48 votes

At what point do we stop paying income tax?

The government in its present state can’t sustain itself without the I.R.S., plain and simple.

In 2013 the federal budget was 2.9 trillion but the gov’t managed to spend 3.8 trillion, 25% over budget. The I.R.S. collects approximately 2.5-2.8 trillion a year so this revenue is the primary means of gov’t sustainability.

If we stopped paying income tax there would be no more IRS, TSA, NSA, DHS, DEA, DIA, DOE, ATF, EPA, CIA, FBI, and the list goes on…

So at what point do we stop paying income tax?

When cameras are in our homes? When the dollar collapses?

I’m familiar with the verse “Render under Caesar what is Caesar’s…” from Matthew 22:20-22, but I believe this is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. People often mistake it to mean taxes should be rendered no matter what. I found an article written in 2010 by Jeffrey Barr that dwells with this very topic.


I’m curious to know what you all think.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Apologies in advance. Asking again for thoughts/input.

What if a person is clearly a US citizen, born in the US of two US citizen parents, incl. birth cert AND passport, and you simply never got an SSN (or TIN) for no reason other than you just didn't get one?


I believe if there is no ssn,

I believe if there is no ssn, there is no way to tax the "income". My question to you is how do you get a job with no ssn? My son is in the exact position you describe but he is way too young to worry about a job. I hope he can make his way without having a traditional "job" but it is getting harder and harder to do. Even self-employment is difficult if clients are unwilling to deal with someone without a tin for the 1099's to go to. If you try to educate them on the income tax, they think you are someone they should steer clear of. So is it possible to be employed in the private sector without a ssn? The answer is yes, with limitations.
What are YOUR thought on the question you posited? Noone here seems to have any input on your question and it seems you want to say something on the topic.

You and I are looking for the same answers.

This is exactly the scenario I'm talking about. I'm glad you chimed in. I was hoping on this thread that for all the people who claim to know how to do this, that someone would contribute some thoughts.

But for all their hot air, there's really just you and me here with legitimate questions for which they have no answers nor advice.

if there was ever any use for the irs

It should've been applied to controlling the spending of government as well. Combined with the treasury, the irs should've been given the ability to control how much congress has to work with in it's coffers. This is nothing more than a pipe dream though and will never happen.

Internal revenue service. What a terrible name isn't it? A bunch of lawyers and accountants that are only in charge of collecting taxes (which they can't even do that entirely proper) so, why exactly wasn't it given the ability to say to congress, "here's how much we've collected in taxes and other means. Congress, this is the amount you have for this year roughly."? Rhetorical question obviously, but it really makes you wonder. Just how exactly does the mindset of these politicians work that know that they are spending into oblivion here? How little do they care that they spend more than they have available? Why have they been able to get away with this mindset for so long and have the general public believe it can't be helped, and absolutely must be done?

Drunk on power, drunk Keynesian's with a printing press in their wallets. Going on a century of shopping sprees now with no one to even slap their hands.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

gg whoever - my post lol

Please learn a little bit of neutral thinking. Obviously I want the IRS abolished. I was just playing devils advocate. Which, someone couldn't handle lol. Sure I could + my own post out of it but that's rather redundant like.. replying to your own post because someone didn't like it and have no reason...

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Top or Bottom

You can avoid the income tax by being too poor or too rich. Everybody in the middle is screwed.

That's the Point

Right before they throw you in jail.

ummm ...

How can I stop paying anything when "they" take it before I even see it ?

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

That's called signing a W4

That's why they take it before you see it. Unfortunately, you didn't understand what you were signing when you signed that W4 and the person who hired you NEVER read one word of the law to actually determine the usage of that form for whom and under what circumstances.

So, person A goes to get a job in a store. Person B who works at that stores "hiring" department just believes you are required to sign that form before you begin work there even though Person B has never read any law to determine that. No, they had you sign that Federal tax form for NO OTHER REASON THEN THEY WERE TOLD they had to have any new person who works for them to sign it.

And so goes the myth of what the Income Tax actually is. It's an indirect tax being applied to many who NEVER owed it and were NEVER required in the first place to sign those forms to "get a job"...

