555.

208. Admit that the IRS Form 2555 is titled "Foreign Earned Income" .

209. Admit that the IRS Form 2555 is used to collect information regarding foreign earned income.

210. Admit that the OMB control number assigned to the IRS Form 1040 Individual Income Tax Return is 1545-0074.

211. Admit that the Table set out at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 has never displayed the OMB control number 1545-0074 as being assigned to the collection of individual income tax information identified and described by 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.

212. Admit that the OMB has not approved the IRS Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return as the proper form on which to make the return of individual income tax information identified and described at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.

213. Admit that the Table displayed at 26 C.F.R. § 602.101 in the 1995 version of the Code of Federal Regulations does not list 1.1-1 as a CFR part or section that identifies and describes information to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service.

214. Further admit that the Internal Revenue Service caused the entry for 1.1-1 to be deleted from 26 C.F.R. § 602.101, by publishing the deletion at 59 FR 27235, on May 26, 1994.

215. Further admit that the published deletion was accomplished under the supervision of Internal Revenue Service employee Cynthia E. Grigsby, Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).

216. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service tracks every working American through a computer-based records system.

217. Admit that Treasury System of Records 24.030 is titled as follows: "Individual Master File (IMF); Returns and Information Processing. D:D:R--Treasury/IRS".

218. Admit that the Individual Master File relates to: "Taxpayers who file federal individual income tax returns (i.e., forms 1040, 1040A) and power of attorney notifications for individuals."

219. Admit that the Privacy Act codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) states that: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall- . . . . maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determinations about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination . . ."

220. Admit that the Privacy Act codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(6) states that: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall- . . . . prior to disseminating any record about an individual to any person other than an agency, unless the dissemination is made pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section, make reasonable efforts to assure that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes . . ."

221. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is subject to the Privacy Act requirements codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5) and (6), which requirements are set out in relevant part at 219-20, above.

222. Admit that the Individual Master File computer records use various codes to represent agency actions, determinations, and transactions regarding taxpayers.

223. Admit that Document 6209 is the IRS reference guide which describes the meaning of most of the codes used on the Individual Master File record.

224. Admit that the Law Enforcement Manual 3(27)(68)0 is the underpinning authority for the Document 6209.

225. Admit that the taxpayer's IMF account number is the taxpayer's social security number.

226. Admit that all returns and transactions processed on the Individual Master File must contain the taxpayer's correct social security number.

227. Admit that an account freeze is placed on an Individual Master File record to indicate that the social security number on the record is invalid.

228. Admit that no transactions can be posted to an Individual Master File entity module which is identified by an invalid social security number.

229. Admit that a "VAL-1" code posted on an Individual Master File record means an invalid social security number freeze has been released.

230. Admit that the "VAL-1" invalid social security number freeze release indicator is effective only during the calendar year to which it has been posted.

231. Admit that the "VAL-1" invalid social security number freeze release indicator allows the Internal Revenue Service to post transactions to an Individual Master File record which has been frozen because the social security number on that IMF record is invalid.

COURTS ARE CLOSED

232. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 7203 imposes a penalty for the crime of willful failure to file a tax return.

233. Admit that Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. 7203 in August, 1954. (See 26 U.S.C. 7203, credits and historical notes.)

234. Admit that the United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) stated: "[w]e assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation."

235. Admit that Congress enacted 44 U.S.C. § 3512 in 1980.

236. Admit that 44 U.S.C. § 3512 states that:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if–

(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or

(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

237. Admit that United States Supreme Court Chief Judge Taney in 1863 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.

238. Admit that United States District Court Judge Walter Evans, in 1919 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.

239. Admit that United States Circuit Court Judge Joseph W. Woodrough in 1936 protested the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to him.

240. Admit that United States District Court Judge Terry J. Hatter and other federal court judges in the 1980s protested the constitutionality of taxes as applied to them. 241. Admit that even in criminal cases where a loss of freedom can be the result, American citizens who are not judges are precluded by the federal judiciary, and with the express approval and consent of the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney, from arguing the constitutionality of the income tax as applied to them.

242. Admit that the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government label Americans who challenge the legality of the federal income tax as "tax protesters."

243. Admit that United States Supreme Court Chief Judge Taney submitted his protest in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury.

244. Admit that letters of protest written to the Secretary of the Treasury by American Citizens are used by the Executive branch of government, and accepted by the Judicial branch of government, as proof of income tax evasion and conspiracy against those who write the letters.

255. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, the statutory procedure authorized by Congress for the determination of the amount of tax due is the "deficiency" procedure set forth at subchapter B of Chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code, commencing at Section 6211.

256. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, Congress mandated at Section 6212 that the individual is required to be served a "notice of deficiency" setting forth the amount of tax imposed by Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code per Section 6211 of the Internal Revenue Code.

257. Admit that the tax imposed upon individuals required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is imposed upon the individual's "taxable income."

258. Admit that the Section 6020(b) requirement for the Secretary to make the required Section 6012(a) return is to require the Secretary to compute the taxpayers taxable income so the correct amount of tax owed can be calculated.

259. Admit that when an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, and the Internal Revenue Service issues a notice of deficiency, the amount of tax claimed as due by the Secretary is not based upon the taxable income, but is computed without regard to the requirements of Sections 62 and 63 of the Internal Revenue Code from which adjusted gross income and taxable income are computed from gross income.

260. Admit that the IRS attempts to obtain assessments of more tax than would otherwise be required by law as an unauthorized additional penalty on those who are required to, but do not, make federal income tax returns.

261. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6001 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to keep records, render statements, make returns and to comply with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.

262. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

263. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.

264. Admit that the word "shall" as contained in Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a mandatory duty on those to whom the statute applies to make returns.

265. Admit that Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code states:

"If any person fails to make any return required by an internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise. "

266. Admit that nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code has Congress indicated that the word "shall" as used in Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code has a different meaning than as used in Sections 6001, 60011 and/or 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code.

267. Admit that in the absence of a Congressionally declared distinction for a word used in the same Code (here the Internal Revenue Code), in the same subtitle (here Subtitle F), in the same Chapter (here Chapter 61) and in the same Subchapter (here subchapter A) to be given a different meaning, the same word is to be given the same meaning.

268. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code fails to make the required return, the Secretary of the Treasury does not make the return mandated by Section 6020(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.

269. Admit that the IRS computer system, the IDRS (Integrated Data Retrieval Systems) was programmed to require a tax return to be filed in order to create a tax module for each taxable year.

270. Admit that if an individual required to make and file a return under Section 6012(a) fails to file such a return, that the Secretary creates a "dummy return" showing zero tax due and owing.

271. Admit that this "dummy return" sets forth no financial data from which the gross income, adjusted gross income or taxable income can be computed.

272. Admit that this "dummy return" is not signed.

273. Admit that a "dummy return" is physically created on the IRS Form 1040.

274. Admit that Congress has not authorized the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations that authorizes the creation of "dummy returns"

. 275. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS calls such a return a "zero return."

276. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS takes the position that no return has been filed.

277. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain the financial information necessary to allow the IRS to compute gross income, adjusted gross income and/or taxable income, the IRS takes the position that the return is "frivolous" and imposes a $500 penalty.

278. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain a signature made under penalty of perjury, the IRS takes the position that no return has been filed. 279. Admit that if an individual required to make a return under Section 6012(a) files a return that does not contain a signature under penalties of perjury, the IRS takes the position that the return is "frivolous" and imposes a $500 penalty.

280. Admit that an IMF record bearing the code "SFR 150" indicates that a fully paid IRS Form 1040a was filed.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

281. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 6001 requires the keeping of records.

282. Admit that 26 U.S.C. § 7203 makes it a federal crime not to keep the records required under section 6001.

283. Admit that the records required under 26 U.S.C. § 6001 contain information that will appear on the tax returns pertaining to federal income taxes.

284. Admit that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from compelling an American to incriminate himself.

285. Admit that the IRS currently uses the following: Non-Custodial Miranda warning:

"In connection with my investigation of your tax liability I would like to ask you some questions. However, first I advise you that under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States I cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information. If such answers or information might tend to incriminate you in any way, I also advise you that anything which you say and any documents which you submit may be used against you in any criminal proceeding which may be undertaken. I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of an attorney before responding."

286. Admit that the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notices currently used by the IRS provides that the information provided in the preparation of a tax return can go to the Department of Justice who prosecutes criminal cases against the filers of tax returns.

287a. Admit that the "United States Attorneys" Bulletin, April 1998 edition, contained an article written by Joan Bainbridge Safford, Deputy United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, entitled: "Follow That Lead! Obtaining and Using Tax Information in a Non-Tax Case," hereinafter "Follow that Lead!"

. 287b. Further admit that the article states the following:

‘In any criminal case where financial gain is the prominent motive, tax returns and return information can provide some of the most significant leads, corroborative evidence, and cross-examination material obtainable from any source."

287c. Further admit that the article states the following;

"In even the most straightforward fraud case, the usefulness of tax returns should be apparent . . . . the tax return information provides a statement under penalty of perjury which may either serve as circumstantial evidence of the target's misrepresentation of his economic status or as helpful cross-examination material . . . . Disclosure of tax returns may also provide critical leads and impeachment material."

