It is rumored that the author of the following
Treatise was an Attorney who was employed by employees of an Internal Revenue
Service Center. It appears that over the years at the upper level
of the IRS; administrators have not been claiming their "Wages"
as taxable income on their tax returns. Being under pressure
from an "internal office directive", any new administrator
coming into the IRS was not to be informed that his/her wages
was not classified as "taxable income" under the
Internal Revenue Code. Fearing reprisals, the employees found
the need to have the issue of "taxable income" to
be briefed and defined.
The following Treatise has been used successfully
in destroying IRS criminal investigations. Here is how it was done --
The moment you receive a letter from the IRS,
that is the beginning of an IRS investigation. That letter is giving
you notice of "Due Process of Law" to be heard
and the IRS has now begun an "Administrative Record"
under "Administrative Law."
You must respond to that letter for it is your
only opportunity to create an "Administrative Record"
for yourself. This is very important, for under Administrative Law,
a Judge can only reveiw the "Administrative Record"
of the executive agency. THE JUDGE
CANNOT HEAR ANYTHING NEW. By the time
you have reached the Court, it is to late to create a defense.
You may need to make alterations to the Treatise
to meet your needs. At the end of the Treatise, you should make a request
of the IRS to correct any misunderstandings that you may have. This
will show a "good faith" effort on your part.
(the IRS has never given an answer which shows "bad faith"
on their part.)
The next step is to make an "Affidavit
of Mailing" that describes the contents of the mailing (the "Treatise")
and the name and address of the friend that is "Certify Mailing"
the "Affidavit" and "Treatise"
to the Internal Revenue Service. If you don't know how to make
an "Affidavit of Mailing," your local Clerk of Court
should be able to help you.
Why is it important to have a friend mail your
response to the IRS via "Affidavit of Mailing?"
The main purpose is so that you may have a witness that can introduce your
"Administrative Record" (the "Treatise")
into the "Record of the Court" (if you find
yourself in the Court as a Defendant). Your friend can testify
that he did the mailing under oath and that he can describe the contents
of the mailing. There is nothing the Judge can do to stop your "Administrative Record"
from going before a jury.
Your "Administrative Record"
destroys the issue of "Willful" and no conviction
can be had. Furthermore, anything that goes into the "Record of
the Court" is "public record" that can be
published by the press. Do you see why the IRS will always drop a
A word of warning: What is described above
is for the criminal side of the IRS Code, it has nothing to do
with the civil aspects of that Code. The only defense for a civil issue
appears to be a "Common Law Abatement" which
is beyond the scope of this Treatise.
There are both Civil and Criminal sanctions for violations of the Internal Revenue
Code, which is found in Title 26, U.S. Code.
We will address the criminal side, but the elements of criminal tax evasion
and civil tax fraud are identical, (See Gray v. Cir.,
[C.A. 61983], 708 F2d 2243, cert. denied
104 S.Ct. 1709) and we must remember, that government
invocation of the civil penalty does not bar a criminal proceeding
for the imposition of fines or imprisonment (Spies v. U.S., ,
63 S .Ct. 364, 317 U.S. 492). Among the more
common criminal offenses for which an individual might be charged are:
- Aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring commission
of an offense against the United States (18 USC 2).
This includes one who contributes consciously to the commission of an offense
against the provisions of the Code. (See 47B CJS 1255,
- Any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat a tax is guilty
of a felony
(26 USC 7201) (See 47B CJS 1256,
- Any person who willfully fails to keep records required for Federal
income tax purposes may be providing the Government with an indictable offense.
(26 USC 7203 & 5603).
- Any person required to file an income tax return who willfully
fails to do so is guilty of a misdemeanor. (26 USC 7203;
Spies v. U.S., [N.Y. 1943] 63 S.Ct. 364)
(See 47B CJS 1258, note 86).
- Any person who willfully fails to pay a tax required by law is guilty
of a misdemeanor.
