I Henry Newman am not a tax protester! However I am a nontaxpayer because I do not fall within a "class of person" upon whom subtitle A has-been imposed. I do not disagree with, or protest the law. The Law, the Income Tax Regulations and the supreme Court all concur: "The Income Tax is a tax upon Corporate activity an (excise tax) "Compensation for labor, earned by an American Citizen, in any of the 50 states in a lawful occupation is not taxable! THE GRADUATED INCOME TAX IS 100% VOLUNTARY FOR THESE CITIZENS!" I agree, so there's nothing to protest!
Go look for yourself!!
July/01/2010
Sec. 7701. Definitions TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 79, Sec. 7701.
The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
How or when did Congress impose/make you subject/make you liable (all the same) to any internal revenue tax?
Subtitle A Part 1 = Income Tax
Sec. 1 Tax Imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of - - Now we find the word "individual" used in many forms which is a very slippery definition. The definition of individual can include a natural person but it may not include a natural person. How's that for specificity? And the term individual is never defined in the internal revenue code. The Code says a person includes an individual but it never defines individual. But when the Internal Revenue Code talks about (nonresident aliens, foreign corporations) it uses the term "individual" and you thought you knew what individual or person meant. Not in law you don't! Not unless it's defined.
The regulation at 1.144-1(c)3 contains the definition of "individual":
Individual
(i) Alien Individual. The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States. See section 1.1-1(c).
(ii) Nonresident alien individual. The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), and alien individual was a resident of a foreign country under the residence article on income tax Treaty and section 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who would is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Murray Mariana Islands, the US Virgin Islands or American Samoa is determined under section 301.770(b)-1(d) of this chapter.
The definition above is only for the purposes of chapter 3, "Withholding on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations". The word "individual" is used in chapters 1 and 2 without Congress or the secretary having provided their own definition. When the government does not provide its own definition, we are to use what the US Supreme Court has called the"plain meaning rule". The plain meaning rule says that if no definition has been provided by the government in its statutes or regulations, we are to use the common meaning of the word, much as one would find in a standard English dictionary. However, if Congress or the secretary has provided the definition, then that is the only definition we are permitted to use.
What that means is that when used in chapter 3 and "individual" is an alien. When used in chapter 1 and 2 and "individual" is simply a singular person. However (and this is huge "however"), we must remember that chapters 1 and 2 are merely the rules of computation. By contrast, chapter 3 tells us in excruciating detail whom the tax is upon, precisely how it is to be administrated, and exactly who is to file and pay! Therefore, how individual is defined in chapter [3 i.e. an "alien"] is how it is used when the secretary speaks of who is to use which return.
So, in summation, when the secretary says that an "individual" is to file a form 1040, the individual he is speaking of is an alien individual not you or me!
In the case of a nonresident alien individual, the taxes imposed by sections 1 and 55 shall apply only as provided by section 871 or 877. Also SEE: Sec.5 Cross reference
... which is on nonresident aliens (domestic source income), foreign corporations (domestic source income). (liability appears in) section 1461 chapter 3) here is where you find the party liable for the tax. The reason the domestic withholding agent is made liable is cause they are the last ones to touch the money before it is sent over seas. The domestic withholding agent must hold the tax withheld under section 7501 Subtitle F chapter 77 in trust in the interest of the United States. The withholding agent then must file a tax return on behalf of the nonresident alien, foreign corporation and pay that (tax money) over. If the nonresident alien, foreign corporation feels too much was withheld they can file a form 1040NR if they are over seas or if they are here in the USA more than 180 days then they would use the form 1040 and then form 1120 this is not a domestic business return. The domestic withholding agent is the ONLY person in subtitle "A" whom is made liable = (is required file returns and to pay over the money). (imposed just means a tax burden has been placed upon them)
Subtitle B = Estate Tax
Subtitle C = Employment-Tax
FICA section
3401 NOT Social Security
Subtitle D = Excise Tax manufacture of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Tires
Subtitle E = Additional Excise Taxes and industory taxes
These are not a lost secrets from a bygone era nor is it something new that has just been uncovered. It has always been so. The government has always known it. It is important that you understand the full implication of what is being said. The United States government has always known that you would never owe a penny in income tax and they stole it from you anyway.
Here is what you might say to the government.
Mr. Prosecutor is the target a non-resident alien?
Mr. prosecutor is the target a foreign entity such as a corporation or trust?
Mr. prosecutor is the target receiving income that belongs to a nonresident alien or a foreign entity?
Mr. prosecutor is the target a US citizen with a green card?
