**Security bulked up for Aryan Nations trial** (Idaho) A trial in Coeur dAlene could bring one hate group to center stage, and Kootenai County law enforcement is making plans for more security.The Coeur dAlene trial will put the Aryan Nations on the stand. The trial involves two high profile figures. Southern Poverty Law Center head Morris Dees is suing Aryan leader Richard Butler and his church. The issue involves an incident two years ago where police say at least two of Butlers followers shot at people who were driving by the Aryan compound around the time of the first Aryan parade.Dees is asking for damages that Butler says will bankrupt his organization. Local law enforcement says it learned a lot during two Aryan parades and isnt taking any chances this time around either. Security will be tight, but law enforcement isnt saying exactly how many people will be involved or how they will be deployed during the trial that begins August 28.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/KHQ/91979.asp

**KKK member to appeal** (Canada) A Ku Klux Klan member is applealing the prison term she received for threatening a black Dartmouth church pastor. Donna Marie Upson, 22, of Ontario, was handed two years earlier this month for threatening to kill or harm Rev. Elias Mutale, destroy property at Victoria Road United Baptist Church in Dartmouth and kill black people. "The sentence was unjust and I only did half of what I was accused of," Ms. Upson says in a handwritten appeal filed from Springhill Institution. She also claims in documents filed July 21 at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal that her lawyer, Ken Greer, was prejudicial toward her. http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displaystory?2000/07/25+114.raw+Metro

**Man charged with hate crime in beating death** (Wisconsin) A man charged with helping murder a 22-year-old hearing-impaired, mentally disabled man now also is accused of a hate crime in the killing. Prosecutors contend Raymond C. Walton, 33, of Barron, helped beat Michael J. Hatch to death with a tire iron Oct. 20 because Walton thought Hatch was gay, according to court records. Walton was charged with being party to first-degree intentional homicide and armed robbery in Hatch' s death. The hate-crime enhancer was added to the charges last week. Walton was expected to appear in Barron County Circuit Court Wednesday to enter a plea to the charges. Barron County District Attorney James Babler declined comment on the hate crime filing, which says Walton intentionally selected the victim because of his belief or perception regarding Hatch' s sexual orientation. Authorities say Walton and Corey L. Kralewski, 21, killed Hatch and left his body in a rural Barron County cornfield http://www2.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisStory=82188904

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 26, 2000

Answers

Caesar takes what Caesar wants... unless you choose to remove yourself from Caesar's grasp.

Memoirs of a Tax Protester

[Editor's note: What you are about to read is a true story from the front lines of the Great American Tax $windle, written by an underground author who -- for reasons that will become obvious -- wishes to remain anonymous. Address feedback to parascope@aol.com.]

I used to pay income tax. The IRS used to take a big chunk out of my paycheck. Most of it went straight to the Federal Reserve to service the interest on the escalating national debt. The rest went into an alphabet soup of federal agencies, many of which I had no desire to fund with my hard-earned money. And while taxes on my labor kept going up, the taxes on the corporate entities I worked for stayed the same or even dropped. After a while, it just didn't make a whole lot of sense anymore.

It took me a long time to learn the full extent to which American citizens have been deceived regarding the true nature of the income tax. And it took even longer to learn how to avoid the pitfalls inherent with being blacklisted as a "tax protester." But consider this: I haven't paid taxes since 1988. Believe me, it's worth the effort. It is a lot of effort, but that's life -- freedom requires eternal vigilance.

The evolution of the income tax in America is hidden in the shadows of history. But every long journey begins somewhere, so let's start with the U.S. Constitution:

--Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned...

--The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes...

--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 emuneration.

These three crucial components of our Constitution, in theory, work together in harmony. But in reality, they are rife with contradictions. Point by point:

--Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned...

Over the life of our nation, Congress has tried unsuccessfully to implement a direct tax, and these attempts have always eventually been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So, at the moment, we need not worry about the application of a direct tax.

--The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes...

Currently, taxes are collected by the Internal Revenue Service, a supposed indirect agency of the Executive Branch. People might ask how our federal government allows this blatant violation of the Constitution. To grant the Treasury the power to collect taxes is by Congress' own words unconstitutional, and this Congressional standing has been upheld as law since 1787. (Starting to get confused yet?) Now let's look at the 16th Amendment:

--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 emuneration.

