+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 5
Results 81 to 87 of 87

Thread: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

  1. Link to Post #81
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.
    Satori

    Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison....

    Thank you. I think you or someone else introduced him to us a while back. I bid him well.

    If you read and understand my post, nothing therein is inconsistent with Mr. Shrout's apparent success. I did not watch the video and I am not familiar with any details of his claims, so that's all I can say. All I know from your post is that he is not in jail or prison. That is good.

    The point of my post is to caution against believing everything one hears, reads or sees on this subject (and all others), and to be very careful with how you go about challenging tax authorities. They are not invincible and they can be beat, but that is the vast exception, not the rule.

    I am not attempting to urge people to role over and take it, to the contrary. The income tax is the bane of our economic existence. I simply urge proceeding with great preparation and study.
    Yes, of course. I understand your post. Doing one's own due dilligent research takes responsibility, of which many tend to steer themselves away from doing so.

    The central difference between us is what we choose to view as being the 'bane' of our economic existence.

    Quote anti-Constitutional federal tax on income
    You say it is the so-called 'income' tax, as in your statement above... that it is unconstitutional... that it is a direct tax on income. With this I would agree, if it were indeed the case! But it is not. It is not a direct tax on income. As stated previously, an apportioned tax (according to a State's population) on income would be absolutely unconstitutional.

    However, this is not the case. As, it has clearly been shown, the so-called 'income' tax is an indirect tax - not on income - but on certain activities. The amount of 'income' that is derived from a 'certain' activity is used to measure the amount of tax that one needs to pay. Engaging in such activity makes one liable for & subject to the tax that is imposed for such engagement into that activity.
    As is stated within the 1943 House Congressional Record:
    The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
    It is an exise 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.
    House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580.
    (Emphasis added.)
    The United States Supreme Court explains an excise tax.
    Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
    consumption of commondities within a county, upon
    licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
    privilieges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.
    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151 (1911).
    (Emphasis added.)
    Hence, what I would say that lay at the crux of the problem is the ease at which the human population can be so easily 'mind-controlled!' That is what I would say is the 'bane' of not only our econmic existence, but our existence as human beings as a whole.

    In other words, it is a gullibility factor - believing in anything that one says - that lay at the crux of the problem that so many people are having. It is a massive mind-control that has been implented upon the American public. It is not a conspiracy theory, per se. It is a fact.

    So, On the contrary, it is my understanding, that the tax is absolutely constitutional. Its only the massive misapplication of the revenue laws that has been misconstued. It has been a massive deception campaign on the American population as a whole that is what lay at the crux of the problem.

    If a greater percentage of the American people did their own due diligence - took the time to learn for themselves what kind of tax that they have be subjecting themselves to - for most ALL of their lives - then the courts would not be allowed to act in the corrupted manner that they are operating in.

    It is because the majority of the people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the politicians, and more significantly by the corrupted corporate news 'propaganda machine' media (MSM), then there would not be the grandiose problem that exists regarding the so-called "income" revenue tax.
    Last edited by turiya; 30th August 2018 at 17:11.

  2. Link to Post #82
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,327
    Thanked 22,061 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Tread very carefully in this area. There are many pitfalls for the unwary.
    Satori

    Meet Winston Shrout - still not in jail or prison....

    Thank you. I think you or someone else introduced him to us a while back. I bid him well.

    If you read and understand my post, nothing therein is inconsistent with Mr. Shrout's apparent success. I did not watch the video and I am not familiar with any details of his claims, so that's all I can say. All I know from your post is that he is not in jail or prison. That is good.

    The point of my post is to caution against believing everything one hears, reads or sees on this subject (and all others), and to be very careful with how you go about challenging tax authorities. They are not invincible and they can be beat, but that is the vast exception, not the rule.

    I am not attempting to urge people to role over and take it, to the contrary. The income tax is the bane of our economic existence. I simply urge proceeding with great preparation and study.
    Yes, of course. I understand your post. Doing one's own due dilligent research takes responsibility, of which many tend to steer themselves away from doing so.

    The central difference between us is what we choose to view as being the 'bane' of our economic existence.

    Quote anti-Constitutional federal tax on income
    You say it is the so-called 'income' tax, as in your statement above... that it is unconstitutional... that it is a direct tax on income. With this I would agree, if it were indeed the case! But it is not. It is not a direct tax on income. As stated previously, an apportioned tax (according to a State's population) on income would be absolutely unconstitutional.