288. Admit that the Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice set out in the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet states the following:

"[W]e may disclose your tax information to the Department of Justice, to enforce the tax laws, both civil and criminal, and to cities, states, the District of Columbia, U.S. Commonwealths or possessions, and certain foreign governments to carry out their tax laws."

289. Admit that tax returns are used by the IRS to develop civil and criminal cases against the filers of the tax returns.

290. Admit that tax returns of a filer are used as evidence against the filer in both civil and criminal income tax cases.

291. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has held that a fifth amendment privilege exists against requiring a person to admit or deny he has documents which the government believes is related to the federal income tax.

292. Admit that the Fifth Amendment provides an absolute defense to tax crimes.

293. Admit that the Supreme Court has held that if one wants to assert the Fifth Amendment to an issue pertaining to a federal income tax return, once must make that claim on the form itself.

294. Admit that if one claims Fifth Amendment protection on an income tax form, that act can result in criminal prosecution for failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, or conspiracy to defraud.

295a. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice (the "Notice" ) set out in the IRS Form 730 instructions states that:

"You must file Form 730 and pay the tax on wagers under section 4401(a) if you: Are in the business of accepting wagers, or Conduct a wagering pool or lottery. "

295b. Further admit that the Notice states the following:

"[C]ertain documents related to wagering taxes and information obtained through them that relates to wagering taxes may not be used against the taxpayer in any criminal proceeding. See section 4424 for more details."

296. Admit that in 1997, 5,335 tax audits resulted in criminal investigations of those tax filers. (Speculation: Tax Facts, etc., Ex. 099-104.)

297. Admit that Judge Learned Hand stated that:

"Logically, indeed, he (the taxpayer) is boxed in a paradox for he must prove the criminatory character of what it is his privilege to suppress just because it is criminatory. The only practicable solution is to be content with the door's being set a little ajar, AND WHILE AT TIMES THIS NO DOUBT PARTIALLY DESTROYS THE PRIVILEGE,...nothing better is available."

298. Admit that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

299. Admit that the American people do not have to tolerate an income tax system in which the federal government requires a citizen to give up any constitutional rights.

Ok wise guys, I want you to prove ANY of these points about the income tax incorrect.

Why? Is there one that has to be incorrect? From what I can see they can all be correct and you still have no case of denial of a fundamental right possessed by you.

Perhaps you will point out to us the key question, that you would like to see dispproved.

You appear to infer that your personal rights have in someway being taken away through the enumerated power of taxation granted by the people to the Congress by the Constitution for the United States of America. Name that right you claim to have and demonstrate you are unable to exercise it by virtue of an indirect tax levied on the commerce you engage in.

There is no personal right to a free ride. Nor is there anything within the constitution that limits the exercise of the enumerated authority of Congress to tax.

Only the American people in whole as Principal and the those who they have chosen to represent them as there agents in government are the proper defendant's to your prosecution, and by rights the Principals are the only ones who may provide the answers or any redress in reality.

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

Only the people in their choice of representation can limit the exercise of that Constitutional authority to tax.

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

Demonstrate that a right you have title and proper ownership of has deliberately and intentially been destroyed by enactment of the income tax, for relief from the Court. Therein lay remedy under the Constitution for those who can demonstrate a true denial of personal right!

For all others:

Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

Else, you continue to be liable to the Income Tax, For the Constitution lays out the means to pay for the enumerated functions of the national government in the form of taxation paid out of the product of individuals who benefit from their presense in this nation.

I submit the following evidence for consideration of Summary Judgement to dismiss, as this suit has named no proper party, nor does it specify a grievience for which relief may be granted.

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article VI: "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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

"A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21:

The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it.

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention
4 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:466--68

No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption. The price of the commodity is blended with the tax, and the person is often not sensible of the payment But would it have been proper to rest the matter there? Suppose this fund should not prove sufficient; ought the public debts to remain unpaid, or the exigencies of government be left unprovided for? should our tranquillity be exposed to the assaults of foreign enemies, or violence among ourselves, because the objects of commerce may not furnish a sufficient revenue to secure tham all? Certainly, Congress should possess the power of raising revenue from their constituents, for the purpose mentioned in the 8th section of the 1st article; that is, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by its dictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review the experience we have had or contemplate the history of nations, here we find ample reasons to prove its expediency. There is little reason to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fully possed of the power of witholding them. If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

What is your rationalization and rebuttal in support for Representation without Taxation under the "Constitution for the United States of America;"

Your list of questions do not provide insight into the core of the problem.