11 votes

What most people don't understand about income tax

If Congress creates a "Church Attendance Tax" is it unconstitutional?

ONLY if "church" means church in the ordinary sense, and "attendance" means attendance in the ordinary sense. If congress creates "Special Definitions", as they OFTEN do, and as they did in Title 26, the Income Tax Code, THEN the special definitions are of major importance.

For example, if "Church" was defined as:

    "For the purpose of this section, 'church' includes any Federally established Church or Religious service."

then you would see how the code made sense, and was in FACT NOT unconstitutional, as it only applied to Federal Churches.

Well, as you can imagine, the same thing happened with "Income"
The Supreme court defined "Income" as "Profit or gain from corporate activity".
Well, people were making a lot of money on dividends and other (indirect) means from shares of corporate stock. When congress tried to tax it, many people fought that this dividend did not "derived from corporate activity", and it was simply a profit from investing, and therefore not "INCOME" as defined.

This is what led to the 16th Amendment. (Remember what "INCOME" means as you read the text of the 16th)

    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.

This is why your tax forms asks you to list your "wages, tips, and other remuneration" instead of simply asking for your "Income"


the second part of Income Tax:
If the Income Tax were a tax on your labor, it would be a "Direct Tax", since it is a tax on the activity of Privileged Corporations, thus avoidable, it is an indirect tax.

However, when they do tax your labor (as they always do) it is a "Direct Tax". What does the Constitution say about Direct Taxes?
It says that Direct taxes, AND REPRESENTATION shall be apportioned among the states (of the Union).
YOu should note that the District of Columbia does NOT HAVE REPRESENTATION!!!! This is because they are NOT A state...


Because, if they DONT HAVE REPRESENTATION, that means that the section of the Constitution that CLEARLY STATES:

    "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states"


SO, if they DONT HAVE REPRESENTATION, then they ARE ALLOWED to direct tax!

Which is why, Title 26 defines "State" as the District of Columbia,
and "United States" as the District of Columbia and other Federal zones (where that section of the Constitution also does not apply)

and why you are :

    Treated as residing in the District of Columbia

if you live in one of the 50 states.

(remember "United States" and "States" is defined as the District of COlumbia at (9)and (10) of this same section)


the third way to pay income tax, is by voluntarily gifting a tax to the U.S.

Of course the W-2, W-4, 1099, 1040, etc are all "Gift Tax" or "Estate Tax" forms.

See: http://www.famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Evidence/Employers/AllWithholdingIsAGift!.pdf


The point is, if you continue to think "Income tax" is unconstitutional, you will get nowhere.
If you continue to think that "Income" means anything you trade your labor for, you will get nowhere.
If you continue to think that Congress has the authority to lay a Direct tax on you, you will get nowhere.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

isnt this an example,

isnt this an example, http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtp2/updates/update2006-06-09.htm
Im not going to do your research, I personally dont care about your situation, individually. Im pointing out the obvious, which is that in a Constitutional republic, the government does NOT have the power to take your private property, and because they lack that power, they must use "tricks" or rather "words of art" to get you to submit gift taxes.

Do some research, dont rely on my ramblings. Dont fall for quatloos (tax attorney site) or evanslaw (same thing) but research the laws. we are a nation of LAW, NOT opinion. just because everyone acts a

Title 26 Income Tax


Freedom doesn't seem to be for everyone.

Freedom isn't easy, it carries duties.

Like knowing how to stand your ground.

saying freedom carries duties

saying freedom carries duties sounds like an oxymoron to me...

Only thousands of pages of research

Skepticism is a great thing if used as a motivator to seek the truth. If it only prevents you from seeking such truth it is of no value. We all should be skeptical to new evidence or ideas however, I am confident, if you were to make a diligent study on the topic of taxation and citizenship you would come to the same conclusion as what julius is presenting. You would not need court precedence to strengthen your conviction as you may find yourself out of that very jurisdiction the court represents. Empower yourself...Check out the SEDM.org/Family Guardian sites. We have so much information available to us, if one cannot find the truth maybe we need to be governed by others...

You are both missing my point. I believe you are right

about the fundamentals of law. My point is as practical matter, until the fundamentals are proven as a winning case in court, people are going to be hesitant to take the time, money and chance to take on the beast as an individual.

Have you two made that decision? If so I wish you both the best of luck. Still the missing key component is a specific case that proves your position is a winner in court. The PRA case, is a precedent in proving the possible dismissal on a technical matter but I'm afraid that will be remedied by the beast. If there is a solid foundation then an organization like WTP should put together a packet and publish it.

BTW - (I've been doing research for a living for 20 years, so I can assure you on an issue such as this, I would be doing my own).

Most individuals are not going to take ont he beast...

for they do not have the financial wherewithall to initiate and sustain such a fight. I read a few years ago (maybe 5 or so) the average cost for an individual to fight the IRS in US Tax Court was $35,000 for a Civil trial and $75,000 for a Criminal trial. So we the average people are not going to go up against the PTB (IRS). Due to the fact that the IRS has unlimited resources to challenge essentially anyone they choose, only wealthy individuals could sustain sustain such a fight. And those aforementioned costs to the individual are most certainly much higher today.

Im not missing your point, Im

Im not missing your point, Im just telling you that the lawyers for the IRS know when they have a losing case, and they handle it differently. UNFORTUNATELY they dont run across TOO MANY losing cases because so many people are trying to fight the Income Tax by making erroneous claims:
its unconstitutional, it only applies to corporations, file a zero return, and so on.