    However, this is not the case. As, it has clearly been shown, the so-called 'income' tax is an indirect tax - not on income - but on certain activities. The amount of 'income' that is derived from a 'certain' activity is used to measure the amount of tax that one needs to pay. Engaging in such activity makes one liable for & subject to the tax that is imposed for such engagement into that activity.
    As is stated within the 1943 House Congressional Record:
    The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
    It is an exise 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.
    House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580.
    (Emphasis added.)
    The United States Supreme Court explains an excise tax.
    Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
    consumption of commondities within a county, upon
    licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
    privilieges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.
    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 151 (1911).
    (Emphasis added.)
    Hence, what I would say that lay at the crux of the problem is the ease at which the human population can be so easily 'mind-controlled'! That is what I would say is the 'bane' of not only our econmic existence, but our existence as human beings as a whole.

    In other words, it is a gullibility factor - believing in anything that one says - that lay at the crux of the problem that so many people are having. It is a massive mind-control that has been implented upon the American public. It is not a conspiracy theory, per se. It is a fact.

    So, On the contrary, it is my understanding, that the tax is absolutely constitutional. Its only the massive misapplication of the revenue laws that has been misconstued. It has been a massive deception campaign on the American population as a whole that is what lay at the crux of the problem.

    If a greater percentage of the American people did their own due diligence - took the time to learn for themselves what kind of tax that they have be subjecting themselves to - for most ALL of their lives - then the courts would not be allowed to act in the corrupted manner that they are operating in.

    It is because the majority of the people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the politicians, and more significantly by the corrupted corporate news 'propaganda machine' media (MSM), then there would not be the grandiose problem that exists regarding the so-called "income" revenue tax.
    Under this logic, one can avoid what you conclude is an indirect excise tax on incomes only by not producing "income." Given the very broad definition of "income" good luck there. One would have to be homeless and/or completely dependent on others to avoid such a tax.

    And riddle me this: What is the purpose, in 1913, of the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (the so-called Law That Never Was) if [since] under the Constitution before that amendment the activity of producing income was subject to an indirect excise tax?

    The generally accepted definition of an indirect tax, is that it is a tax on certain transactions and activities. Theoretically, one can avoid the tax by not engaging in the transaction or the activity. E.g., don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, don't buy imported products.... But, don't work? Don't produce income?

    Also, one reason such a tax is deemed indirect is that it is not paid by the taxpayer directly to the tax authority. There is a "middle man", the one that or who provides the goods or services in connection with which the taxpayer engaged in such activity. The taxpayer pays the "middle man" directly for the goods or services, and also pays the tax directly to the middle man, and the "middle man" is required to pass the tax on to the tax authority. The tax is collected indirectly from the taxpayer through the middle man and paid directly by the middle man to the tax authority.

    With respect to a direct tax, the taxpayer pays the tax directly to the tax authority. A tax on income is such a tax. Before withholding of income tax on incomes circa 1941 (a "temporary" war measure that remained permanent, as planned), taxpayers paid the tax directly to the tax authority in some interval, such as quarterly or annually. People who do not work for an employer, but who are self-employed (and who pay taxes), still pay the tax directly, as it is not withheld from their incomes--from whatever source derived. This is at least one meaning of a direct tax. Does a tax on income become an indirect tax for those who are employed and their employer withholds the tax and then pays the tax authority? Not in the opinion of the tax authorities.

    Also, the US Supreme Court case you cite is dated 1911, 2 years before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment. It is in my view a correct statement of the law, prior to 1913. It should be correct now. This is one reason I say the income tax is anti-constitutional.

    And, I'd need to read more than what you quoted from the Congressional record of 1943 to understand the meaning of the quote in the context it was made. For all we know the speaker was defending the income tax by classifying it in terms of an excise tax, which people of that day were more familiar with and which did not carry the negative baggage associated with a direct tax on incomes.

    Again, all I'm saying is be careful in this area.
    Last edited by Satori; 30th August 2018 at 17:47.

  3. Link to Post #83
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Will refer back to an earlier statement that you made.... along w/ this your most recent...

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    ...the federal income tax is a "direct tax." That is one reason for the language of the 16th Amend. The Constitution had to be amended to make a direct tax on income constitutional and lawful, without regard to uniformity or apportionment.
    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    And riddle me this: What is the purpose, in 1913, of the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (the so-called Law That Never Was) if [since] under the Constitution before that amendment the activity of producing income was subject to an indirect excise tax?
    I can quite frankly tell you what the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT did NOT do.
    And, this is supported by case law...