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Been There, Done That

My first job out of school I worked as an independent contractor. No W4 - filing and paying each quarter was my responsibility.

On a subsequent job I was presented with a W4 which I refused to sign (having just read one of Irwin Schiff's books) just to see what would happen. Can you say s-h-i-t-s-t-o-r-m?

The boys and girls from HR came down like a rain of fire. My supervisor was actually sympathetic. But it came down to - fill this out and sign it, or no job. Once you sign a W4, you're on the record and 'in' the system. Withholding (as an employee) is your life just like a ball and chain.

There's No Way Out other than to own your own business. As a business owner, you take in all the revenue, spend (deduct) as much as you can on legitimate business expenses, the gunvernment taxes what's left. As an employee, work work work, government taxes your wages, you get to spend whatever's left. Big difference.

Become an independent contractor or business owner in your chosen field. That's the only way to make it in America (other than being a politician) these days. (Use your car for a business purpose? write off those miles. Have a business meeting during lunch? write that meal off. Use that back bedroom or garage supporting your biz? you get the idea, etc etc).


My Reposts: READ CAREFULLY... since most people DONT have a clue about the tax...


The IRS Cheifs know the truth, the Executive Branch knows the truth the Judicial Branch knows the truth and the Congressional branch also knows the truth about what the tax is and who it applies to under what circumstances!!!!!


It's right in the IRS Manual that you CAN NOT... never ever ever ever USE THE IRS Publications and Pamphlets to, in their own words, "sustain a position"., which anyone can access online at WWW.IRS.GOV (here's the link to the exact page on their site: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007.html and go down to section entitled publications and read it for yourself)

Which means the IRS publications and Pamphlets ARE NOT THE LAW. They NEVER HAVE BEEN THE LAW! Because they aren't the law!! The are like little newsletters posted by the IRS to the "tax professional community" that then those "professionals" accept as the word of God, except they are "NOT TO BE USED TO SUSTAIN A POSITION" and the "professionals" ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT!!! Most professionals don't even read the law to determine squat about the tax or the nature of the tax. They start off from the beginning with the myth that everyone just owes the tax.

Here's an example. The IRS says that "tax protestors" claim wages are not taxable. That can be true or false, depending on how you understand the law.

For instance, Wages, as defined under section 3401(a): (This is the actual statutory definition, ready.... here we go.... )

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

++++ (Note: (other than fees paid to a public official) is correct because fees belong to the government, not the "employee" receiving "wages"... that's why they are called fees.

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word means... where it says "wages" means. Now watch, here's the definition of "employee" for purposes of Employment taxes... same general section except it's 3401(c)...READY!!! Here we go

Section 3401(c) Definition of Employee:

(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.

++++ (Note: This definition enumerates federally related workers. And that last line, The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation., is referring to federally related corporations. Like a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc..) And that would make sense since congress DOES have the authority to legislate on it's OWN "EMPLOYEES"!!!! Where do any private sector people fit into that definition and also where can u make the jump from federally related subjects to private sector from that definition????

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word INCLUDES... which has an entirely different meaning than the word means. The word includes and including are defined under section 7701(c)... and here's that DEFINITION: READY AGAIN.....

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.


For example. If congress defined the word "Food" for a certain section wherever and the definition said, "Food: For purposes of this chapter the term food includes apples, pears, oranges"

What that then means since it would use the word Includes is that I cannot exclude like minded things. So I can't exclude strawberries, apples, peaches, pears, papayas, mangos, etc... because they are of the same general class of what has been defined which are "Fruits". But I can't include eggs, milk, bread, etc... because even though those items are food for how WE WOULD refer to them in private conversation, that's NOT what the law is referring to!!!!! Get it yet???!!!

But to be making STATUTORY "WAGES", as defined, you would first have to meet the requirements of the definition of "Employee" under section 3401(c). Its a word game.

So technically, you are most likely NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" as defined by law earning "WAGES" as defined. Because for you to be earning "Wages" as defined you MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST... did i say that enough, MEET THE STATUTORY requirement of the definition of "EMPLOYEE".

