Aren't You Really, Really Glad YOU'VE Taken Control Of How Much Of YOUR Money Washington Gets To Spend, Just As The Founders Intended?
Regarding 6020(b) Returns
SINCE
CtC FIRST APPEARED IN 2003, THE "IGNORANCE TAX"-ADDICT FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT has struggled to evade the liberating revelations in the
book. Some of these efforts involve
disinformation campaigns; some involve
stalls and harassments and threats directed at claimants
educated by the book who are forced to engage in sometimes long and
drawn-out battles with a balky bureaucracy before
finally getting their claims honored.
Some of these government efforts to preserve public ignorance of the
law, which has allowed the state to improperly suction-off upwards
of 40% of GDP from the hands of the people into its own, venture
right into
the realm of fraud. All of these evasions are manifestly and
disturbingly corrupt even while simultaneously serving as
unintended government acknowledgements of the same liberating truth
they are meant to suppress.
However, perhaps the most astonishing evasion taken up by the
corrupt state in its efforts to hold off the growing host of
CtC-educated Americans who have learned the truth and want their
tax-scammed money back involves a growing list of statutes being
bizarrely argued by a beleaguered "Justice" Department to simply not
really mean what they plainly say. The unambiguous language of these
statutes plainly conform to the liberating truth about the tax, and
since that conformity doesn't conform to the DOJ's desire to
strangle the CtC liberty-revolution in its crib, the agency has
resorted to shameful and ridiculous denials and mendacities when
faced with educated claimants and litigators.
Prominent among the statutes government attorneys have deliberately
misconstrued in this evasion campaign are those defining "wages",
"trade or business" and "includes" (and by extension, numerous other
statutory provisions in which these definitions play a role). See
here and
here for some discussion of these terms, their statutory
meanings, and their construction by courts over the years. Similar
dodges are deployed regarding the
levy statutes and those involving the
summons and examination authority.
The statute reflected at 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) is another one whose
plain meaning the government recognizes as a serious problem to its
maintenance of the "ignorance tax" gravy-train. In that statute,
Congress has mandated government creation of a return of its own,
and on its own behalf, when it actually has legal grounds for
believing someone has had taxable receipts contrary to what appears
on his or her filed return (or when a return is believed required
but none has been filed). The statute is adequately-expressed in the regulations associated with this mandate:
"26
C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Execution of
returns-
(1) In general. If any person required by the Internal Revenue
Code or by the regulations to make a return ...
fails to make such return at the time prescribed
therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a
false, fraudulent or frivolous return, the Commissioner or other authorized
Internal Revenue Officer employee shall make such return from his own
knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or
otherwise. ..."
"(2) Form of the return. A document (or set of documents)
signed by the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer or
employee shall be a return for a person described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section if the document (or set of documents) identifies the taxpayer by
name and taxpayer identification number, contains sufficient information from
which to compute the taxpayer's tax liability, and purports to be a return. ..." (Emphasis added.)
Further,
the 6020(b) mandate invokes another statute: As a required document, such returns created by the
Secretary on the government's behalf must be signed under penalties
of perjury:
"26 U.S.C. § 6065 Verification of returns
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration,
statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the
internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written
declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury." [There are
no exceptions provided by the Secretary to this requirement in
regard to 6020(b) returns- PH]
Pursuant to these rules, then, the law plainly says that the government is obligated to make a
sworn 6020(b) return on its own behalf (by the hand of its agent) if
it believes it has a legal basis and authority for alleging that a
person has had an amount of "income" sufficient to require a return
(and which is contrary to what appears on a return that person may
have already filed). Such returns are never made in regard to CtC-educated
filings, of course, but since this failure to produce such a 6020(b)
return is an acknowledgement by the government that it doesnot have a legal basis and authority for disputing a filed
return (or asserting that it is "frivolous", or that a return is
required but unfiled), the DOJ has taken to making the ridiculous
and mendacious argument that the "shall" in the statute isn't really
there.
A good example is the following response by the DOJ when challenged
by a 2013 motion concerning, in part, the government's failure to
fulfill its 6020(b) obligation. Unable to produce even a single
precedent for the proposition that returns on the government's
behalf were not required under 6020(b) in such a case-- and
recognizing the problem this represented for its case-- the DOJ
simply resorted to fraud:
"Although the defendant's argument purports to be grounded in the
plain language of the statute, he fails
to acknowledge that every court that has addressed this issue,
including this Court, has
read the statute to be permissive and not to create an
obligation for the IRS to create a substitute return. See, e.g.,
Deutsch v. Commissioner, 478 F.3d 450, 452
(2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Schiff, 919 F.2d 830,
832-33 (2d Cir. 1990) ("There is no requirement that the IRS
complete a substitute return"); Selgas v. Commissioner,
475 F.3d 697, 700 (5th Cir. 2007);
United States v. Stafford, 983 F.2d 25, 27 (5th Cir. 1993)
("[A]lthough [§ 6020(b)]
authorizes the Secretary to file for a taxpayer, the
statute does not require such a filing");
United States v.
Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057, 1063 (7th Cir. 1993);
Geiselman v.