    Some people have erroneously claimed that the United States Supreme Court changed its mind, or changed the meaning of the Brushaber and Stanton decisions of 1916 in the Eisner decision of 1920. The only possible reasons for an honest misunderstanding of Eisner is that these people simply do not understand that income is not, and cannot be, the subject of any tax, or do not understand that the word "on" can mean "with regard to or respect to or in consideration of" as defined in Webster's previously cited, or possibly they have not read and studied the entire case.

    People incorrectly claim that the Eisner Court "plainly stated" that what was accomplished by means of the Sixteenth Amendment was the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax. This is the type of misstatement that creates all kinds of confusion. The fact is, the Eisner Court made no such statement. The Eisner Court made no statement that there ever existed any such thing as: "the direct tax known as the income tax."

    The portion of the Eisner Case supposedly utilized as a basis for such claims referred to above, is as follows:
    As repeatedly held, this [the Sixteenth Amendment] did not extend the taxing powers to new or excepted subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on [with regard to or with respect to or in consideration of or measured by] income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103, 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165M 172-173. (Emphasis is mine.)
    A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.
    Eisner, supra, at 206. (Explanation added.)

    The Eisner Court proceeds to discuss what is and what is not "income" as cited previously, tying in all the important facts to establish that "income" for puposes of the Sixteenth Amendment is profit or gain received by the person who is subject to the tax. With the subject of an excise tax being the happening of an event (or activity), and not the income which is the tangible fruit, the only person who can be subject to an excise tax is the person who is involved in the revenue taxable activity.

    In the Eisner Case, the United States Supreme Court cited with approval the cases of Brushaber and Stanton which held that taxation on income was in its nature an excise. If the Court had changed its mind, it would have said so.

    It is important to note that there was no question presented to the Eisner Court as to whether the activity was taxable. The issue the Court was asked to deal with involved a distinction between an increase in value of stock (capital) held by the "taxpayer" as opposed to profit or gain (income) actually being received by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his or her separate use, benefit and disposal. A tax on the capital, regardless of any increase in value, would have been a direct tax on the property. The Court determined that this increase in value was not to be considered "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

    In your studies of the "income" tax issue, you will probably come across many erroneous claims, such as the one shown above. Therefore, it seems timely to point out here that before you accept anybody's "theory" as to what a court case says, you should read the case for yourself. When I say anybody's "theory", I include the "theories" of judges and attorneys, as well as the "theories" of other laymen.
    The Biggest Tax Loophole of All, Principles of Constitutional Taxation, Chapter 2 (pages 61-62) by Otto Skinner

    SOURCE
    Last edited by turiya; 1st September 2018 at 14:32.

  4. Link to Post #84
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Under this logic, one can avoid what you conclude is an indirect excise tax on incomes only by not producing "income." Given the very broad definition of "income" good luck there. One would have to be homeless and/or completely dependent on others to avoid such a tax.

    [...snip...]

    The generally accepted definition of an indirect tax, is that it is a tax on certain transactions and activities. Theoretically, one can avoid the tax by not engaging in the transaction or the activity. E.g., don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, don't buy imported products.... But, don't work? Don't produce income?

    Also, one reason such a tax is deemed indirect is that it is not paid by the taxpayer directly to the tax authority. There is a "middle man", the one that or who provides the goods or services in connection with which the taxpayer engaged in such activity. The taxpayer pays the "middle man" directly for the goods or services, and also pays the tax directly to the middle man, and the "middle man" is required to pass the tax on to the tax authority. The tax is collected indirectly from the taxpayer through the middle man and paid directly by the middle man to the tax authority.

    With respect to a direct tax, the taxpayer pays the tax directly to the tax authority. A tax on income is such a tax. Before withholding of income tax on incomes circa 1941 (a "temporary" war measure that remained permanent, as planned), taxpayers paid the tax directly to the tax authority in some interval, such as quarterly or annually. People who do not work for an employer, but who are self-employed (and who pay taxes), still pay the tax directly, as it is not withheld from their incomes--from whatever source derived. This is at least one meaning of a direct tax. Does a tax on income become an indirect tax for those who are employed and their employer withholds the tax and then pays the tax authority? Not in the opinion of the tax authorities.

    Also, the US Supreme Court case you cite is dated 1911, 2 years before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment. It is in my view a correct statement of the law, prior to 1913. It should be correct now. This is one reason I say the income tax is anti-constitutional.