Sounds pretty powerful doesn't it? But how come the 16th Amendment didn't affect the other two Constitutional clauses on taxation? Would you believe me if I told you that the Supreme Court concluded long ago that the 16th Amendment had no change or affect on the Constitution? It's actually wasted print. No joke.

Now I must warn you, unless you're courageous enough to bear the title of "tax protester" on your IRS tax record, you won't ask these questions of the IRS. The average person would think that the answers would be so simple and obvious that the IRS wouldn't resort to harassment tactics to avoid answering them. If you ask these questions and are fortunate enough to get an IRS worker on a good day, they'll send you a tax protester form letter telling you that they have the authority to do whatever the hell they want, and that they can find a judge willing to prove it if you dare ask again.

After my first futile attempts to get a straight answer from the IRS, I knew that I would have to find the truth on my own. Convinced that the IRS was hiding something by their shady responses to my inquiries, I took all my savings -- about $500 -- and hit several used book stores to grab any and every book that might contain a clue.

It didn't take long to figure out that public libraries often sell their "Do Not Circulate" books to local used book stores. I had found my gold mine. At the end of three days, I had accumulated a library of sixty of the best books an American could ever have.

With my army of books on Constitutional issues, I dug in for a year-long investigation. I started with the Federalist debates and discovered the difference between internal and external taxes and direct and indirect taxes. I proceeded along to early Congressional records, where I discovered Congress' declaration in 1787 that passing tax collection to the department of the treasury (IRS) is unconstitutional.

Naturally, this led to even more questions. I had to turn to the Supreme Court for answers. From my reading, I discovered the Pollock decision, which declared direct taxes -- including income taxes -- to be unconstitutional. This case resulted in Congress passing the 16th Amendment. With the 16th Amendment in hand, Congress thought it had outsmarted the Supreme Court... until 1916, when the Supreme Court declared in the Brushaber case that the 16th Amendment did not change the Constitution, since the Amendment only applied to excise taxes which the U.S. government already had the power to assess and collect without apportionment.

By then I was REALLY getting confused. Here was all this history and precedent stacked up against the income tax. I had also come across case after case in which various courts had repeatedly affirmed that the income tax applied only to gains and profits, not to compensation for labor -- a fundamental Right which cannot be legally taxed. The Courts even agreed that the tax on one's labor (all of a person's compensation) was a tax on total receipts and thus was also unconstitutional.

I knew there had to be an explanation for how the IRS could make their income tax stick. While reviewing my research material, I remembered the definition of "internal" and "external" tax. After remembering that "internal" taxes originate from within the States and that "external" taxes originate from the Federal government, it dawned on me that there was a problem with the Federal "internal" income tax. I had to dig through the Constitution to find the answer.

It took several months of digging and reading, but over time I found several Supreme Court cases that hinted that something was going on which enabled the Federal government to bypass the Constitution, to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court. But how could this legally be done?

The door finally opened when I read Downes v. Bidwell, in which Justice Harlan explained the existence of two national governments. A quick rereading of the Constitution allowed me to locate the loophole. I now realized that the Federal income tax was, in essence, a tax on the incomes of citizens of the District government -- that is, Washington D.C. and its Territories, such as Guam, Puerto Rico and Wake Island. But how could Citizens of the States be classified as Federal citizens, and when did this happen?

The answer is rooted in the 14th Amendment, which apparently was never ratified, but nevertheless holds full force and effect of law. The 14th Amendment, which was drafted and "ratified" specifically for the purpose of granting 2nd class federal citizenship for the freed slaves, has been deliberately misconstrued to assume that all Americans become Federal citizens. This Amendment gave Federal District citizenship to those persons, namely those of African blood who were slaves, but who did not qualify for State citizenship under existing law. Since the Federal Congress has Absolute Legislative power over Federal (District) citizens, it can rule over them the same way each State can rule within their borders. But Congress has one additional advantageous power that the States do not have. The Bill of Rights does not apply to 14th Amendment district citizens. (This prompted the creation of Civil Rights for Federal citizens, but still does not guarantee even the most basic Constitutional protections.)

So that was the hidden secret that allowed Congress to apply unconstitutional law upon U.S. citizens (district citizens). But another question remained unanswered: How do laws such as the Federal Internal Income tax reach into the States in defiance of Constitutional restrictions?