Congress can define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. So they can take a word YOU and I are familiar with and use in private conversation to describe getting paid, like the word "WAGES" and REDEFINE it for purposes of the law.

Now, once Congress has provided it's own definition, OUR PRIVATE CONVENTIONAL definition NO LONGER APPLIES!

So when the IRS says "Wages" are taxable, technically yes, Statutory "WAGES" as defined by the code are... BUT HERE's the catch, Statutory "Wages" is NOT the same thing as Wages as you get paid in the private sector. But when an IRS publication mentions "WAGES", it's talking about the staturoy definition, not the conventional definition.

Here's what the court said:

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term");"

So, when we encounter a word, that you and I are familiar with, BUT, it has a definition that strays from the "ordinary meaning", we are to use the definition in place of the traditionally defined word!


So, im not saying that the "Beast" will just leave us alone because there is some magic silver bullet argument, that's NOT what Im saying at all. All im pointing out is what the law says and why it says what it says.

Income tax is an Excise. The law clearly shows the application to be in the nature of an excise. Not that congress didn't want to include you and I and the entire private sector world as those who are required to pay the tax on our own domestic source monies, it's that they DID NOT HAVE THE POWER or Authority to write such a requirement into the law because, get this, .... IT WENT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF TAXATION THE CONGRESS WAS DELEGATED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if challenged at that point containing that language, which to this date is NOT there, THEN, THEN YOU COULD challenge the Income Tax as unconstitutional. But as long as you continue to sign W4's and W9's, neither of which have anything to do with the average guy in the private sector earning his/her own domestic source monies, then the IRS is going to ACCEPT your STATEMENT under Penalty of Perjury that YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THE TAX!!!! The IRS does NOT have to prove that you were NOT the person who was to sign such a form, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PROVE YOU DID!! AND THE SIGNING OF THOSE FORMS ARE THE STARTING POINT FOR OWING THE TAX! IT'S THE STARTING POINT FOR THE REPORTING PROCESS AND THE LIKE! STOP SIGNING THOSE FORMS!!!

NOW DO U GET IT???? !!!!

Hope this helps.


Here's another one of my posts in response to the top one...


What need is there to go to court if....If I am NOT signing W4's or W9's, and starting the whole reporting process.

The "Income Tax" has NOTHING to do with me. So, therefore, when someone ASKS me to sign a form as mentioned before, I DO NOT! Those forms do have purposes and serve a purpose for the tax, but HAVE NOTHING to do with the average guy living and working in the private sector earning his/her own domestic source monies.

I know i know, everyone tells me, "But if I don't sign the form, I can't get paid..." Well so be it... I do...

The point I'm making to you is that MOST EVERYONE who gets prosecuted starts their OWN prosecution by starting the reporting process by SIGNING THOSE DASTARDLY FORMS that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM because some MORON somewhere said they were required to even though that MORON NEVER READ 1 WORD of the Law to determine that to be the case. The IRS does NOT have to prove you were NOT the person required to sign that form.... No no no, all they have to do is PROVE THAT U DID... and if there is reporting with YOUR identifier on that reporting that goes back to the IRS, then YOU ARE the one who started that process....

So, when somebody goes and DOESN'T pay a tax, that they themselves have reported as taxable, then yes, you are going to get prosecuted.

It works like this.

A W2 or 1099 is issued at the end of the year to said "taxpayer". That reporting goes also to the IRS where a log of the reporting is noted in the ACS (Automatic Computer System) where it then awaits a tax return. If you do NOT file when you DO have this reporting, which for MOST AMERICANS IS ERRONEOUS reporting, then the computer system will kick some automatic letters out to the "taxpayer" asking where their tax return is for the year "such and such". If you STILL disregard those letters, then the ACS kicks it up to a REAL PERSON that then sends even MORE letters to get you to pay based on THE REPORTING THAT YOU APPROVED. If you STILL DON'T FILE, then you are screwed, because now they will escalate that reporting to a LEVY.

Here is the Levy Section from the Statutes: READY???!!

Sec 6331

(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

WOW... NOTICE THE SECTION I BOLDED... IT IS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL to the definition of "Employee" under section 3401(c). And that second half of that paragraph IS WHAT and WHOM the Secretary has the Authority to levy upon!!!

