The right to tax comes from the United States Constitution, which authorizes the federal government to impose two broad categories of taxes: direct taxes under Article 1, Section 2 and Section 9 and indirect taxes under Article 1, Section 8. Direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the States, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States.

"Thus in the matter of taxation, the constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely, the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." (emphasis mine).

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. , 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. , 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the court ruled that the 16th Amendment separated the source (capital) from 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 taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax, unquestionably in violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax void.

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, first time commissions and capital) free of tax (see Brushaber) despite how some might incorrectly interpret the 16th Amendment .

" Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit ..." (emphasis mine) Stapler v. U.S. , 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937).

"...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 252 U.S. 189, it was true under Section 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61 (a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income... Congress has taxed income not compensation." (emphasis mine)

Conner v. U.S. , 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969).

"...one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them."

Edwards v. Keith , 231 F 111 (1916).

State Court rulings line up with the Federal Courts as well.

"...reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."

Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Mathews , 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946).

"There is a clear distinction between ' profit ' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word 'profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor ." (emphasis mine)

Oliver v. Halstead , 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955).

Here, an indirect tax is defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, "A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its' tangible fruits, is an indirect tax. . . ." (emphasis mine)

Tyler v. United States , 281 U.S. 497 (1930).

"The conclusion reached in the Pollack case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its' nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such...." (emphasis mine)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. , 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

The 1943 House Congressional Record reiterates these basic facts:

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. (emphasis mine)

House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580.

The United States Supreme Court explains what an excise tax is:

"Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges ... As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U.S. supra (363), the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges ... In the case at bar we have already discussed the limitations which the Constitution imposes upon the right to levy excise taxes,... but the tax is laid upon the privileges which exist in conducting business ..." emphasis mine)

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

This whole discussion turns on several critical points, the definition of the word income and who or what is the subject of this type of tax. The next five United States Supreme Court cites shed an abundant amount of light on this discussion.

" 'Income' has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 stat. 112)..." (emphasis mine)

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. , 271 U.S. 170 (1926)

and,,

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not in any proper sense , an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property , and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity , measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation , with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself..." (emphasis mine)

Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert , 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

and,

"As to what should be deemed ' income ' within the meaning of 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th Amendment not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment according to population, and this tax was not so apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise tax should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government." (emphasis mine)

Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert , 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

and,

"[Footnote 1] Sec. 38. That every corporation , joint stock company , or association , organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares, and every insurance company, now or hereafter... and engaged in business in any state or territory of the United States, or in Alaska or in the District of Columbia, shall be subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporations, joint stock company or association, or insurance company..." (emphasis mine)

Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert , 231 U.S. 399 (1913)

The Oregon Supreme Court was also quite clear:

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its' existence in charter powers to the State, but the individual's right to live and own property are natural rights for which an excise cannot be imposed." (emphasis mine)

Redfield v. Fisher , 292 P. 813, at 819.

I believe that the Tennessee Supreme Court was also quite clear in saying that since the right to receive earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege . (emphasis mine)

Jack Cole v MacFarland , 337 S.W.2d 453, 456 (Tenn. 1960).

"The whole law was declared unconstitutional... and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and would remain in substance, a tax on occupations and labor', - a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress." (emphasis mine)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. , 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"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." (emphasis mine)

Bothke v. Terry , 713 F. 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983).

"The Treasury Department cannot , by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment ." (emphasis mine)

Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores , 133 F. 2d 575.

Since an income tax is a tax on a transaction which is (and must be) directly associated with, or effectively connected with, some particular type of revenue-taxable " privileged " activity [i.e. alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or other privileged activity], the Internal Revenue Code and its' implementing and controlling federal regulations must specify the particular type or kind of tax arising from a revenue-taxable, privileged activity. The privileged activity seems to me to be business for profit carried on by corporations, joint stock companies or associations, or insurance companies. Income appears to be profit or gain from some type of commerce (I believe interstate commerce) as opposed to compensation for labor.