If all the above is No. Then you know that Congress has not imposed subtitle A tax upon this person (me). What part of subtitle A. is the target, subject to? I do not fall within a "class of person" upon whom subtitle A has-been imposed. In other words in legal parlance subtitle A has been imposed on a certain class and that class is defined by certain attributes, I do not fall within that class.
If you do not object to the term "taxpayer" you are assumed to be one.
People go into court cases, criminal court cases where the government has accused a citizen with something such as “willful failure to file” and the government will bring forth all this paperwork and will show that the defendant had "gross income" for this year the amount of X and "gross income" for the next year of Y and so on.
And during the presentation of that evidence the defense remains silent. Okay they have all the records to support that and the next year and the next year. And then they will stand up and make some arguments such as I'm not required because I am a white Christian virgin male when in fact they have already lost the case.
By the time they stood up took a breath they had lost the case they lost the case because they did not object to their income be characterized as "gross income."
"Gross income" is a particular species of income that is defined in subtitle A solely for the purposes of subtitle A and is only applicable to the people upon whom subtitle A has been imposed. So when the government brings in this evidence of "gross income" and the defense stands moot, anything in courtroom evidence that is entered before the court that you do not object to is presumed to be correct and accurate.
Well the income tax is computed on taxable income. That is section 63 of the code instead of section 61 of the code. Taxable income begins with gross income minus various exemptions deductions etc. that's taxable income. But it begins with gross income it literally says "gross income" minus bla bla bla. So because the defense did not object it did not make the government prove that the defendant's income fell with in this narrow species called “gross income” they already lost the case. Because the tax is upon "gross income", so not having disputed that it was “gross income” this case is OVER. That is a crystal clear example of how to lose a case when it is brought against the citizen for “willful failure to file”.
OMB Control Numbers
Search for 26CFR602.101 or 1.6012-1
Internal Revenue Code: Section Index
The OMB # on the 1040 form is 1545-0074 and the W-4 are the same (two forms with the same number?) their numbers are not on the list! (it ain't there!) relating to 1.6011-1 and 1.6012-a. Remember form 1040 is to be used by alien individual or a nonresident alien.
[Note: A few years ago the IRS changed the OMB Control number of Form 2555 from 1545-0067 to 1545-0074, which is the same as the 1040! (Despite having changed it on the form, Form 2555 remains "0067" when mentioned in the regulations.) Interestingly, at the same time, the IRS also changed the OMB Control Number of the "Form W-4 to 1545-0074. It appears that the IRS has recently decided to view the OMB Control Number requirement as pertaining not to each individual form (as had been the original and long-standing view), but rather to all forms that fall within the liability and/or requirement to file for a particular type of tax; in this case taxes on U.S. source income to foreign persons and foreign earned income to U.S. citizens]
Look at the "Paper Work Reduction Act" it says "(XII Sec. 3512. Public protection
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this chapter if--
i. the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this chapter; or
ii. the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
B. The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.)"
1040 Checkmate? DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution After PRA "Paper Work Reduction Act" Defense
TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 61, Subchapter A, PART II, Subpart A, Sec. 6011
Items of Gross Income defined (b) Cross references For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71). and following.
(II) the alimony or separate maintenance payments paid by the payor spouse during the 3rd post-separation year, plus
This is it folks, nothing more.
Section 61 = Defines "Gross Income"
Section 63 Defines "Taxable Income"
The Willful Failure to File "Scam!"
If the DOJ ever charges you with "Willful Failure to File" their whole case will pivot upon "gross income". The reason I say this is because they will have you concentrating on the willfulness issue, which is important, but at the end the judge will instruct the jury that you had "gross income" and that they need to find you guilty of "willful failure to file". So it is incumbent upon you to make it so the judge cannot utter the words "gross income" during jury instructions. Because you will have proven that you did not have "gross income" and there was no "duty" for you to file. And when you do that it also destroys the charge of "willful failure to file". The charge "Willful Failure to File" is a smokescreen to cover the true point of the case.
The reason the DOJ/IRS will charge you with "Willful Failure to File" is because they have received unsigned with no jurat attesting to its correctness "information returns" with your name on them. Forms 1099, W2 and others. How come? Cause you gave your (employer) an SSN. I know no number no job. But having a number does not mean you have "gross income" or are infact a taxpayer.
Example: Februray 1, 2008
A federal jury in Florida has acquitted actor Wesley Snipes on two felony charges of fraud and conspiracy. He was also acquitted on the counts for failing to file a tax return for the years 2002-2004 but was convicted on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file a tax return for the years 1999-2001. He was acuitted for the years 2002-2004 because he was under criminal investigation and filing a return would have required him to waive his right not to be a witness against himself.
