Friday, August 12, 2005

Larken - Day Five

69 Old Comments:

Just got done listening, all i can say is your analysis is powerful.
Not to be mean to doug kenline, but i believe his posts should be somewhat similar to yours. Once again, i say that kindly, more as constructive critism for doug, not to villify him.
Thanks

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:00 PM  

Your commentaries have been the most thoughtful, complete, and meaningful. Thank you so much. If you have a website, blog, or other contact point, would you please post its link to this comment section.

By Anonymous Dave in California, at 8/12/2005 5:18 PM  

Sherry, I guess that it might never cross your mind that Larken was wrong? Let's see, the number of scholars who believed in Larken's position was . . . uh . . . uh . . .

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:19 PM  

anonymous:
Who are these "scholars," and what is the evidence supporting their beliefs?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:28 PM  

anonymous:
Who are these "scholars," and what is the evidence supporting their beliefs?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:29 PM  

They are the ones not living in doublewides like the rest of the TPs.

You can identify them by their clean clothes, they don't bring any pool-cleaning equipment with them, and you never see them at Wrestlemania.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:37 PM  

I love the argument that scholars have a belief or theory about something and it is all knowing and always correct, or are masters of truth.
What is illogical rational.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:40 PM  

What a illogical rational.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 5:41 PM  

Larken's conviction rests on character assasination. The judge, the prosecution and the jurors, should think about the consequences of their actions.

Remember what the judge said: "if you have income, you must file and pay, that is the law". Sure!

There was no legal evidence presented by the prosecution. I for one, would like to see where the 861 issue has been judiciously rejected by a court. Any court other than Tax Court, and any court that does their job and not state: "this is frivolous tax protester rhetoric"

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 6:00 PM  

Larkin could have benefited greatly from Otto Skinner's book "The Defendant" as well as parts of his other books.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 6:13 PM  

"What is illogical rational."

"What a illogical rational."

I think you meant:

What an illogical rationale.

:-)

As for scholars who "believed in Larken's position"? Perhaps you missed the 861.info presentation.

While some may protest, I actually welcome the gleeful asininities from the Quatloosers. Let them have their fun, and let America see their character. It does indeed have to get worse before it's going to get better.

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
--John Hay

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/12/2005 6:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 7:02 PM  

Thank you Sherry, you did very good at explaining everything. This is so sad and I feel so bad.

By Anonymous DC Wornock, at 8/12/2005 7:11 PM  

I served my contry 8 years part of it in war. I am a Gulf Vet. Never had to kill anyone but mr. soap if I had the opportunity you might be the first. Or at least a good back side kicking. You are the same types we fought against is every war this country has fought. How do you people sleep or look yourselves in the mirror? What drives you to hate those how choose to fight for freedom? You would have been a tory for sure or standing next to Jane in Hanoi. I just came from the movie "The Great Raid" those men were made of something, Larkin is of that same mold. If I were in combat I would want him next to me! But you sir remind me of the little rats, lurking ready to take any advantage for yourself. You smile, but one day you will have to stand for you actions. In that day the millons who have fought for our freedoms will stand with proudly with Larkin in there ranks. I wonder where will you be? I would say under a rock with the same character you display here.

By Anonymous Gulf Vet, at 8/12/2005 7:21 PM  

Sorry about any mis-spellings but I was a little heated. Still am!

By Anonymous Gulf Vet, at 8/12/2005 7:24 PM  

Damn well said, Gulf Vet...

Salute!!!

By Blogger David, at 8/12/2005 7:32 PM  

what does this mean for the 861 argument? can he appeal? is there any hope? how can the country be so blind? when does it all stop? what is the next step? my heart is so heavy and sad and it is a challenge to keep it from turning cold, bitter and hopeless. i know that this is what they would want.
what can a young person like me with hopes for the future do? i do not want to live in fear. is there a voice, a guide? Ms. Jackson, what do you suggest?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 7:36 PM  

Here is the usual BS coming from the DOJ, the first article to hit the wires:
To: National Desk


Contact: U.S. Justice Department Public Affairs Office, 202-514-2008 or 202-514-1888 (TDD); Web: http://WWW.USDOJ.GOV


WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service announced today that a federal jury in Philadelphia convicted Larken Rose, of Hollywood, Pennsylvania of five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns.


Larken Rose, 37, was the joint owner of a medical transcription business operated outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As set forth in the Indictment and according to the evidence introduced at trial, Rose willfully failed to file personal federal income tax returns for calendar years 1998 through 2002, despite earning $500,000 during those years. Rose also filed false and frivolous amended income tax returns for 1994, 1995, and 1996. On those amended returns, he reported no tax due and requested a refund for all income taxes paid in those years. At trial, Rose claimed that he failed to file returns and sought refund claims based on his determination that his income received inside the United States was not taxable under Internal Revenue Code Section 861 and regulations. The judge instructed the jury that this Section 861 argument is incorrect as a matter of law.


"People who intentionally fail to file returns or pay taxes as required by law can expect to face criminal prosecution and conviction," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division. "And they will still be required to pay the taxes they tried to avoid, plus interest and penalties."


"The conduct of Larken Rose," said Patrick L. Meehan, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, "is an affront to all taxpayers who voluntarily pay the taxes required by law."


Nancy Jardini, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation, said, "Today's conviction reminds us that fulfilling individual tax obligations is a legal requirement and those who willfully evade that responsibility will be prosecuted."


Courts have consistently held that Section 861 does not provide authority for United States citizens to fail to file income tax returns on income earned in the United States, as was highlighted by evidence at trial. The trial evidence also showed that Rose received more than a dozen notices from the IRS that rejected his 861 argument. Further, there were more than ten letters from members of Congress, found at Rose's residence during execution of a search warrant, that provided notice to him that his 861 argument was invalid. In addition, Rose was aware of two district court cases that had rejected the 861 argument. In one case, the district judge informed Rose directly that Rose's view of the law was incorrect. There was also considerable evidence presented at trial, through email correspondence, that Rose intended to create a mass movement of non-compliance to obstruct the enforcement of the tax laws.


In convicting Rose, the jury rejected his claim that he held a good faith belief that the federal income tax laws do not apply to him. District Judge Michael M. Baylson ordered Rose to remain under home detention and set sentencing for November 15, 2005. Rose faces a possible sentence of 12 months on each of the five Counts of which he was found guilty.


Assistant Attorney General O'Connor and U.S. Attorney Meehan thanked Assistant United States Attorney, Floyd J. Miller, and United States Department of Justice Tax Division Attorney, Shawn T. Noud, who prosecuted the case. They also thanked the special agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, whose efforts were essential to the successful investigation and prosecution of the case.


Additional information about the Justice Department's Tax Division and its enforcement efforts may be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 7:43 PM  

Jesus told us, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." That sums it up for me!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 7:45 PM  

Sherry,

Your blog summations during and after the trial have been absolutely outstanding.
Thank you...... This also applies to some others on this post. You know who you are.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 7:48 PM  

I still think Jesus was right. I know that Caeser had him killed, but the truth won in the end. It will this time, too.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 7:49 PM  

My heart is very heavy after hearing the news.It will take a economic shock to wake America up to the truth! Its not far off, the day is very near! In todays courts the truth or law has nothing to do with it. Its who can paint the best picture for the jury to believe! 861 is just to much for a jury to take in in just a few days time! Larken would have been better off first by having the government to show where & how they have jurisdiction! Jurisdiction much first be established before they can even have a trial! I pray for his wife that she will get jurors that will show interest. This is the key to winning in court! These jurors were more interested in going home an watching TV then trying to figer out the 861 reg. May God Bless Larken an give him interstrength to standtall for he is the one who is telling the truth! May God be with his wife & child as they stand against this tyranny!

By Blogger golden boy, at 8/12/2005 8:30 PM  

Larken and his wife, Tessa, will come out smelling like a rose.

This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad. The truth is inviolate.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:35 PM  

Sherry, I appreciate the analysis, but I suspect that for the jury, it was a bit simpler:

Jury foreman during deliberation: "Who here paid their taxes?" (All hands raise). "Well, he didn't pay his taxes. GUILTY! All agree?" (All hands raise).

"Good, now I can get home to watch back episodes of Dharma & Greg."

"Yeah, there's some pre-season football on, too."

"Yup. Isn't jury duty a PITA?"

"Yup."

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." ~ Hosea 8:7

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:49 PM  

Who are these "scholars," and what is the evidence supporting their beliefs?

OK, who exactly is Larken Rose to "believe" that the law is wrong and he's right? A high school drop-out ex-groundskeeper who latched onto a pretty (but apparently brainless) medical transcriptionist and sucked her money and (soon) her freedom away? Face facts, you agree with rosie only because by doing so, you can justify not paying taxes. Noble? My ass, you're just deadbeats that believe anything as long as it allows you to shirk your societal responsibilities with some twisted form of justification for your actions.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 8:59 PM  

"Larken and his wife, Tessa, will come out smelling like a rose."

After the showers, body-cavity inspections, and delousing, like all the other common criminals.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 9:05 PM  

Be of good cheer. It isn't over until the fat lady sings, and I am in perfect pitch! Sean Hannity understands and believes in the 861 evidence. Please visit:
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6992
Read his commentary regarding Larken's trial. (Trial of the Century)
Contact Sean and let him know that you support Larken and urge him to continue promoting the truth and exposing the fraud. Larken's trial has gained National attention and will most likely become the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Also visit Amazon.com and purchase a copy of "Cracking The Code" by Peter Eric Henderickson and "The Fair Tax Book" by Neal Boortz, who just happens to be a friend of Sean Hannity.

Thank you Sherry for your dedication and exceptional coverage of the trial. Words cannot express my gratitude for your personal stand and sacrifice in the movement to restore honesty in taxation.

In 1985 President Ronald Wilson Reagan, said that, in his opinion, as a sitting President, "I believe that in both spirit and substance our tax system has come to be un-American...My friends, the time has come for a Second American Revolution." I have no doubt that were he alive today, President Reagan would have given Larken Rose a Medal of Honor for bravery above and beyond the call of duty.
I appreciate the fact that Tessa is standing by her man, as many women do not support their husbands in this endeavor. I applaud their efforts to remain a team, pulling in one direction. As one patriot put it, "We must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately."

By Anonymous Charlotte Smith, at 8/12/2005 9:32 PM  

To anonyhmous who wrote: "OK, who exactly is Larken Rose to "believe" that the law is wrong and he's right?" Yup, you clearly have opened up your mind to the public and guess what?? Nothing is in there. If you had anything in there, you would know that Larkin has NEVER believed and/or stated that the law is wrong. In fact, the WHOLE trial was about the fact that the law is RIGHT!!! Next time, get informed before opening your mouth. And BTW, when in income tax fraud falls, which it will, I can be assured that you will be "hogging" yourself (along with the rest of your ilk) to the head of the line to stop paying a legally non-required tax.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 10:12 PM  

I looked over that thread twice and Hannity didn't post on it, unless he was using a pseudonym.

I recall his thuggish treatment of Vernice Kuglin when she appeared on H&C just after she won her case; he was mr. conventional whiz-dumb on steroids. (Colmes was actually far kinder to her than Hannity was.) I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if he had switched sides since then.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/12/2005 10:16 PM  

The worst kind of slave is those who percieve themselves to be free.
This form of fraud called income tax is no more than slavery pure and simple. Let's not mascarade it is Freedom and liberty.
We work 6 months out of every year to pay tax,Unlike normal slaves we have no guard, shelter, food and medical and clothing supplied by our oppressor. Lets call it what it is. lock me up and stop this charade The Gov. calls the home of liberty and freedom.better yet, lock us all up, where will you be then mr IRS? Can you imprison a Nation? I doubt it

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 11:15 PM  

Here is the PROOF, researched and written in the context of a brief by Charles F Conces.