United States, 961 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992);
United
States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 1992);
In
re Bergstrom, 949 F.2d 341, 343 (10th Cir. 1991);
United States v. Barnett, 945
F.2d 1296, 1300 (5th Cir. 1991);
United States
v. Verkuilen, 690 F.2d 648, 657 (7th Cir. 1982);
United
States v. Tarrant, 798 F. Supp. 1292, 1302-03 (E.D. Mich. 1992) (Rosen, J.). As the IRS had no
duty to create a substitute return, the
defendant's argument are without merit."
Well, let's have a look at whose argument is "without merit",
as pointed out in the brief replying to these assertions...
"Unlike its complete evasion of Mr. Hendrickson’s
“person”-related arguments, the government does put up a façade
of opposition to Mr. Hendrickson’s arguments concerning its
statutory obligation to produce returns on its own behalf and
over the signature of a liability-accepting officer when it
deems a filed return to be required and false. But the
appearance of opposition is, in fact, just a façade. No argument
is offered, no authority is produced.
"Instead, the effort is an exercise in mendacity. The
government simply asserts that “every court that has addressed
this issue, including this Court, has read the statute to be
permissive and not to create an obligation for the IRS to create
a substitute return,” followed by the citation of eleven cases
supposedly standing in opposition to Mr. Hendrickson’s
positions. However, each and every case cited is entirely
irrelevant to the issue in Mr. Hendrickson’s Motion. What’s
more, the excerpts of rulings that are presented in order to
convey a contrary impression are revealed, upon adding the
portions omitted, as saying nothing of the kind.
"Two rulings are quoted. The first of these,
United States
v. Schiff, 919 F.2d 830, 832-33 (2d Cir. 1990), is quoted as
saying: “There is no requirement that the IRS complete a
substitute return.” Omitted is the immediately preceding
language of the ruling, which reads:
“First, Schiff contends that since 26 U.S.C. Sec.
6201(a)(1) (1988) requires that assessments be made from
returns or lists, the IRS must prepare a substitute return
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6020(b) (1988) prior to assessing
deficient taxes. It is clear, however, that when a taxpayer
does not file a tax return, it is as if he filed a return
showing a zero amount for purposes of assessing a
deficiency.”
"Plainly, the Schiff ruling has nothing to do with the
mandate of § 6020(b) generally, or a case in which a return WAS
filed (as opposed to a non-filing like Schiff’s). The ruling
says merely that the IRS can, by some contrivance, assess a
deficiency without preparing a substitute return, and makes
clear that this conclusion is specifically related to Schiff’s
having failed to file a return.
"The other ruling quoted is United States v. Stafford,
983 F.2d 25, 27 (5th Cir. 1993). The language quoted is:
“[A]lthough [§ 6020(b)] authorizes the Secretary to file for a
taxpayer, the statute does not require such a filing”. Left off
is the remainder of the sentence: “nor does it relieve the
taxpayer of the duty to file." That omitted portion draws the
reader’s attention to the fact that what IS presented concerns
merely an argument that the Secretary is obliged to file a
return “for a taxpayer”. Stafford has nothing to do with
the § 6020(b) mandate on the government to file a signed return
on its own behalf in response to a filed return it considers
required and false. In fact, this ruling concerns nothing more
than Stafford’s frivolous argument that he could not be liable
to “failure to file” charges because the IRS was obliged to file
a return for him under the provisions of § 6020.
"Like Stafford and Schiff, the remainder of the cases cited
all involve non-filers, and also like Stafford and Schiff, each of these cited cases only concern the ability
of the government to propose assessment of deficiencies without
reliance on a § 6020(b) return, or the frivolous argument that
the provisions of § 6020(b) relieves someone from criminal
liability for failure to file. Thus, like Stafford and Schiff, none has anything to do with the issue raised in Mr.
Hendrickson’s Motion.
"Of the remaining cases cited, Deutsch v. Commissioner,
478 F.3d 450, 452 (2d Cir. 2007), is virtually identical to Schiff, which it quotes as the basis and substance of its
ruling. Like Schiff, the ruling merely supports the
proposition that a deficiency assessment can be proposed without
reliance on a § 6020(b) return. Another, Selgas v.
Commissioner, 475 F.3d 697, 700 (5th Cir. 2007), is a
variation on this theme, in that the IRS HAD produced what it
calls a “substitute for return” (not necessarily an actual §
6020(b) return), which Selgas argued was improperly
prepared, a point the court deemed irrelevant, under the same
reasoning as the courts in Schiff and Deutsch:
“We need not consider whether the substitute return was
properly calculated and presented on the appropriate forms
because, for the purpose of determining a deficiency, there
is no need for the Commissioner to prepare a substitute tax
return.”
"Every other cited case addresses only the frivolous argument
made in the Stafford case that the government is obliged
to prepare returns for others, and this relieves those others of
their own obligation to file. These include United States v.
Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057, 1063 (7th Cir. 1993), Geiselman v.
United States, 961 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992), United
States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 1992), In
re Bergstrom, 949 F.2d 341, 343 (10th Cir. 1991), United
States v. Barnett, 945 F.2d 1296, 1300 (5th Cir. 1991), United States v. Verkuilen, 690 F.2d 648, 657 (7th Cir.