Mr. Wesely Snipes had some really sharp lawyers but they missed the point of the "Willful Failure to File" and the judge uttered the words "gross income" to the jury and he was found guilty of willfulness. Which implies that he had a duty and knew he was required to file a tax return.
You must remember the venue you are in. You need to know who your adversary is and you need to be wise. Remember courtrooms have their own set of rules. One such rule is, if you do not raise an objection to any element of the case that the opposition brings against you, you are agreeing to that point. So when the government contends that you have "gross income" and you do not object then you have acceded to having received "gross income". Since "gross income" is 16th amendment income and can only be had by those upon whom Congress has imposed "subtitle A". "Which we call income tax." Then you have acceded to being a person upon whom Congress has imposed the tax. At that point all the judges actions can be seen as completely reasonable. Including his instructions to the jury that "you were required to file a return". That is a hell of a consequence for merely not challenging a representation made by the government in your case. A representation made about you, against you an element of the accusation that has been made against you and you don't rebut it. And you see when we put "gross income" together with the 16th amendment subtitle "A" is the tax addressed by the 16th amendment. Gross income is that tax addressed by the 16th amendment. Subtitle "A" is the tax addressed by the 16th amendment. So when the government says Bob Jones had "gross income" and you're attorney gets up and says
"Well your honor this is a mere penalty statute. We would like to see the requirement that makes my client required to file a return."
Can you see that argument is now "frivolous" because the fact there was no objection to receipt of "gross income" forecloses any further discussion. If you didn't object you've got it. You did indeed receive "gross income" and if you did Pay the Man! If you did receive gross income / 16th amendment income, same thing, then subtitle "A" does apply to you, you do need to file a return and you do need to pay the tax. ALL of that, ALL OF THAT and the consequences that come from that. We've just gone as far as the jury instructions. All of that because you did not challenge did not object to and challenge the averment by the Gov. It's amazing how the most simple principals can undermine our freedoms and our rights.
Since the government has to prove every element of the crime once you raise the challenge, in other words you're not saying "I didn't get gross income" what you are saying is the government is referring to something that is not substantiated by any evidence upon the record. There has to be evidence upon the record before they can make that claim. There has to be evidence of "gross income". If the government wants to bring some evidence in, you’ll have the opportunity to rebut the evidence. There is a process there. Lets say the Gov. doesn’t have any evidence. Just to simplify this example. And the US Attorney says "Ah yes Mr. Jones had $55,000 dollars in "gross income". "Your honor WE object presumes facts NOT in evidence." It is possible the judge may say "over ruled move forward” OH That’s unpleasant! And things like that happen in courtrooms. They tend to happen more often in tax cases because of two reasons, dirty judges and stupid judges. Which when it comes to tax law happens to be the majority of judges. But by raising the issue, by making the objection, you have preserved the issue for appeal. And that is VERY VERY important because you get to take this very hugely significant point of law to the appellate court and you get to put on your dog any pony show there. That is where the government has to come in at the appellate level and prove you had "gross income". (Dave Champion)
Are You a Law Abiding Citizen? The term law abiding can be broken by any bogus law. Man's law is only an opinion of a small group of people maybe only 50% in the room. They may not be the sentiments of the people at large. We can easily see that these opinions vary from place to place. Seatbelts, helmet laws, gambling, carry permits how about guns, I am a law-abiding citizen in Tennessee but not in Illinois. Helmets on a law-abiding citizen in Florida but not in Tennessee now how about seatbelts I am a law-abiding citizen in New Hampshire but in no other state. Take gambling I am law abiding in Navada but not in California. All of a sudden when I cross that imaginary line I'm a criminal and Not a law-abiding citizen subject to brutal attacks imprisonment or death at the hands of law enforcement. I continue to be a good citizen or a conscientious member of society but not a law abiding citizen.
Next Page
7/02/10
Are You Planing To Get Married Soon? This is for your consideration
Marrage License
Truth Attack Tom Cryer Truth Attack
Aaron Russo's movie Freedom to Fascism / about the IRS
Real Americans don't wear UN BLUE!
Original Intent THIS IS A VERY GOOD SITE!!!!
Income Tax Shattering the Myths
If you desire to be placed on the "everyone" list send e-mail with the word "everyone" in the subject line. (Example) Subject: everyone
Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
BOYCOTT THE IRS!
Be sure to Bookmark
this page so you can easily return. Thanks!