Respectfully submitted by alaburda@bellsouth.net.

Enjoy...

REPORT CONCERNING LIABILITY OF U.S. CITIZENS IN REGARD TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.
(revised August 8, 2005)
The First Consideration – The Constitution

The Constitution of the United States forbids the imposition by the federal government, a direct tax without apportioning it in accordance with the census. The first thing to consider then, is what constitutes a direct tax and what apportionment means.

The subject of what constitutes a direct tax, has been addressed by the Supreme Court in several cases and in our laws. We’ll examine these cases and examine what the Court said concerning the 16th Amendment.

It must first be understood that there are some basic principles of law. One important principle is that because a case is old, does not mean that it is invalid or not reliable. It is exactly the opposite. An old case, which has never been successfully challenged nor overturned, is the best of all cases as having withstood the test of time and becomes part of our common law.

There are other principles, which must be considered…such as… a person does not have to do what an IRS agent tells him to do, he only has to do what the law tells him to do. The law is expressed by Constitution, court ruling, statute, and regulation. In order for a statute to have the force of law, there must be an accompanying implementing regulation.
“The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other, and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other… When the statute and regulations are so inextricably intertwined, the dismissal must be held to involve the construction of the statute.” UNITED STATES v. MERSKY, 361 U.S. 431 (1960).
“…we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.” CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ, 416 U.S. 21 (1974).

Sometimes a regulation is overturned by a court ruling on the basis that the regulation did not properly reflect the statute. There are 3 types of regulations; Interpretive, Procedural, and Legislative. An agency can have a regulation demanding that employees shine their shoes or wash their hands. These obviously would not have the force and effect of law but would only be a condition of employment. There are also interpretive regulations that guide the employees in their work. The last type of regulation is the legislative regulation, which has the force and effect of law by the citation of a statute or ruling on which it is based. At the end of each regulation, you will see a number of citations, such as a Treasury Department Decision, etc. The regulation must cite a statute, such as IRC sec. 6331, in order to have the force and effect of law and application to the general public.

So one of the main considerations which must become a part of your thinking would be to question any statement made by an IRS agent or government official as to whether a regulation has the force and effect of law. A Supreme Court case states a principle that you would do well to remember…that is, if you accept an agent’s statement concerning the law and if his statement is incorrect or deceptive, then you are taking a risk. DON’T take that risk!! Always ask to be shown the statute and regulation!!! That ruling was given in Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v Merrill, 332 US 380, 384 (1947) and has never been overturned:
“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. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. See, e.g., Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409 , 391; United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70 , 108, and see, generally, In re Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666.”

The prohibitions against a direct tax are in Article 1, sec. 2, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this union, according to their respective Numbers…” and also in Article 1, sec. 9, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” These 2 prohibitions were never repealed and remain in force in the main body of the Constitution. The income tax is a direct tax on an individual and must be levied under the rule of apportionment, according to the Supreme Court. However, there actually was levied an excise tax on corporations, in 1909 and later, which was measured by the size of their incomes and limited by their profits. That tax cannot be levied on an individual.
"Direct Taxes bear upon persons, upon possession and the enjoyment of
rights; Indirect Taxes are levied upon the happening of an event."
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 47 (1900).

The Code of Federal Regulations cites direct and indirect taxes in 19 CFR 351.102 Definitions:
Direct tax. ``Direct tax'' means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.

Indirect tax. ``Indirect tax'' means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.

A person’s possessions include the money and assets in his possession, and also include his labor, as being his property and as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court also ruled that a man’s labor is inviolable and the exercise of such is a guaranteed right.
“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.” Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746 (1884).

“… using of anything whereby any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, are sought to be restrained of any freedom or liberty they had before or hindered in their lawful trade,' All grants of this kind are void at common law, because they destroy the freedom of trade, discourage labor and industry, restrain persons from getting an honest livelihood, and put it in the power of the grantees to enhance the price of commodities. They are void because they interfere with the liberty of the individual to pursue a lawful trade or employment.” Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746, 756 (1884).

“That the right to conduct a lawful business, and thereby acquire pecuniary profits, is property, is indisputable.” TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 348 (1921).

In Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925):
"[T]he Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right..."

MEYER v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):
“While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co ., 111 U.S. 746 , 4 Sup. Ct. 652; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Minnesota v. Bar er, 136 U.S. 313 , 10 Sup. Ct. 862; Allegeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 , 17 Sup. Ct. 427; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 , 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey 211 U.S. 78 , 29 Sup. Ct. 14; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 , 31 Sup. Ct. 259; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 , 36 Sup. Ct. 7, L. R. A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Adams v. Tanner, 224 U.S. 590 , 37 Sup. Ct. 662, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357 , 38 Sup. Ct. 337, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 , 42 Sup. Ct. 124; Adkins v. Children's Hospital (April 9, 1923), 261 U.S. 525 , 43 Sup. Ct. 394, 67 L. Ed. --; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N. E. 925, 128 Am. St. Rep. 439, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147.”

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US 105, at 113; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).

Just what is an excise tax? "A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruit, is an Indirect Tax which Congress undoubtedly may impose." [Tyler et. al., Administrators v. United States, 281 US 497, 502 (1930)].

It must be further said at this point that if the tax were being imposed as an excise tax on a natural person, why is the tax imposed not listed in subtitle E (Alcohol, tobacco, and certain excise taxes)?

There are more statements by the rulings of the Supreme Court but before we get into those, let me state the following… Excise taxes used to be commonly referred to as luxury taxes. The basis for that was that an excise tax was levied on an item of consumption or a privilege, which could be avoided by the buyer or subscriber. Very few people refer to excise taxes as luxury taxes anymore because the establishment would not want this concept to take root in the public mind. There are an awful lot of citizens who would disagree with the notion that the telephone or gasoline are not necessities of life and can be avoided, thereby rendering them as luxuries.

We will now look into the 16th Amendment. You most likely will be surprised at what you will discover.

The Second Consideration – The 16th Amendment

The IRS claims that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution authorizes an income tax without apportionment. Well, that is only partially true. The Amendment only applies to corporate profits, not to an unincorporated individual or business.

After the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913, there were many cases that came before the US Supreme Court and various issues were decided concerning its legitimacy. See Note 1. The big question was whether the Amendment had overturned the limitations against a direct tax without apportionment, since the limitations on direct taxes remain in the Constitution. There was the landmark Pollock case that had set precedent before the 16th Amendment was passed. Pollock came before the court in 1895 and argued what an indirect and direct tax were. It overturned the 1894 income tax act because of lack of apportionment. So you can see that the apportionment provision is very important.

“Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.” Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 582 (1895).

“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.” Pollock, 157 US 429, 556 (1895).

“From the foregoing it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes; (3) that the rules of apportionment and of uniformity were adopted in view of that distinction and those systems…” Pollock, 157 US 429, 573.

“The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation.” Pollock, 157 US 429, 595.

In 1909, a corporate excise tax was passed and was ruled as meeting the requirement of uniformity for excise taxes. The court said that the apportionment requirement was not needed because it was an excise tax on the privilege of incorporating, and the size of the excise tax was measured by the size of the corporate profit. Therefore, it was ruled that it was not a tax on the income of the corporation and was, in actuality, an indirect or excise tax. Note here that it was a privilege to incorporate and that privilege carried some advantages with it. Therefore the excise tax could be avoided by not incorporating. That allowed it to fall into the category of excise or LUXURY tax. Also note that the tax was only allowed on corporations and not on individuals. Corporate officers were obligated to ensure that the corporation paid the tax but the tax was not imposed on the individual officers.
STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399, 417 (1913):
“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 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. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 165 , 55 S. L. ed. 107, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B. 1312, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise or privilege, was not debarred by the Constitution from measuring the taxation by the total income, although derived in part from property which, considered by itself, was not taxable.”

In FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 165 (1911), this is also stated:
“It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable. Applying that doctrine to this case, the measure of taxation being the income of the corporation from all sources, as that is but the measure of a privilege tax within the lawful authority of Congress to impose, it is no valid objection that this measure includes, in part, at least, property which, as such, could not be directly taxed. See, in this connection, Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 142 U.S. 217 , 35 L. ed. 994, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 807, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121, 163, as interpreted in Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217, 226 , 52 S. L. ed. 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638.”

So now it can be seen that Property (a person’s labor or wages), considered by itself, is not taxable.

The Sixteenth Amendment states:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” If you are not aware of the definition of the word “income” given by the US Supreme Court, it will appear as though the 16th Amendment cancelled out the two taxing clauses in the main body of the Constitution.
The scope of the 16th Amendment is limited to “income” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Brushaber, the Court recognized the apparent conflict between the main body of the Constitution and the 16th Amendment and stated the several contentions being made in the case and ruled:
“… the contentions under it (the 16th Amendment), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

The High Court was faced with coming up with a resolution between the apparent conflict between the two taxing clauses in the main body of the Constitution and the 16th Amendment. It didn’t have the power to overturn those two taxing clauses but it did have the power to overturn the 16th Amendment as being unconstitutional. It cited the limitation of the authority of the 16th Amendment by clarifying the limitations on the word “income” in the 16th Amendment. You will see in the following cases where the Court made this limitation as being an indirect tax (excise tax) placed on an activity or privilege of incorporation and consequent activities as a corporation, the size of such excise tax being measured by the size of the corporate profit. The word “income” in its constitutional sense, was ruled as having no other meaning than as being an indirect (excise) tax, the same as was levied by the 1909 corporate tax act.

The 1954 House Discussion on Code section 61(a) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code states: “This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word ‘income’ is used in its constitutional sense.” “This section corresponds to section 22 (a) of the 1939 Code.”

A number of other cases came up after the 16th Amendment was allegedly passed in 1913, and they all remained consistent and only had to reconcile minor differences, such as mining as opposed to manufacturing. This is where the crux of the matter lies for us, and the income tax issue. All these courts clearly ruled, especially MERCHANT’S LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509 (1921), that the word “income” had a specific legal meaning in the 16th Amendment. They further pointed to STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v HOWBERT, 231 US 399 (1913) as the ruling that defined the word “income” in the 16th Amendment.

Here is what STRATTON’S says:
“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.”

In U S v. WHITRIDGE, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913), the Court ruled:
“As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the corporation tax law of 1909-enacted, as it was, after Congress had proposed to the legislatures of the several states the adoption of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, but before the ratification of that Amendment-imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income. It was enacted in view of the decision of this court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. St. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, which held the income tax provisions of a previous law (act of August 27, 1894, 28 Stat. at L. chap. 349, pp. 509, 553, 27 etc. U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2260) to be unconstitutional because amounting in effect to a direct tax upon property within the meaning of the Constitution, and because not apportioned in the manner required by that instrument.”

The important key is “upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity”. So the court is saying that
1) Individual income taxes are direct taxes because they tax the property of the individual,
2) Corporate income taxes are not taxes on the corporation’s income but an excise tax on the corporate privilege and measured by the size of the corporation’s income, and
3) Any true federal tax on “income” would be unconstitutional, if not apportioned.
The only way they could levy a tax on corporations would be to levy an excise tax but not a tax on income itself. Well … Can they levy an excise tax, measured by the size of your earnings, on your salary? Do you have the same choice, that is required to levy an excise tax, that a corporation has, that is, to work or not to work? No. You have to work to feed yourself and your family, etc. and, in no way, is the right to work a privilege. Remember that government officials and their official literature state that the income tax is done in voluntary compliance. Further, the head of the ATF officially testified, under oath before Congress in 1954, that the income tax was 100% voluntary. He was never charged with perjury nor did any member of Congress challenge his statement under oath.