(26 USC 7203) (Sansone v. U.S.,
[Mo. 1965] 85 S.Ct. 1004, 380 U.S. 343).
- Any person who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information to
his employer with respect to the withholding tax requirements is guilty
of a punishable offense. (26 USC 7205 as amended.)
Economic Recovery Act of 1981 increased
the penalty to $1,000. The excuse that Fed. Reserve Notes are
not dollars was a valid defense (U.S. v. Tissi,
[C.A. Mo. 1979] 601 F2d 372).
- Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement,
or other document which declares that it is made under the penalties of
perjury and which such person does not believe to be true and correct as
to every material matter is guilty of a felony. (26 USC 7206(1))
(See 47B CJS 1261, note 44).
- Any person who willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels,
or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with
any matter arising under the Internal Revenue laws, or a return, affidavit,
claim or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any information
whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent
of the person authorized or required to represent such return, affidavit,
claim or document is guilty of a felony. (26 USC 7206(2))
(See 47B CJS 1262).
- A person who attempts to interfere forcibly with the administration
of the Internal Revenue laws by a federal office or employer
acting in an official capacity is guilty of a punishable offense. (26 USC 7212(a))
(See 47B CJS 1265).
- Revenue officers or employees who commit specific acts or omissions
constitute criminal offenses. (See 47B CJS 1271).
- Taxation of Firearms, Bombs, Stills, etc., are incorporated in
the tax code. (Firearms; 26 USC 5811,
5812, 5841, 5849, 5852, 5861, 5871) (Bombs; 26 USC 5845, 5861)
(Stills & Alcohol; 26 USC 5601, et. seq.)
The most common criminal charges we as individuals might face from those
attempting to tax our wages are "Tax Evasion"
and "Willful Failure To file."
DEFENSE OUTLINE SUMMARY
Income is not specifically defined in the IRS Manuals nor is it
defined in the IRS Code. Congress did not define it. Income has always
been defined by the Courts as to exclude wages. Therefore persons
whose income (NOT WAGES) in 1992 filing singly with
less than $5,900 need not file a return or pay a tax.
If an individual has earned dividends, interest from bank accounts,
or other moneys which are less than the minimum established, ($5,900 for
one filing separately and under 65 in 1992), he/she need
not file, nor pay any tax. He/She is exempt, as wages need not be counted.
Make sure the prosecutor and your lawyer are both aware of the implications
should the case not be nolprossed, as this information will become public,
and the Assistant U.S. Attorney probably won't be in line for
any kind of promotion for endangering the proverbial "goose"
when you are found not guilty, and the information goes public to a media
already promoting the tax reform.
If you are actually tried Criminally, stress to the Judge your
reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court in not filing or paying taxes
on WAGES, and cite either the Sullivan,
Bishop or Cheek case,
which states that willfulness is negated if you rely on a previous decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you are tried Civilly, have your lawyer move for "Summary Judgment"
using the citations that follow or others of which he may be aware.
TAX LAW ORIGINS AND AUTHORITY
Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the
time of the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236,
240 US 1). This power was subject to the requirement that
direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according
to population (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co.,
[N.Y. 1895] 125 S.Ct. 673, 157 US 429).
The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution
(effective Feb. 25, 1913) giving Congress power to:
"Lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any
census or enumeration"
Evens v. Gore, [Ky 1920] 40 S.Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245,
Kasey v. C.I.R., [C.A. 91972] 457 F2d 369,
Cert. denied 93 S.Ct. 197, 409 U.S. 869
It did not limit or expand the power of Congress to tax under the constitutional
provisions authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes but instead merely
provided for taxation of income without apportionment (Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236,
240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. 493; Simmons v. U.S.,
[CA Md 1962] 308 F2d 160).
The Brushaber court ruled that the 16th Amendment
separated the source (capital) from the income (profit)
permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income, but
leaving the source (wages, salary, compensation, fees for service,
first time commissions and capital) untouched and free of tax.