Since the "income" tax and the "social security" tax are not apportioned among the several States, they must therefore be in the category of indirect taxes which are taxes imposed on the happening of an event or activity. And to the best of my understanding, I do not find a tax imposed upon me (that would be a capitation tax subject to apportionment). "As persons, slaves were proper subjects of a capitation tax, which is described in the Constitution as a direct tax;..." (emphasis mine)

Veazie Bank v. Fenno , 75 U.S. 533 (1869)

That is enough court cites for a bit. Now, with regard to your own conduct in regards to me and trying to make me liable for an income tax, I would refer you to 26 USC 7608(a). It is clear from this section that Revenue Enforcement Officers have authority for enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco and firearms. Is it your contention that I have tax liabilities pertaining to 26 USC Subtitle E? If so, please provide me with evidence of my involvement with revenue taxable activities pertaining to liquor, tobacco or firearms. I can assure you, that I have never had any such involvement. Other than 7608(a), I can find no code section that would authorize you, as a Revenue Officer, to investigate alleged tax liabilities pertaining to myself or anyone else. Based upon your in-depth knowledge of the applicable portions of the Internal Revenue Code, can you provide me with such a section from 26 USC? I would appreciate a prompt and thorough response to these questions.

If you are alleging that I have tax liabilities relating to Internal Revenue laws other than Subtitle E, refer to 7608(b). According to this section entitled "Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle E" : "Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division... is, in the performance of his duties, authorized ...", and so forth. Are you a "criminal investigator? If you are, please refer to the Internal Revenue Manual which says, "The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statute... involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements..." If you are a criminal investigator, is it your contention that I am a U.S. citizen living abroad or a nonresident alien having a filing requirement? If so, please explain your reasons.

26 USC 7214(a) clearly imposes substantial penalties (up to $10,000.00 and/or up to 5 years in prison) upon any Revenue Officer who is "guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law", "knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law", or "attempts to collect... except as expressly authorized by law so to do ." (emphasis mine) Thus, it appears that you are operating under extremely strict and serious legal constraints. To misunderstand and thereby abuse your lawful authority would be to subject yourself to substantial repercussions. In the event you feel I am citing this for the purpose of intimidating you, please allow me to assure you that such is not the case. Are you aware of any IRS employees who have been fined or even prosecuted under 7214(a)? I doubt it. That does not mean that the truth should be abandoned. I am taking the time to communicate with you in the hope that you will be willing to accept and act upon the truth once it is clearly communicated.

In an excerpt from Treasury/IRS 46.002, Privacy Act of 1974 Resource Document number 6372, it shows that the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS maintains files on all U.S. District Court Judges. This appears to be an obvious attempt to "control" the Judicial Branch of government by the Executive branch and I believe it is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. What could possibly justify this? How could this possibly be seen as helpful in an honest and unbiased application and execution of the law? This has the appearance of blatant intimidation!

What we have here is a combination of government employees such as yourself, having a tough job to do, a body of law that former IRS Commissioner Shirley Peterson has publicly stated is "incomprehensible, even to professionals in the field...", every year, news reports and magazine articles of startling revelations of unauthorized and even unlawful actions by the IRS, and a court system which is probably compromised and corrupted, largely through political intimidation. This is a formula for disaster, is it not? Do you suppose this has any bearing on the fact that many of last year's contenders for the highest office in the land were calling for the abolition of the IRS, if not the entire income tax system?

Meanwhile, let's look just a little bit further for ourselves. A logical place to search for suspected legal obligations or liabilities would be the United States Code Annotated. Go to the index and look up "Citizenship", a logical place to reference laws that would apply to Citizens wouldn't you agree? Well, this entire section contains only one code section from Title 26, 26 USC 2501, a Gift tax. Isn't this odd? Well, insofar as most people assume themselves to be United States Citizens, let's look under the heading "Income Tax" and go through this section until we come to the heading "Citizens". Again, this appears to be confusing as the only code sections listed for "Income Tax - Citizens" are 26 USC 6851 (About to depart U.S. ...) and 26 USC 911 (Living abroad...) Why are the code sections which would impose liabilities for the payment of "income taxes" and requirements for the filing of "1040 returns" not to be found in the United States Code Annotated? Your answer please! There must be some logical reason!

In the United States Code Annotated, of great interest is the entry under "Income Tax Aliens". It says, "this index." So, we look up "Aliens" in the index, and, lo and behold, what do we find but almost nine full pages of code sections under the subheading "Income Tax", covering such topics as "Deductions", "Exemptions", "Gross Income", "Joint Returns", and "Withholding of Tax". Unbelievable! It would appear that either the United States government is very zealous in apprising aliens of their legal duties and negligent in doing the same for its' Citizens, or someone has given reams of bad information to the IRS, which it has been diligently printing in its' publications and circulars for very many years now. Please explain this to me.