After more research, I learned that in 1939, Congress established the Public Salary Tax Act to tax any and all federal workers. Congress was, at the time, unable to impede within the States and tax their federal workers. So in 1940, Congress passed the Buck Act, which authorized them to reach into the domain of the States and impose the Public Salary Tax Act, thus forcing federal employees working within a State to pay this Federal Salary Tax. (Notice that they didn't call it income.) At the time, only 3 to 5 percent of the American population was required to pay a salary or income tax to the Federal government. But that's how the Feds got their foot in the States' door. And thanks to FDR and World War II, the income tax snowballed into the beast we have to contend with today.

In 1942, Congress needed money for the war effort and passed a Constitutional two-year income tax called the Victory Tax. FDR invented the Voluntary W-4 Tax Withholding system, making income tax and withholdings mandatory for all citizens of the Union. Again, this was a two-year tax, and as expected, both the Victory tax and W-4 withholdings legislation were repealed by Congress in 1944.

Unfortunately, they forgot to tell America.

Under the disguise of the 1913 Internal Income tax, the machinery of the Victory tax remained in operation. Voluntary compliance with the Federal internal income tax jumped from an anemic 5 percent to a robust 60 percent in a matter of a couple years via the repealed Victory tax system of tax collection.

By using two illegitimate tax systems, Congress created the beast we have today, taxing us under rates and conditions exceeding those which prompted the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence.

You may have heard the rumblings, a whisper here, a thinly-veiled news report there. IRS Commissioners complain that 34 million Americans no longer file personal income taxes. Most people are smart enough to see the obvious flip side of those figures: 30 to 40 percent of America doesn't file and pay the Federal income tax.

I fall in that 30 to 40 percent category. I am often questioned by people about how I have "survived" non-compliance for nearly a decade without going to prison. Although this is an easy question for me to answer, it's very difficult for most people to understand.

By understanding my status as a citizen of the States, by knowing how to exercise my Rights under the Constitution, and by knowing who the Federal Internal Income tax does apply to, I have been able to stand up to the IRS without flinching. Some have accused me of being unAmerican. My response to those critics: If I commit fraud against you, you send me to jail. When did participating in government fraud become one's patriotic duty?

Besides, knowledge of the truth is empowering. For example, I know I can sue any IRS employee who violates my Rights. This seems to strike terror to Revenue employees. You see, the IRS is legal fiction. Their employees cry wolf, assuming you'll take their bait. But when you request signatures on all communication or notify them that you record your phone calls, a miraculous transformation of their attitude occurs.

Another example: If you understand how the Code of Federal Regulations works and discover that the policing and collection powers that the IRS claims to have were only delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, IRS agents tend to quickly reassign your case to another unsuspecting minion of the agency.

If they know you understand your Rights, their only resort is to what I call "faxscimile warfare." This is where the think tank of the IRS bombards you with Civil Notices which are not signed or connected with any employee's name. Usually, there isn't a return address to specifically reply to or a phone number to call the person assessing you with yet another groundless penalty.

I found it quite easy to stop this type of harassment by responding to them with questions about the purpose of the assessment. This puts a wrench in their trickery, since they are required to respond as part of the Civil procedure. The response, if there ever is one, is usually another form letter stating that you are a tax protester and that there is no legal requirement for them to answer your questions. Whether such tactics will ever hold up in Court, I will never know. Echoing their thug-like threats, I've told them to take me to court, but they never seem willing to oblige me.

I don't hear much from the IRS these days. I occasionally get the $500 penalty notice for using "unreasonable excuses" like my Constitutional Rights to avoid the income tax. I can only guess that the IRS is only doing their job of running the numbers and maximizing revenues from an increasingly agitated tax base. I'm still waiting for the $500 penalty for breathing Federal air or not recycling the 1040 pamphlet they sent me several years ago. At this point, nothing would surprise me. But hopefully I won't run into anything I can't handle, either.

(c) Copyright 1997 ParaScope, Inc.

Top 10 Ways to Hassle the IRS

Tax-Related Web Sites and Resources

Walt Disney's Role in Propagandizing the Income Tax

The Great American Tax $windle Index

What do you think? Tell us in the message boards!