    And, I'd need to read more than what you quoted from the Congressional record of 1943 to understand the meaning of the quote in the context it was made. For all we know the speaker was defending the income tax by classifying it in terms of an excise tax, which people of that day were more familiar with and which did not carry the negative baggage associated with a direct tax on incomes.

    Again, all I'm saying is be careful in this area.
    Now, who is it that is moving away from logic, reason & rational thinking, here?

    Chapter 13

    LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER

    (Intro)
    If you have any questions in your mind as to whether or not your job involves any activity that has been taxed for revenue purposes, this author suggests you obtain advice from a knowledgeable attorney [good luck w/ that one]. Have the attorney provide you with a written statement as to his opinion. If s/he believes that your particular activity is taxable for revenue purposes, have him/her state which authority determined that particular activity to be taxable for revenue purposes, and in which section of the internal revenue laws, if any, is a tax imposed on that particular activity.

    For example, in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, The U.S. Supreme Court held that the business activities of private corporations were taxable for revenue purposes, and The Corporation Tax law of 1909 imposed a tax on that activity.

    Unfortunately, you will probably find many attorneys (?) who have not even read, let alone studied, the important landmark decisions in regard to taxation, and do not even know the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax. Unless an attorney is thoroughly familiar with the court cases cited in this book and many other related cases, s/he could hardly be considered competent to give advice to an individual who has not been engaged in any revenue taxable activity.

    If your attorney thinks the Sixteenth Amendment authorized a direct tax, or that it conferred some sort of new taxing power, or extended the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, you might provide him or her with a copy of this book [SOURCE], and suggest that he or she start with page 112 of the Stanton Case provided in Exhibit B of this book.

    Do not consider this letter to be a magic silver bullet. You should expect opposition, mainly because of the lack of understanding on the part of most Americans regarding taxes. For example, most people have been led to believe that "social security" taxes go into a special fund, when in fact they go into the general fund not earmarked in any way. See Helvering v. Davis cited previously. This fact alone will surprise many Americans, including attorneys.

    I urge you to read and study each and every court case, statute, regulation and constitutional provision upon which you rely, and also those upon which your opposition relies. Copies of these documents can be obtained from law libraries and some from large public libraries.

    Do not be surprised if your opposition is not exactly open and honest in its response to you. You might find that your opposition's attorneys will cite only portions of statutes or regulations, leaving out important qualifying phrases such as "liable for" or "subject to". Such omissions will tend to cause the unwary reader to believe that the statute or regulation applies to everyone, and not just to those who are liable for (subject to) a particular tax. Also, the opposition might misapply court cases that simply do not address the issues you are raising, thus, cleverly sidestepping the real issues you are trying to raise.

    The better you know your issues, the better you will be able to discuss them intelligently with your employer or anyone else.

    This letter has been designed to put and keep the burden of proof on the employer. I suggest you try to keep it that way. For example, a nontaxpayer (as defined in the Economy Case) should deny being a "taxpayer" as defined in the Code when he is being treated or referred to as if he were a "taxpayer", rather than claiming to be a nontaxpayer. This puts the burden of proof onto those who are assuming the individual is a "taxpayer" for purposes of the Code. If you claim to be a nontaxpayer, you have placed the burden of proving your statement upon yourself.


    MARK OF THE BEAST

    Many people believe that the social security number or other identifying number is the mark of the beast referred to in the Bible. Because of this belief, these people refuse to use an identifying number and feel that to be denied the right to obtain a job without a number is religious discrimination. It is possible to bring a Title 42 lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) if an employer dismisses an individual because the individual declined to provide a social security number or other identifying number based on his religious belifs. See the EEOC Case previously mentioned. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission handles religious discrimination suits.

    A study of this issue will reveal that in order for a paintiff to prevail on a claim of religious discrsimination, the religious belief must be sincere, and whether or not the belief is sincere is a question of fact to be determined by the fact-finder (the jury). Additionally, in order for a paintiff to prevail, the employer must have been informed of the religious belief, and the employee must have been disciplined in some manner for failure to comply with a conflicting employer's employment requirement.

    If an individual is denied a job or is terminated because he has not provided an identifying number, the question arises as to whether the employer's actions were based on the employer's requirement or a federal requirement.

    While I have seen court papers in which the employer tried to claim it to be a federal requirement, I have yet to see a federal or State law that prohibited an employer from hiring an individual or required an employer to terminate an individual because the individual did not provide a number.