You will find liability for payment of tax clearly and specifically spelled out in the tax code in 26 USC 4401(c), 5703(a), and 5801(a) which create unmistakable liabilities for wagering, tobacco manufacturing and importation, and firearms manufacturing and importation respectively. Why is 26 USC 7701(a)(14) so vague by comparison? Isn't section 1461 the only section in the Internal Revenue Code imposing a definite liability for payment of "income" tax? That section applies to withholding agents only (those required by 1441 to deduct and withhold from payments of "income" owed to foreign persons). Now, based on your in-depth knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code, are you able to provide me with any code section that clearly and unequivocally imposes upon me a liability for payment of income taxes, such liability having been alleged by you by your recent form letter of June 12, 1997? If you cannot provide a satisfactory answer to this question, can you give me your justification for your attempt to subject me to some liability or obligation? Do you understand the importance of this question in light of the foregoing remarks about 26 USC 7214 and the serious consequences when indifference to law is fostered and even encouraged? In this case, oddly enough, all that is required is to read the law, do what it says and do not do what it does not say! The IRS often cites 26 USC 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) which say that individuals must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Please, simply provide for me some evidence of "any tax [I am] liable for". If you fail in this regard, I cannot possibly have any legal duty to file any returns or statements. A careful study and comparison of 26 USC 441(a) and (b), 6012(a)(1) and 7701(a)(14) will easily reveal that without a specific law which would make a "person" "subject to" or "liable for the payment of" a particular internal revenue tax, it is virtually impossible to be a "Taxpayer", have "Taxable Income" or a "Taxable Year". Why does the language employed in 26 USC 6001, 6011, 6012 and 7701(a)(14) not come up to the standards of specificity as employed in 26 USC 4401(c), 5703(a) nor 5801(a)? This vagueness, whether intentional or not certainly leaves one doubting any liability whatsoever. One can, of course voluntarily or ignorantly file a return and make therein, under penalties of perjury, what amounts to a declaration of "taxpayer" status. The IRS can of course, argue that it is simply relying on the "taxpayers" own representation as to their status and proceed accordingly. However, moral decency, if not legal duty, would seem to compel any public servant charged with the responsibility of possessing a "broad, in-depth knowledge...of the Internal Revenue Code" to notify a member of the public who apparently had improperly identified himself as a "taxpayer", would you not agree? I believe that I have mistakenly filed in the past. My (2nd) second codicil which I sent to the Refund Center in Ogden, Utah, to the IRS District Director in Omaha and to the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, D.C. by certified mail over a year ago, was an attempt to correct that. For some reason, unknown to me, the IRS chose not to timely respond to my notification and request for a response.

As another point of interest, I would invite you to investigate the definition of "STATE" and "UNITED STATES" as found in Title 26 USC 3121(e)(2). This is the definition which must apply in Subtitle C Employment Taxes, as no other definition for "STATE" or "UNITED STATES" is offered in Subtitle C. Compare this definition to what is offered in 4612(a) Subtitle D Excise Taxes - Tax on Petroleum. Why are the definitions different??? Why are "the 50 States" not mentioned in the definition of "STATE" or "UNITED STATES" which would apply to Withholding Tax? Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut has cited both Legislative Council and the Congressional Research Service in her claim that the term "State" as found in 26 USC 3121(e) means only the named Federal territories and possessions and does not include the fifty States of the Union. I want my employer to stop illegally withholding part of my compensation for labor for the IRS. In fact if you go to Definitions in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) & (10) which I believe must apply to Subtitle A Income Taxes, you will find that (a)(10) defines "State" to "include the District of Columbia". The term include is inclusive, and shuts in or contains only that which is specified in the definition. The use of "States" in (a)(9) cannot be assumed to mean the 50 states of the Union. The "Federal States" are the federal possessions such as the Virgin Islands, Guam, etc. Here again is an abundance of vagueness. Please refer to 26 USC 4612(a)(4)(A) and 6103(b)(5). The IRS does know how to say "the fifty States" and does so clearly and unmistakably in sections dealing with constitutional taxes. Why has the IRS chosen to be so vague in the most important definition of "State" and "United States" in 7701 which applies everywhere in Title 26 of the code where not supplanted by a specified definition?