Next, we’ll deal more in these court cases and the 16th Amendment.

THE THIRD CONSIDERATION
THE INCOME TAX and THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Next, we get into some Supreme Court rulings and a discussion of direct vs. indirect taxes. These rulings are a part of our “common law”.

POLLOCK v FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 US 429 (1895) made the following rulings:
Quoting the Constitution – “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census….” We discussed this previously.
“If”, ruled Chief Justice Marshall, “both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution, or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case.” And the Chief Justice added that the doctrine “that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law, would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.”
Thus, the Constitution must govern the law.

Speaking of the 1894 tax, POLLOCK stated:
“...that such tax is a direct tax, and void because imposed without regard to the rule of apportionment; and that by reason thereof the whole law is invalidated.” Second, “That the law is invalid, because imposing indirect taxes in violation of the constitutional requirement of uniformity, and therein also in violation of the implied limitation upon taxation that all tax laws must apply equally, impartially, and uniformly to all similarly situated.”
Comment: As the court ruled, there are two great classes of taxation authorized under the constitution, direct – under the rule of apportionment, and indirect – under the rule of uniformity. The corporate income tax is an indirect (excise) tax while the individual income tax is a direct tax, which must be apportioned. The two differ in nature, character, and application.
Since the 1894 tax and the present individual income tax are both done without apportionment, they are unconstitutional if they are direct taxes AND IF THEY ARE MANDATORY. The 1894 tax was ruled invalid, so how about our present day individual income tax. We will look at the Supreme Court’s rulings on the 16th Amendment and whether it had any effect on the Apportionment requirement. The IRS is obliged, therefore, to answer this question in specific detail and without evasive answers.

Pollock further stated:
“As to the states and their municipalities, this (contributions to expense of government) is reached largely through the imposition of direct taxes. As to the federal government, it is attained in part through excises and indirect taxes upon luxuries and consumption generally, to which direct taxation may be added to the extent the rule of apportionment allows.” And “If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”

Comment: This ruling maintains the distinction between types of state and federal taxation as being important and necessary. Also notice the description of excise (indirect) taxes as taxes on “luxuries and consumption.” I mentioned previously that these indirect taxes fall on the sales of luxuries and consumer goods, which can be avoided. Also the ability to avoid these indirect taxes by not purchasing taxed products or by not seeking a corporate privilege, is necessary to the conditions required by Pollack. Also privileges, such as incorporation, are taxable because they are avoidable and are therefore voluntary. Where have we heard that word “voluntary” before? The IRS gives notice to you each time that it refers to “voluntary compliance”.
Further, it is stated in:
Taxation Key, West 53 – “The legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.”
Taxation Key, West 933 – “The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipts of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed".

FLINT v STONE TRACY, 220 US 107, 151-152, (1911):
This case defines excise taxes, in case you wonder if the government can impose an excise tax on your salary or wages.
“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.’ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680.”

In U S v. WHITRIDGE, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913), the Court ruled:
“As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the corporation tax law of 1909-enacted, as it was, after Congress had proposed to the legislatures of the several states the adoption of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, but before the ratification of that Amendment-imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.

Now let’s look at Smietanka in 1921, 8 years after the 16th Amendment was passed.
MERCHANTS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 519 (1921):
“The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word ‘income’ was so necessary in its administration…”
“It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word ‘income’ has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific v Lowe…, where it was assumed for the purpose of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When we add to this, Eisner v Macomber…the definition of ‘income’ which was applied was adopted from Stratton’s Independence v Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909… there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”
Comment: So the word “income”, in its constitutional sense, has the same meaning after the 16th Amendment was passed as it did prior to passage in 1913. Since that time, there has never been an overturning of this decision which was definitely settled by that Supreme Court decision in 1921. If the IRS cannot show that the decision of the Court was overturned, then its claim fails.

All these rulings were made to establish to the meaning of the word ‘income’ in the 16th Amendment. We’re not yet done. We have to look to Stratton’s. We have, however, learned that it has the same meaning as applied to an EXCISE tax and it has to do with corporations.

STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v HOWBERT, 231 US 399, 414-415, (1913):
Stratton’s is very important in that it puts a firmer definition on the word income.
“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.”
“Moreover, the section imposes ‘ a special excise tax with respect to the carrying on or doing business by such corporation,’ etc…”
“Corporations engaged in such business share in the benefits of the federal government, and ought as reasonably to contribute to the support of that government as corporations that conduct other kinds of profitable business.”
“… the annual gains of such corporations are certainly to be taken as income for the purpose of measuring the amount of the tax.”
Comment: So you see, the word ‘income’ only applied to corporations, acting in a corporate capacity, which freely entered into a contract with the federal government to incorporate and were free to not incorporate or to rescind their incorporation. It was an excise tax, and was indirect, and was imposed on a privilege or luxury.

Does the government claim that the 16th Amendment with its word ‘income’ imposes the same conditions on your wages and salaries? Yes and no. It has never claimed to be imposing an excise tax on your earnings, measured by the size of your wages. Excise taxes cannot be imposed on an individual or his property. They do claim, however that they are imposing a voluntary tax on your earnings. Such a voluntary tax cannot fall under indirect or excise tax definitions. It, therefore, must be imposed as a direct tax, without the apportionment provision, which would make it unconstitutional, except in the case of an American citizen working overseas or a foreigner working in the US …OR… a US citizen who volunteers to pay the tax. It should be noted that “Withholding” agreements are agreements between two or more parties and cannot be coerced.

The Apportionment provision of the Constitution has never been repealed and still stands in the main body of the Constitution. When Prohibition was repealed, the Congress actually passed a measure repealing it, and the same was not done to repeal Apportionment.

If a person states on a W-4 that he had “income”, the government will oblige that statement and collect an “income tax”. However, if a person is forced to sign a W-4 in order to support himself and his family, that W-4 is not legally valid and is compelled by fraud.

Understanding that the income tax can be voluntary, is crucial to the understanding as to why it might be considered constitutional, that is, not authorized by the constitution but simply permitted if it is voluntarily undertaken between government and citizen.

Fourth Consideration – SUPREME COURT CASES

Previously, we focused on 3 court rulings: Pollock, Stratton’s Independence, and Smietanka. Those 3 rulings, alone, destroy the federal government’s claim that the 16th Amendment authorized an income tax on individuals and unincorporated businesses. Now, some may object on the grounds that perhaps this report is not telling the whole story or perhaps we have been reading these cases wrongly. Now it is time to lay those objections to rest. Let’s look at numerous other US Supreme Court cases.

EVANS v GORE, 253 US 245 (1920):
“If the tax in respect of his compensation be prohibited, it can find no justification in the taxation of other income as to which there is no prohibition; for, of course, doing what the Constitution permits gives no license to do what it prohibits.”
“Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before’.”

BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”
Comment: Even the government is not claiming, in view of those recent decisions, that it can levy a direct tax without apportionment. Remember that this was 7 years after the 16th Amendment was passed.

DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918):
“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.”

FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960):
“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”
Comment: Definition of distraint in the legal dictionary, “to seize a person’s goods as security for an obligation.”

STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
“Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.”
“…it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..”
“…it was settled in Stratton’s Independence… that such tax is not a tax upon property… but a true excise levied on the result of the business..”
Comment: The first quotes here deal with the fact that the 16th Amendment authorizes an excise tax on corporations and that the Apportionment provision was still active after the passage of the 16th Amendment.

BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1 (1916):
“…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…”
“…the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source…”
“…on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”
Comment: The first quote states that it is erroneous to believe that a power to levy an income tax, without Apportionment, was granted by the 16th Amendment.
In TAFT v. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929):
“Under former decisions here the settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income.”

PECK v LOWE, 247 US 165 (1918):
“As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”
Comment: Here the Court is not only saying that the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation, but also that the 16th Amendment did not authorize that taxing powers be extended to any new persons.

EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189 (1920):
“The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.”
“As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects…”
“…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and is not ‘income’, as the term is there used..”
“…we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909…(Stratton’s and Doyle)”

DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918):
"An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (The 16th Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations."
Comment: The “conversion of property” mentioned, applied to work/property converted to remuneration/compensation.

COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, 23 -24 (1915):
“The court held it unconstitutional, saying: 'The right to follow any lawful vocation and to make contracts is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty to go when and where one will. One of the ways of obtaining property is by contract. The right, therefore, to contract cannot be infringed by the legislature without violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen is protected in his right to work where and for whom he will. He may select not only his employer, but also his associates.”

SMIETANKA, as in the 3rd consideration of my Report, states:
"There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word 'income' must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 U.S. 170 (1926):
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed."

Helvering v. Edison Brothers' Stores 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918):
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."
Comment: If the word “income” in the 16th Amendment has a strictly limited meaning, as stated in Stratton’s Independence, then the 16th Amendment cannot be properly understood unless that definition, with its limitations, is taken into account.

Now I wish to explain one set of claims that the IRS makes. They say that section 61 or section 63 of the Internal Revenue Code provides the definition of “income” that applies equally to individuals and corporations. Could it ever be possible that the same definition would apply to a corporation excise tax and equally so to a direct tax on an individual’s wages? Since the tax imposed on a corporation was ruled to be an indirect tax and an excise tax imposed on a corporate activity, the question must be raised as to which of the two classes of taxation authorized by the Constitution is imposed on an individual? Is it an excise tax imposed on a privilege of incorporation? An individual does not partake in that privilege. And since the tax imposed on corporations’ income, as a direct tax, was invalid due to lack of Apportionment and applies equally to the individual, the individual and his property also cannot be taxed directly due to lack of Apportionment.

Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the previous cases in 1976, in U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400: “Gross income and not ‘gross receipts’ is the foundation of income tax liability…” Here the Court makes a distinction between the two and the distinction is based on the word “income” as previously decided by the Court.

There is also the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, as stated below:
EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189, 206 (1920):
“In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.”

This can be explained by the “sources of income” rulings by the Court. It is not necessary to go into those arguments in depth. It is only necessary to understand that ‘income’ is a separate item from the sources of that income. A source of income can be wages, by which an employer derives an income. As an example, an employer may earn a profit from the leasing out of his employees or using his employees to earn an income.

Ballard gives us two useful explanations at 404,
“The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.”
This is so because the only constitutional definition of “income” is stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in these previous rulings.

At 404, Ballard further ruled that “… ‘gross income’ means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources.” (For illustrative purpose, suppose you worked for an employer and received wages for producing widgets, and shortly after you began working there, there was a fire, destroying all the widgets that you had produced. Thereafter, the company went out of business, and it is obvious that there was no “gross income” under this Ballard ruling, because there were no sales.)

Fifth Consideration – The Laws

The question must be asked: Do the laws conform to the Constitution?

The above Court rulings leave us with only the one alternative. The individual income tax, unless it is imposed from the rule of Apportionment, falls outside the authorized taxation powers granted by the Constitution, it being a direct tax on an individual’s property.

Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau of Internal Revenue testified under oath before Congress (2/3/53 – 2/13/53):
“Let me point this out now. This is where the structure differs. Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax and your liquor tax (A.T.F.) is a 100% enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules simply will not apply.”