1982) and United States v. Tarrant, 798 F. Supp. 1292,
1302-03 (E.D. Mich. 1992).
"In sum, then, the government has demonstrated support merely
for the notion that where no return has been filed, and
allegations of taxable activity made on information returns such
as W-2s have thus been acquiesced-to by silence or at least have
gone unrebutted, the IRS can propose deficiencies without filing
a return asserting the claims it seeks to pursue. Also
thoroughly demonstrated is that the 6020 provisions don’t
relieve anyone of liability for failure to file required
returns.
"At the same time, the government has demonstrated that there
IS no case-law supporting the proposition that it can ignore the
plainly stated mandate of § 6020(b) generally, and, while
actually of the “view” that a filed return is required and
false, create no return of its own in contradiction thereof. In
failing to defend its position, the government has failed to
substantively oppose Mr. Hendrickson’s Motion on these issues,
just as it has failed to substantively oppose the Motion on the
“person” issues."
Interestingly,
6020(b) is a statute for which there is very little
"case-law". What there is consists of pretty much what the
government attorneys misrepresented in the contest discussed above, concerning itself only with
the specious argument that criminal failure-to-file charges can be
avoided because the government is obliged to file a return on any
non-filer’s behalf and therefore no one else is ever under an actual
legal obligation to file a return; and the government’s ability to allege deficiencies when no original return has been filed without being first
obliged to create and sign a 6020(b) return. (This process relies on
taking unrebutted "information return" allegations of "income"
received at face value, and the
regulatory provision concerning "deficiency" proceedings at 26 C.F.R.
§ 301.6211-1, which says:
"If no return is made, or if the return (except a return of
income tax pursuant to sec. 6014) does not show any tax, for the
purpose of the definition “the amount shown as the tax by the
taxpayer upon his return” shall be considered as zero").
The
limited scope of these rulings was nicely
summarized by Chief United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Albert Dabrowski in 2006 (all emphasis in this excerpt is supplied by Judge
Dabrowski):
“By its explicit language, Internal Revenue Code (hereafter,
“IRC”) § 6020(b) requires the Treasury Secretary to “make” a
substitute “return” for “any person” who fails to make a
required return under “any internal revenue law or regulation.”
Given the Secretary’s obligation under 6020(b);2...
2 IRC § 6020(b)(1) provides in relevant part as follows –
If
any person fails to make any return required by any
internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time
prescribed therefor . . . the Secretary shall make such
return from his own knowledge and from such information as he
can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
(emphasis supplied).
“This Court is not unmindful of the fact that despite the plain
language of 6020(b)(1), certain courts, including the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, have published opinions containing
language which, when read in isolation, may appear to negate the
mandatory nature of 6020(b)(1). E.g., Schiff v. U.S., 919
F.2d 830, 832 (2d Cir. 1990); Roat v. C.I.R., 847 F.2d
1379, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). However, it is important to note
that the subject language of these decisions is addressed to the
mandatory vs. permissive nature of a substitute return for
the purposes of tax deficiency determination and criminal
prosecution; they have not explicitly held that the
Secretary is relieved of an obligation to make a substitute
return for all purposes...”
Ridgway v. United States, CASE NO. 02-30358, United
States Bankruptcy Court, District of Ct., 2006
***
By the way, it is important to point out that the IRS routinely deploys
something it calls a "Substitute for Return" (SFR). This item is nicely
described in this GAO response to an inquiry in 2000 by Senator Daniel Moynihan:
When it has been determined that a taxpayer is
liable for filing a return, and upon due notice from the
Service fails to do so, an SFR will be prepared by
Examination.
Examination uses this procedure to establish
an account and examine the records of a taxpayer
when the taxpayer refuses or is unable to file
and information received indicates that a return
should be filed.
The examiner will follow the steps outlined
IRM 4.12.1.5.2 IDRS Research,
to confirm no return has been filed.
An SFR, in and of itself, does not
constitute a return under IRC 6020(b). For the
purpose of asserting the Failure to Pay Penalty,
additional steps should be taken before
submitting the SFR package. See IRM 20.1.2.1.4, Substitute for Return —
IRC section 6651(g) (Emphasis added)
You'll have noticed the "For the purpose of asserting the Failure to
Pay Penalty, additional steps should be taken before submitting the
SFR package" language. This is a reference to the assembly of a
"purported" 6020(b) return for purposes of the FTP penalty, based on
a specification at 26 U.S.C. § 6651(g) that reads:
(g)
Treatment of returns prepared by Secretary under section 6020(b)
In
the case of any return made by the Secretary under section 6020 (b)—
(1) such return shall be disregarded for purposes of determining
the amount of the addition under paragraph (1) of subsection (a)
["failure to file" penalty], but
(2) such return shall be treated as the return filed by the
taxpayer for purposes of determining the amount of the addition
under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) ["failure to pay"
penalty]
That purported "6020(b) return" for this purpose is achieved by the addition of
a Form 13496 certification-- a certification that declares the SFR to be a
6020(b) return for purposes of the section 6651(g) provision, as explained at
IRM 20.1.2.1.4, Substitute for Return — IRC section 6651(g):
Procedures to ensure FTP penalties on IMF and BMF
SFRs are sustained in tax court.