And what's that definition for reminders sake of "Employee"??? Here it is....

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.

Do you think that people say at a bank, when they get that Levy form, actually READ the LAW PERTAINING to levy authority???? Of course NOT!!!

It's all connected. You have to actually read the law to see what it requires and NOT just live a life of ignorance because of FEAR of what somebody MAY or MAY NOT do to you.

Truth can be hard to come by, but when people do, THEY DON'T SEEM TO WANT TO DO ANYTHING with the TRUTHFUL knowledge they have been given!!!

Go read Dave Champion's Book "Income Tax: Shattering the Myths"....


Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

You were fine through the point ...

You were fine through the point where you said:

"But to be making STATUTORY "WAGES", as defined, you would first have to meet the requirements of the definition of "Employee" under section 3401(c). Its a word game."

But you lost it in the next paragraph, where you said:

"So technically, you are most likely NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" as defined by law ..."

By your own argument up to that point, and the quoted text, the use of "includes" or "including" means the ordinary meaning of the word also applies. Yet section 3401(c) (Definition of Employee) uses the word "includes" twice.

So an "employee" in the ordinary use of the term is also an "employee" for the purpose of the legal definition.

(It looks to me like the intent of congress, when writing the special definition, was to avoid excluding bosses, whether government or corporate officials, from the "employee" class, so they, too, would be taxed.)

I'd love for you to be right, and eventually get this approach to work. But I think the legal system has it right when they laugh this "I'm not a statutory 'employee'" argument out of court.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Sorry, MichaelmcC

You are dead wrong about "includes" There are so many citations about this, it is practically self evident. Sorry to be blunt. Custom definitions are meant to be narrowly defined:
"for the purposes of this section "fruit" means apples and oranges." So, is a pineapple a fruit?? not for the purposes of this statute. Only apples and oranges are "fruit"
How can you tell you are wrong? Because a Chinaman pulling a rickshaw for a rickshaw company in Shanghai, is an employee, no? Is he an employee for the purposes of the I.R.C.? No, then how is he excluded? He is excluded because he is not INCLUDED by statute and the custom definitions. Read:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. (or all others) 11 Co. 58.


“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man


No, I clearly said that Includes and Including, which have THEIR OWN definition do NOT include the general private understanding of employee for purposes of the 3401(c) definition of employee! You must have read what i wrote wrong.

The words Includes and Including do NOT extend a definition to include every other thing you can think of. And your argument that they didn't want to miss some "bosses" is entirely off base. Where in the world did you come up with that logic???

All those terms signify according to section 7701(c) which defines the terms "includes and including" is that you CANT exclude items that would satisfy the category of what already has been enumerated.

The example I gave was a made up example of the definition of food.
If Congress defined food like this: (Food: For purposes of this chapter the term food includes apples, pears and oranges). Then that means I can NOT exclude peaches pears papayas mangos, etc.. etc.. Which in general anything that would fit the category of fruit since items listed and ENUMERATED belong to the category of fruit. That also THEN means I can NOT INCLUDE beef, chicken, tofu, carrots, milk, eggs, cheese etc... etc... because they are NOT of the same generally enumerated category of ... FRUIT... even though we would think of those items as food for our own private conversation.

Context is the point of statutory structure, and there's a reason the definition of "employee" does NOT include private sector employee's.

Let me put it another way. IF the definition of "Employee" under 3401(c) included private sector employees, then what you are saying is Congress has NO limits to it's Constitutional Powers and Congress has "authority" to regulate EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING who works. And that any definition can include things that are NOT their for purposes of our discussion.

No way they have that authority and Congress did NOT get any new taxing powers with passage of the 16th amendment either.

The 16th Amendment "Confers no new power of taxation" but merely confirms Congress' taxing powers relating to Income as an INDIRECT tax ONLY and no other possible way to lay it.

Indirect... Indirect... . That according to the Stanton V. Baltic Mining Case (US Supreme Court - 1916)

So I don't even see how you get to private sector employee from the definition of "employee" under 3401(c)...