If these things were to be taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax,
unquestionably in violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax
in income void.
There still remains the question as to what is constitutionally allowable
as "income" which can be taxed, as Congress is not
constitutionally free to define "income" in any way
it chooses (Simpson v. U.S., [D.C. Iowa 1976]
423 F.Supp. 720, reversed on other grounds, Prescott v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, [C.A.] 561 F2d 1287).
Further, the labels used do not determine the extent of the taxing power
(Simmons v. U.S., [C.A. Md. 1962]
308 F2d 160; Richardson v. U.S.,
[C.A. Mich. 1961] 294 F2d 593, cert. denied
82 S.Ct. 640, 360 U.S. 802, 7 L.Ed.2d. 549).
To reiterate; the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution
has not changed except as to separate the source of "income"
from the income itself permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax
on income by leaving the source (wages, salaries, fees for service,
and first time commissions) free of tax (Brushaber, supra.)
despite how some politicians interpret the 16th Amendment.
The Brushaber court referred to an earlier case,
Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co.,
158 U.S. 601  which declared the Income Tax Act
of 1894 unconstitutional, as it's effect would have been to leave
the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades, employments, or
vocations; and in that way, what was intended as a tax on capital would
remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. This result, the court
held, could NOT have been contemplated
Since the general term: "income" is not defined
in the Internal Revenue Code, (U.S. v. Ballard, 
535 F2d 400) and the U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled the Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the
matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which
alone it derives it's power to legislate, and within whose limitations
alone, that power can be lawfully exercised (Eisner v. Macomber, 
252 U.S. 1889).
Since the Rules contained in the I.R.S. Manual, even if
codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, do not have
the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Horne,
[C.A. Me. 1983] 714 F2d 206) and the power to
promulgate regulations does not include the power to broaden or narrow
the meaning of statutory provisions beyond what Congress intended (Abbot,
Procter & Paine v. U.S.,  344 F2d 333,
170 Cl.Ct. 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself
is without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution (C.I.R. v. Van Vorst,
[C.C.A. 1932] 59 F2d 677).
Since the ultimate Appellate Court is the U.S. Supreme Court,
we must look to that Court for a definite answer on the question of conformance
and affirmation that Wages are not classified as income which can be taxed.
The Court has recognized that:
"... It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what
is not `income' ..."
Eisner v. Macomber,  252 U.S. 189
and determined that:
"... `income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning
so as not to include everything that comes in, the true function of the
words `gains' and `profits' is to limit the meaning
of the word `income'"
(So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847);
(U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917);
(247 U.S. 30 )
The Court determined that:
"... the definition of income approved by the Court is:
`The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,
provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion
of capital assets.'"
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment
and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and
in such connection gain means profit ... proceeding from property
severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received
or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal"
Stapler v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737,
(U.S. Dist. Ct. EDPA, 1937)
In the case of Lucas v. Earl, 
281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated
"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services
are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual
who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support
either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing
it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act
and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe
or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as
an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services.
It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages
or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income.
That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED
from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service."
The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v. Edwards, 
255 U.S. 527 and in 1969, the Court ruled in Conner v. U.S.,
303 F.Supp. 1187, that:
"Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment
became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra,
it was true under sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a)
of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain,
there is not income .... Congress has taxed INCOME and not
"... one does not derive income by rendering services and
charging for them."
Edwards v. Keith,  231 F. 111
Even at the state level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court:
"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation
for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the
meaning of the law."
Oliver v. Halstead, 
196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858
"Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered in not
Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews,
345 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d. 277, 280 
Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect to
what is or is not income, we find the word "income"
does not mean all monies that come into the possession of an individual,
but profit or gain FROM the money one takes in, such as interest,
stock dividends, profit from an employee's labors, but not from
an individual's wages, which are compensation for his labor. This
means that the average person in America, who has no large investments
or riches upon which he receives interest, dividends, etc., in excess
of the amounts listed above (1992) but merely works for wages,
has income insufficient in amount to be required to file a tax return.