Background: In two tax court cases in
2003, the judge denied the Service the assessment of the FTP penalty on
an SFR because the requirements for a valid IRC section 6020(b) return
were not met. In conjunction with Chief Counsel, Form 13496,
IRC section 6020(b) Certification,
was conceived to ensure that FTP penalties on BMF and IMF SFRs would be
sustained in future court cases.
Note that even though labeled a "6020(b) Certification, this form does NOT
actually amount to (or convey) true 6020(b) stature, for lack of a perjury
statement. It is plainly just a pretext for alleging compliance with the
specialized and limited 6651(g) provision, just as the IRM language quoted above
declares (and just as the "Form 13496" itself declares).
This brings us to the third element of the 6020(b) provisions, the first two of
which were presented at the beginning of this discussion in their regulatory
form at 26
C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Execution of
returns- (1) and (2):
"(3)
Status of returns. Any
return made in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section and signed by
the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer or employee shall
be good and sufficient for all legal purposes except insofar as any Federal
statute expressly provides otherwise. ..."
The text in bold here explains why a "Form 13496 Certification" is spoken of in
the extremely limited and qualified terms relating solely to the 6651(g)
provision that we see in the IRM excerpts above and not as an actual 6020(b)
good and sufficient for all legal purposes: because it's not. Remember, a
Federal statute DOES expressly provide that an unsworn certification is NOT good
and sufficient for all legal purposes:
"
26 U.S.C.
§ 6065 Verification of returns
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration,
statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the
internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written
declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury."
While this pretense may be enough to get some Tax Court judges to conclude that
6651(g) requirements have been met, it suffices for nothing else, and in no way
makes an SFR into an actual 6020(b) return.
"Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an
arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained
that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his
authority. ... And this is so even though ... the agent himself may be unaware
of the limitations upon his authority."
United States
Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 (1947)
“Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government
statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may
exceed their authority and provide misinformation.”
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lavin v. Marsh, 644 f.2d 1378 (1981)
Shining A Little Disinfecting Sunlight Into The Law-Defier's
Toadstool Factory
The American legal landscape
has become a tangled mess. Once a well-tended garden, it is
now an ugly, weed-infested disgrace in which evil things find plenty
of places to lurk, grow, and be used against the people. It is
up to those of us who cherish the
rule of law and take our responsibilities to our posterity
seriously to correct this problem by pulling the weeds and making
clear that error and lies will not be tolerated.
The way this will happen is by
CtC-educated Americans, who have
learned how to read the law, and how to research precedents
accurately, taking charge of the legal landscape. In legal
contests with the enemies of the law, the good guys need to debunk
every inapposite citation deployed against them and keep the courts
honest and on-point, something too many in the legal profession
apparently abandoned long ago for reasons of their own.
In order to facilitate this effort, I'm setting up this special space in
which to post material debunking abused and misconstrued
"precedents" such as the 'Lovell' rulings, 'Latham', 'Sullivan' and
all the rest. These junk and misrepresented rulings litter government legal filings and have too
often been taken by courts (without investigation) as actually
standing for the proposition in the context of which they are cited,
when knowledgeable examination actually proves this to be untrue.
I'm inviting and encouraging every Warrior to take on the task of
pulling at least a few weeds by subjecting one or more cases mis-used
as "precedent" by government lawyers and "ignorance tax"
beneficiaries to proper analysis and investigation, and then send
the results to WeedWhackers (at) losthorizons.com (fix the email
address appropriately when sending). In a short time, we
should have a large collection of ready-for-prime-time, ACCURATE
material concerning these cases, able to be used by pro se litigants
or the attorneys of those using hired help.
I hope you'll all dive in here and contribute to this project. Submissions should be in
html format, and should
include the full text of the case being analyzed and any preceding
cases cited within the misused ruling (going back in like manner as
far as necessary). Analysis should focus on claims of
authority within the subject ruling which are not actually supported
by the references cited, if any (which could be "case law" or
statutes), or claims and conclusions actually contradicted by logic,
Constitution, statutes or other rulings (which should be included in
the submission). Layout should be:
1.) The citation being misused by the lying contingent;
2.) A concise statement of "what is wrong with this picture" and
why;
3.) The analysis proving the statement made in 2, with
references cited and quoted as necessary and appropriate; and
4). an appendix containing the complete text of the analyzed
case and referenced authorities (or links thereto within the
analysis).
It's our law, people, but only if we take charge of it. For
far too long, the American people have left care of this
oh-so-important resource to our competitors, who have unsurprisingly
twisted it to their own purposes. There's a lot of truth in
the old adage that says if you want something done right, you have
to do it yourself, and it's hard to imagine too many areas where
it's more important that things be done right.
PFC BRADLEY MANNING IS A YOUNG MAN who did his best to
restore lost honor to the America. He also is a young man
who has saved the lives of many people, including many
United States service men and women.
By exposing US war crimes, Manning gave the American people
a chance to express their outrage over the previously
unknown bad behavior of their agents in Iraq. The horrified
reaction of the people, and their rebuke to the errant
state, told the world that we are NOT the monsters that the
actions of the rogue state have suggested we are.