As the Internal Revenue Service has assisted you in obtaining your broad, in-depth knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code, were you shown the definition of "income" as it evolved from the 1939 Code to the 1954 Code to the 1980 Code to the present day Code? As you should be aware, the Code provides footnotes which chronicle the additions, deletions, and changes in each new Code. It is interesting to look back and see how the writers of the 1980 Code, have cleverly twisted the meaning of "income", then conveniently deleted the 1954 Code reference to the 1939 Code which stated that the definition was "substantially unchanged". You see, the 1939 Code makes it quite clear that "income" is not salaries, wages, etc., but, instead derived from those sources. In fact, "income" was and continues to be what the United States Supreme Court last ruled it to be and what several U.S. District Courts continue to rule to this day (review pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 above) - a corporate profit, the tool for measuring the excise tax liabilities of persons ( artificial entities) engaged in business under the privilege granted by government. It is, of course, absurd to argue that the common man's right to live and support himself amounts to a government privilege . Study the case of Mr. Lloyd Long of Tennessee whose jury seems to have agreed with this analysis.

The acquittal of Mr. Lloyd Long in his "willful failure to file" case is not unique at all in the last decade. You could look up cases involving Ray and Dixie Powell of the Puget Sound area, the Hardy brothers as well as a Danny Hashimoto in Hawaii, Franklin Sanders and 17 other people in a huge case in Tennessee, and Gabe Scott of Alaska. In Mr. Scott's trial, the jury was so outraged by what Mr. Scott presented in his defense, ten of the twelve jurors swore they would never file another tax return! The other two were appalled but said they would continue to file out of fear of the IRS.

Then there is the case of the IRS attempt to smash the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship in Westminster, Maryland and indict its' fiduciary, Mr. John Kotmair. After Mr. Kotmair's presentation to the Grand Jury, the U.S. Attorney was so humiliated by the devastating evidence presented by Mr. Kotmair with respect to misapplication of the law by the Internal Revenue Service, that he personally apologized to Mr. Kotmair.

I have no way of knowing the extent of your personal knowledge in these matters. It is my hope that you are simply unaware, and that, as you become aware, you will do all that is in your power to resist that which is corrupt and unlawful. In the meantime, I have a substantial belief that there has been misapplication of law, indefensible abuses of due process, and in some cases, outright criminal behavior on the part of the IRS, the U.S. Justice Department and both state and federal courts. The fruits of this government tyranny include nervous breakdowns, divorces, broken families, suicides, ruined careers and businesses, and probably even the incarceration of some of the most patriotic, honest and hardworking Americans. Americans are literally destroying other Americans in the name of a body of "law" which a former Commissioner of the IRS labeled "incomprehensible". How terribly sad!

Four more cites which I won't quote comprehensively but are worth noting here are as follows (with my impression preceding the first two cites): "Taxpayers" are to be favored in case of any ambiguity of law. - Greyhound Corp. v. U.S. 495F. 2d 863 (1974); We have the legal right to legally reduce or completely avoid paying taxes. - Gregory v. Helvering 293 U.S. 465; "...we indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental rights." - Glasser v. U.S. 315 U.S. 60 (1942); "...courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." - Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 (1938) This line of thought leads directly to my next subject - ambiguity of the law.

I believe that the law should be plain and easily understood by the people to whom it applies. I also believe that government must obey the laws according to such intent as is clearly expressed by the framers of the law - the representatives of the people. To allow government agencies to just "do what it takes", in spite of the clear intent of the law or because the law itself has been made incomprehensible, is to abandon honesty, to act cowardly, and to betray future generations into a state of helplessness at the mercy of unrestrained government and a system of law which is arbitrary, incomprehensible and largely misapplied or ignored. I would not be taking the time to express these things to you if I did not respect you as a fellow human being who must, as I, live by some set of values. If you do not agree with any of what I express in this letter, then at least I have made another good faith attempt to communicate with "our" government and I will have the evidence that I have done so. If on the other hand, you find yourself in some agreement with much or even small portions of what I have expressed here, then I implore you to suspend your disbelief just long enough to diligently investigate these matters. I can assure you that I will give careful consideration to any sincere and comprehensive response you would communicate to me in writing.