HANDLING A JURY TRIAL
While you might be better off with a bench trial, which may never be
tried due to the nature of the suit, there may be a time when you are tried
by jury. Both "Tax Evasion" and "Failure to File"
require "willfulness." Again we look to the U.S. Supreme
Court and find that:
"The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met,
therefore if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision
of the court."
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 93 S.Ct. 2008,
U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259
Since any reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent person filing a return,
invoking this argument MUST rely on
U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of "income,"
that person, when brought into court, may rely on the decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court to negate the element of "willfulness".
Make sure those jury instructions are made to the jury, and bring them
up in testimony if you like. As if this was not enough, any question in
a juror's mind can be swayed in your favor with this citation:
"Statutes levying taxes should be construed in case of doubt, against
the government and in favor of the citizen."
Miller v. Gearing, 258 F. 225
HANDLING YOUR OWN DEFENSE
Make sure to read 47B C.J.S. 1283 among other sources
regarding parameters of jury instructions.
Determine what returns you are being charged with evading or not filing,
"income tax liability for any one year constitutes a single cause
Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281
Determine whether they are beyond a statute of limitations to sue since
Congress has consented to a defense to which in effect is a statute of
limitations (Lucia v. U.S., [C.A. Tex. 1973]
474 F2d 565) and under the Code (26 USCA 6502)
a suit is barred when not brought within the statutory limitation period,
and move to dismiss any counts which are past the statute of limitations.
Refuse to produce anything the government does not already have on you
from payroll. You may refuse any I.R.S. Summons not judicially
enforced, as long as the attack is in "good faith"
and the Statute usually referred to is 26 USC 7210
which prescribes criminal punishment for anyone refusing to obey an Internal Revenue
Summons for production records, was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court
in Reisman v. Caplink, 375 U.S. 440.
The Court stated:
"Non compliance is not subject to prosecution thereunder, when
the summons is attacked in good faith. ... And by the same token,
it seems that one who makes a good faith challenge to specific questions
on a 1040 tax return is not subject to successful prosecution."
The Courts have also stated that:
"Broad discretions given tax officers with regard to investigations,
is for legitimate tax investigations and is not a license for official
harassment of the citizenry"
U.S. v. Cutter, 374 F.Supp. 1065
If our rights are not given to us during a verbal conversation as enumerated
in the Mathis decision, (No. 726,
May 6, 1938, 3910 Winterhaven. n. 1) then
you move to suppress the evidence gathered through that conversation.
- Prepare a Motion to Dismiss, using this document as reference.
- Prepare requests for Jury Instructions or Requests for Findings of
Fact and Rulings of Law.
- Make sure the submitted "Jury Instructions" contain
what you want to argue in front of the Jury (See U.S. v. Watkind,
Fed Case No. 16.649 [3 Cranch, CC 441 U.S. 1829)
DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC CHARGES
AND CURRENT LAW
Under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USCA 7201),
any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat a tax is guilty
of a felony (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 43).
The essential elements of the offense are:
- Willfulness, (U.S. v. Garbor, [C.A. Fl. 1979]
607 F2d 92) means "a voluntary intentional
violation of a known legal duty" (See 47B C.J.S. 1256
note 45) "which may be shown through consistent
patterns of not reporting large amounts of income" (See 47B C.J.S. 1256
note 46). A bonafide mistake, negligence, carelessness, or misunderstanding
is not sufficient. So while intent is a necessary element of the statutory
offense (See 47B C.J.S. 1256 note 48),
there is no requirement of a showing of evil motive beyond a
specific intent to violate the law (See 47B C.J.S. 1256
- The existence of a tax deficiency.
