DERIVED FROM SOURCE:  IRS Humbug, Frank Kowalik, pp. 53-55.

---

The power of the IRS is restricted to the U.S. Government's income that is from within the employment agreement between the Federal Government and its employee.  People NOT employed by the Federal Government are not required to include the gross income they earn for personal services in "gross income" under the I.R. Code.  Doing so on a "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return" does not make income not includible in gross income under subtitle A of the I.R. Code includible in the legal kickback program.  The U.S. Government is powerless to lawfully lay and collect a kickback on such income in the name of "tax."  You have the right to surrender control of your personal income, but no IRS scheme can lawfully collect it without your cooperation.

By section 7701(a)(31), Congress placed the burden upon the IRS, the Justice Department, and the U.S. judges not to include income that is not includible in gross income under subtitle "A".  All Federal Government employees are on notice that property which is foreign to the U.S. Government is not includible in "gross income" under the I.R. Code.  This notice places a duty on the Federal Government employees to be certain only income belonging to the U.S. Government is returned.

Sec. 7701(a)(31).  Foreign estate or trust.  The terms "foreign estate" and "foreign trust" mean an estate or trust, as the case may be, the income of which from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A."  [emphasis added]

One's conduct produces income when employed with a source of income.  The material element is the identity of the employer.  In the U.S. Codes the term, "without the United States" means without the U.S. Government, and "within the United States" means within the U.S. Government.  One's conduct cannot be effectively connected with the performance of personal services with a place, only a source of income can pay one.  The place or geography is immaterial.  The U.S. Codes identify geographical boundaries with the term "outside" or "inside" the United States.  Congress shows intent to control us by use of vagueness when such similar phrases are used to express entirely different meanings.

By virtue of the definition of "foreign estate or trust," the burden, the duty, is upon Federal Government employees not to include income that is not includible.  However, the conduct of the Federal Government employees causes the burden to be switched to each person to defend life, liberty, and property (including labor).  Only with knowledge can one place the burden where it belongs--on the Federal Government employees.

The point being made now is that only when one has entered into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government is remuneration for personal services "effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States."

Any income not effectively connected with a trade or business within the U.S. Government contains no kickback due to the U.S. Government because it is not includible in "gross income" under subtitle A of the I.R. Code.  To force a kickback on income that is not includible in "gross income" is to tax such income directly, making it mandatory for the U.S. Government to observe the constitutional restrictions on direct taxation.

In 1915 the Supreme Court recognized the effect enforcement would have in converting what is called "income tax" into a direct tax when they said:

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 16, 17 (1915)

Moreover, in addition, 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 unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount co accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..."  [emphasis added]

The justices in the Brushaber case basically agreed with the justices in the 1895 Pollock case that generically the "taxation on income was in it's nature an excise," meaning all excise taxes are in their nature a tax on income. This is exactly what i was getting at earlier when describing the power of everyone to tax income and that a tax is only direct when there is no choice with regard to becoming effected by it.  The justices of both the Pollack and Brushaber cases knew taxation was not the true issue of the "income tax" enacted by Congress.  The true issue being the effect on a person's labor when to enforce income tax on property "would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard the form and consider substance."  This statement indicates that if the issue were properly presented, the U.S. Courts would have to acknowledge that the kickback in the name of Federal "income tax" is legally enforceable only on income received as a result of an employment agreement within the U.S. Government as the U.S. Government has the right to enforce the return of its own income.  All other income is NOT INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS INCOME UNDER SUBTITLE A OF THE I.R. CODE and the IRS has no jurisdiction over such property.  With the IRS jurisdiction restricted to U.S. Government property it is legally impossible for them to sustain any action in court (civil or criminal) with regard to any other property.