-- Susie Q (susieq@aol.com), July 26, 2000.

The IRS is a disgrace. Why not abolish it?

How to abolish the Infernal Revenue dis-Service

The IRS has proven they do not have a place in any civilized society. There is no reason we cannot abolish the IRS. There are compelling reasons to abolish the IRS. The IRS is a terrorist organization that is out of control and accountable to nobody. In short, the IRS sucks and sucks bad. If you think I hate the IRS, then you are thinking in terms of understatements. The plan

The way to abolish this terrorist organization is very simple. As are the best things in life.

All we have to do is let the federal government collect from the 50states, instead of from individuals. The fed would set forth a budget, and then tax the states based on some formula--probably based on the number of senators and congressmen each state has. Hey, this might even cause some states to do what inefficient private companies do, and merge. We'd have a reduction of costs.

The states would collect from the individuals, same way they do now. This moves accountability of the whole tax collection mechanism closer to the individual. And it takes the pressure off the individual.

We'd eliminate a huge organization--the IRS has more employees than the combined Army, Navy, and Air Force have troops. Whoa! And that goes to show what your government thinks of you.

We'd reduce costs of collection, compliance, and filing to almost nothing. We'd save billions of dollars and get rid of the blackest mark on our society.

The IRS has no justification for its existence. Make this view known loud and clear, and eventually we will be rid of those thugs.

-- Susie Q (susieq@aol.com), July 26, 2000.

WE CHALLENGE ANYONE TO DISPROVE THESE FACTS ABOUT INCOME TAX LAW

FACT 1. RESIDENTS OF THE STATES OF THE UNION ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO FILE FORMS 1040 AND THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF A TAX ON "INCOME" UNLESS THEY ARE WITHHOLDING AGENTS.

There is no provision in the Internal Revenue Code imposing an "income" tax on monies received by citizens or resident aliens residing within the states of the union, regardless of the amount, unless the money is received on behalf of, or paid to, a nonresident alien, or other foreign entity.

FACT 2. AMERICANS ARE MISLED AND DECEIVED INTO BELIEVING THAT THE "INCOME" TAX APPLIES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

For years, the Internal Revenue Service has RULED the American people in a manner equaled only by the Nazi Gestapo. FEAR and BLUFF have been the I.R.S.'s major weapons. Americans have been led to believe that they owe a tax on their earnings; that it is their "patriotic duty" to pay it, and that there is no alternative to the I.R.S.'s abuse. These beliefs are simply untrue. Because accountants, tax preparers, and others profit from the fraudulent misapplication of the law, most of them are reluctant to admit the truth about the law when they are confronted with it.

FACT 3. THE I.R.S. ADMITS THAT THE "INCOME" TAX SYSTEM IS DEPENDENT ON THE VOLUNTARY FILING OF TAX RETURNS.

In the decision of U.S. v. Flora, 362 U.S. 145, (1960),on p. 176, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. If a law requires you to do something, your compliance with the law is mandatory, not voluntary. But if a law requires certain other people, (not you) to do something, then your compliance with that law is voluntary.

The I.R.S. has repeatedly stated that: The mission of the Internal Revenue Service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of 'VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE' with the tax laws and regulations... (I.R. Manual Sec. 1111.1)

FACT 4. CITIZENS IMPOSE AN "INCOME" TAX ON THEMSELVES WHEN THEY VOLUNTARILY FILE A 1040 INCOME TAX RETURN.

Citizens voluntarily comply and "self assess " a tax upon themselves when they file a 1040 tax return, thereby acknowledging under penalty of perjury that they owe a tax that the I.R.S. Code does not impose on them.

FACT 5. THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE ANY DIRECT TAX ON THE PEOPLE IN THE STATES OF THE UNION.

Two provisions in the U.S. Constitution prohibit the imposition of direct taxes on the people or their property by the U.S. government. The first is Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires the amount of any direct tax to be divided among the state governments In proportion to the population of each state. The second provision is in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, which prohibits any capitation tax (a tax on people) or other direct tax unless apportioned among the states. Direct taxes have been imposed only five times in U.S. history. All were imposed on state governments (not individuals). The last direct tax was imposed in 1861.

FACT 6. THE U. S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE "INCOME" TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INDIRECT (EXCISE) TAX, BUT NOT AS A DIRECT TAX (a tax on the general public).