At the same time, Manning's revelations of
previously-concealed rapes and murders of Iraqis by US
troops-- crimes known to the US command but never revealed
to the Iraqis themselves-- thwarted a US desire to renew the
expiring Status of Forces Agreement that called for
withdrawal by the end of 2011.
The Maliki administration in Iraq is said to have wanted the
renewal, but the newly-aware Iraqi people would only permit
continued occupation if US troops became subject to Iraqi
criminal law. The United States, for its part, was unwilling
to live with that condition. So, many troops who otherwise
would have remained in Iraq were taken out of harm's way,
and an unknown number of children, wives, husbands,
brothers, sisters and moms and dads have living loved ones
today who wouldn't, but for Bradley Manning.
For his service, Manning was tortured for nearly a year,
imprisoned for two more without trial, and now has been told
to kiss his best years goodbye. Those years will be taken
from him by vicious sociopaths as revenge for his having
been brave and responsible enough to expose these villains'
previous crimes to an American people who deserve-- and
indeed, have a right and a duty-- to know them.
We each have our reasons, and our story. It's time, and it's needed, for
you to share yours with the world.
Everyone's failure to step up and fulfill
this simple request is really getting to me, now...
"The day we see truth and do not speak is the
day we begin to die."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
What does it
for you?
Is it simply
because no moral and upstanding person has any choice when it comes to
telling the truth over his or her signature, whether on tax forms or
anywhere else?
Is it recognition of the critical importance of the rule of law,
and the knowledge that if everybody leaves its caretaking to someone else,
it will soon be lost to us completely?
Is it the money?
Maybe it's
just simple respect for your own rights as a human being, who is not and
cannot be not involuntarily subordinated to others?
Maybe it's just
simple respect for your general civic responsibility to be the grown-up and
enforce frugality and restraint on a big, powerful creature of our own devising
which otherwise is like a badly-raised teenage boy given whiskey and car keys
and let loose on the road to wreak havoc?
Or is it, perhaps,
a more acute anxiety that if our bonfire of a state isn't damped, and quickly,
it'll soon burn down the house around us all?
What IS it that
firms up your jaw and stiffens your resolve?
It's time to
take off the bushel and share your light!
I would like
you to think about what it is that motivates you for a few moments (or all
day, if you like), and then send me your thoughts. I want to put YOUR reasons to work inspiring folks who
don't yet understand what this is all about.
In this day
and age, the most effective way
for you to share your thinking
for the benefit of others is to video-record yourself talking about how you
feel, and explaining what inspires and motivates YOU.
All you need is a
webcam or cell-phone equipped with a camera. If you don't have, or know how to
use, one of these, have a friend help.
If needed, write a little script for yourself. Better, though, to just speak
extemporaneously, after spending a little time sorting out your thoughts and
getting down into your heart.
Keep yourself to
no more than 2 or 3 minutes,
and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared.
You needn't
feel any obligation to be profound, and you shouldn't try to explain
anything about the law, other than to say that you have read it and you know
it's on your side. You just need to be sincere, and uplifting. Your object
is to make your audience want to have what you have, and to be where you are
in your heart.
Keep in mind that you're speaking to an
audience that doesn't yet know ANYTHING about the subject, and whose first
reaction is, "This must be illegal; this must be dangerous; this is too good to
be true." You want to pull that audience right past such things, and
straight to a focus on truth, morality, and our American heritage of liberty
and the rule of law.
Remember:
INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE, ENERGIZE.
Speak about rights. Speak about morality, and the obligation of a grown-up
and responsible person to speak the truth and to enforce the Constitution. Speak
about everyone's duty
to give to God what is God's, always, and to Caesar only
what is really Caesar's. Speak of your obligation to respect yourself, and to
look out for the current and future well-being of your children and your fellow
citizens.
If you have had victories, describe them.
Better still, show them, if possible.
Be clear about
just what you accomplished: EVERYTHING
back-- Social Security, Medicare and all; a "notice of deficiency" closing
notice; an on-paper agreement or acknowledgment that your earnings weren't
subject to the tax and everything withheld or paid-in was an "overpayment";
a transcript showing all $0s; or whatever happened.
When you speak of state victories, name the state. If you had to
overcome balkiness from a tax agency before winning any victory, describe that,
too!
Remember, your
purpose is to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and
ENERGIZE.
If you're dealing with ongoing balkiness, describe that,
too, if you wish-- but be sure to explain why you're not discouraged, and why you are not
standing down, not slinking back into the barn, and not choosing to endorse the lies.
Mention what you do for a living, whether you're a doctor, homemaker, lawyer,
trucker, IT guy or gal, or a retiree or student. Help people understand that the
company of grown-up activist Americans they are being invited to join cuts
across all demographics and all interests-- with the common denominator being
respect for the law and love of the principles on which this great country was
founded.
This is
your chance to get a LOT accomplished.
We've all had
frustrating occasions of trying to explain all this to a friend, neighbor,
family member or co-worker, only to pile up against the wall of a mind not
yet ready to listen and learn. Here is your chance to address a
self-selected audience of folks who have themselves decided that it's time
for them to begin paying attention, and have clicked on your testimonial for
exactly that reason.