To underscore that the laws conform to the constitution and are being misapplied by the IRS, look at the definition of “employee” as given in 26 USC 3401 as:
(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term ``employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ``employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
That definition applies to 26 USC 3401 through 3406 of Chapter 24. (See note 2) Those code sections are fraudulently cited by the IRS as the “requirement” for all private companies to have a W-4 form (certificate by employee) filed by “employees”
In a letter sent out by P. Rogers Operations Manager, IRS Collections, dated 07-05-2005, P. Rogers falsely states :
“What Laws and Regulations Give Us Authority for the Withholding Compliance Program?
The following are the cites for the laws and regulation that give us the authority for our Withholding Compliance Program. Section 3402 and 3403 of the internal revenue code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. Sections 31.3402(a)-1 through 31.3402(f)(6)-1 of the Treasury Regulations, Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 31, as amended by Treasury Decision (T.D.) 9196, effective April 14,2005”.
This is a perfect example of the IRS agents’ inability to properly administer the law as written. See note 2. It would necessarily follow that if the private employee was not required to file a W-4 form with the employer, then there would be no basis for a withholding from the employee’s paycheck. The laws can therefore be said to be in conformity with the Supreme Court rulings on the word “income” and the 16th Amendment.

These cases and code sections are all a person would need to be exempt from the income tax if he didn’t volunteer. It can be shown that the statutes reflect the voluntary nature of the income tax. The mandatory nature of the statutes, which are listed in the Internal Revenue Code, are missing and have been missing since 1954. There is no statute that causes the average individual to be liable for the income tax and no regulation that implements any such alleged statute.

A final court ruling is in order at this point.
"(A) statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391 (1926).

We are left, inescapably, with these conclusions. The federal income tax is imposed as a 100% voluntary tax, except in regard to corporations, which are engaged in a taxable corporate activity. The individual is free to volunteer or not volunteer to pay the direct tax imposed without apportionment. The individual income tax on citizens is constitutional, but only when it is apportioned. The un-apportioned income tax on the individual, who lives and works in the 50 states, is not authorized by the Constitution and falls into the category of a direct tax.

SUMMARY POINTS
The individual income tax is a direct tax subject to apportionment.
The corporate ‘income’ tax is an indirect tax, not subject to apportionment.
The 16th amendment only applies to ‘income’ as defined by the US Supreme Court, as pertaining only to corporations.
The word ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
The 16th amendment did not authorize any new taxing powers.
The taxing powers of the federal government were the same after the passage of the 16th amendment as were existent before the passage.
The 16th amendment kept the corporate excise tax in the category of indirect tax and did not affect the apportionment requirement of the Constitution.


End of Report
Research and conclusions have been done by Charles F. Conces and are based in part on research done by others who have studied these issues and case laws. Mr. Conces can be reached at (269) 964-7025 if any questions arise. Mr. Conces knows that this report is being widely circulated and asks that anyone who has knowledge of a contrary nature, contact Mr. Conces so that any necessary changes can be incorporated into this report.

Note 1: There is a large group that is claiming that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and that argument is hard to dispute, but is a moot point in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings. A man named Bill Benson from South Holland, Ill. went to every state in the union and got sworn affidavits on those who voted to ratify and those who didn’t. Remember, in those days communications were slow and poor, so it was easy in 1913 to make honest mistakes and just as easy to deceive the public. Kentucky was listed as ratifying and according to the state records there was a switch in the numbers, something like 9 to 16 and these numbers were switched and Kentucky became listed as ratifying. You can get Benson’s book – “The Law That Never Was”.
There were many irregularities such as the change of punctuation or slight changes in wording in some states in order to get their legislators to ratify. Any change in wording or punctuation would have nullified ratification. In any case, there is a large group of people who are challenging the ratification process.
We can use this in our arguments but in court it would require that you produce all the necessary documents to prove your case. That’s why we don’t rely on it. (Note: The federal government cannot admit to their “mistake” because they have been fraudulently collecting the tax and fraudulently putting people in prison for many years. Fraud has no statute of limitations, and therefore people could demand their money back, going all the way back to the 2nd World War.)

Note 2: GOULD v. GOULD , 245 U.S. 151 (1917): “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55 , 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.”


AND NOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT...


Dear Lawmen and Other Patriots:

It is time to stop the misapplication of the so-called "income tax". I have prepared the following cover letter and Brief on Taxation to send to your Congress persons and Senators. I urge all citizens, whether they pay an "income tax" or not, to send this letter and brief to as many in the Congress and Senate as possible. It is time to stand up. The research is complete and the laws and the Constitution are being violated and we can prove it!.

If you wish the WORD version of the letter and brief and cannot get it off this email, then email me and ask me for it at lawmancharles@juno.com.


Dear Congressman and Senator:

This is my official notice to the Congress of the United States that massive fraud is being perpetrated on the people of the United States, in the application of the Income Tax laws by the Internal Revenue Service. I am attaching the brief written that steps through the taxing rulings from 1884 to the present. Mr. Charles F. Conces, of Battle Creek, Michigan, wrote the brief after six years of research and stands by the conclusions presented therein.

Please note that Senator Carl Levin is sending out a response on this issue that contains false and misleading arguments: Such as 1) the 16th Amendment authorized additional taxing powers for the federal government, and 2) failing to distinguish between the direct tax on an individual’s income and the indirect tax on the corporate privilege. Such false and misleading propositions have already been addressed by the United States Supreme Court in its many rulings.

I, along with thousands, perhaps millions, of other citizens am now aware of this ugly situation of massive fraud. We are also aware that the Congress, the Senate, and even the President, are maintaining an ugly silence on the matter, unable to come to grips with the harm that has been done to our Constitution, our Country, and our citizens. Can the federal and state government officials even begin to imagine the terrible harm done to innocent people and their families, who are prosecuted for a law that doesn’t exist? Even if there were such law existent, it would be null and void for its repugnancy to the Constitution. Can officialdom, which now seems to exist for the sole purpose of serving itself instead of the people, even imagine the damage to our fellow countrymen and women? The homes and farms that have been stolen under “color of law” is one terrible example. The terrible misapplication of fraudulent “notices of levy” from the criminal agents of the IRS who demand that the employers withhold 85% of a working person’s wages, leaving that person unable to feed and house himself or herself, and leaving parents and children destitute, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling!
SNIADACH v. FAMILY FINANCE CORP., 395 U.S. 337 (1969): “Held:
"The idea of wage garnishment in advance of judgment, of trustee process, of wage attachment, or whatever it is called is a most inhuman doctrine. It compels the wage earner, trying to keep his family together, to be driven below the poverty level." “The result is that a prejudgment garnishment of the Wisconsin type may as a practical matter drive a wage-earning [395 U.S. 337, 342] family to the wall. Where the taking of one's property is so obvious, it needs no extended argument to conclude that absent notice and a prior hearing (cf. Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413, 423 ) this prejudgment garnishment procedure violates the fundamental principles of due process.”
Is this what we elected you to do?

We, the people of the United States, are now demanding that the officials of the United States uphold the Constitution and the laws without further delay or excuse making. We, the people of the United States, demand that corrective action be taken immediately, beginning with: 1) Cease all income tax prosecutions and release all prisoners who are unjustly imprisoned under alleged income tax violations, 2) Ban the Internal Revenue Service from any and all activities and begin prosecution of all IRS officials who have willfully and knowingly violated our Constitutional protections against a direct un-apportioned tax, 3) Remove all the millions of fraudulent “notices of lien” that have been illegally filed across the 50 states and encumbered the property of our citizens, and 4) Notify the IRS that they must notify all employers that the fraudulent “notices of levy” were fraudulent and return the moneys to their employees.

We, the people of the United States, can no longer tolerate the abuses heaped on the citizens of this nation by agents of the Internal Revenue Service. We can no longer tolerate an unresponsive and unaccountable government.

We, the people of the United States, hereby notify the Congress and Senate of the United States, that unless you take corrective actions as soon as possible, you shall be considered as having committed a willful and knowing act of defiance toward the Constitution and laws of the United States, thereby repudiating your sacred Oath of Office, and thus vacating your Office. If such a situation shall come to pass, then “We the people” shall commence the procedures to elect new officials who will honor and uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

Signed this date: _______________ Signature: ______________________________
Printed Name: ___________________________
Address of Signer: _______________________________________________________


Brief On Taxation
At one point in history, most educated men believed that the world was flat. Today, many lawyers and judges believe that the 16th Amendment conferred a new taxing power on the federal government. The second erroneous belief is the subject of this Brief.

The taxing authorities are listed in the United States Constitution and are clarified and explained by the United States Supreme Court.

In 1864, a tax act was passed that authorized taxation on an individual’s portion of corporate earnings. The act did not impose a tax on the non-corporate portion of the individual’s earnings.
“ (The) Income Tax Act of June 30, 1864 (chapter 173, 13 Stat. 223, 281, 282), under which this court held, in Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 1, 16, that an individual was taxable upon his proportion of the earnings of the corporation although not declared as dividends. That decision was based upon the very special language of a clause of section 117 of the act (13 Stat. 282) that 'the gains and profits of all companies, whether incorporated or partnership, other than the companies specified in this section, shall be included in estimating the annual gains, profits, or income of any person entitled to the same, whether divided or otherwise.” SOUTHERN PAC CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918).

In Butcher’s Union, the 10 years prior to Pollack, i.e. 1894, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: “The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.” Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746 (1884).

“… using of anything whereby any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, are sought to be restrained of any freedom or liberty they had before or hindered in their lawful trade,' All grants of this kind are void at common law, because they destroy the freedom of trade, discourage labor and industry, restrain persons from getting an honest livelihood, and put it in the power of the grantees to enhance the price of commodities. They are void because they interfere with the liberty of the individual to pursue a lawful trade or employment.” Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746, 756 (1884).
Taxation Key, West 53 – “The legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.”
Taxation Key, West 933 – “The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipts of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed".

Two years after the 16th Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to force any employee to enter into any agreement as a condition of employment. Such prohibition would also apply to the W-4 form.
“The court held it unconstitutional, saying: 'The right to follow any lawful vocation and to make contracts is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty to go when and where one will. One of the ways of obtaining property is by contract. The right, therefore, to contract cannot be infringed by the legislature without violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen is protected in his right to work where and for whom he will. He may select not only his employer, but also his associates.” COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, 23 -24 (1915).

“any officer, agent, or receiver of such employer, who shall require any employee, or any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into an agreement, either written or verbal, …or shall threaten any employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against any employee . . . is hereby declared to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof . . . shall be punished for each offense by a fine…”. COPPAGE v. STATE OF KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1 (1915).

As recently as 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US 105, at 113; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).

A look at POLLOCK is crucial because, as Complainants shall show this Honorable Court, the Complainants in this Criminal Complaint fall under the ruling of POLLOCK and not under the 16th Amendment.

POLLACK v FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 US 429 (1895), addressed the issue of direct taxes. The Court quoting the Constitution: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census….” And,
“As to the states and their municipalities, this (contributions to expense of government) is reached largely through the imposition of direct taxes. As to the federal government, it is attained in part through excises and indirect taxes upon luxuries and consumption generally, to which direct taxation may be added to the extent the rule of apportionment allows.”

Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 629 (1895):
"Excise' is defined to be an inland imposition, sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and sometimes upon the retail sale; sometimes upon the manufacturer, and sometimes upon the vendor.”

The Code of Federal Regulations cites direct and indirect taxes in 19 CFR 351.102 Definitions:
Direct tax. ``Direct tax'' means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.

Indirect tax. ``Indirect tax'' means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.

POLLOCK v FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 US 429, 436 - 441 (1895) on apportionment:
'Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.' This was amended by the second section of the fourteenth amendment, declared ratified July 28, 1868, so that the whole number of persons in each state should be counted, Indians not taxed excluded, and the provision, as thus amended, remains in force. The actual enumeration was prescribed to be made within three years after the first meeting of congress, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as should be directed.”

The enjoyment of the right to work and earn a living existed long before the establishment of governments, and was not taken away from citizens by this government.