- An affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of
a tax. [An intent to evade taxes is the equivalent of an intent
to defraud the government (U.S. v. Miller,
[C.A. Cal. 1976] 545 F2d 1204, cert. denied
97 S.Ct. 1549, 430 U.S. 930)].
Generally, conduct which is likely to mislead or conceal is sufficient
to raise an inference of an affirmative willful attempt, such as is required
to constitute the offense of attempt to evade or defeat the tax (See 47B C.J.S. 1256
note 67), and if the tax evasion motive plays any part
in the conduct of the taxpayer, the offense may be made our even though
such conduct may also serve other purposes, such as the concealment of
other crime (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 68).
Any affirmative act which the taxpayer might do where the effect and
reasonable purpose would be to evade or defeat the tax will constitute
the offense (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 69).
The filing of a false return is an independent crime and also one aspect
of the more comprehensive offense considered here (47B C.J.S. 1256,
note 70) and the crime is complete when a fraudulent is knowingly
and willfully filed with intent to evade and defeat part or all of the tax
(47B C.J.S. 1256, note 71). Where the
necessary intention is present, the offense may be committed not only by
the filing of a false original return (47B C.J.S. 1256,
note 72), but also by the filing of false amended returns,
proofs, or affidavit, even though such instruments are not required
to be filed (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 73).
The crime may be committed by taking fraudulent deduction (47B C.J.S. 1256,
note 75). When do wagering excise tax return has been
filed, an individual cannot be criminally prosecuted for willfully attempting
to evade or defeat the tax, notwithstanding fact that wagering taxes
may be due and owing (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 75.5).
The word: "willfully" when used in the Revenue Code
which renders certain acts criminal, has the same meaning in the felony
provisions as it does in the misdemeanor provisions (47B C.J.S. 1254
note 23). This word as used in the Code's criminal provisions
connotates a voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty
([47B C.J.S. 1254 note 24] note 25)
and is not equated with mere carelessness or recklessness (U.S. v. Swanson,
[C.A. Iowa 1975] 509 F2d 1205). Even gross negligence
is not sufficient to establish willfulness (47B C.J.S. 1254
note 27). The willful requirement is not met if the defendant
has relied on good faith on a prior decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
(47B C.J.S. 1254 note 28).
I.R.S. statutory offenses, where the law contains the words: "with intent
to evade", the intent is material to the offense (U.S. v. Buzzo,
[Mich 1873] 18 Wall. 125, 21 L.Ed. 418).
- The offense is not committed unless the taxpayer has actual knowledge
of the existence of the obligation and a wrongful intent to evade it
(47B C.J.S. 1256, note 50).
- The requirement of "willfulness" is not met if
a taxpayer has relied in "good faith" on a prior
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (47B C.J.S. 1256,
- A persons mistaken belief that his method of recording "income"
is proper is a defense (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 52).
- Reliance on the advice of counsel in a tax evasion case is not
a complete defense, but only a circumstance indicating "good faith"
which may be considered on the issue of "willfulness"
(47B C.J.S. 1256, note 55). Essential
to the claim of reliance on counsel is a showing that the reliance be in
good faith, and that the advice be obtained after full disclosure
of all the facts to which the advice pertains (47B C.J.S. 1256,
note 56). There must also be a showing that the taxpayer actually
relied on the advice, believing it to be correct (47B C.J.S. 1256,
- A tax return is not criminally fraudulent simply because it is erroneous;
"willfulness" is an essential element of a crime of "Income Tax Evasion"
(U.S. v. Garner, [C.A. Fl. 1979]
607 F2d 92).
- It is not an offense for the taxpayer to handle his affairs as to avoid
or reduce his tax liability, provided that his acts are legal (Continental Oil Co. v. Jones,
[D.C. Kohl 1939] 26 F.Supp. 694, aff. 113 F2d 557,
cert. denied 61 S.Ct. 64, 34 U.S. 687).