    The laws and regulations that supposedly require an employee to apply for a number are directed at the employee, not at the employer. For example, the regulation (26 CFR 31.6011(b0-2(a)), promulgated under 26 U.S.C. 6011, only applies to the employee who is in employment for wages subject to withholding of income taxes, and then, only requires such employee to make an application. It does not require the employer to take action against the individual. The regulation is directed at the employee, not the employer. Therefore, any action against an individual by the employer is the employer's independent decision, and is not based on any federal requirement for him to take action against the individual. This was the basis for the Title 42 religious discrimination suit previously discussed. It seems it was a feeble excuse for the employer to have claimed he was only following federal law.

    In addition to the above, the statute (26 U.S.C. 6011) applies only to any person made liable. The regulation cannot alter or go beyond the scope of the statute. Therefore, neither the statute nor regulation can apply to an individual who has not be made liable for a tax. If the employer is not provided with a social security number, he does not have this prima facie evidence indicating that the individual is subject to social security taxes, and this places more of the burden of proof on the employer.

    If the IRS attempts to take action against the individual for not applying for a number or for not submitting a number to the employer, then the burden of proof is upon the IRS to prove the individual is subject to (liable for) a revenue tax.

    It is important to make a distinction between the issue of religious discrimination and the issue as to whether or not you are subject to a tax.

    If one is subject to a tax, he cannot use a religious belief as an excuse for not paying a tax or for not conforming to the tax laws. For example, if a "taxpayer" has a religious belief that forbids him from paying for the abortion of children, or paying for war in a foreign land, or because he does not believe in welfare, the "taxpayer" still has no excuse for not paying his taxes or for not conforming with the other requirements of the tax laws, even if Congress chooses to spend funds for these purposes.

    Because a religious belief is personal, the letter to the employer is void of any reference to religious belief, he might add to the letter that his religious belief forbids him from using an identifying number even if he were subject to a tax. An example is found in the EEOC Case documents. The important point, I think, is to make a clear distinction between the issue of religious discrimination and the issue as to whether or not you are subject to or liable for a tax.

    The bottom line is that the employer has no authority to take adverse action against an individual for not supplying an identifying number. Without the prima facie evidence of "taxpayer" status of the individual, the employer will have a much more difficult time trying to justify adverse actions against the individual.

    Remember that the employer has absolutely no authority to determine who is and who is not subject to (liable for) a tax, and the revenue laws relate only to those who are subject to (liable for) a tax.

    If an employer continues to want to withhold when he cannot prove the subject of the tax or prove who, if anyone, is subject to (liable for) the tax, then we have to question who the real criminals are in our country. The taking of a persons money based on a mere assumption cannot possibly meet the constitutional requirements of due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

    Protecting and defending you constitutional rights is serious business.
    (Letter to Employer forthcoming) ...
    Last edited by turiya; 31st August 2018 at 16:41.

  5. Link to Post #85
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Under this logic, one can avoid what you conclude is an indirect excise tax on incomes only by not producing "income." Given the very broad definition of "income" good luck there. One would have to be homeless and/or completely dependent on others to avoid such a tax.
    Satori

    Please do whatever it is that you do to determine what is 'logical' after reading the following 'Letter to the Employer'. It obviously passes the 'muster' [test], Imo.

    Please have at it.
    The Letter to the Employer is broken into 2 parts. The 1st part deals with the supposed (false notion) 'requirement' of a Social Security Number & a signed IRS Form document must be provided to an employer in order to contract for work.

    As already discussed. The brainwashing goes deep. The Masters of Deception - a.k.a the Rothschild & Rockefeller central bankers - have done a supreme job in how they've laid out their deception in the wording that is contained within the Internal Revenue Code.


    A Multiplicity of Agent Smiths

    As in the movie, The Matrix , the Masters of Deception have set their scheme up so that 'We the People' will (unwittingly) act as 'agents' (as in a multiplicity of Agent Smiths) for the control system (in this case, the control mechanism is the IRS) under the threat of fine or imprisonment. They've worked their magic in a way that has people at each others' throats. People 'rat' on other people because they think they are not paying their 'fair share' in taxes. The use of the 'fear' factor has worked extremely well.

    With the coming collapse of their economic system (debt-based fiat currency), it will be interesting to see just how these bankers will implement their next phase of control as their banking system falls apart.

    Be sure that you know how to walk carefully through a mine field, before you even think about running through it.
    Re: Demand for full payment of earnings and demand employer cease and desist withholding of earnings under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of withholding taxes from employee who is not subject to income or other revenue tax, and payment of all moneys unlawfully withheld.

    THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT TO SUPPLY A
    SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR "TAXPAYER" FORM W-4.

    Dear ___Employer's Name___

    Please take notice that I , (your name), hereby demand full payment of my earnings and demand that you cease and desist withholding any of my earnings under the guise, pretext, sham, and subterfuge of withholding taxes.

    At the time I applied for a job with you, I was falsely led to believe that I was required by law to complete and sign a Form W-4 and also required to supply a social security number. I have since learned certain facts regarding the signing of forms and the supplying of numbers supposedly required by the revenue laws.

    I submit that there is no law that requires an individual to complete and sign a Form W-4 in order to obtain or to keep a job. I also submit that there is no law that requires an individual to supply a social security number in order to obtain or to keep a job.

    I submit that it is only required under the internal revenue statutes and regulations that an employer request from an individual a completed and signed Form W-4 and request from an individual and identifying number such as a social security number. As you will see, the employer needs only to sign an affidavit stating that the request for a social security number has been made.

    I submit that there is no law that prohibits an employer from hiring an individual, and no law that requires an individual be terminated, in the event the individual does not sign tax forms or submit a social security number.

    I submit that any penalties relating to an individual's alleged "failure" to sign required forms, submit required information, and/or supply required numbers is a matter between the Internal Revenue Service and the individual; and that an employer has absolutely no authority to penalize an individual in any manner or to deprive an individual of any rights or privileges merely because the individual has not supplied such number or submitted such forms.

    I submit that the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Code do not contain an absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee's social security number or other identifying number to the Internal Revenue Service.

    I base the above statements on the following information.
    NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED.
    The Internal Revenue Code section 6109(a)(3) states:

    Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement or other document with respect to another person shall request from such other person, and shall include in any return, statement, or other document, such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person.
    26 U.S.C. 6109(a)(3). (Emphasis added.)

    The regulation interpreting section 6109 provides:

    If he does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, he shall request such number of the other person. A request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person filing the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, he shall sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service so stating.
    26 CFR 301.6109-1(c) (In part, emphasis added.)
    If a document must be filed and the employer has been unable to obtain the number but has made the request, then the employer needs only to include an affidavit stating that the request was made.
    The Internal Revenue Code section 6723 states:
    In case of a failure by any person to comply with a specified information reporting requirement on or before the time prescribed therefor, such person shall pay a penalty of $50 for each such failure, .....
    26 U.S.C. 6723. (In part.)
    However, Internal Revenue Code section 6724(a) provides for a waiver of any penalties assessed under the Code upon a showing of reasonable cause. Section 6724(a) provides:
    No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.
    (26 U.S.C. 6724(a). (Emphasis added.)
    Since the Internal Revenue Code provides a waiver of any penalties for "any failure" to obtain a social security number, it is not mandatory that you obtain such number or supply such number to the Internal Revenue Service. The fact that an individual will not sign a tax form or supply a number after you have made the request, eliminates willful neglect on your part.

    Even under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), documents other than a social security card can be used for identification purposes; a birth certificate being one of them.
    NO FORM W-4 IS REQUIRED
    Just like the request for a social security number (or "taxpayer" identifying number), the Internal Revenue Code merely requires that the employer request a Form W-4 (or withholding exemption certificate) from each employee. The Code instructs that in the event the employee does not furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person. Note that the Internal Revenue Code only relates to those persons who are subject to (liable for) a revenue tax. See Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, cited below.

    Just like the social security number, you will also see that there is no absolute requirement for withholding exemption certificates or withholding allowance certificates (such as Form W-4) required to be signed by an individual in order for him or her to obtain a job. You will see that such forms apply only to individuals who are claiming some sort of statutorily authorized allowance or exemption.

    The Internal Revenue Code provides:
    On or before the date of the commencement of employment
    with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer
    with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to
    the number of exemptions which he claims,
    which shall
    in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.
    [i]26 U.S.C. 3402(f)(2)(A). (Emphasis added.)
    Here the language is clear. Such a form is required only in the event some sort of exemption is claimed. [b]Please be advised that I make no claim at all. I do not claim "exempt", I do not claim "zero" and I do not claim any other number of exemptions. I simply make no claim at all. I submit that you will find no law requiring an individual to complete such certificate if such individual makes no claim. It goes without saying that an individual cannot be foreced to claim a "benefit" or be forced to sign a government form which is not absolutely required by law in order to contract for a job.