In Knowlton vs. Moore, the Supreme Court defined direct taxes.
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 47 (1900):
"Direct Taxes bear upon persons, upon possession and the enjoyment of
rights".

In 1921, eight years after the 16th Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court stated:
“That the right to conduct a lawful business, and thereby acquire pecuniary profits, is property, is indisputable.” TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 348 (1921).

In 1923, ten years after the 16th Amendment was passed, the court referred to and affirmed numerous past rulings and the rights of the individual.
“While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co ., 111 U.S. 746 , 4 Sup. Ct. 652; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Minnesota v. Bar er, 136 U.S. 313 , 10 Sup. Ct. 862; Allegeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 , 17 Sup. Ct. 427; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 , 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey 211 U.S. 78 , 29 Sup. Ct. 14; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 , 31 Sup. Ct. 259; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 , 36 Sup. Ct. 7, L. R. A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Adams v. Tanner, 224 U.S. 590 , 37 Sup. Ct. 662, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357 , 38 Sup. Ct. 337, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 , 42 Sup. Ct. 124; Adkins v. Children's Hospital (April 9, 1923), 261 U.S. 525 , 43 Sup. Ct. 394, 67 L. Ed. --; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N. E. 925, 128 Am. St. Rep. 439, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147.” MEYER v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

Occupations of “Common right” are rights, not privileges.
In Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925):
"[T]he Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right..."

POLLOCK stated, “...that such tax is a direct tax, and void because imposed without regard to the rule of apportionment; and that by reason thereof the whole law is invalidated.” It is also stated in the U.S. Constitution: Article 1, sec. 9, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” These two prohibitions and limitations on federal taxing authority were never repealed and remain in force in the main body of the Constitution.

Pollock also stated the intention of the framers of the Constitution:
“Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.” Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 582 (1895).

POLLOCK also ruled that the Constitution clearly recognized the two classes of taxation: “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.” Pollock, 157 US 429, 556 (1895).

“From the foregoing it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes; (3) that the rules of apportionment and of uniformity were adopted in view of that distinction and those systems…” Pollock, 157 US 429, 573.

The notion that a federal income tax where one person pays one amount and another person pays nothing, was ruled against by POLLOCK as having violated “apportionment”.
“The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation.” Pollock, 157 US 429, 595.

Butcher’s Union and Pollock were in complete agreement and not in contradiction. This was in sum, the relevant taxing authority that was in existence in 1895. In 1898, the Supreme Court spoke of the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
The "liberty" guaranteed by the Constitution "must be interpreted in light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654 (1898).

In 1909, the Corporate Excise Tax Act was passed and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this met the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. There can be no question that the 1909 tax was passed in order to impose on corporations, an “income tax”, placed on the privilege of incorporation, and fell under the category of excise tax, and therefore was an indirect tax, not subject to the rule of “apportionment”. Most U.S. citizens are not subject to excises laid on corporate privileges.

In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed definition of duties, imposts, and excises and the taxing authority on corporate privileges in FLINT v STONE TRACY, 220 US 107, 151 - 152 (1911):
“Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. 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.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680.”

In 1913, STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE addressed the intent of congress in passing the 16th Amendment, while also addressing the corporate excise tax act of 1909.
STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399, 417 (1913):
“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 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. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 165 , 55 S. L. ed. 107, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B. 1312, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise [231 U.S. 399, 417] or privilege, was not debarred by the Constitution from measuring the taxation by the total income, although derived in part from property which, considered by itself, was not taxable.”

The distinction between the carrying on of business by a corporation, and the carrying on of business by the same business when conducted by a private firms or individuals, was clearly stated:
“In the case at bar we have already discussed the limitations which the Constitution imposes upon the right to levy excise taxes, and it could not be said, even if the principles of the 14th Amendment were applicable to the present case, that there is no substantial difference between the carrying on of business by the corporations taxed, and the same business when conducted by a private firm or individual. The thing taxed is not the mere dealing in merchandise, in which the actual transactions may be the same, whether conducted by individuals or corporations, but the tax is laid upon the privileges which exist in conducting business with the advantages which inhere in the corporate capacity of those taxed, and which are not enjoyed by private firms or individuals.” FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 162 (1911).

“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. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 , 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295 , 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge ( decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144 , 58 L. ed. --, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.” STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399, 414 - 415 (1913).

STRATTON’S went on to say that corporations receive a governmentally conferred benefit and that such benefit could be taxed as a corporate privilege.
“Corporations engaged in such business share in the benefits of the federal government, and ought as reasonably to contribute to the support of that government as corporations that conduct other kinds of profitable business.”

“… the annual gains of such corporations are certainly to be taken as income for the purpose of measuring the amount of the tax.”

In 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed once again that the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing powers in its ruling in STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103, 112 -114 (1916):
“Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollack… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.”



“…it was settled in Stratton’s Independence… that such tax is not a tax upon property… but a true excise levied on the result of the business..”

Also in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed prior rulings on the 16th Amendment:
BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1, 11 (1916):
“…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…”

In BRUSHABER, the Court remarked on the confusion that would multiply if the contentions of radical new taxing powers were acceded to:
BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1, 12 (1916):
“… the contentions under it (the 16th Amendment), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1, 12, 18 (1916): went on to rule on the purpose of the 16th Amendment and the necessity of maintaining and harmonizing the 16th Amendment with the “apportionment” requirements:
“…the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source…”

“…on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”

In 1918, the High Court confirmed prior decisions in PECK v LOWE, 247 US 165, 173 (1918):
The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”

In 1918, the U.S. Supreme Court once again addressed taxation authorized under the 16th Amendment.
“ (The) Income Tax Act of June 30, 1864 (chapter 173, 13 Stat. 223, 281, 282), under which this court held, in Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 1, 16, that an individual was taxable upon his proportion of the earnings of the corporation although not declared as dividends. That decision was based upon the very special language of a clause of section 117 of the act (13 Stat. 282) that 'the gains and profits of all companies, whether incorporated or partnership, other than the companies specified in this section, shall be included in estimating the annual gains, profits, or income of any person entitled to the same, whether divided or otherwise.' The act of 1913 contains no similar language, but on the contrary deals with dividends as a particular item of income, leaving them free from the normal tax imposed upon individuals, subjecting them to the graduated surtaxes only when received as dividends (38 Stat. 167, paragraph B), and subjecting the interest of an individual shareholder in the undivided gains and profits of his corporation to these taxes only in case the company is formed or fraudulently availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of such tax by permitting gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed.” SOUTHERN PAC CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 330 (1918).

In Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918):
"An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations."

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918) ruled that everything that comes in, cannot necessarily be included in “income”:
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."

In EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189, 205 - 206 (1920), the High Court confirmed prior rulings:
“The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.”
“As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects…”
“…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and is not ‘income’, as the term is there used..”
“…we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909…(Stratton’s and Doyle)”

EISNER v MACOMBER also ruled that congress cannot change the definition of “income” in the Constitutional sense:
“In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.”

In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the compensation as being not subject to tax in EVANS v GORE, 253 US 245 (1920):
“If the tax in respect of his compensation be prohibited, it can find no justification in the taxation of other income as to which there is no prohibition; for, of course, doing what the Constitution permits gives no license to do what it prohibits.”

EVANS further ruled that the 16th Amendment did not authorize new taxing powers over subjects and the government agreed that this was so:
“Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before’.”

BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”

INCOME
In 1921, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the definition of the word “income” in MERCHANTS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 518 - 519 (1921):
“The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word ‘income’ was so necessary in its administration…”

“It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word ‘income’ has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific v Lowe…, where it was assumed for the purpose of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When we add to this, Eisner v Macomber…the definition of ‘income’ which was applied was adopted from Stratton’s Independence v Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909… there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”
The High Court, in SMIETANKA, seemed as if it had become exasperated that the question of the definition of the word “income” had repeatedly been raised.

The word “income” has been wrongfully used by the IRS as including the wages, compensation, or earnings of citizens, when not receiving such wages taxed as a corporate “privilege”. In Doyle vs. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court made the clear and unequivocal statement:
“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.” DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918).

The general public, being unaware of the legal definition of “income” in the constitutional sense, has been misled into a wrongful use of the word and has been also misled into believing that they had “income’, although not participating in a government conferred corporate benefit. The Supreme Court ruled that the word “income” is defined in its constitutional sense, as meaning a derivative of a corporate activity, and is not a tax on the corporation’s income, but a tax measured by the size of the corporation’s income.

Once again in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 U.S. 170, 175 (1926):
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed."
In TAFT v. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929), the Court ruled:
“The Sixteenth Amendment provides:
“'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
“Income is the thing which may be taxed-income from any source. The amendment does not attempt to define income or to designate how taxes may be laid thereon, or how they may be enforced.
“Under former decisions here the settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income.”
In 1930, 1943, and 1960, the courts still understood the meaning of the word “income” and the legitimate taxation thereof:
Redfield v. Fisher, 135 Or. 180, 292 P. 813, 819 (Ore. 1930): "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."
Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699, 705 (1930): "A man is free to lay hand upon his own property. To acquire and possess property is a right, not a privilege ... The right to acquire and possess property cannot alone be made the subject of an excise .... nor, generally speaking, can an excise be laid upon the mere right to possess the fruits thereof, as that right is the chief attribute of ownership."
Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-56 (Tenn. 1960): "Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed…Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege."
“Income is necessarily the product of the joint efforts of the state and the recipient of the income, the state furnishing the protection necessary to enable the recipient to produce, receive, and enjoy it, and a tax thereon in the last analysis is simply a portion cut from the income and appropriated by the state as its share…” Sims v. Ahrens et al., 271 SW Reporter at 730.

In 1943, HELVERING v. EDISON BROTHERS' STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943) ruled on the limitation of the definition of “income”:
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

As late as 1960, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in FLORA v US, 362 US 145 (1960):
“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”
The definition of distraint in the legal dictionary, “to seize a person’s goods as security for an obligation.”

In 1976, in U.S. v. BALLARD, 535 F2d 400: “Gross income and not ‘gross receipts’ is the foundation of income tax liability…” BALLARD gives us two useful explanations:
At 404, “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” At 404, BALLARD further ruled that “… ‘gross income’ means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources.”
Thus, it is shown by these U.S. Supreme Court rulings that most U.S. citizens did not have “income” as the meaning of the word is intended in the 16th Amendment.

If it is true that the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court did not know of the above court rulings or had forgotten those rulings existed, then why did the U.S. Supreme Court rule in 1988 the following:
“Pollock merely represented one application of the more general rule that neither the Federal nor the State Governments could tax income an individual directly derived from any contract with another government. 10 Not only was it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to tax a bondowner on the interest he or she received on any state bond, but it was also unconstitutional to tax a state employee on the income earned from his employment contract, Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113 (1871), to tax a lessee on income derived from lands leased from a State, Burnet v. Coronado Oil, 285 U.S. 393 (1932), or to impose a sales tax on proceeds a vendor derived from selling a product to a state agency, Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 570 (1931).” SOUTH CAROLINA v. BAKER, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).

The Congress of the United States must face up to the inescapable conclusions that follow. Even if those conclusions find that there has been massive fraud perpetrated on the American people since the end of the Second World War, when the emergency war tax expired and the American people could no longer be said to be liable for a direct un-apportioned tax. The Congress of the United States must also take responsibility for its share of this scandalous and massive fraud, wherein people’s lives, families, jobs, reputations, and livelihoods have been destroyed by that monstrous and hideous organization called the Internal Revenue Service.