A year ago, for whatever reason, the Internal Revenue Service refused to respond to my written communication. Here, I have offered observations about the law, United States Supreme Court cites as well as other court cites, and commented upon what appear to me to be gross misapplications of the law. I am also asking numerous questions which I believe should seem reasonable and relatively simple to answer for those people occupying positions which should require a "broad, in-depth knowledge of the Internal Revenue Code."

In conclusion, based on the unwillingness of the IRS to respond to my earlier correspondence dated 3/11/96 and 4/28/96 (referenced on page one above) and substantial information that I have since become aware of, I believe that the IRS, by deceptive and misleading words and statements have deceived me as well as the general public, into believing that there is a tax imposed either on the natural person or on earnings for labor (a tax on me would be a direct tax subject to apportionment and in fact only entities involved in a taxed activity or event could possibly be "subject to" or "liable for" this tax). Such deception is deplorable by any standards. Your form letter mentioned employing schemes with the intent to evade taxes. It is a sad day for America when a good and "watchful" citizen who believes that all that is required is to read the law, do what it does say and do not do what it does not say, draws the label "tax protestor". It is my contention that it is the IRS that has schemed in such a manner as to have created this extortion of an unbelievable magnitude. If you or your legal department can refute this body of evidence which I have now made you aware of, I will be more than happy to reconsider my position. I do respectfully demand a comprehensive response to this letter as well as a specific answer to each question that I pose. It's my understanding from one of your publications that I can expect professional, courteous service. You can expect courtesy and a willingness to cooperate from me as well.

I assure you, I will seriously consider any reliable information which contradicts my positions. Please correct in writing, any misunderstandings that I may have. If you disagree with the understanding I have come to, I make a respectful demand that you produce and send to me, hard copy documents that fully detail and describe my error, with at least the following:

1) Copies of all documents on which you base your position that I have an obligation to submit a "form 1040 - U.S. Individual Income Tax Return" for the "tax period ending 12/31/95";

2) Copies of all documents that specifically identify all laws, statutes and especially the implementing regulations that impose an obligation upon me to submit a "form 1040 - U.S. Individual Income Tax Return" for the "tax period ending 31 December 1995";

3) Copies of all contractual and/or waiver documents that I have signed or any judicial decisions that obligates me in any way to your Service or to any specific performance.

4) Copies of all determinations made by anyone in your Service that concluded that any obligation was imposed upon me, and which specifically determined the extent of that obligation.

5) Copies of all delegation of authority to make any determinations in reference to me.

6) The documents that describe the format for making a request for correction or for making a request for specific documents describing any obligation upon me and your specific authority to determine, impose and enforce any such obligation.

I respectfully demand that you please answer all questions herein with complete and appropriate answers and with substantiating evidence. Please document each answer with the corresponding implementing regulation(s) where applicable. Here are a few additional important questions.

Why does your most recent form letter state that, "This office does not accept your notice as having any legal bearing" regarding my correspondence of April 3, 1997 to you? We were directed to use those exact words by Robert Metcalf, Trial Attorney, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice when he was asked how we were to respond to requests for tax returns. His suggested response was, "I cannot honor your request, for to do so would nullify the merits of my action against you." He understands that by filing a return, I destroy the merits of my own action. Who am I to listen to?

In light of two statements made by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garner v. United States 424 U.S. 648, "Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for example, the appearance of a 'witness' before the grand jury." (emphasis mine) and, "The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness.", isn't it true that anyone who files a tax return waives their Fifth Amendment protected rights? What if I don't want to waive those rights? What options are there? Is the Fifth Amendment a right or a privilege?

If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, wouldn't such statute be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally? In light of the last two cites in paragraph 3 of page 11 above, please comment on the IRS "requirement" to waive fundamental constitutional rights by preparing and filing an income tax return.