    Furthermore, the regulation issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 3402(f)(2)(A) states that an employer is only required to request a withholding exemption certificate" and tells you precisely what to do in the event you are not furnished such certificate.
    (a) On commencement of employment. ......... The
    employer is required to request a withholding exemption
    certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to
    furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered
    as a single persona claiming no withholding exemptions.
    26 CFR 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a). (In part, emphasis added.)
    Summarizing all of the above, it is clear that the statutes and regulations issued pursuant to the statutes do not provide you with any protection for refusing to hire an individual or for dismissing an individual simply because the individual has not supplied a social security number or signed tax forms.
    (This ends the part of the Letter to the Employer regarding the supposed requirement for an person to provide a Social Security Number & other personal information on an IRS form document in order to contract for work. Part 2 forthcoming.)
    Last edited by turiya; 3rd September 2018 at 13:30.

  6. Link to Post #86
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)


    It goes without saying that one cannot have taxes withheld unless s/he is subject to (liable for) a tax.

    I deny being subject to or liable for any so-called "income" tax, or any so-called Social Security" tax or any other revenue tax. I submit that you will find no place in the Internal Revenue Code that makes me subject to or liable for any tax. I suggest that you not merely assume that I am subject to or liable for a tax and withhold from my contracted earnings on the basis of that assumption. Such actions will not pass muster under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

    The Internal Revenue Code is clear in showing which persons are liable for a tax. For example, 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1) states:
    The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be
    liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5701.
    [i]26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1).
    Again, I submit that you will find no place in the Internal Revenue Code that makes me subject to or liable for any tax.

    Furthermore, I deny being a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. I also deny that I have any "taxable income" or "taxable year" as these terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

    If you act on a mere assumption that I am subject to or liable for any revenue tax, you will then carry the burden of proof as to the lawfulness of your actions.

    You should note that the courts have clearly stated the revenue laws relate only to those who are subject to or liable for a tax.
    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.

    Note 3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the
    strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue
    Code and means any person who pays, overpays, or is
    subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section
    7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A
    "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the
    foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
    Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470
    F.2d 585, 589-590 (U.S. Court of Claims, 1972).
    (Emphasis added.)
    In other words, all of the statutes and regulations under the internal revenue laws apply only to those who are subject to or liable for a revenue tax.

    I submit that you do not have the authority to determine who is and who is not subject to or liable for a tax. Before you proceed to act on a mere assumption that I am someone who is subject to ir liable for a particular tax, I suggest you try to determine whether the subject of the tax is in the category of people, property or activities, and then try to find a place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax on that particular subject.

    I submit that there is no tax within the Internal Revenue Code imposed on people or property. A federal court stated:
    Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly
    limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation
    taxes.
    Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 277 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1960).
    I submit that there is no tax imposed by the internal revenue laws that has been apportioned among the States as the United States Constitution requires of direct taxes. Obviously, since there are no federal taxes apportioned among the States, including social security taxes, there is no tax imposed on either people or property.

    The United States Supreme Court stated:
    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.
    Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, at
    557 (1895); and
    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S.1, at 13
    (1916). (Emphasis added.)

    and,

    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...
    Brushaber, supra, at pages 16-17 (1916). (Emphasis added.)
    Satori - This part is for you
    In the event your attorney claims that the Sixteenth authorized a direct tax without apportionment, let me advise you that the United States Supreme Court said:
    [By] the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of
    the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of
    taxation but simply prohibited the previous compete and
    plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress
    from the beginning from being taken out of the category of
    indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....
    Stanton v. Baltiv Minining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112.
    (Emphasis added.)

    and,

    The Sixteenth Amendment.... does not extend the taxing
    power to new or excepted subjects....
    Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 (1918).

    and,

    A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as
    distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax....
    Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930).
    (Emphasis added.)
    The 1943 House Congressional Record reiterates these basis 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.
    House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580.
    (Emphasis added.)

    The United States Supreme Court explains an excise tax.
    Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
    consumption of commodities within a country, upon
    licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
    privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680
    Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 152 (1911).
    (Emphasis added.)
    Unless you can find a place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax upon any activity or event which I am involved in, then you have no basis to assume or presume that I am subject to or liable for a tax.

    While withholding is authorized under certain conditions, section 3402(a)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code states that withholding must:
    ...reflect the provisions of chapter 1 [of the Code]...
    26 U.S.C. 3402(a)(1)(B). (Explanation added.)
    Chapter 1 of the Code involves the so-called "income" tax which is an indirect tax in the nature of an excise which is a tax imposed upon some taxable event or activity. I submit that you will not find a place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax on any activity or event which I am involved in, and no place in the Code that makes me subject to or liable for any revenue tax.