INESCAPABLE CONCLUSIONS
The individual income tax is a direct tax subject to apportionment.
The corporate ‘income’ tax is an indirect tax (excise tax), not subject to apportionment. Individual citizens are not subject to excises laid on corporate privileges.
The 16th amendment only applies to ‘income’ as defined by the US Supreme Court, as pertaining only to corporations and government conferred privileges.
Occupations of “common right” cannot be hindered and are rights of freedom necessarily protected by the common law of the U.S. Constitution.
The word ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
The 16th amendment did not authorize any new taxing powers, nor did it bring any new subjects under the federal government’s taxing powers.
The taxing powers of the federal government were the same after the passage of the 16th amendment as were existent before the passage.
The IRS agents are guilty of fraud by refusing to respond to questions from Plaintiffs, according to court ruling precedence.
The 16th amendment kept the corporate excise tax in the category of indirect tax and did not affect the apportionment requirement of the Constitution.


Note:
Mr. Conces does not dispute the right to tax dividends and interest as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Conces does not dispute the right to tax corporations or LLCs as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Conces does dispute the right to levy any direct un-apportioned tax by the federal government.

End Of Brief

Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/national_lawman/ and join to get instant updates.
Please use this email address lawmancharles@juno.com . We are America's Posse!
Please give your name and Lawman group to which you belong. 3,000 + Lawmen.
http://www.lawmenamerica.com
God Bless. Chuck Conces

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/12/2005 11:17 PM  

To anonyhmous who wrote: "OK, who exactly is Larken Rose to "believe" that the law is wrong and he's right?" Yup, you clearly have opened up your mind to the public and guess what?? Nothing is in there. If you had anything in there, you would know that Larkin has NEVER believed and/or stated that the law is wrong. In fact, the WHOLE trial was about the fact that the law is RIGHT!!! Next time, get informed before opening your mouth. And BTW, when in income tax fraud falls, which it will, I can be assured that you will be "hogging" yourself (along with the rest of your ilk) to the head of the line to stop paying a legally non-required tax

If I ever had any doubt that you so-called "tax freedom" people are drooling morons, I read the above quote again and the doubt is extinguished.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 12:00 AM  

I remember well the amount of hours it took me to read Larken's seventy-two page (?) "Taxable Income" for the very first time and my several re-readings of it along with a five volume set of the 1993 Income Tax Regulations. I've also read on "income" in the consitutional sense, on Citizen vs citizen, "jurisdiction" in the federal zones and, probably several other varations of tax honesty literature. I feel like I have a Phd. in taxation.

AND, with regards to my oath on a 1040 SIGN HERE, the IRS provided "certification" is entirely incorrect. My answer MUST be, under oath that "No, I am not sure that these numbers ARE correct." To agree fully by merely signing my name would be perjury. Now, put a gun to my wife or children's head and threaten me to SIGN HERE or else, I'd sign. .... ..... And, whatever happened to the fifth amendment to not be compelled to be a witness against myself?

... ... .... Bad news indeed and another example perhaps of a judge telling the jury what the law is.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 12:10 AM  

The trolls are out tonight:

"If I ever had any doubt that you so-called "tax freedom" people are drooling morons..."

The mere fact that you are uncertain about this proves that you don't know us. Why try to deduce something which is determinable through empirical observation?

FWIW, I only drool when pizza is served... and occasionally during Jessica Alba movies.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/13/2005 12:32 AM  

Great analysis. I'm amazed that people actually think that Larken would win. Do you think that the IRS would allow this man to walk free? Hmmm... Your desription of the jury was right. Morons!
You will never hear the government quote law. They don't have to.
All they need is to mention terms like tax terrorist, anachist defrauding "your" government.

See what happens in his wife's trail. Hopefully that goes better but don't count on it. Naturally the judge will say it would be better for him if he filed and paid when it comes to sentecing.

Remember: If he won, the government would be screwed big time and more importantly: people are ignorant. They hate jury duty anyway and as you said they're really not interested because 95% of them pay taxes like good little slaves and don't ask questions.

By Anonymous Matthew Adams, at 8/13/2005 12:40 AM  

Mafia.

What's the difference between this jury and a mafia jury? Meaning, if you were sitting on a jury for a mafia figure, in the back of your mind you would wonder what what would happen should you find the mafioso guilty.

As a juror on a government trial where the government is the mafia, would you not be afraid of not finding for the government?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 4:53 AM  

Chuck Conces is just another nut.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 8:26 AM  

Well, here is david kay johnston's off the wall review of the trial, though i would have to say it wasn;t as bad as it has been, read on:
Tax Protester Who Dared U.S. to Prosecute Him Is Convicted of Not Filing Returns

PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 12 - Larken Rose, a tax protester who dared the Justice Department to indict him so he could prove to a jury that the tax laws are a fraud, was convicted Friday on five counts of willfully failing to file tax returns.

Skip to next paragraph

Forum: Accounting
The jurors took less than 90 minutes to come to a decision. The verdicts are the latest setback for followers of Mr. Rose, two of whom are now serving long prison sentences. A handful of others face trial, including his wife, Tessa David.

Despite these convictions, the small but growing number of Americans who say that the federal government is a criminal organization that illegally extracts taxes, appears undeterred.

Mr. Rose's weeklong trial in Federal District Court here drew a larger crowd than the courtroom of Judge Michael M. Baylson could seat. One supporter, a minister, handed out brochures saying that God had condemned to hell congressmen and senators who voted for the tax laws as well as Internal Revenue Service workers.

Mr. Rose, 37, a medical transcriptionist from Jenkintown, Pa., is the leading promoter of the so-called 861 position, which holds that wages earned by Americans working for domestic companies are not taxable.

Section 861 of the tax code specifies that wages are taxable. Mr. Rose's claim is based on regulations, written by I.R.S. lawyers, explaining the code section.

Judges, in detailed rulings since 1966, have held that the theory is "nonsensical" and frivolous. Despite this, Judge Baylson let Mr. Rose explain the theory.

Mr. Rose, who represented himself, delivered a fiery hourlong closing argument Friday, denouncing the federal government. He likened it to a bully wielding a baseball bat who demands that his victim say that two plus two equals five. "Wham!" Mr. Rose shouted, swinging his arms as if wielding a bat at someone who insists that the answer is four.

He said the government "wants to oppress other people" and is "a throwback to medieval times." And he said that starting in 1998 he stopped filing tax returns because that would "be lying and committing a fraud."

Mr. Rose argued for his acquittal because, he said, he sincerely believes he does not have to pay taxes.

Floyd Miller, the prosecutor, belittled this claim and said that Mr. Rose could have taken the I.R.S. to civil court to test his theory. He said Mr. Rose just wanted to find an excuse to not pay his taxes.

Mr. Miller quoted from an e-mail message in which Mr. Rose, calling himself an anarchist, contacted a Montana militia to propose a "bloodless coup." In another e-mail message Mr. Rose wrote that "I don't actually like the Constitution" and that "I cannot choose to believe someone else over my judgment" and "I feel no obligation to obey" the law.

The prosecutor said that "Mr. Rose selectively educated himself," picking language from 18th-century court rulings, "but ignoring recent rulings by judges in three recent cases" in which Mr. Rose was involved. In two of those cases judges upheld injunctions against other promoters of the 861 position. In the third, Mr. Rose testified on behalf of a Texas businessman, Richard Simkanin, who stopped withholding taxes from his employees' paychecks. An appeals court last week upheld the conviction and sentence of Mr. Simkanin.

When the verdicts were read, Mr. Rose dropped his head into his hands. Later he waved off a request for comment.

Judge Baylson ordered Mr. Rose confined to his home until he is sentenced Nov. 15. The maximum prison time he could face is five years. The judge said that if Mr. Rose filed his tax returns and arranged to start paying his taxes he would be lenient at sentencing, but that if he did not, the sentence would be harsh.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 9:46 AM  

kay johnston writes:

"Judges, in detailed rulings since 1966, have held that the theory is "nonsensical" and frivolous. "



The truth, the facts, the law. Not just the assumptions. On March 1, 2004, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-30, which mentions the 861 evidence. Most of the "Ruling" consists of threatening nasty consequences (such as warning that the IRS will take "vigorous enforcement action" against those who hold the position), while hardly any of it actually addresses the issue.

The IRS' own manual says that Revenue Rulings "do not have the force and effect of Treasury Department Regulations" (IRM Section 4.10.7.2.6.1). While a Revenue Ruling is a step up from an IRS form letter, it is still "outranked" by statutes and regulations.) The Ruling starts with a fairly accurately description of the position, that being that "United States citizens and residents of the United States are not subject to tax on their wages and other income earned or derived within the United States ("the Section 861 position")."

However, the IRS then incorrectly says that the position argues that "taxes are only imposed on income derived from certain foreign-based activities," which is not the case. (If domestic sourced income was never taxable for anyone, there wouldn't BE a Section 861.)

After describing the position, the Ruling only says a few things (in between warnings and insults) about the law itself. For example, the Ruling says that "there is no authority in sections 861 through 865 that permits an individual to take the position that either the individual or the individual's U.S.-based income is not subject to federal income tax."

Taken literally, that is absolutely TRUE. Sections 861 and 862 say what count as domestic income and foreign income, respectively, but do not say that ANY income (foreign or domestic) is exempt for ANYONE (American or foreigner). The Ruling CORRECTLY explains that "Sections 861 through 865 do not limit gross income subject to United States taxation to foreign sourced income." (Again, there wouldn't BE a Section 861 if domestic income was never taxable.)

It goes on: "The rules of sections 861 through 865 have significance solely in determining whether income is considered from sources within the United States or without the United States, which is relevant, for example, in determining whether a U.S. citizen or resident may claim a credit for foreign taxes paid."

Taken literally, that is very close to true, as explained above. However, those sections also state in general terms how to determine the taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within or without the United States (so says 26 CFR 1.861-8). So to say the SOLE significance is determining geographic origin of income is wrong. (Compare the above quote from the Ruling with Treasury Decision 6258, which says that 861 and following, and related regs, give the rules for determining gross income and taxable income from sources within and without the U.S. Why write a "Ruling" that conflicts with a Treasury Decision?)

Notice what the Ruling does NOT say: it does NOT say whether we should use 861(b) and 1.861-8 to determine our taxable domestic income. It sort of half implies that we should not, even though the regulations say the exact opposite (see 26 CFR 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c)).

But what is really worth noting about the "Ruling" is not the content, which is just the same evasion and insults in a new package. What I found interesting was that they'd issue a "Revenue Ruling" about it, considering what "Revenue Rulings" ARE. Revenue Rulings are NOT for general rules for applying the tax laws. (That's what regulations are for.) Revenue Rulings are issued for specific facts, telling how the IRS thinks its rules would apply; a sort of interpretation of the regulations as applied to a specific situation. (Like if taxpayer "A" wanted to apply deduction B against income C, should he use rule D or rule E - that kind of nitpicky technical stuff.)

Don't believe me? "Revenue Rulings (Rev. Rul.) represent the conclusions of the Service on the application of the law to specific facts stated in the ruling." [IRM Section 4.10.7.2.6]

So what are they doing issuing a Revenue Ruling generally whining (and threatening) about a general position people are taking? This wasn't a Revenue Ruling; it was a "Revenue Threat," containing almost NO substantive legal explanation or conclusion, but instead containing mostly threats and insults. (The Ruling uses the word "frivolous" 23 times. Apparently the IRS follows the advice of Hitler's minister of propaganda, regarding that thing about "if you tell a lie often enough...")