So, please
make and send those videos right away! The restoration of institutional
respect for individual rights and the rule of law depends on enough
individuals insisting upon it. Do your part to let those starting to rub the
sleep from their eyes know that there is a community already waiting for their
fellowship with open arms and open hearts and shining spirits.
IN ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS PAGE I SPOKE OF AMERICAN HERO EDWARD
SNOWDEN, who is now rightly celebrated for his efforts at
spreading an important truth. I hope YOU are doing YOUR
part at being an American Hero by spreading
this
link
(latest file update, 8-03-13)
far and wide! Anything and everything must be done to get it into a
state of viral distribution across America.
I'm asking you to help me with this by very purposefully sending
this link to every single person you can, with a little
note from yourself urging your correspondents to read the file,
study it, and verify for themselves each assertion made and each
fact cited. Urge your correspondent to let what is learned
thereby percolate and settle in and begin shining its
transformational light on his or her mental landscape, and in
the meantime, to PASS IT ALONG TO OTHERS in the same way!
I also want you to tell me of ANYTHING in this file that you
feel needs more clarity, support (or more support)! I want
you to tell me of anything that you feel is missing, so that it
is somehow not completely sufficient to instill understanding of
the fact that even after 1913, capitations-- taxes on
undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the activities that
produce them-- remain subject to the apportionment rule, and
that the income tax is not in conflict with that fact, being NOT
a tax on undistinguished, commonplace revenues and/or the
activities that produce them (however misleadingly worded parts
of the tax law may be, and however routinely misapplied at the
expense of the uneducated, apathetic or intimidated the tax may
have been over the last 70 years).
I want you to tell me, so that if anything IS missing, or needs
greater emphasis or clarity, I can make those tweaks. In the
meantime, I am counting on you to be sending everyone this link.
Seriously, my friend. Even if you never do "action items",
please do this one.
Right now. Without fail. Please.
You may not recognize how doing this will make any difference. I
tell you, it will make ALL the difference.
In this file is the anti-body to all the germs of error,
disinformation and misunderstanding that allow the "ignorance
tax" to persist. It needs to be given a chance to take root in
as many minds as possible-- especially those NOT in the
CtC community.
In many of these minds, perhaps, this truth anti-body will
wither for lack of a hospitable environment. But in just as
many, it will flourish and bloom, and those folks will become
the patient and innovative teachers of others.
Pleas help me with this oh-so-important project.
-Pete
P. S. I know a lot of folks out there have
self-defeating notions planted in their minds about how
clearing up confusion about the "income tax" won't
matter, "'Cause they'll just pay for all the badness
with inflation, man!" or whatever.
No, they won't.
If "they" could do that and survive politically, (and
weren't getting a whole lot more out of the
maladministration of the "income tax" than just a couple
of trillion dollars a year, as well), the tax would've
been dropped with a grimace and without a backward
glance like the universally-hated thing that it is, at
least forty years ago. This "they'll just inflate" thing
could only be said by someone not old enough (or alive
at all) during the 1970s when we had a test of just how
Americans would tolerate real inflation...
(Not that we're going to be spared getting a good dose
of inflation soon anyway, you understand, unless we very
quickly shrink the state down so small that it no longer
has the resources to quash the emergence of free and
valid currencies. This will only happen by Americans
reclaiming individual control of their resources, as is
relied upon by the framers in their design for a
meaningfully-Constitutionally-limited republic-- and
that, of course, is what
the file
at this link is all about.)
The misunderstanding of the income tax is the thoroughly
cultivated thing that it is (and anyone reading through
the file at this link will come to understand
just how diligent is that cultivation) BECAUSE THE
MISAPPLIED TAX IS THE INDISPENSABLE LIFEBLOOD OF THE
UNRESTRAINED STATE. The state knows this well.
Indeed, the reason the truth about the tax is hedged
about with a more enormous army of lies (and
constantly-recruited "stakeholding" defenders) than any
other organ of the state is because it is so vital to
Leviathan's excesses, ambitions and survival. It is the
heart of the monster.
The file at this link is the monster's bane.
Your efforts to spread this shaft of illuminating,
inspiring and disinfecting sunlight will do more for
your future well-being and that of your children than
anything else you could do.
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can
do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of
God, I will do."
-Everett Hale
(...and every other person who ever really deserved liberty)
EVERY NOW AND THEN I FIND MYSELF SUSPECTING that some folks
deliberately strive for a paralyzing misunderstanding of the
term "taxable privilege". My thinking is that these folks
recognize that if they can convince themselves that some
ubiquitous, practically-unavoidable thing is the privilege
to which the tax attaches, then they are relieved of the
moral obligation to bravely spit in the eye of the
junk-yard-dog and file returns which don't simply treat all
that comes in as "income" relevant to the tax.
Remarkable illogic will be deployed in service to this
dodge,which amounts to, "Gee, I'm happy to stand
up for the law, but everything I earn is a product of
privilege, 'cause I [am a citizen; get paid in Federal
Reserve Notes; get my checks through the US mail; am under
bankruptcy supervision; am defended by the US military;
benefit from copyright protections; and so on]..."
