Related articles:
  • Tax Deposition Questions, Section 1: Liability-provides exhaustive evidence showing there is no liability statute for anything other than withholding agents on nonresident aliens in 26 U.S.C. 1461
  • The Trade or Business Scam-shows that I.R.C. Subtitle A is an indirect excise tax upon a "trade or business".  Liability is an implied consequence of engaging in the activity.
  • The Unlimited Liability Universe-shows how the tax system is used by the government to exploit the weaknesses of the populace in avoiding personal responsibility and liability
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 liable.  Why?  Because Subtitle A income taxes on all persons, natural or corporate, are voluntary 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:

  1. 26 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.
  2. 26 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.
  3. 26 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.
  4. 26 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!
  5. 26 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.
  6. 26 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:

    tax 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 26 U.S.C. 6662(a) and 26 U.S.C. 6663(a).

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter A > PART II > Sec. 6662.
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:

1.1.26 U.S.C. 4374

1.2.26 U.S.C. 4401(c )

1.3.26 U.S.C. 5005

1.4.26 U.S.C. 5043

1.5.26 U.S.C. 5703

2.Require the individual to keep records about his liability.  Examples of other types of taxes that do require records:

2.1.26 U.S.C. 4403

2.2.26 U.S.C. 5114

2.3.26 U.S.C. 5124

2.4.26 U.S.C. 5741

3.Subject him or her to penalties for nonpayment.  Examples:

3.1.26 U.S.C. Subtitle F,  Sections 6671 through 6715 address assessable penalties.

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


Subtitle A - Income Taxes


Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability


Sec. 1. Tax imposed


(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:

Impose:  To levy or exact as by authority; to lay as a burden, tax, duty, or charge.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 755]


Exaction.  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]


Extortion. 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,  224.4.

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:

Levy, 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:

"..liability for taxation must clearly appear[from statute imposing tax]."
[Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)]

While Congress 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 (1934)]

"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 liable for?  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 liable, then 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 be paid…”


26 U.S.C. 4401(c )  Persons liable for tax:  “…wagers shall be liable for and shall pay


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 beer

“(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.

(a)  Liability for tax

(1)  Original liability….shall be liable for

(2)  Transfer of liability…shall become liable…”

That’s right:  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 877.

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 bogus liability 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!  Sneaky bastards!  Remember that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to write regulations that interpret and implement the Internal Revenue Code under 26 U.S.C. 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.

“When enacting 7206(1) 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 States, supra.” 
[United States v. Levy, 533 F.2d 969 (1976)]

Therefore, 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 of the states.

One of our readers responded to this section with the following statement:

Family Guardian,

“The current 26 U.S.C. 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 clause?”

Larken Rose

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. 145 (1960)

That's why you can't be made liable to pay a tax that you didn't assess against yourself voluntarily.  If you refuse to file a return or refuse to claim any gross income by filling in zeros on your return, then 26 USC 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 yourself!:

See section 5.4.5 of the Great IRS Hoax for further details.

2.  26 U.S.C. 6151 and 26 U.S.C. 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 trouble.

Your friend,

Family Guardian

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:

  1. Do you have to complete a W-4 giving the government permission to take your money under Subtitle C, Employment taxes?  If it is a tax, they don’t need your permission, do they!
  2. 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:  “Who is the income tax imposed on?”.  26 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 on individuals.

(a) General rule.

(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual 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 alien individual.

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. Constitution!

"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 26 U.S.C. 7601:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 78 > Subchapter A > Sec. 7601.
Sec. 7601. - Canvass of districts for taxable persons and objects

(a) General rule

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. 6331(a):

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 64 > Subchapter D > PART II > Sec. 6331.
Sec. 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 26 U.S.C. 7433 and 26 U.S.C. 7214!