- "Good faith" listing of three billion dependents
on his IRS W-4 Form was ruled proper (U.S. v. Snider, 
502 F2d 645).
- It is no excuse that defendant had kept no books disclosing his income
(U.S. v. Zimmerman, [C.Ca III 1940]
108 F2d 370) or that the income in question was derived
from unlawful sources (47B C.J.S. 1256, note 54).
- Merely aggravating and daring the government to enforce the Code does
not create immunity from or constitute a defense to prosecution (U.S. v. Stout,
[C.A. III 1979] 601 F2d 325, cert. denied
100 S.Ct. 481, 444 U.S. 979).
- Excuse that "Federal Reserve Notes" are
not "Dollars" was not a valid defense (U.S. v. Tissi,
[C.A. Mo. 1979] 601 F2d 372).
TAX EVASION VERSUS WILLFUL FAILURE
The felony of attempting to evade or defeat a tax may include one or
several of other offenses against the Code (47B C.J.S. 1256,
note 63), the misdemeanor of failure to pay the tax.
The difference is that an attempt to evade or defeat a tax
involves some commission of some affirmative act in ADDITION
to willful omission (Sansone v. U.S.,
[Mo. 1965] 85 S.Ct. 1004, 380 U.S. 343)
(Spies v. U.S., , 63 S.Ct. 364,
317 U.S. 492).
WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE
Any person required to file an income tax return who willfully
fails to do so is guilty of a misdemeanor (26 USC 7203;
Spies v. U.S., , 63 S.Ct. 364,
317 U.S. 492). (See 47B C.J.S. 1258,
THE ELEMENTS THE GOVERNMENT MUST
- Defendant failed to file a return (47B C.J.S. 1258,
- He must be a person required to make a return (47B C.J.S. 1258,
- He must have done so "willfully" (47B C.J.S. 1258,
The word "willfully" in the Statute means "a voluntary,
intentional violation of the known legal duty to file a return"
(47B C.J.S. 1258, note 5), and the
taxpayer's motives in failing to file such are immaterial and irrelevant
(47B C.J.S. 1258, note 96). Some cases
have construed the Statute as not requiring an intent to defraud the government
or other similar bad purpose or evil motive (47B C.J.S. 1258,
"Willfulness" means "a voluntary intentional
violation of a known legal duty" (47B C.J.S. 1256,
note 45) which may be shown through consistent patterns of
not reporting large amounts of income.
An act may be done knowingly and intentionally whether as the immediate
act of the person charged, or his authorized act through an employee (Prather v. U.S., 
9 App. D.C. 82).
- He must have actual knowledge of the existence of the obligation, and
a wrongful intent to evade it (47B C.J.S. 1258,
- Defendant's good faith belief that he need not file his tax return
(47B C.J.S. 1258, note 99), or a good faith
misunderstanding or an inadvertence on his part (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 91) has been said to constitute justification for failure
to file a return.
- It has been held that a taxpayer, who in good faith, declines
to acknowledge his income on an income tax return, asserting instead
his Fifth Amendment privilege, has been held not guilty
of willfully failing to file a tax return, since he sincerely believes
that such 5th Amendment filing is not legal (47B C.J.S. 1258,
- Tax Forms which do not contain financial information upon which
the taxpayer's liability can be determined (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 93), such as Forms containing only one's name, address,
social security numbers, and occupation (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 94), do not constitute "returns" within
the meaning of the Statute.
- A taxpayer is not excused from the offense because he had not previously
been prompted or notified of his duty to file a return (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 2), because he disagreed with the law (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 3), or because he believed in "good faith"
that the Statute (47B C.J.S. 1258, note 4)
or the Federal Reserve System (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 5) was unconstitutional.
- Defendant's fear of self incrimination for previous violations of the Code
is no defense to a charge of "Failure to File a Return"
(47B C.J.S. 1258, note 6).