For instance, I just heard the other day from someone who
(doubtless due to having not refreshed himself with his copy
of CtC for many years while steadily exposing himself to
mushroom food from the fringy "tax honesty" community) has
come to imagine that being a "naturalized citizen" is a
privilege and that "privilege" relevant to the tax means
anything economic done while enjoying any kind of government
privilege-- even one that isn't itself involved in the
gainful activity.
The conclusion reached in the dim light of these notions is
that anyone who is a naturalized citizen is taxable on all
economic activity in which they engage, period-- because
their very status as a economic actor is a privilege,
meaning that all that they do is in a sense "privileged". A
deeply-rooted contingent of the "tax honesty" fringe clings
to the same notions and conclusions regarding the 14th
Amendment and its conveyance of US citizenship to the freed
slave population in the 1860s. Happily, despite strenuous
efforts by the beneficiaries of ignorance to make the
subject confusing to the untutored, the tax doesn't actually
partake of this kind of vagueness at all.
It should be enough to simply point out that if these sorts
of notions were true, there would be "citizenship" line on a
1040 (or, if as some clever deniers argue, the very use of a
1040 is a declaration of infirm citizenship, that therefore
none of the tens of thousands of CtC-educated complete
reclamations of everything paid in connection with the tax,
including Social Security and Medicare taxes, would ever
have happened). Then there's the problem (regarding the 14th
Amendment notion) that the tax had already been in place and
operating years before the 14th Amendment was adopted...
There's also the glaring issue of the fact that the tax
statutes plainly declare the things to which the tax
applies, and citizenship, getting paid in Federal
Reserve Notes, use of the US mail, bankruptcy supervision,
being defended by the US military, copyright protections,
and so on aren't on the list. What part of the
"wages" or "trade or business" definitions invoke any of
these things, for instance?
The specifications in the law explicitly declare activities
qualifying for the tax. And they do so without any reference
to any of these other things.
Further, those specifications provide that the tax arises on
the declared activities without regard to the filing of any
forms. If someone is paid for performing the functions of a
public office, that someone becomes liable for the tax RIGHT
THEN, long before any 1040 is filed. Further still, that tax
liability is plainly declared to be measured explicitly and
exclusively by the gains received from the specified
activities. (And ANYBODY-- foreigner, citizen, resident
alien, non-resident alien, green, three-eyed Martian,
anybody-- can perform the functions of a public office...)
That these things are plainly true belies any notion of
vagueness anywhere else in the law. That is, if there were
any operating doctrine or general prescription in the law
(stated or unstated) which applied the tax on the basis of
any broad "status" or "general benefit" principle such as
the use of FRNs or the mail, citizenship, or that the tax
simply applied to "all that comes in", THESE PARTICULARIZED
SPECIFICATIONS WOULDN'T BE THERE.
Why define the "employees" whose remuneration qualifies as
subject to the tax if everyone working for anyone qualifies?
Why specify that the tax applies to defined "trade or
business" gains if it applies to ALL gains? Why specify
these qualifications if the tax REALLY applies to everything
made by any "naturalized citizen" (or "14th Amendment
citizen", or FRN user or whatever), and not specify that the
tax applies to these other things?
Please don't reply that it REALLY DOES apply to these other
things, but the government won't say so because then
everyone would, you know, stop using FRNs or whatever. It's
a nice, deeply-whacked-out thought, but again, if this were
so, the things that ARE specified as the objects of the tax
wouldn't be, and their existence makes the "hidden rule"
concept untenable. The government can't provide the
specifications and then argue that they don't draw the
distinctions that they do.
It's hard to know where to stop this discussion, but I'm
going to do it here, with this general definition of what
DOES qualify as federally-income-taxable-privilege:
"Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of
one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of
one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This
doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a]
particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable
inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was
intended to be omitted or excluded."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
A CtC Study-Guide
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and
those who receive and live upon taxes." - Thomas Paine
CtC Warrior Ike Hall has been engaged in a very virtuous
project-- creating a study guide for new students of CtC.
This remains a work in progress at this point, but I think what
Ike's done so far is already worth sharing with the rest of the
community.
Click here to download the guide-- now complete through chapter
twelve!
For more clarifying resources click
here; and click
here for more tools for
spreading the truth.
Getting Free Of The "Income" Tax Scheme Is As Easy As Falling Off A
Bike
To get an idea of how today's "income" tax scheme works, try this
little exercise:
Think of the federal government as a guy named Bob, who lives down
the street from you in a town that is really big on bicycles.
Bikes get used for commuting, deliveries, shopping, etc.. In
fact, other than walking, bicycles are the exclusive form of
transportation in your town.
Your neighbor Bob has a by-the-mile bicycle-renting business--
"Bob's Bicycles". Bob's Bicycles is far and away the biggest
business in town.
Part of Bob’s success is because he does a lot of contract business.
However, Bob doesn't just get paid by riders who have signed an
agreement with him, or even just those using Bob's bikes. Bob
gets something every time anybody in town does any riding at all,
through an odd combination of circumstances that took many years to
come together.
Here's how it happened...
