CITES BY TOPIC:  taxpayer

EDITORIAL: One need not argue that one is not a "taxpayer"--in fact this and the strawman etc. is a listed "frivolous position". It is an IRRELEVANT argument/position because they are not dealing with "you" in the first place---the STRAWMAN with a SSN is the "taxpayer". The living being has little choice but to accept this STRAWMAN with SSN "taxpayer" structure for the purposes of having a bank account and a job, and for dealing with the IRS.

The taxpayer and SSN are used under undue influence of the payer, if not outright threat duress or coercion. Typically one is not offered the option of NOT furnishing SSN or NOT having this STRAWMAN involved in the business. You need the STRAWMAN just to have a place to deposit your paycheck. Employers used to pay their workers in cash. This STRAWMAN crap was designed by the bank-sters. Very few employers pay their workers in cash today. This whole SCAM could be avoided with an employer who pays in cash for work performed and does not involved the STRAWMAN or the SSN in the transacted business.

The coerced use of the "taxpayer" structure is nothing more than an unwelcome infringement on private business by an ignorant/presumptuous EMPLOYER or PAYER, setting unfair conditions that most payees are not in any position to refuse.


26 U.S.C. §7701(a)14:

Taxpayer

The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


PDF Your Rights as a Nontaxpayer-IRS pamphlet (OFFSITE LINK)


PDF Who are "taxpayers" and who needs a "Taxpayer Identification Number"? (OFFSITE LINK)


"Taxpayer" v. "Nontaxpayer": Which one are you?--excellent article


PDF Your Rights as a Taxpayer-IRS pamphlet (OFFSITE LINK)


26 U.S.C. §1313:  Definitions

(b) Taxpayer

Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.


26 U.S.C. §6651 Notes:

''(a) Prohibition. - The officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service - ''(1) shall not designate taxpayers as illegal tax protesters (or any similar designation); and ''(2) in the case of any such designation made on or before the date of the enactment of this Act (July 22, 1998) - ''(A) shall remove such designation from the individual master file; and ''(B) shall disregard any such designation not located in the individual master file. ''(b) Designation of Nonfilers Allowed. - An officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service may designate any appropriate taxpayer as a nonfiler, but shall remove such designation once the taxpayer has filed income tax returns for 2 consecutive taxable years and paid all taxes shown on such returns. ''(c) Effective Date. - The provisions of this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act (July 22, 1998), except that the removal of any designation under subsection (a)(2)(A) shall not be required to begin before January 1, 1999.'

[26 U.S.C. §6651 Notes]


PDFLong v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]


PDF Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..."

[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]


PDF Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government].  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.”

[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)]


Great IRS Hoax, section 5.3.1: "Taxpayer" v. "Nontaxpayer"


C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939):

"And by statutory definition, 'taxpayer' includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act.  ...Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."

[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939)]


Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)

Specifically, Rowen seeks a declaratory judgment against the United States of America with respect to "whether or not the plaintiff is a taxpayer pursuant to, and/or under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14)." (See Compl. at 2.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment "with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986," a code section that is not at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under §2201 where claim concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.

[Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)]


Albert E and Henrietta R. Radinsky v. U.S., 622 F.Supp. 412 (1984)

From Albert E. and Henrietta R. Radinsky, Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Defendant U.S. District Court, Dist. Colo., No. 84-M-2324, 8/14/85, 622 FSupp 412

The IRS insists that only “taxpayers” have recourse against the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1), and that the plaintiffs are not “taxpayers” because no tax has been assessed. “The United States agrees that taxpayers do have recourse against the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1). But in this case, the plaintiffs are not taxpayers.” (Defendant’s motion for summary judgment at 2). The government is wrong on both counts. First, the statute provides federal district court jurisdiction for a civil action to recover any tax, penalty, or sum alleged to have been wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. There is no requirement that the plaintiffs be taxpayers challenging some assessment.

The government’s interpretation of the statute would make “sum” superfluous. In the course of holding that §1346(a)(1) requires full payment of an assessment before an income tax refund suit can be maintained in federal district court, the Supreme Court has noted:

". . . We believe that the statute more readily lends itself to the disjunctive reading which is suggested by the connective “or.” That is, “any sum,” instead of being related to “any internal-revenue tax” and “any penalty,” may refer to amounts which are neither taxes nor penalties. Under this interpretation, the function of the phrase is to permit suit for recovery of items which might not be designated as either “taxes” or “penalties” by Congress or the Courts. Flora v. United States [60-1 ustc ¶9347 ], 362 U.S. 145, 149 (1960).

Accepting the argument that the amount in question is not a tax or penalty, this action is clearly maintainable to recover a “sum.” Therefore plaintiffs who are not “taxpayers” as defined by the United States in this action, i.e. persons who are challenging an assessment, can indeed use §1346(a)(1). The plaintiffs have standing to bring this action since they were the target of the IRS’s collection efforts. Second, it is too late for the government to argue that the plaintiffs are not taxpayers. Everything in the record indicates that the IRS attempted to collect, and succeeded in collecting, the disputed money as a “tax.” The February 1984 letter received by the Radinskys, attached as exhibit “E” to the complaint, after reciting the plaintiffs’ “Taxpayer identification number” stated (emphasis added) Dear Taxpayer We have previously written to you about the Federal tax shown below. It is overdue and you should pay the total amount due immediately. . . .

We have enclosed a copy of Publication 568A, The Collection Process (Income Tax Accounts), which provides information about our collection procedures and your rights in relation to them. Your attention is specifically directed to our Enforced Collection policy on page 2.

Additionally, Exhibit D attached to the complaint is a “STATEMENT OF ADJUSTMENT TO YOUR ACCOUNT AND BILL FOR TAX DUE”. The statement noted that the plaintiffs had no balance due before the adjustment. After the “adjustment” they owed $5,444.00 for an “erroneous credit” and $2,380.20 interest. The IRS always treated this matter as the recovery of tax. The United States cannot argue that because an assessment was erroneous, or an assessment was never made, a person from whom the IRS has collected money cannot employ §1346(a)(1) for the semantic reason that only individuals correctly assessed can be “taxpayers.”

[Albert E and Henrietta R. Radinsky v. U.S., 622 F.Supp. 412 (1984)]


United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d. 934 (1986)

III. TAXPAYER STATUS

"Studley contends that she is not a "taxpayer" because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual. This argument is frivolous. An individual is a "person" under the Internal Revenue Code and thus subject to 26 U.S.C. § 7203. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir.1981).[3]"

_____________

[3] We note that this argument has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades. Indeed advancement of such utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil litigants who raise them.

[United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d. 934 (1986)]
[NOTE: They didn't prove she was a statutory "indivdiual", meaning an ALIEN under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3), and she wasn't]