    Also, I submit that before you proceed to act based upon someone else's statment claiming I am liable for or subject to any internal revenue tax, that you make certain that that person has the authority to make that determination. I submit that there is no statute authorizing anyone to determine whether or not I am subject to any internal revenue tax. Personnel within the taxing agencies may have authority to determine the liability (amount of tax owed) of a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code (one who is subject to or liable for a revenue tax), but I submit that no person has been granted the authority to determine whether or not I am subject to or liable for any internal revenue tax.

    I submit that you will not be able to find any person who will sign a statement under the penalty of perjury claiming that I am subject to or liable for any particular revenue tax.

    The United States Supreme Court has ruled:

    Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment
    and payment, not upon distraint.
    Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960).
    I have determined that I am neither subject to nor liable for any internal revenue tax.

    Again, I submit that you will find no person who has been granted the authority to determine whether or not I am subject to or liable for any internal revenue tax. If you think there is a document granting any person such authority, I suggest you obtain a hard copy of that document before you proceed to withhold money from my earnings under the guise or pretext of supposedly withholding taxes.

    I submit that the only requirments for forms to be signed and numbers to be supplied under the revenue laws apply only to a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code; i.e., one who is subject to and/or liable for an internal revenue tax.

    I submit that such numbers and forms were obtained from me by you under conditions of mistake of fact, duress, and/or coercion. Therefore, I hereby revoke my signature on any and all such forms in your possession, and I demand that you remove any social security number or "taxpayer" identification number from any and all records in your possession.

    Since you do not have the authority to determine whether or not I am subjet to any internal revenue tax, I demand that you do not send any Form 1099, Form W-4, Form W-2, or any other forms concerning me to the IRS or any government agency. Any release of private information concerning me will be in violation of my rights of privacy under the law.

    If any such agency requests information concerning me, I suggest you demand documented proof (if any exists) that I am a person subject to or liable for a revenue tax and provide me with copies of such documents.

    If you cannot and do not provide me with true copies of an official determination that I am subject to or liable for a revenue tax, signed by a person with proper authority to make that determination, the detailed basis for that determination clearly identifying the precise subject of the tax in question and clearly stating whether the subject of the tax is in the category of people, property, or activities, and clearly stating the precise section of the revenue laws imposing a tax on that particular subject and the precise section of the revenue laws that makes me subject to or liable for that tax, I will presume that my position is correct and that any withholding of my lawful earnings will be an unlawful conversion of my property.

    If you act without the proper authority, I seriously doubt that the IRS will come to your aid.

    Please advise me in writing within 10 day of receipt of this letter of the action you intend to take.

    Sincerely,

    /s/______signature_______
    typewritten name
    _______________________

    Its very, very difficult for most people to pry themselves out of a deep state of brainwashing hypnosis, especially one that has been going on for more than just a few decades - ever since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

    I know the difficulty - and, it is very, very difficult. I know, because it was difficult for me to come out of it. Even after reading Otto Skinner's excellent research on this subject it took me several years to digest it fully.

    The first step is to accept the fact that you have been duped for so many, many years. And realizing the fact that everyone else around you has also been deluded, and is living in a false reality, and would more than likely attempt to turn you in to the IRS for not doing what they are doing - paying a so-called "income" tax to the IRS - as they think everybody else should do as they are doing. (Yes, this is the 'Matrix'.)

    It is time for the awakening to take place.
    Best regards.
    Last edited by turiya; 2nd September 2018 at 03:34.

  7. Link to Post #87
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Income Tax is Voluntary! (But they'll jail you anyway)

    Side note: There are several layers to this reality that human perception can access. It is dependent on the depth of awareness. Or, said differently... it is dependent on how strongly attached one has become to the brainwashed conditioning propaganda that one has been subjected to. This relation is inversely proportional - the greater the attachment, the less one is available to perceive the other layers.

    Cutting the attachment, and other realities come into view.

    GoldFish Report #251; SS5; Contracts,
    Short History of Philipines and Taxation

    (September 2, 2018)
    Description:
    • Excerpt from Goldfish Report No. 251 w/ Winston Shrout.
    • Still not in prison, or jail.
    • No monetary gain sought with the publishing of this video.
    • For educational purposes only.
    • Right of Fair Use Claim.

    The Plan of the Experts
    Last edited by turiya; 2nd September 2018 at 12:46.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts