SOURCE: Great IRS Hoax, section 5.6.1
The word “liable”
or “liability” is the only
term that establishes a legal “duty” to pay a tax. The first and
only federal tax law that has
ever imposed such
a legal “duty” was section 29 of the Revenue Act of 1894, which said
in pertinent part:
“Sec. 29. That
it shall be the duty of
all persons of lawful age having an income of more than
three thousand five hundred dollars for the taxable year, computed
on the basis herein prescribed, to make and render a list or return,
on or before the day provided by law, in such form and manner as
may be directed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the
approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to the collector or a
deputy collector of the district in which they reside, of the amount
of their income, gains, and profits, as aforesaid;…”
Notice the phrase
“it shall be the duty of all persons of lawful age”. You can read
this law direct from the Statutes at Large on our website at:
The above law was
declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,
157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) because it attempted to institute
a direct tax within states of the Union in stark violation of Article
1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
That case caught the Congress red-handed trying to violate the Constitution
and slapped them on the wrist for putting their hands in the cookie
jar. Since that time, the Congress has
never since even
attempted to institute any federal tax law that included a “legal duty”
or “liability” for natural persons (people) to pay a direct tax in states
of the Union. The closest they have ever come was to create a
law that “looks” like it creates a liability, but in fact does not because
it cannot without violating the Constitution.
If you search the
current edition of the Internal Revenue Code you will find that there
is currently no section within the entire Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles
A and C, which makes natural persons “liable” or establishes a legal
“duty” for the payment of the taxes imposed under section 1! That
section “imposes” a tax but never makes anyone
Because Subtitle A income taxes on all persons, natural or corporate,
and always have been since long before the Pollock case.
The IRS form 1040 confirms this. Look at the line that says what
you owe the government. Note that it says “Amount you Owe” and
not “amount you are liable for”.
Liability is a crucial
component of nearly everything that relates to income tax enforcement.
Before any enforcement action may be undertaken, a “liability” must
first be demonstrated
by the moving party, which means that the government must first produce
a valid assessment, and we already said earlier in section 5.4.4 that
IRS does not have the authority to do an assessment for Subtitle A income
taxes because only you as the sovereign and the “volunteer” can do that
on yourself. Here are a few legal aspects of enforcement that
have “liability” as a prerequisite:
U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) entitled “Definitions” prescribes that a
“taxpayer” is anyone who is “subject to” any internal revenue tax.
“Subject to” means “liable for”. Since no one who does not
work as a "public officer" of the United States government can be
made “liable” for taxes under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue
Code, then no private individual living in a state of the Union
who is not a "public officer" of the United States government can
be a “taxpayer” unless they consensually volunteer to be. Being
deceived into volunteering by using the law or abuse of legal process
as a propaganda vehicle does not qualify as lawful informed consent,
but instead amounts to duress.
U.S.C. §6001 entitled “Records” only requires persons who are
“liable” to keep records in order to properly comply with the provisions
of the internal revenue code.
U.S.C. §7601 entitled “Canvass of districts for taxable persons
and objects” authorizes agents to canvass the “district” for persons
“liable” for the tax. Without a liability demonstrated beforehand,
they can’t go looking for either you or your assets.
U.S.C. §7602 entitled “Examination of books and witnesses” authorizes
summons only for the purpose of “determining the liability of any
person for any internal revenue tax”. Without a demonstrated
liability before the summons, they can’t hold the summons!
U.S.C. §6331(a) entitled “Levy and distraint” authorizes levies
only upon persons who are “liable”. Without a demonstrated
liability, no levies may be made.
U.S.C. §6700 entitled “Abusive tax shelters” makes it a crime
to offer abusive tax shelters if these shelters are offered to “taxpayers”
with an existing tax liability that they want to reduce by purchasing
an investment that will give them a write-off. The government
can’t prove you are offering “abusive tax shelters” if they can’t
prove that the person you were offering them to was “liable” for
the tax, and therefore a “taxpayer”. Remember, a tax shelter
is defined as follows:
shelter n(1952): a strategy, investment, or tax
code provision that reduces one's tax liability.
[Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1209, ISBN 0-87779-510-X (deluxe)]
Anything that is
“voluntary” simply can’t be enforced, collected, or assessed.
Not only this, but penalties for fraud or inaccurate returns cannot
be instituted without an existing “liability”, as revealed in
§6662(a) and 26
Subchapter A >
PART II > Sec. 6662.
- Imposition of accuracy-related penalty
(a) Imposition of penalty
If this section applies to any portion of an underpayment
of tax required to be shown on a return,
there shall be added to
the tax an amount equal to 20 percent of the portion
of the underpayment to which this section applies.
If you aren't legally
"liable" for a tax to begin with and only file zero return or a one
cent return, then you can’t be penalized for doing so! That is
why a natural person
cannot be assessed by the IRS, cannot be penalized for
nonpayment, and cannot legally have his property forcibly removed from
him for nonpayment. Furthermore, subtitles A and C are the
only “taxes” (really
they are technically “donations”, but the government calls them “taxes”)
in the I.R.C. which don’t make the subjects “liable”. All other
types of taxes in the Internal Revenue Code specifically do the following
in the Internal Revenue Code:
1.Make the individual specifically “liable” for the payment of taxes
and state “shall be paid”. Examples:
2.Require the individual to
keep records about
his liability. Examples of other types of taxes that do require
3.Subject him or her to
penalties for nonpayment. Examples:
3.1.26 U.S.C. Subtitle F, Sections
3.2.There are no implementing regulations or entries in any of the parallel
tables of authorities (see
that map any of the penalties above to specific sections in 26 U.S.C.
Subtitles A and C, nor are there any cross-references from Subtitles
A and C that point to penalties in Subtitle F.
Without a legal liability, the IRS cannot institute
collection, but they do so illegally anyway, and it’s up to you to learn
how they do it so you can fight it!
26 U.S.C. §1
is the section that the IRS says imposes the income tax. Here
is an excerpt from that section:
United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL
Subtitle A - Income
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL
TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination
of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
(a) Married individuals
filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby
imposed on the
taxable income of –
The question is:
Does the word “imposed” mean “liable”?
Incidentally, did you notice we used “mean” instead
of “include” above…because the government just loves to abuse this word
to illegally expand their jurisdiction! Here is the definition
of the word “impose” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
To levy or exact as by authority; to lay as a burden, tax, duty,
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 755]
The wrongful act of an officer or other person in compelling payment
of a fee or reward for his services, under color of his official
authority, where no payment is due.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 557]
The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of
actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of
official right. 18 U.S.C.A. § 871 et seq.; § 1951.
A person is guilty of theft by extortion if he purposely obtains
property of another by threatening to: (1) inflict bodily injury
on anyone or commit any other criminal offense; or (2) accuse anyone
of a criminal offense; or (3) expose any secret tending to subject
any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit
or business repute; or (4) take or withhold action as an official,
or cause an official to take or withhold action; or (5) bring about
or continue a strike, boycott or other collective unofficial action,
if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the
group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or (6) testify
or provide information or withhold testimony or information with
respect to another's legal claim or defense; or (7) inflict any
other harm which would not benefit the actor. Model Penal Code,
See also Blackmail; Hobbs Act; Loan Sharking; Shakedown. With
respect to Larceny by extortion, see Larceny. Compare Coercion
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 585]
Amazing how brazen these lawyer criminals in the
District of Criminals are, huh? Nothing in there about liability!
And the definition of the word “levy” out of that same legal dictionary
on page 907 says:
v.: To assess; raise; execute; exact; tax; collect; gather; take
up; seize. Thus, to levy (assess, exact, raise, or collect)
a tax; to levy (raise or set up) a nuisance; to levy (acknowledge)
a fine; to levy (inaugurate) war; to levy an execution, i.e., to
levy or collect a sum of money on an execution.
Here is what the federal courts say about
the requirements to create a statutory liability before an obligation
to pay can be established:
taxation must clearly appear[from statute imposing tax]."
[Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160
might have the power to place such a personal liability upon trust
beneficiaries who did not renounce the trust, yet it would require
clear expression of such intent, and it cannot be spelled
out from language (as that here) which can be given an entirely
natural and useful meaning and application excluding such intent."
[Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160
"A tax is a legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin
(37 Cyc. 724, 725), and, naturally, liability to taxation must be
read in statute,
or it does not exist."
[Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927)]
"…the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is
a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even
repeatedly, does not cause liability."
[Terry v. Bothke, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)]
Can you collect a tax that no one is
You certainly can, if you can find enough ignorant Americans and fool
or coerce them into believing that they are “taxpayers”! Do you
see the words “liable” or “liability” used
anywhere in the above
two definitions or anywhere in
26 U.S.C. §1?
We don’t…and if you aren’t
you don’t have to pay!
When you search electronically
through the entire 9,500 pages of the Internal Revenue Code like we
did, you will indeed find the word “liability” used for every kind of
tax OTHER than personal income taxes, but not for any of the taxes on
individuals found in Subtitles A or C! When a person
is made liable, the code explicitly says “shall be liable”, “shall be
paid” and “shall keep records”, etc, but
nowhere is this
stated for personal income taxes in Subtitles A or C. Here are
just a few examples where persons are explicitly made “liable” for payment
of a tax that was also “imposed” elsewhere in the code:
26 U.S.C. §4374: Liability for tax: “…shall
26 U.S.C. §4401(c ) Persons liable for tax: “…wagers
shall be liable for and
26 U.S.C. §4403 Record requirements: “Each person
liable for tax
under this subchapter shall keep a daily record…”
26 U.S.C. §5005 Persons
liable for tax:
“(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits
shall be liable for the taxes imposed…”
“(c ) Proprietors of distilled spirits plants:
“(1) Bonded storage. Every person operating bonded premises
of a distilled spirits plant
shall be liable
for internal revenue tax…”
“(e)(1)” Withdrawals without payment of tax:
“…shall be liable”
“”(e)(2) Relief from liability: “All persons
liable for the tax…”
26 U.S.C. §5043. Collection of taxes on wines
“(a) Persons liable for payment
The taxes on wine provided for in this subpart
shall be paid--…”
26 U.S.C. §5054. Determination and collection of tax on
“(a) Time of determination
(1) Beer produced in the United States; certain imported
beer….shall be paid
by the brewer thereof in accordance with section 5061.”
26 U.S.C. §5703.
Liability for tax
and method of payment.
(1) Original liability….shall
be liable for …
(2) Transfer of liability…shall
The personal income taxes mentioned in the following subtitles NOWHERE
use the word “liable” or “liability”, so you can’t be
required to pay,
which is why they also don’t say “liable” or “shall pay” anywhere
in the code for these taxes on natural persons anywhere in:
Subtitle A: Income Taxes
Subtitle C: Employment Taxes
A favorite trick of the IRS when the above fact
is pointed out is to cite
26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 and show that the implementing regulation for the
statute uses the phrase “are liable to”:
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax.
In general, all
citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident
alien individuals are liable to
the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received
from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant
to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide
resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except
as provided in section 933 with respect to Puerto Rican source income,
subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual.
As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and
Did you get that?
26 U.S.C. §1
didn’t use the
word “liable” but the implementing regulation did, which is clearly
illegal and violates the concept described in the Spreckles v. C.I.R.
case below, which says:
"To the extent that
regulations implement the
statute, they have the force and effect of law...The
regulation implements the statute and cannot vitiate or
change the statute..."
[Spreckles v. C.I.R., 119 F.2d, 667]
What the Treasury did to try to illegally expand
their jurisdiction, in a clear demonstration of conflict of interest
and a violation of the Code of Ethics for Government employees we discussed
in section 2.1, was create a
by writing an illegal regulation in
26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b) to implement 26 U.S.C. §1 and use the word “liable”
in the regulation!
Remember that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to write regulations
the Internal Revenue Code under
§7805, but the Secretary has
no delegated authority
to expand or enlarge or modify the original language or jurisdiction
of the Internal Revenue Code section he is implementing and enforcing!
Why? Because the Congress is the only legislative body authorized
by the Constitution, and no one in the Executive branch, including the
Treasury, has any delegated authority to legislate.
Congress undoubtedly knew that the Secretary of the Treasury is
empowered to prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the
enforcement of the internal revenue laws, so long as they carry
into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statutes.
Such regulations have the force of law.
The Secretary, however,
does not have the power to make law, Dixon v. United
[United States v. Levy, 533 F.2d 969 (1976)]
26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b) is
a regulation that is null and void and fraudulent on its face
insofar as its imposition of an otherwise nonexistent liability for
the payment of Subtitle A income taxes. If you were to investigate
this matter further, I’d be willing to bet money that the Secretary
of Treasury who approved this regulations was a lame duck and knew he
was on the way out of office and probably his last official act was
to approve this regulation. That was the kind of scam that got
the Sixteenth Amendment passed by the lame duck Secretary of State Philander
Knox, who perjured himself by saying that the Sixteenth Amendment had
been properly ratified by the required ¾ of the states.
One of our readers
responded to this section with the following statement:
§1 comes from Section 11 of the 1939 code, without any significant
change occurring (according to Congress). The old Section
11 said that the tax shall be "levied, collected, and PAID" upon
the net income of individuals. While I think it was stupid
of them to reword it without stating the liability there, the underlying
law (the Statutes at Large) shows it, so 1.1-1 is correct.
Congress also in Sections 6012 and 6151 show that one who receives
"gross income" must file a return, and the one required to file
the return "shall pay such tax." It's not in Subtitle A, but
there's no requirement that it has to be, since the section says
it applies "when a return of tax is required UNDER THIS TITLE" (not
subtitle). Why do you not consider 6151 to be a liability
Here was part of
our response to that claim:
1. I looked up the implementing regulations applying
6151 to Subtitle A income taxes in Section 1. 26 C.F.R. § 1.6151
clearly shows that “taxpayers” should pay the amount of tax shown
on the return, but it doesn't say they are required to pay any tax
that they didn't assess against themself VOLUNTARILY. The
only case they have to pay taxes they didn't voluntarily assess
is under section 6014, which allows the TAXPAYER to ELECT to allow
the IRS to compute his tax
with his permission.
“Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and
payment, not on distraint", according to
Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S.
That's why you can't be made liable to pay a tax that you
didn't assess against yourself
If you refuse to file a return or refuse to claim any gross income
by filling in zeros on your return, then
§6201 clearly shows that the IRS
may not involuntarily
assess you a liability! If you look at the Parallel Table
of Authorities, ALL of the taxes to which 6151 applies relate ONLY
to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms under Title 27. Look for
See section 5.4.5 of the Great IRS Hoax for further details.
§6012 are NOT liability statutes. 6151 says you shall
pay any tax shown on a return (that you completed VOLUNTARILY) and
6012 says you must "make a return" for any subtitle A taxable gross
income you have. Since the term "make a return" doesn't say
"file a return" or even who to file it WITH, then one can satisfy
this requirement by filling out a tax return (called "making a return")
and filing it in one's file cabinet! One place that the word
"file" is used is in the title of 26 U.S.C. §7203, and 26 U.S.C.
§7806 says the title has no force or effect. The only other place
"file" is used is in 6151, which only applies to Title 27 taxes.
The code or regulations for Subtitle A income taxes therefore has
to say WHO to file the return WITH and mention "liable to file with
the Secretary of the Treasury", which it doesn't. It does
for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms taxes, but not for Subtitle A
income taxes. See section 3.9.11 of my Great IRS Hoax book for further
details on this. The code COULDN'T impose a requirement to file
a return because it would violate the Fifth Amendment so they played
games with words, as usual. I know this is picking nits, but
that is what the code itself does and especially what Mr. Roginsky
of the IRS did during his friendly interview with you!
Misunderstandings on your part about the issues discussed
above is why you attract busy IRS bees to your honeypot. The
IRS picks their battles carefully, and like the lion, hits the weakest
parts of the herd, who are usually hobbling at the end of the procession
with less than a full deck of cards. I’m not trying to criticize
you, however, and simply want to help you by keeping you out of
To give you just
one example in real life that illustrates the lack of liability for
Income Taxes, if employment taxes are indeed enforced “taxes” rather
than “donations”, then why:
- Do you have to complete a W-4 giving the government
take your money under Subtitle C, Employment taxes? If it
is a tax, they don’t
need your permission,
- Are Employment taxes classified by the IRS as gifts by assigning
them to Tax Class 1?