And yes, to be making Statutory "Wages" as defined in 3401(a), you must first be an "Employee" as defined working for an "Employer" as defined under section 3401.

You CANNOT use the word Includes and Including to Include things that are NOT of the same general category that has just been enumerated as in 3401(c) Employee. To claim otherwise is to abandon the proper usage of the 7701(c) definition of the terms "includes" and "including" and pervert the meaning to mean anything you want it to mean in relation to what YOU may think employee means in your mind totally violating the statutory context of the definition.

So I must gracefully and totally disagree with your points as they don't even make logical sense and you didn't even point out an error in my argument... You actually misread if anything...

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

You are asking the wrong people.

Ask Google, Apple, Big Banking, Coca Cola, and any other Multi National.
They don't pay any tax.

I don't want to see any references to the UCC.

Why are people still riding that horse while people are in jail because of it? There are no magic words that make the IRS go away, just like there are no magic words to make the Mafia go away. End of story.

Anyhow, people stop paying taxes at around 35%. Around that point, the underground economy is able to handily beat those that operate above-board. Cafés and restaurants couldn't compete if they paid the legal amount of tax.

Yeah, European regimes have tax rates of 50, 60 and 75% or more, but these countries also have large cash economies that are nowhere on the books. Having been through places like Austria, Croatia, Germany and Norway, I've seen that the "little guy" runs a huge portion of the service economy, and he doesn't take credit cards.

Tax rates can be arbitrarily high, but tax collected as a percentage of GDP rarely gets to 40%.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


And on top of that, about a

And on top of that, about a third of all taxes go to social insurance taxes that you mostly get back...the money is cycled back into the economy in the form of a check later; your contributions, at least for SS, determine the payout.

European countries often have total taxation well over 50% of GDP.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Right on

And I'd add, people find ways around paying taxes based on the *perceived* rate. If they're rich, they find ways around taxes that involve influencing congress (hence the sweet loophole I mentioned earlier). If not, then barter, working off the books, etc.

But part of the problem is that some taxes are hidden (FICA that you "never see" and the employee portion that most people don't even know about, and corporate taxes that show up as higher retail prices). And with so many different modes of taxation few people have a clear idea of how much they're paying.

Or I should say, few people who aren't rich have a clear idea of how much they're paying, because the people who earn the least are the ones most impacted by the stealthy taxes and by the various taxes other than income tax that all nibble away at the edges.

Enlightened disengagement

When you need little or no FRN, Rothschild false debt slave curency you starve the beast.

Plant a garden, use a bycicle, invest in off grid type of energy resources, ie solor, thermal, water, or any other power sources.

be more free and not be forced to submit to extorted theft.

Starve the beast.


Right on. Cut expenses

That's how you cut your taxes.


Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


Stop NOW! Stop feeding the beast!

Internal Revenue Code
(Title 26, United States Code)
is not Law

26 USC 7806
26 USC 4161(a) says that a manufacturer must pay a 10% tax on artificial lures.
26 USC 7806(b) says that Title 26 is not the law. In other words, "No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..." N.B. "legislative construction" means "law."

26 USC 4161(a) says lures must be taxed. Nordby supply Co. applied 26 USC 7806(b) to invalidate the lure tax.

The Internal Revenue Code is not the law. It only defines a contract between the IRS and the individual.

Section 7806. Construction of Title.

(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

1. Location or grouping of section

Fact that 26 USCS Sec. 4161(a) is located in part of Code dealing with recreational equipment and sporting goods is of little significance in determining applicability of tax to lures used in commercial fishing since Sec. 7806 provides that nothing is to be inferred from grouping or indexing of any particular section. Nordby Supply Co. v United States (1978, CA9 Wash) 572 F2d 1377, cert den 439 US 861, 58 L Ed 2d 170, 99 S Ct 182.

Section 4161. Imposition of tax.

(a) Rods, creels, etc. There is hereby imposed upon the sale of fishing rods, creels, reels, and artificial lures, baits, and flies (including parts or accessories of such articles sold on or in connection therewith, or with the sale thereof) by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax equivalent to 10 percent of the price for which so sold.