In the 1916 decisions of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment (the "income" tax amendment) to the U.S. Constitution created no new power of taxation and that it did not amend or nullify the constitutional prohibition against direct taxation of the people within the slates of the union.

The Court ruled that the "income" tax is constitutional as an indirect excise tax on the receipts of foreigners, but not as a direct tax on the American people. In the decision of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, the U.S. Supreme Court defined an "excise" as a tax on activities involving the exercise of a privilege.

FACT 7. THE I.R.S. ADMITS THAT THE BRUSHABER DECISION RELATES TO "INCOME" ACCRUING TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS ONLY.

Treasury Decision 2313, issued Mar. 21, 1916 by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to inform collectors of internal revenue of the significance of the Brushaber decision states: Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby hold that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

TD 2313 also states: The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or business raffled on within the United States, shall make (file) a full and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their nonresident alien principals. This document shows that the "withholding agent" receiving "income" on behalf of a nonresident alien, must pay the tax and file a 1040 for his nonresident alien principal.

FACT 8. FORM 1040 IS AN INCOME TAX RETURN FOR NONRESIDENT ALIENS.

IR Code Sec. 871 (a) imposes a tax of 30% on the amount received by non-resident aliens from sources within the United States. Sec 871 (b) states that the nonresident alien shall be taxable under Sec. 1, thus authorizing the use of the charts in Sec. 1 to compute and reduce his tax, so he can get a tax refund from the 30% which is withheld under the provisions of Sec 1441. Also, under I.R.S. Code Sec. 874 (a), the nonresident alien is entitled to the benefit of deductions and credits by filing or having his agent file, a 1040, as stated in TID 2313.

FACT 9. "INCOME" IS MONEY RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF, OR PAID TO, A NONRESIDENT ALIEN.

I. R. Code Sec. 1441 (a) and (b) state that ... interest, ...dividends, refit, salaries, wages,premium annuities, compensations, remuneration's, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodic gains, and profits... are "income" when received on behalf of, or paid to, a nonresident alien or other foreign entity. Also, courts have ruled that profits of corporations are "income." But... There is no provision in the I.R.S. Code stating that receipts belonging to citizens or residents of the country are "income."

Thus, a citizen's own receipts are not "income," "gross income," or "taxable income" under the I.R.S. Code. Within the states "Income" is property derived from activities Involving the exercise of a government granted privilege.

FACT 10. IT IS A PRIVILEGE FOR A NONRESIDENT ALIEN TO DO BUSINESS, TO INVEST, OR TO WORK IN THE USA

The U.S. government can prohibit foreigners from working, investing, or doing business within this country, and allowing such activity is a privilege subject to an excise tax, similar to the government granted privilege to do business as a corporation. But Americans have a nontaxable RIGHT to work, invest or do business in this country. The U.S. Supreme Court in Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.105 stated: A state may not impose a tax for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

FACT 11. THE "INCOME" TAX IS AN INDIRECT EXCISE TAX ON PRIVILEGED ACTIVITIES, NOT ON "INCOME." THE "INCOME" IS MERELY THE MEASURE OF THE TAX.

The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Volume 89, Part 2, on page 2580 for March 27, 1943 states: The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measuredly reference to the income which they produce. The income is not to subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court in the decision of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, in discussing income tax as an excise tax, stated on p. 165 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.

FACT 12. WITHHOLDING AGENTS ARE REQUIRED TO WITHHOLD FROM PAYMENTS OF "INCOME" TO FOREIGN PERSONS ONLY.

IRS Code Sec. 7701(a)(16) states: The term "withholding agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461. These sections apply to money received on behalf of, or paid to, nonresident aliens, foreign partnerships, foreign corporations, and other foreign entities only, not to money received by citizens on their own behalf.

Because the U.S. Government has no authority over foreign citizens living in a foreign country, the only individuals who can be required to deduct and withhold the tax on foreigner's receipts and can be made liable for payment of the tax are withholding agents who are within this country.

FACT 13. THE ONLY PERSON MADE LIABLE IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR PAYMENT OF "INCOME" TAX IS A WITHHOLDING AGENT.