Something is fishy here, isn’t it? And why
do they call it a “tax” if you aren’t “liable”? Shouldn’t our
dishonest government call it a “donation”? You be the judge!
The other question we should be asking ourselves
is the income tax imposed
U.S.C. §1 uses the term “Individuals”, but what does that mean?
The answer is found in
26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a):
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax
(a) General rule.
(1) Section 1 of the
Code imposes an income tax on the income of
who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent
provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident
The tax is “imposed” on “citizens
or residents of the United States” and nonresident aliens
described in 871(b) and 877(b), but we know that “United States” as
used here means the federal zone or the
federal United States,
so the tax doesn’t apply to us. That is the only logical conclusion
we can reach based on the constitutional limitations on direct taxation
found in Article 1, Section 9 (1:9:4), Clause 4 and 1:2:3 of the U.S.
"The right to tax and regulate the national citizenship is an inherent
right under the rule of the Law of Nations, which is part of the law
of the United States, as described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17."
The Luisitania, 251 F.715, 732.
"This jurisdiction extends to citizens of the United States, wherever
resident, for the exercise of the privileges and immunities and protections
of [federal] citizenship." Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 37,44 S.Ct 447, 11
Virginia Law Review, 607 (1924) ."
So once again, if we aren’t “U.S.** citizens” or
nonresident aliens with income associated with a “trade or business”
in the federal United
States, then we aren’t liable for income taxes!
26 C.F.R. § 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.
(b)…The term 'citizen of the United States' includes a citizen of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective
January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
If we aren’t “U.S.** citizens” but we were born
in United States* the country on nonfederal land, then we are “U.S.
nationals” and nonresident
aliens. As we will point out later, most of us are
born as nonresident aliens and “U.S. nationals” (see
8 U.S.C. §1408)
because we are born outside the federal zone but inside the 50 Union
states. The legal profession has done their best to hide this
fact over the years by redefining some key terms or removing important
definitions entirely from the legal dictionary. We talk about
this later, in section 6.7.1.
Now when the IRS tries to do any enforcement action
for income taxes under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and they
try to call someone in for an audit, they don’t have a leg to stand
on. All you have to do is show them the statute that gives them
the authority to call the audit, from
CHAPTER 78 >
A > Sec. 7601.
7601. - Canvass of districts for taxable persons and objects
The Secretary shall, to the extent he deems it practicable,
cause officers or employees
of the Treasury Department to proceed, from time to time, through each
internal revenue district and inquire after and concerning all
persons therein who may be liable to pay any internal revenue
tax, and all persons owning or having the care and management
of any objects with respect to which any tax is imposed.
So the only thing the IRS can go looking for inside
their “district”, which encompasses only areas within the federal zone
that are within the outer boundaries of their region, are “persons therein
who may be liable
to pay any internal revenue tax”. Without a liability statute,
the IRS agent has no authority to call you into his office to ask about
taxes he thinks you owe. Once again, “liability” is a prerequisite
in order for enforcement action to be warranted, and since “liability”
is nowhere defined in the IRC for Subtitle A individual income taxes,
then it isn’t a tax but a “donation”. This is a very good fact
to bring up at your next IRS audit, folks! Now if you don’t help
him when he calls you in for an audit because you point out that he
can’t prove you are liable, then he may try to illegally levy your pay.
Once again, he’s violating the law because look at what the levy statutes
says, 26 U.S.C.
26 > Subtitle
CHAPTER 64 >
PART II > Sec. 6331.
6331. - Levy and distraint
(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax
neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days
after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect
such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses
of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except
such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person
or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment
of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any
officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District
of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or
the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer
(as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected
official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such
tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such
tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay
such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard
to the 10-day period provided in this section.
Once again, notice that the prerequisite for levy
and distraint above is that the person must be liable, and so the frustrated
IRS agent can’t legally levy your pay either, without subjecting himself
to criminal liability under