Why bother putting their same old garbage in a "Revenue Ruling"? Probably because "Internal Revenue Service employees must follow rulings and procedures." Not that they've been providing due process anyway, but expect to hear this a lot: "Gosh, you mentioned that darn section, and so I have to call you names and run away. See? This Revenue Ruling tells me to." Basically, it's the IRS officially condoning violating due process. (Usually they just DO it, while "officially" pretending they care what the law is.)

Ultimately, what is the significance of this Revenue Ruling? None. You can write lies in whatever format you want; but, they will still be lies. No piece of paper is going to save this fraud now.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 10:45 AM  

Impartial "Judge Baylson ... said that if Mr. Rose filed his tax returns and arranged to start paying his taxes he would be lenient at sentencing, but that if he did not, the sentence would be harsh."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 10:48 AM  

On March 1, 2004, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-30: "United States citizens and residents of the United States are not subject to tax on their wages and other income earned or derived within the United States."

hmmm, interesting!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 10:51 AM  

Larken please read:

IRS vrs Larken Rose - tax trial of the century
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6992

Since we are a nation of 'rule of law', one can not be taxed without a tax law doing so. So, where does one look to determine a tax? Answer- in the tax law! (also called 'tax code').

Now follow me very carefully...let's actully look in the tax code and find our income tax liability. It's usually helpful to use an index to look up some information. So, let's go to the United States Code index and find where to go for details on "taxable income", or "deductions", and "gross income". Here's what we find in the index:

* Section 61: Income from sources within U.S., see 861

* USC Index: Gross income, sources within U.S., see 861

* USC Index: Deductions, Taxable income from within U.S., see 861

* USC Index: Taxable income, Sources within U.S., see 861

Ok, the index tells us to go to section 861 for income sources within the U.S. Since I don't have foreign income, I use section 861. (if you have foreign income the index says use section 862) By the way, the USC index is NOT on the internet! (I wonder why?)

Ok, simple enough so far, right? Keep following me. The index says go to section 861. But, I want to be REALLY sure I'm suppose to use section 861. Fortunately, other sections in the tax code refer and point to 861 too:

here:

[26 CFR 1.863-1(c)]
"Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States ."

Well, that's pretty clear I think! Very clear and unambiguous. It says "...WILL BE DETERMINED..."


But wait! Other sections of the tax code also point and refer the taxpayer to section 861!:


here:

[26 CFR 1.861-1]
"Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States... Part I ( section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax ."


and again in the same section here:

[26 CFR 1.861-1]
"The taxable income from sources within the United States . shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), [allowable deductions]. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1."


and here:

[26 CFR 1.861-8]
"Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States after gross income from sources within the United States has been determined."


and here:

[26 CFR 1.862-1]
"Sec. 1.861-8 [is the section] for determining the taxable income from sources within the United States ."


and here:

[26 CFR 1.863-6]
"Secs. 1.861-1 to 1.863-5 [give the principles] for determining the gross and the taxable income from sources within and without the United States."


and here:

[Treasury Decision 6258]:
"Rules are prescribed for determination of gross income and taxable income derived from sources within and without the United States ... 1.861-1 through 1.864. (Secs. 861-864; '54 Code.)"


So as you can see, we are told REPEATEDLEY in the WRITTEN tax code to go to section 861 to determine taxable income. If you don't, it's obvious you are not following the written tax law!

However, when you go to section 861, the ONLY taxable income imposed is if your domestic income is related to certain foreign activities, listed here:

Internal Revenue Code (26 USC)
http://fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/www/contents.html

Thanks, Larry

By Anonymous Larry in Utah, at 8/13/2005 11:32 AM  

Next steps for Larkin.

1> What about the directed verdict that the Judge offered?

2> Imagine that Larkin sits down with the IRS and records the follwing:

I am here to pay all taxes that I am liable to pay.

Please show me the law that makes me liable to pay income taxes.

Please show me the law that states what form I must fill out.

He knows the rest..

What do you think?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 11:55 AM  

We are supposed to believe the Judge knows what the IRS code says ?!?!
He could not even remember which Constitutional amendment brought about the "Income tax" or what year it passed.
The code and regs are thousands of pages long --
He probably never even read section 61 or 861 ( much less the regs ).
Probably NEVER has heard any other income tax cases.
BUT, we are to trust him to interpret the law and give instruction to the jury on what it says.
WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/13/2005 4:03 PM  

Thank you very much for the audioblog Sherry. Excellent report.

Doug Kenline
http://dougkenline.blogspot.com/

By Blogger Doug, at 8/13/2005 10:53 PM  

Questions:

When the judge instructed the jury:
"if you have income, you must file and pay..etc"

Could Larkin have objected?

Why didn't Larkin object when the prosecutor read Larkin's emails?

Why didn't Larkin object when the prosecutor repeatedly vilified him?

Did Larkin ask to see the law that made him liable:

From the Judge?
From the Prosecutor?
From the Jury?

Prosecutor: "Mr Rose thinks he is the only one who knows the tax code..."

Larken: "ok, you're a lawyer, the judge is here; show us the law that not only makes me liable but most working Americans.."

Don't know, did he ask these things?

thanks..

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 1:59 PM  

You guys are kooku for coco-puffs, you realize that, don't you? Nuts, insane, bonzo, bonkers, rubber-room candidates. Whacko!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 7:42 PM  

To Anonymous at 8:42 PM:

Wow. Thanks for that! I was hoping there would be someone, somewhere, who could put forth a compelling analysis of these issues.

I was leaning toward the 'tax protester' side of things until I read your scintillating opinions. Well done...NOT!

-rv

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/14/2005 10:00 PM  

You know, since the end of this trial I've seen a great deal of jury-bashing around various websites of Larken's supporters. I served as one of the twelve in that trial, and I would like to say that I certainly do not appreciate the kind of vicious slander that's been thrown our way. Yes, it's true... We were only out for 90 minutes, including lunch. But why? Was it because we just wanted to get home and get our duty over with? Certainly not, as some of us, myself included, had to wait several hours for transportation out of the city anyway. We simply felt that there was not much to deliberate. The evidence spoke very loudly and clearly that Larken Rose was guilty on all counts presented. As press releases have stated, we found very quickly that Mr. Rose did not possess a "good-faith" understanding of the law, as was one of the elements require to be proven for a not-guilty verdict. I don't intend to go into the nitty-gritty of our deliberations, but I feel the need to get my voice out here and say that we have been subjected to a great deal of unfair criticism and insults (weren't you scolding the government about character assassination?) that are entirely unfair. Why shouldn't we be upbeat after the trial? We did what we felt was our civic duty, and we had every intent to continue on with our lives -- I think it bears no indication on our deliberation that we were jovial after the trial.

By Anonymous Ryan Baptista (rjb3@desales.edu), at 8/15/2005 3:19 PM  

Mr. Baptista, If you truly are one of the jurists, Then I would request that you please take the time now, to have a quaint little dialog with me.

As you said, I feel the need to get my voice out here and say that we have been subjected to a great deal of unfair criticism and insults...

If it is easier, we could have the dialog by email, with the understanding that I will post the completed dialog on this blog, and on my website when complete.
dalereastman at sprintmail dot com.

I will ask simple questions... At first.

1. If there is NO LEGAL DUTY to perform some act, can a person "WILLFULLY" refuse to do the non-existent legal duty?
YES or NO

2. Did you actually look at the law, or see presented in the trial, the actual WORDS of the LAW?
YES or NO

3. Did you rely on the judge's hearsay evidence of what the words of the law actually are to understand the duty Mr. Rose was under?
YES or NO

4. The charge was willfully failing to file income tax returns (and pay). Please post the statute and regulations that apply to Mr. Rose that created the legal duty to file and pay.

Sincerely, Dale R. Eastman.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman., at 8/15/2005 11:19 PM  

Ryan!! If you are for real, GOD BLESS YOU for posting here and doing so with your contact info. I will let Dale email with you and await the outcome of that conversation, rather than dumping my own questions on you too (since Dale's will be very similar to mine anyway). I do have one comment for you though.

Yes, I have been critical of the verdict, because it's objectively absurd (examine Larken's web site -- which you weren't allowed to see during the trial -- and you'll be compelled to agree). However, I am entirely willing to believe that the absurdity was injected by the "justice" system, and not by you 12, if you can present a reasonable basis for that belief. (There are many problems with our judicial system these days.)

Now, *IF* you are not telling the truth, and yours is just a hoax post... shame on you.

Again, I await the outcome of Dale's convo with you.

What an intriguing turn of events....

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/16/2005 4:18 PM  

Ryan,

As you can see, Larken is highly regarded by many who wish to restore a constitutional government.

I was wondering if you would be willing to consider some of the evidence the government's attorneys kept from you.

A good place to start would be

www.861.info

You could also download Larken's taxable income report at

www.taxableincome.net

I can also make sure that you get a copy of his "Theft by Deception" video.

I would be grateful to you for reviewing this material to see if it would have changed you opinion regarding the man whose life has been forever changed by your decision.

I'll look forward to hearing from you.

By Blogger David Jahn, at 8/16/2005 6:01 PM  

Okay guys, Mr. Baptista and I are engaging in a dialog. Mr. Baptista requested opportunity to review what I am going to post prior to my posting it, and I agreed, since that was my intent anyway. His dialog sure reads like a juror that did what he believed was his duty as he understood it. And I can put myself in that place and feel what he felt in regard to the criticism he has read about the jury. Until proof surfaces otherwise, I am treating Mr. Baptista as just who he says he is, One of Twelve jurors doing what they believed was correct. This is a perspective and point of view thing.

Rest assured, I will be covering what needs to be covered.

And a point to be made, Mr. Baptista is a polite poster, something that is quite refreshing compared to what is usually on the net.

It is much easier for me to post an email than to post to this blog, so I am glad he chose to have a direct email dialog.

Be patient.
Thanks.
Dale.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/16/2005 8:57 PM  

http://www.fija.org/torf.pdf
'nuff said.
Now get it out there!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/17/2005 1:33 AM  

Would Mr. Baptista be so kind as to identify himself by his location in the jury box?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/18/2005 8:01 PM  

Look out, Ryan, these people are a bunch of militia wingnuts.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/18/2005 8:03 PM  

Jury box number? Don't you know? Ryan is one of the gubermint plants that were secretly waiting in the jury room. They replaced all the "real" jurors with pod people, hence the reason that the obviously innocent Larken was found guilty. Duh!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/18/2005 8:27 PM  

As press releases have stated, we found very quickly that Mr. Rose did not possess a "good-faith" UNDERSTANDING of the law, as was one of the elements require to be proven for a not-guilty verdict.

Held:

1. A good-faith MISUNDERSTANDING of the law or a good-faith BELIEF that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable. STATUTORY WILLFULNESS, which protects the average citizen from prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , IS THE VOLUNTARY, INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF A KNOWN LEGAL DUTY
CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)
(emphais added)

I was not in the court room but i can not understand how 12 people could believe that Larkin did not
believe what he was saying.

By Anonymous Jake, at 8/18/2005 8:43 PM  

Uh, maybe since EVERY case that consider 861 went down the tubes and the IRS came out with a specific revenue ruling that told people not to fall for it?

Sure, how could Larken possibly believe he was not right -- so long as he kept his head in the sand and willfully ignored all evidence that proved him wrong?

The funny thing is that many TPs are now saying that 861 was "probably a doomed theory to begin with" and they've all latched on to Pete Hendrickson's nonsense. People will forget about Larken Rose just like they did Phil Marsh and Lynne Meredith before him.

Lots of people turned out for Lynne Meredith's trial, but not one for her sentencing. TPs are a fickle crowd and their lack of loyalty is amazing.

Who on this board even bothered to go to "Little Al" Thompson's sentencing? I bet not a one of you. Or Nick Jesson's sentencing?