Bob's Bicycles was launched long ago by the great grandfather of the
present Bob (Bob IV). Great Grandpa Bob started out not only
with a main location for his contract business-- he also had the
bright idea of setting up spots around town where he parked some of
his bikes for use by the more occasional rider, on an "honor
system". Anyone could take and use one of these bikes, but
they were expected to keep track of their mileage, and send Bob a
"1040 Mileage Ridden/Rent Due Form" (and the appropriate rent),
periodically. The initial design of the form was like this:
I, ______________, rode a
Bob's Bicycle a total of _____ miles this year.
At Bob's rental rate of
$.15 per mile, I owe Bob $______
I said that Great Grandpa Bob planned to deal with these occasional
riders on the "honor system", and that's true. But he liked
his money, too, and didn't want to miss anything that was due him.
So, after setting up the "self-serve" locations, Great Grandpa Bob
went around handing out "W-2, 1099 or K-1 Rider Reporting Forms" to
every other business in town. The forms-- accompanied by
notices that if Bob didn't get his rent from someone riding a
bicycle in connection with any business, he would sue the company
involved-- said:
You Can’t Fight Well When You Don’t Know What You’re Fighting About.
If you are having an argument with the IRS or any other tax agency,
You are NOT being presumed to have made “corporate profit”.
You are NOT being alleged to have received “foreign income”.
You are NOT entangled in an invisible “adhesion contract”.
You are NOT being obligated by a law whose subject is never identified.
You are being targeted because REAL EVIDENCE exists that YOU PERSONALLY HAD “INCOME” to which the revenue laws apply-- even though that evidence is almost certainly incorrect, and CAN be corrected.
Seriously. Do you want to win? SPREAD THIS FILE AROUND!
Doing so will accomplish more than anything that happens in a courtroom, more than any argument you make with any bureaucrat, more than ANYTHING else that you can do.
Are You Not Bothering?
Then You're Just Talking The Talk.
You've GOT To Walk The Walk If You Want To Win.
"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
CtC Warrior SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States "income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family! Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the liberating truth!!
A "Pragmatic" Perspective On The Tax And The Rule Of Law
Hey, don't bother me with that "morality" argument, and all that stuff about "upholding the rule of law". I'm a pragmatist. I'm just interested in looking out for "numero uno", and living my life without any hassles from the IRS!
So I'm okay with submissively letting the government:
take 45% of my earnings;
habituate itself to the conveniences of "creativity" in the writing of laws and the behavior of its officers in courtrooms in order to take that wealth from me with an appearance of legitimacy;
use my money to mess with foreigners on behalf of special interests, engendering hatred and contempt of all Americans-- including me;
use my money to finance an army of bureaucrats who rule my life for the benefit of themselves and their special-interest clients;
use my money to pay for an army of lawyers who will sue me or prosecute me if I try to make my own choices about who works for me and on what terms; about what I say-- and when, and how; about what I do with my own property; about whether I'm equipped to defend myself and those I love; and about how I raise and educate my children;
-- just as long as I'm left alone, dude!
To suffer abuse without complaint or struggle is to suffer it
nonetheless-- but to suffer it without the amelioration of dignity and
self-respect.
If each person receiving this newsletter each week distributed as few as 100 of any of the great outreach tools featured here to co-workers, friends, neighbors and family members (or just strangers on the street, in the mall, etc...), we could have SEVERAL MILLION new Americans suddenly introduced to the liberating truth about the tax!
When directed to a page by topic or link, read everything.
I know that this can mean the investment of a lot of time, attention and effort, but although some may imagine otherwise, I don't write as much as I do because I can't think of any other way to spend my time...
Furthermore, when you encounter a hyperlink within, or associated with, the text you are reading, follow it!
It is pretty common these days for web-based material to be littered with hyperlinks. Sometimes the purpose is to provide definitions or examples, in order to ensure that folks reading the original material aren't presented with a word or reference which they don't understand. Sometimes the links lead to illustrations pertinent to the original text.
It is common-- and perfectly understandable-- for folks who are confident that they are familiar with language or references within the main text they are reading to get in the habit of skipping over included links. I do it all the time, myself!
However, I very rarely include links for definitional or explanatory purposes; and when I DO make a link out of text in one page it is generally to another self-contained page, rather than merely illustrative material. These other pages contain material the clear understanding of which I deem highly important for the proper and complete understanding of the original page. (Links to CtC, the Victories pages, CtC Warriors and so on are obvious exceptions to this general rule. On the other hand, a link to the victory Highlights or 'Every Which Way But Loose' pages, which might seem like such exceptions, are not. The special selection of victories on those pages, and the filed docs and tax-agency correspondences included therewith, themselves constitute highly instructive material which merits careful attention. Thus care needs to be taken in all cases.)
Please make a habit of clicking on all provided links and at least looking briefly to ensure that the linked page is one with which you are completely familiar from another study session.
Finally, please keep in mind that, annoying though it may seem at first blush (but not, I trust, upon reflection), I constantly tweak material already posted. Obviously this doesn't mean that every page is in flux at all times, but it does mean that if you are directed to a page that IS familiar, it's worthwhile to read it through again if it's been a month or two since your last having done so.