The ONLY real way to not be subject to "Income Tax" is to:
Not be a "citizen of the United States" as defined.
Not have a "social security number" for federal benefits.
Not become a federal or State employee.
Not be engaged in any federally privileged activity.
Not be an officer of a corporation.
Not be a "Resident of the United States" as defined.

REMEMBER for the purpose of Title 8 and Title 26, "citizen of the United States" means "citizen of D.C." which is the extent of the reach of congress.

a "non resident alien" means someone who is NOT a resident of D.C. (nonresident) and an "alien" with regard to federal jurisdiction.
notice a "taxpayer" is defined as anyone "subject to any internal revenue tax".

Even this healthcare bill is constitutional. If you take the time to read the definititons, you will see that "State" is defined as "includes the District of Columbia" Im sure!

This is their trick, the word "includes" people think it means "also".......then explain why laws that are constitutional in the states define "state" like this:
(32) State.— The term “State” means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico.

or this:

(5) State
(A) In general
The term “State” means—
(i) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
(ii) for purposes of subsections (a)(2), (b)(4), (d)(1), (h)(4), and (p), any municipality—
(I) with a population in excess of 250,000 (as determined under the most recent decennial United States census data available),
(II) which imposes a tax on income or wages, and
(III) with which the Secretary (in his sole discretion) has entered into an agreement regarding disclosure, and
(iii) for purposes of subsections (a)(2), (b)(4), (d)(1), (h)(4), and (p), any governmental entity—
(I) which is formed and operated by a qualified group of municipalities, and
(II) with which the Secretary (in his sole discretion) has entered into an agreement regarding disclosure.

AND HERE IS "State" for Income Tax:
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Hey Don't you know!

There is a group alreadt called republicoftheunitedstates.org The republic has already been restored in may


What are the possibilities of some group like

We The People publishing a book or website on how this is done. If there is a legal way of doing this, I would think there would be a big demand, and as cases are proven the website could be updated accordingly. You might considering offering your expertise in some free enterprise undertaking, even package and promote it on the DP.

Carry on my man.

Read the research. for

Read the research.
for example, Look at things like the definition of "Federal Personnel" in USC Title 5

Look at usc title 26, 7701 (39)
(39) Persons residing outside United States
If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.

Why do they need to treat us as if we reside in the District of Columbia if we do not reside in a Puerto Rican, or American Samoan judicial district? Because, D.C. is allowed to have a "Direct Tax". This is evidenced by the fact that D.C. has no representation, therefore it does not need Direct Taxes to be apportioned. This is because the Constitution says "Representatives AND DIRECT TAXES must be apportioned among the states", well if D.C. doesnt have Representation, then why would it be required to have the 2nd part of that section of the Constitution?

see www.famguardian.org for more info.






you are right (of course) for is their a precedent?

lets say there is... but it is hidden..ie not available to be found easily.
However... couldn't a person just sue the IRS for fraud, or for collecting taxes that a person did not owe in the first place? Thereby creating a precedent in and of itself?
Answer-- no.
They would say that the person filed and signed the "tax return" and that would be the end of it. Unless......
They filed a corrected tax return.. for back taxes paid. (not sure of the form think its a 1040x and it only allows you to refile the last 3 years)and in it restated their "income" as none (unless it is corporate income), they would then get a refund of all those back taxes. However, if the IRS challenges you on this point, then you have your arguments in order, and KICK THEIR ASS IN THEIR OWN TAX COURT!! No lawyer needed, just a good understanding of the knowledge on this thread! You would win, and ---WALLA-- a precedent would then be established.

Now one issue not clearly pointed out is how to legally show and establish that you are not subject to the USA--or Washington DC area of the nation, but are instead a citizen of a state. That matter is separate, but needed to be understood before you undertook the above task.

One cannot sue a Federal Agency, however....

one can sue an individua working for or within said agency. Unfortunately, as for the IRS, I believe the IRS Commisioner would be exempt from such a suit for he is evidently employed by the IMF.

Are you currently pursuing the plan you are proposing

or do you know anyone who is?

What the Poster Does Not Understand About the IRS

They have the courts.

They have the guns.

They have the handcuffs.

They have the prisons.


Collect all the FRN's $$.

The republic has been restored

spoken like a true slave ...You allow them to fine, arrest and jail you because you don't know they opperate in commerce The republic has been restored Tim Turner is the new president and I will meet him this weekend Go to"Republicoftheunitedstates.org" and educate yourself or did you go to college and now you can't think for yourself


I FULLY understand that!!

I FULLY understand that!! And I agree that those are problems. BUT, if you volunteer a return that says "I owe x amount of Income Tax" without questioning a thing, then you should expect problems. Especially if you do it repeatedly, then one day refuse to file, expect a "willful failure to file charge", BUT, if you ask questions, send certified letters, demand signed invoices, demand clarification, offer conditional acceptances, send affidavits, claim and assert your rights, THEN, you may have a different outcome.

However, you should read this:

your right!! I know people personally who have done this...

and the IRS now leaves them the hell alone!!!

But one must be tenacious and confident that they both know and understand the truth that they are defending.

As far as state taxes go though, that may be a different matter...(unless you live in a tax free state)

Thanks again, Julius for trying to educate us.

Which Black's Dictionary version is the best one to purchase? I understand it's very difficult to get the earliest printed books.

P.S. Can you comment on Original Jurisdiction government? We voted for our governor last year.
In Liberty.