Cases related to 26 USC 7806:
Hall et al. vs. USA, 975 F.2d 722
Laing vs. US, 423 U.S. 161
U.S. vs. Reorganized CF, 518 U.S. 213
Juvenile Shoe Corporation vs. U.S.A., 99 F.3d 898
Motor Fuel Carriers, Inc. vs. U.S., 420 F.2d 702
Alcoa, Inc. vs. U.S.A., 509 F.3d 173
U.S. vs. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141
Natchez vs. U.S.A., 705 F.2d 671
Bank One Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket 5759-95
Patton vs. U.S.A., 305 F.2d 655
Security State Bank vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 214 F.3rd 1254
U.S.A. vs. Garland, 43 F.3d 1474
Nordby Supply company vs. U.S., 572 F2d 1377

Read the cases carefully. The gov't doesn't want the point to be really clear, and they use subtle wording to avoid that clarity. Nevertheless, if you understand the basic wording you can see that 26 USC is not law.

To whom it may concern,
I am in receipt of your form letter dated June 11, 2012. I must admit still some perplexity as to the nature of its contents.

First, your letter suggests that I am obligated in some way or may owe some unpaid ‘debt’ to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue in the amount of $625. I am unaware of any valid, binding and subsisting instrument or contract bearing my signature that authorizes you to compel that performance of me. Nor am I aware of any such involuntary requirement imposed upon me by Positive Law. This letter is my response that I disagree and dispute the validity of this charged tax/debt.

Second, you state that this account has gone on for far too long and you have offered me your assistance, yet I continue to resist facing this overdue obligation and that I can decide to address and resolve this liability (voluntarily)? I do not need your assistance and your assertion is denied. I replied January 25, 2012 Certified Mail#____________________. I did not receive any response to the verification I requested within the 30 days allotted from any representative at (company) who has first hand personal knowledge regarding this (“debt, liability, obligation”). Thus correspondence from January 25, 2012 is null and void.

In case someone at (company) has ‘misplaced’ the questions and verification I need answered in my correspondence sent January 25, 2012 Certified Mail#______________ before I pay anything. Here they are:

1. All documents on which you base your position that a natural person such as myself has an obligation or liability to pay this type of tax/debt that you are imposing and/or trying to collect.

2. All documents that specifically identify all laws, statutes, regulations, and Supreme Court case cites that impose an obligation upon me for this type of tax/debt and that I am a ‘taxpayer’.

3. Copies of all determinations, signed with a penalty under perjury statement made by a real person at ______________________________, LLP and the Pennsylvania Revenue Dept with first hand personal knowledge that concluded that any obligation was imposed upon me, and which specifically determined the extent of this obligation.

4. Copies of all delegation of authority to make any determinations in reference to me regarding this tax/debt.

5. A Certified True Bill showing the exact amount I am supposed to owe to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue signed penalty under perjury by a real person at (company) and the Pennsylvania Revenue Dept with first hand personal knowledge of the facts.

6. An itemized statement of account showing all goods and/or services delivered to me by said entity upon my request or demand.

7. A Certified True Copy of the valid, binding and subsisting Instrument or Contract bearing my signature which authorizes this or any related collection activity.

8. A Certified True Copy of the mandatory Article VI (United States Constitution) Oath of Fidelity for each individual at (company) who is involved with this collection activity.

9. The policy number and name and address of the underwriter of the Bond(s) required by Law that insure said individuals in the handling of Public Funds.

10. Positive identification of all real parties of interest to any Valid Instrument or Contract which authorizes this collection activity, including all holders in due course on the instrument.

Unless, within 30 days after the receipt of this notice there is a failure to respond to stated requests it will result in an estoppel, fraud by silence:

“Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel.” [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932]

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d.297]

Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 192 U.S. 397; 24 SCt 382 (1904)
“the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language”.

Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)
“Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax. Merely imposing a tax does not establish liability to pay the tax. Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax.”

Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927)
“‘Tax’ is legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin, and liability to taxation must be read in statute or it does not exist.”

Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)
“The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.”