Hero today; goat tomorrow, as Larken is about to find out (or Tessa will find out when NOBODY shows up for her trial).

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/18/2005 9:59 PM  

I attended Larken's trial and heard nothing proving that he is wrong. It just so happens that I am a real person, with a real family to support, and a real life. If I am not able to make it for Tessa's trial it in no way indicates that I am not 100% supportive.

As for the comment warning Mr. Baptista about "militia wingnuts", I will not dignify it except to say that I simply want to put a face with his comments.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/19/2005 2:10 AM  

Dale's questions are meaningless because they aren't what the jury decided.
Rose stipulated(agreed) that his 861 approach was wrong. He agreed to that point in court. The only point remianing was whether he knew that he needed to pay taxes. That's the point the jusy decided upon. Any discussion on interpetation of IRS code is meaningless. It didn't enter into the discussion.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/19/2005 3:48 AM  

Being a paralegal, I cannot say that I am totally convinced about the 861 evidence as I have only been investigating this for 2-3 weeks, and haven't had a chance to go through the tax code for myself yet. HOWEVER, in researching the cases that have been cited thus far, I do have to agree that the government has never actually refuted it. It certainly appears as though they want to do everything they can to avoid a direct engagement that is on point (i.e. directly discusses each point of contention). But, considering other decisions coming out of the courts that directly contradict the Constitution - such as eminent domain - I'm not surprised.

In regards to Larken's trial and the previous poster: you're right. "[I]nterpretation of the IRS code"..."didn't enter into the discussion." THEREFORE, one cannot claim that this case has any bearing upon the 861 evidence itself. The trial was merely about Larken's beliefs - not the law.

Again, as a person who still isn't convinced in either direction, the government sure isn't helping by not coming out with some actual, direct answers. It tends to make me think that they've got something to hide. It seems that it would be far easier for the government to listen to the arguments and then show them in the law where they are wrong (including a clear explanation of each point), than it is to spend tons of time and money avoiding the issue. After all, they have lost several cases on this issue already - which is a waste of money.

As for those who have "blind patriotism" and consider it ridiculous to question your elected officials, all I can say is that I'm glad you weren't around in 1776 or we would all still be British citizens. In the opinion of the founding fathers, it is un-American NOT to question them. I believe that whether Larken is right or wrong, he deserves to get straight answers from the government which derives its power FROM the people. If they don't have to answer us, then apparently we no longer have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/19/2005 10:14 AM  

Anonymous 4:48 AM said...

Dale's questions are meaningless because they aren't what the jury decided.

Perhaps Anonymous 4:48 would like to answer the questions? That would also include questions not posted thus far.

Rose stipulated(agreed) that his 861 approach was wrong. He agreed to that point in court.

So you assert. Mr. Rose would not "agree" that he was wrong on the 861 law. If he agreed to that, he would not have been in court in the first place. Thus your statement is hogwash based upon logic alone. I won't mention the pages of his website that have been online since 2001 that also prove you wrong.

The only point remianing was whether he knew that he needed to pay taxes.

There is no way to know whether he needed to pay taxes or not without clarification by the IRS, and the Government on one simple question that the Government has thus far REFUSED TO ANSWER. That question is Should I use section 861(b) and regulation 1.861-8 plus any other pertinent sections to determine my taxable domestic income?

Or to determine my domestic "taxable income" for those Ed Senter types.

It is a very simple YES or NO question. In order to keep this blog post short, here's the short path to the truth as it is printed in the Statutes and Regulations.
Legal Notice

That's the point the jusy decided upon. Any discussion on interpetation of IRS code is meaningless. It didn't enter into the discussion.

Well part of your comment is correct... What the law actually demands never entered the discussion.

By the way, no interpretation is required. All you have to do is simply read what the law says.

See my legal notice linked above.
Feel free to attempt to refute what is on that page. Feel free to attempt to make the plain reading of those laws not say what they say.

Then read the following to learn how a jury convicts a man for willfully refusing to do a non-existent duty.

Willfulness crimes have three parts.
1. There must be a clear duty.
2. The accused must clearly understand the duty.
3. The accused must then must fail to perform the duty.

Remove any single element and there is no willfulness crime.

If there is no clear duty, it is impossible to fail to do such duty.

As these trials are orchestrated, there does not need to be a clear duty. There does not need to be any duty. The jury only has to believe that some duty exists. This totally removes the lack of existence of such duty as a defense against willfulness.

Thus, if the jury believes that the duty is to; turn around three times; click one's heels together twice; while chanting "The Government is omnipotent"; at the first stroke of Noon, Monday through Friday, Holidays excepted; Then the failure of the accused to do such duty is a willfulness crime in the minds of the jury.

Now, where would the jury get such a ridiculous notion? From a corrupt judge that sits on the throne in his little kingdom and decrees, "I will decide the question of law. The accused has a legal duty to turn around three times; click one's heels together twice; while chanting "The Government is omnipotent"; at the first stroke of Noon, Monday through Friday, Holidays excepted."

In other words, the actual duty under law does NOT NEED TO EXIST to be found guilty.

Although my example was created for some comic absurdity to illustrate the point, the logic is correct.

Now consider a situation where the judge is just as wrong, only the law as expressed by the judge in the jury instuctions is not ludicrous so the jury has no reason to suspect they are being lied to by the judge. The judge could lie to the jury with impunity, regardless of whether the lie was a lie of contemplated malice, or judicial ignorance.

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/19/2005 12:12 PM  

The IRS has told ALL taxpayers that they are not to use 861 as Larken wanted to do:

http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-12_IRB/ar09.html

This is why Larken was legal roadkill, and the jury only took 90 minutes.

You can blow past a sign that says 65 mph at 120 mph and claim that you didn't that the speed limit was 65 mph because you thought that the sign was wrong.

But that is exactly what Larken's defense was, stupid though it is if you take a few steps back and are the least bit objective.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/19/2005 4:10 PM  

Dale Eastman said "Feel free to attempt to refute what is on that page. Feel free to attempt to make the plain reading of those laws not say what they say."

For a discussion of what section 861 does say see http://www.quatloos.com/
taxprotestors-forum2.htm
Topic "Tax only taxable "item" of income from a taxable &"

(Sorry I do not know how to post a link )
jg

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/19/2005 5:06 PM  

Anonymous 6:06 PM, You wish to engage with me. Fine. A little test of YOUR wit then, sir.

Answer EACH QUESTION, Yes or No.

This test will be more on your reading comprehension than anything else.

xx. Does the IRM, (the Internal Revenue Manual), at section 4.10.7.2.3.4, dated (05-14-1999), titled “Authority of the Regulations”, state, “The Service is bound by the regulations ”?
Cite online IRM

xx. Are Treasury Department Regulations binding upon the IRS?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/19/2005 10:24 PM  

The anonymous cowardly silly people have sure been busy here. Few of their comments are worth a reply (quatloos? ROFL); here's the first one:

"Rose stipulated(agreed) that his 861 approach was wrong. He agreed to that point in court."

This being at least the second time I've seen this claim, I am compelled to ask: How has this been determined?

Anonymous paralegal, I like your style. Keep on researching, and thanks for posting.

Here's the only other cowardly snipe worthy of any return fire:

RE: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-12_IRB/ar09.html, read this.

By Blogger Jamie, at 8/20/2005 2:49 AM  

Anonymous 6:06 PM, Your silence says much. Perhaps you are awaiting more questions so you can reply to them all at once.

Does the IRM, (the Internal Revenue Manual), at section 4.10.7.2.6.1 (05-14-1999) titled "Authority of Rulings and Procedures state, "Rulings do not have the force and effect of Treasury Department Regulations, but they may be used as precedents. In applying published rulings, the effects of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, rulings, and procedures must be considered. Caution is urged against reaching the same conclusion in other cases, unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same."?

Do Internal Revenue Rulings and Procedures "OUTRANK" Treasury Department Regulations?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/20/2005 9:46 AM  

Good. Now that the rank of the Treasury Regulations are established, and you have agreed with your silence, here is the next set of questions.

Does TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS, CHAPTER 15 - FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Sec. 1501. Definitions state,

"As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires - ''document'' means a Presidential proclamation or Executive order and an order, REGULATION, RULE, certificate, code of fair competition, license, notice, or similar instrument, issued, prescribed, or promulgated by a Federal agency;"?

Cite 44 USC 1501


Does TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS, CHAPTER 15 - FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Sec. 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register state,

"(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General Applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published by Congress. There shall be published in the Federal Register -

(2) documents or classes of documents that the President may determine from time to time have general applicability and legal effect; and

For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.
"?

Cite 44 USC 1505

Does TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS, CHAPTER 15 - FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Sec. 1507. Filing REGULATION as constructive notice; publication in Federal Register as presumption of validity; judicial notice; citation state,

"A document required by section 1505(a) of this title to be published in the Federal Register is not valid as against a person
who has not had actual knowledge of it until the duplicate originals or certified copies of the document have been filed with the Office of the Federal Register and a copy made available for public inspection as provided by section 1503 of this title. Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, filing of a document, required or authorized to be published by section 1505 of this title, except in cases where notice by publication is insufficient in law, is sufficient to give notice of the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it. The publication in the Federal Register of a document creates a rebuttable presumption -
(1) that it was duly issued, prescribed, or promulgated;
(2) that it was filed with the Office of the Federal Register and made available for public inspection at the day and hour stated in the printed notation;
(3) that the copy contained in the Federal Register is a true copy of the original; and
(4) that all requirements of this chapter and the regulations prescribed under it relative to the document have been complied with.

The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed and without prejudice to any other mode of citation, may be cited by volume and page number.
"

Cite 44 USC 1507

Does TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS, CHAPTER 15 - FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Sec. 1510. Code of Federal Regulations state,

"(a) The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, with the approval of the President, may require, from time to time as it considers necessary, the preparation and publication in special or supplemental editions of the Federal Register of complete codifications of the documents of each agency of the Government having general applicability and legal effect, issued or promulgated by the agency by publication in the Federal Register or by filing with the Administrative Committee, and are relied upon by the agency as authority for, or are invoked or used by it in the discharge of, its activities or functions, and are in effect as to facts arising on or after dates specified by the Administrative Committee.

(b) A codification published under subsection (a) of this section shall be printed and bound in permanent form and shall be designated as the ''Code of Federal Regulations.'' The Administrative Committee shall regulate the binding of the printed codifications into separate books with a view to practical usefulness and economical manufacture. Each book shall contain an explanation of its coverage and other aids to users that the Administrative Committee may require. A general index to the entire Code of Federal Regulations shall be separately printed and bound.

(c) The Administrative Committee SHALL REGULATE THE supplementation and the collation and REPUBLICATION of the PRINTED CODIFICATIONS with a view to KEEPING the CODE of FEDERAL REGULATIONS as CURRENT AS PRACTICABLE. EACH BOOK SHALL BE either supplemented or collated and REPUBLISHED AT LEAST ONCE EACH calendar YEAR.

(d) The Office of the Federal Register shall prepare and publish the codifications, supplements, collations, and indexes authorized by this section.

(e) The codified documents of the several agencies published in the supplemental edition of the Federal Register under this section, as amended by documents subsequently filed with the Office and published in the daily issues of the Federal Register shall be prima facie evidence of the text of the documents and of the fact that they are in effect on and after the date of publication.

(f) The Administrative Committee shall prescribe, with the approval of the President, regulations for carrying out this section.

(g) This section does not require codification of the text of Presidential documents published and periodically compiled in supplements to Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
"

Cite 44 USC 1510

Do properly promulgated and published regulations have the full force and effect of law?

By Anonymous Dale Eastman, at 8/21/2005 10:34 AM