Subtitle A of the I.R.S. Code contains the provisions of the law imposing "income" tax. In Subtitle A, Sec.1 461 is the only section making any person liable for (subject to) payment of "income" tax. The only individual made liable is the "withholding agent" he is required to withhold from "income" of foreign persons, ONLY.

FACT 14. THE ONLY WAY A PERSON CAN BE "MADE LIABLE" FOR ANY INTERNAL REVENUE TAX IS BY A PROVISION IN THE LAW. (a statute)

...In the decision of Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F. 2d 509 (1961), the United States Court of Appeals explained that there is only one way that a tax liability can be created. It stated... Moreover, even the collection of taxes should be exacted only from persons upon whom a tax liability is imposed by some statute. In Sutherland's Rules of Statutory Construction, an authoritative reference book on interpretation of statutes, section 66.03 states: ... the obligation to pay taxes arises only by force of legislation... Legislative action is the passage of a statute (a law). For anyone to be "liable" for income tax, It must be so stated in the I.R.S. Code.

FACT 15. PROVISIONS MAKING ANYONE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF A TAX MUST BE STATED IN CLEAR UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGE.

In the decision of Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160, head note 2 states: Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax. Sutherland's Rules of Statutory Construction, under Section 66.01 filled, "Strict construction of statutes creating tax liabilities." refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, which states: 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 operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strong against the government and in favor of the citizen.

FACT 16. I.R.S. CODE PROVISIONS IMPOSING LIABILITY ARE CLEARLY STATED AND USE THE WORD "LIABLE".

The word "liable" is found in I.R.S. Code Sections 4401 (c), 5005(a), 5703(a) and 1461, which create liabilities for wagering tax, distilled spirits tax, tobacco tax, and "income" tax, respectively. Section 1461 is the ONLY section in the I.R.S. Code imposing a liability for payment of "income" tax. That section applies to WITHHOLDING AGENTS ONLY (those required by Sec 1441 to deduct and withhold from payments of "income" owed to foreign persons). Sec. 1461 states: Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax.

FACT 17. I.R.S. PUBLICATION 515 EXPLAINS THAT WITHHOLDING APPLIES TO MONIES OWED TO FOREIGN PERSONS ONLY, NOT TO CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Page 2 of IRS Publication 515 instructs those who pay wages, rents, dividends, Interest, etc. that... if an individual gives you a written statement, in duplicate, stating that he or she is a CITIZEN or RESIDENT of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you may accept this statement and are relieved from the duty of withholding the tax.

FACT 18. I.R.S. CODE CHAPTER # 24, PROVIDES FOR WITHHOLDING FROM "EMPLOYEES." IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYER. (See Sec. 3401 (c) & (d))

Chapter 24 of the I.R.S. Code contains provisions that authorize the U.S. Government, the District of Columbia, their agencies and instrumentality's, to set up and administer a voluntary withholding system for their employees. Without such statutory authority, no official of the government could legally create a withholding system in government.

Please note - Chapter 24 imposes NO tax on any government or non- government employee.

FACT 19. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD MONEY FROM A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS HE AUTHORIZES IT.

The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, states that no Individual can be deprived of property without due process of law (a hearing in a court of law). The ONLY way a United States citizen or resident alien can legally have "income" tax withheld from his pay, is if he authorizes it by voluntarily signing an IRS Form W-4, "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate," thus indicating that he is in the same status as a nonresident alien. That is why the IRS pressures employers to obtain the voluntary execution of IRS Form W-4 by all people being hired. However, no federal law or regulation requires any individual to sign a Form W-4 to quality for a job.

FACT 20. CITIZENS LIVING AND WORKING ABROAD ARE SUBJECT TO "INCOME" TAX.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the decision of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), ruled that: Congress has power to tax the income received by a native citizen of to United States domiciled abroad from property situated abroad. The constitutional prohibition of un-apportioned direct taxes within the states of the union does not apply in foreign countries.

FACT 21. A RETURN FOR CITIZENS LIVING AND WORKING ABROAD IS THE ONLY RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY CITIZENS UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE I.R.S. CODE.

The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that any form on which Information is required to be submitted must first be approved by the Office Of Management and Budget and must be given an "OMB" number. The chart listing the OMB numbers of the forms required to be used for compliance with the various I. R. Code sections is found in Chapter 600 of the I.R.S. Regulations. That chart shows there is only ONE FORM REQUIRED to be filed by citizens for compliance with Sec. 1, which contains the same tax tables that are found in the 1040 instruction booklet. That form is identified by OMB number 1545-0067, which is on Form 2555, a return to be filed by citizens living and working abroad.