Either filing income tax returns is required and the IRS is requiring individuals to waive their Fundamental Constitutional Rights , in which case any statute that requires individuals to file a tax return would be unconstitutional or, filing tax returns is voluntary (as asserted in many IRS publications) so that Fundamental Constitutional Rights are not trampled upon. What is the official position of the IRS on these issues? I truly hope that it is the latter and it is indeed voluntary because any other position positively raises Constitutional issues. The United States Supreme Court has said, "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." (emphasis mine)
Flora v. United States , 362 U.S. 145

What is the statute and implementing regulation(s) that makes a Citizen of one of the 50 Union States liable for the payment of an income tax on wholly intrastate derived compensation for labor? Isn't Congress' power limited to interstate commerce ? (See the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court Lopez decision as well as the Pollack Case, 158 U.S. 601, which is speaking specifically of the states' power to tax being lessened, "The reasons for the clauses of the constitution in respect of direct taxation are not far to seek. The states, respectively, possessed plenary powers of taxation. They could tax property of their Citizens in such manner and to such extent as they saw fit. They had unrestricted powers to impose duties or imposts on imports from abroad, and excises on manufactures, consumable commodities, or otherwise. They gave up the great sources of revenue derived from commerce . They retained concurrent power of levying excises, and duties if covering anything other than excises; b ut in respect of them the range of taxation was narrowed by the power granted over interstate commerce ." I simply do not understand how this line of reasoning can be argued with. This cite specifically shows that the federal government was given the power to tax interstate commerce by the States. What more proof is required? Unless there is a statute with a corresponding implementing regulation that spells out specifically that the IRS has the power to tax wholly intrastate derived compensation for labor, I find it very difficult that the IRS has the legitimate power. Your explanation please!

1. What is the statute and implementing regulation(s) that makes a Citizen of one of the 50 Union States liable to file an "income tax return"?

2. What is the statute and implementing regulation(s) that makes a Citizen of one of the 50 Union States required to join the "Social Security Program" and/or obtain a Social Security Number?

3. Aren't taxes withheld under subtitle "C" of the Internal Revenue code voluntary wage taxes? Aren't taxes withheld under subtitle "A" of the Internal Revenue code income taxes that apply only to nonresident aliens doing business within the United States or Americans working abroad under a tax treaty?

4. What authority do you have to collect a tax on a Citizen born and living in one of the 50 Union States and receiving intrastate compensation for labor? Any delegation of authority documents?

5. What privileged activity do you think I am involved in that would make me liable for a tax?

6. If the income is not the subject of the tax, what is the subject? (please reference the top of page 5 above for the 1943 Congressional House record quotation).

My authority for making the above respectful demands, if you disagree, is made as a matter of right and is supported by the following Supreme Court decision:

"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority...and this is so even though as here the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority."

Federal Crop Ins. Corporation v. Merrill , 332 U.S. 380 (1947).

I will expect your written response to my request for correction of error and to my respectful demand for the documents requested and all questions answered, within 30 days of your receipt of this certified letter. I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be mistaken. Nevertheless, you do bear a heavy burden of proof since no one was willing to respond to my correspondence of over a year ago. I have presented much information here and asked some very pointed questions. If you or your legal department cannot satisfactorily answer my questions, it certainly casts a pall over your positions on these issues as well as upon your authority.

If I do not receive your written reply within that time, your lack of response will again establish the presumption of your error and will also establish that you do not have any documents responsive to my request or any documents verifying your authority to support or make any claim of any obligation upon me. You will either acknowledge your error in writing, or by failure to respond to this lawful requirement (by silence), that I am a nontaxpayer and under no obligation whatsoever. Any unwillingness by the IRS to respond to this respectful demand for answers certainly will not rebut and disprove, refute or controvert, in any form, my causes and beliefs. By silence and failure to timely respond, the IRS will self-impose default to all contained within this correspondence. Also, please be aware that my administrative claim for damages (which was never rejected) has yet to be satisfied.

I thank you in advance for your timely cooperation.

Very sincerely,

<<NAME AND SIGNATURE>>
All rights reserved without prejudice, UCC 1-207

Proverbs 17: 26 & 27 says: "It is not good to fine the righteous, nor to strike the noble for their uprightness."

Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." He instigated the Boston Tea Party, was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, called for the first Continental Congress and served as a member of Congress until 1781. He formed the Committees of Correspondence, which were largely responsible for the unity and cohesion of the Colonists preceding the Revolution. The original committee, formed in Boston, had three goals: (1) To delineate the rights of Colonists as men; (2) To detail how these rights had been violated; (3) To publicize these rights and the violations thereof throughout the Colonies. Samuel Adams said, "If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.