- Subsequent conduct of the defendant cannot relieve him from criminal
liability for failure to file a return (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 8). It is no defense that the defendant intended to file
a return and to pay his taxes in the future (47B C.J.S. 1258,
note 9), and even the fact that the taxpayer voluntarily filed
delinquent returns does not preclude prosecution (47B C.J.S. 1258,
- Compromise of Civil liability. The prosecution is not barred by
compromise of the Civil liability (47B C.J.S. 1258,
As you can see, by negating wages as income, only profit or gain need
to be considered, making most persons ineligible for filing. There is no
willful act, no omission, no intent, and no income ...
hence no case for the prosecution, and even if confronted by an angry jury,
by relying on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, YOU MUST
BE ACQUITTED AS A MATTER OF LAW. If you are not acquitted, your
lawyer will move for a "Judgment Not Withstanding The Verdict",
and/or an Appeal, from which you will be eventually found "not guilty."
C.J.S.: Corpus Juris Secundum. A popular legal
encyclopedia that summarizes caselaw within a specific legal area
The original goal of the C.J.S. publishers was to include every reported
case in American law. In recent years they have stopped including all cases.
1. Beginning research with C.J.S.
C.J.S. is arranged into broad topics, which it calls "Titles," such
as "Torts." Each Title is further divided into numbered sections. Each
"topic volume" of C.J.S. contains a list of the Titles treated in the
encyclopedia. You can use this list to determine which Titles may be relevant.
Next, at the beginning of each Title there are two outlines of the subjects
discussed under that general heading, arranged by section number. One
outline is general, and will help you pinpoint a portion of the Title for
further exploration; the second outline is more detailed, and will refer you to
a specific section number.
C.J.S. also has separate index volumes that you can use to search for
relevant topics using key words. The index will refer you to a Title and section
number that correspond to your key word. In general, however, if you know the
broad area of the law that applies to your research problem, you will often be
able to use the Title outlines to go directly to the sections you need. If you
feel you haven't found material on point using one approach, try the other.
Finally, because C.J.S. is a West publication, other West publications,
including digests, will often have references directly to a C.J.S. Title and
2. Using, Updating and Citing C.J.S.
You can use C.J.S. to familiarize yourself quickly with an area of the law.
Because it contains extensive footnotes, you can often use C.J.S. to find cases
from your jurisdiction that have addressed your topic. C.J.S. sections will also
refer you to a West key number that you can use to find additional cases that
may not appear in the footnotes. However, it is most helpful at the beginning of
C.J.S. should not be cited as authority when writing to a court; support
statements about the law of your jurisdiction with citations to cases or
C.J.S. relies on pocket parts to supplement bound volumes. There are pocket
parts for the topic volumes as well as for the separate index volumes. Always
check the pocket part of the volume you're working with. The supplement may
contain new text in addition to more footnotes. In older volumes, the key
numbers may only appear in the pocket parts. From time to time an entire volume
will be reprinted, and that volume, in turn, will have its own pocket part for
more recent cases.
C.J.S. has another helpful feature for updating your research: the beginning
of each pocket part tells you which case reporters are the last included
in that C.J.S. volume. Armed with that information and a key number, you can
quickly find cases reported after the pocket part was published. For example, if
the pocket part tells you that C.J.S. volume includes cases through 597 So. 2d,
you can find even more recent cases by going directly to more recent volumes of
that reporter (598 So. 2d, etc.) and checking the key number digests that appear
at the back of each volume.
According to Bluebook Rule 15.7, a small number of reference books,
including C.J.S., have special citation forms. You don't have to memorize the
form if you just remember that it's in the Bluebook. Use the index (look
for the full name, Corpus Juris Secundum). Remember that the Bluebook
index lists examples of citations, also, so that even if you're working
with a source that's not listed in Rule 15.7 you might find an example of the
correct cite by using the index.
Our sincere thanks go to "SWAMPY"
from the USA The Republic Website
for permission to post and reuse the above materials.