FACT 22. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR INCOME TAX APPLY TO CITIZENS LIVING ABROAD AND NONRESIDENT ALIENS ONLY.

Internal Revenue Manual (1-6-87) Sec.1132.75, describes the limited scope of criminal investigations. It states: The Criminal Investigations Branch enforces the criminal statute applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws... "involving United States citizens residing In foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements...."

FACT 23. TO UNDERSTAND THE I.R.S. CODE, ONE MUST LEARN WHICH WORDS ARE USED IN THE CODE AS LEGAL TERMS.

In the I.R.S. Code, many words of common usage are used as legal terms that have meanings more limited in their application than when defined for common usage. Words such as taxpayer, taxable income, taxable year, employee, employer, wages, United States, State, person, etc. are legal terms that have limited meanings when used in the Code. Some legal terms have different meanings when used In different parts of the Code. To understand the true meaning of the code, it is necessary to learn the various definitions of those terms and where in the Code the definitions apply.

FACT 24. THE I.R.S. CODE APPLIES TO "TAXPAYERS" ONLY (those who are "made liable" for a tax by a statute).

This fact has been clearly stated through the years in many court decisions Including Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922), Stuart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Phoenix, 168 F.2d 712 (1948), First National Bank of Emlenton, Pa. v. U. S., 161 F. Supp. 847 (1958), Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 509 (1961), and Economy Plumbing v. U.S., 470 F.2d 589 (1972) "Taxpayer" (one word not two), is a legal term defined in I.R.S. Code Sec 7701 (a) (14) which states: The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any Internal revenue tax. For a person to be subject to a tax, there must be a provision in the law stating clearly that his activity makes him "liable" for the tax. Paying a tax such as a sales tax or real estate tax does not place one in the legal status of "taxpayer" as that term is used in the I R Code.

FACT 25. THE TERMS "TAXABLE INCOME" AND "TAXABLE YEAR" APPLY TO "TAXPAYERS" ONLY.

These terms, defined in I.R.S. Code Sec. 441 (a) & (b), apply to "taxpayers" only, and to those who file returns, thus stating (in effect) under penalty of perjury, that they are "taxpayers". Also, "Taxable year" is a key legal term in Sec. 6012(a)(1), a section that the I.R.S. cites when claiming that individuals are required to file income tax returns. Since a withholding agent is the only person in the I.R.S. Code "made liable" for payment of income, he is the only individual in the legal status of "taxpayer" in respect to "income tax" thus a withholding agent is the only one who has a "taxable year" under Sec.6012 (a)(1).

FACT 26. CERTAIN "PERSON(S)" ONLY ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Those "person(s)" who are subject to the criminal penalties in the Code are defined and limited by I.R.S. Code Sec. 7343 to those required to act on behalf of a corporation or partnership. Sec. 7343 states: The term person' as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. When an individual is not in such a capacity, his prosecution under the Code is illegal.

FACT 27. KARL MARX WROTE IN HIS COMMUNIST MANIFESTO TEN PLANKS NEEDED TO CREATE A COMMUNIST STATE. THE FIRST PLANK WAS THE ABOLITION OF THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY. THE SECOND PLANK WAS A PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX.

If the government could legally tax citizens' earnings, government would then have first claim on those earnings (his property). His circumstances would be like the slave who is allowed to have only that which is left after the master takes whatever he wants.

CONCLUSION

It is morally wrong for the government to intimidate and deceive the people into believing that they must pay an "income" tax that is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution to be imposed on the general public. Officials who are notified, or become aware of the IRS's illegal action to force ordinary citizens to pay an "income" tax, who then do nothing to stop it, violate their oaths of office to uphold and enforce the Constitution. (Facts 5 & 6)

Click here to find out more about the tax issue!

-- Susie Q (susieq@aol.com), July 26, 2000.

Thanks, SusieQ. Based on this information, I have decided to pay twice what I owe in taxes, and urge the government to impose more taxes on us.

I will suggest that they call them The SusieQ Taxes.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 26, 2000.