11. All communication is only accepted in writing.

heres two definitions of State from title 26, one dealing with a legal tax, and the other with income tax:
(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,
NOW State defined 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.
Why doesnt it include the 50 states?....because, Income tax can not be levied on people outside a federal zone (with few exceptions)
So, for the purposes of Income tax, if you live in the "United States", which includes the district of columbia (and not the 50 states) then an income tax can be imposed....this is how these things work.
The other way the work is by using a saving clause. These are found in ALL laws.
something to the effect of "no rights are affected by the provisions of this code"
If they make a new law tomorrow that says "Every person MUST have a license to go to church", does that mean it stands? No, because, in the beginning of the act it would have its saving clause....
"This code shall not impair any privilege granted or right acquired under any of the laws of this
State prior to the date it takes effect."
or CVC 4
"It is no longer open to question that the general [federal] government [including its agents, the IRS], unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, 38 S. Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect to the internal affairs of the states, and emphatically not with regard to legislation". [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]

Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"

The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. The current system of enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and C is repugnant to and violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and its implementing statute, 40 USC 255.
40 USCS § 255 says: "In view of 40 USCS § 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said
section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed 1421, 63 S Ct 1122." (plaintiff's emphasis). The IRS must establish jurisdiction or it will be sanctioning FRAUD: "Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen, 64 U.S. 932
If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a "presentment" in the Uniform Commercial Code. A "presentment" in the UCC is very similar to the Common Law. First we must understand just how this works in the Common Law.

Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book -- someone I have never met. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead which says, "For services rendered: $10,000". I send this by Certified Mail to him at the address taken from the phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt that he received it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: "If you have any questions concerning this bill or the services rendered, you have thirty days to make your questions or objections known."

Of course, he has never heard of me, so he just throws the bill away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of thirty days, I go to court and get a default judgment against him. He received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about it. Now he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the $10,000.

That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle. The minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you return it immediately with a letter that says:

The presentment above is dishonored. (your name) has reserved all of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1§308 (replaced 207.)

This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more that they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who received a Notice of Deficiency. The man sent a letter such as this, dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote back that they could not make a determination at that office, but were turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was attached from the Collections Department which said they were sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and that the Notice of Deficiency had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.



No one has ever answered this question sufficiently.

What if you are clearly a US citizen, born in the US of two US citizen parents, incl. birth cert AND passport, and you simply never got an SSN?

Then what?

This would depend on many things

First of which would be your definition of US citizen.

Is it in the legal or the incorretly presumed common vernacular?

It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.

born in US of two US citizen parents.

complete with BC and passport.

Yes, I got that

What I didn't get was your definition of "US citizen". If this is something you cannot define we can go no further...

It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.

What exactly is the question?

Some people without SSNs can get a different kind of identifier from the IRS for filing taxes, but unless you have taxable income that wouldn't matter. What exactly is it that you're wondering? Just curious.

There's no TIN nor SSN.

Thanks for sharing how someone can get a Taxpayer Identification Number.

The question was, in light of the original Op, what if they DONT HAVE ONE and there is zero doubt in terms of where the person was born and of whom (i.e. in US of two US citizens). Further, they NEVER had one.

I have never seen this question addressed.

If the question is, "are there people in this status," the answer is yes there are.

A quick google

of irs.gov turns up that you can't get a TIN if you are eligible for an SSN, and a US citizen would be eligible. If you're eligible to have an SSN the IRS requires that you get an SSN in order to file taxes, as far as I can tell, unless you are a conscientious objector belonging to certain recognized religious groups (Amish, I'm assuming) without an SSN for that reason, in which case there's something called a PTIN they'll let you use instead.

I didn't look any further into it. I'm not an accountant or affiliated with the IRS, just been around the block enough times with enough tax issues of various kinds to have some idea of where to look.

About TIN and SSN:

Conscientious objector exception:


Reading comprehension.

I was not asking you to verify the veracity of whether or not the persons in question have a TIN or SSN. They do not and never did. Nor are they conscientious objectors.

So, you have clarified nothing in your response.

The question is for US persons who were undeniably born in the US of two US citizens and DO NOT HAVE NOR EVER HAVE HAD a TIN OR SSN.....

... the question was not whether such persons exist. They do.