Congress, IRS, DOJ, And Deception

[mnchicago]

Lest there be any doubt about only a taxpayer being
subject to an "income tax," the following is submitted:

The IRS uses the term taxpayer to refer to everyone,
even those not subject to or liable for a subtitle A income tax.

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not
include vesting any tax official with absolute power of
assessment against individuals not specified in the states
as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for
judicial review of thes status before the appellation of
taxpayer is bestowed upon them and their property
is seized..."
Botta v Scanlon, 288 F 2d 504, 508 (1961)

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of
tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers
and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without
their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers,
and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights
and remedies in due course of law. With them
Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither
of the subject nor the object of the revenue laws.
Long V Rasmussen, 281 F 236, 238 (1922)
(Emphasis added)

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

mrg:

Income is not defined in the code.

Don't bother looking for it.

Nor can congress give it a definition.

The court have tendered various dictionary definitions.

Just my POV

Yes, I was pretty sure of it, just wanted to throw that out there too, to make certain.

As per " Congress, IRS, DOJ, And Deception:"

The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the bureau of Internal Revenue, was not created by Congress as required by Article I Section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution for the United States of America; so cannot legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United States in States of the Union.

(See Statement of IRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the Internal Revenue Manual 1100 through 1997 edition.)



Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7.2.9.8 (05-14-99)

"Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others.

A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts.

The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions.

For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code."


That the IRS institutes harassment and prosecutes frivolous cases against people, using the ignorance of the people of the law, which is convoluted, and inaccessible to a layman of average intelligence is unquestionable in light of continual prosecution with the collusion of lower courts in light of decisions which by its own Manual the IRS is bound to follow:



Evans v Gore 253 US 245, 259 (1920) not only established that the 16th Amendment did not confer any new taxing powers to tax the American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it also acknowledged the definiton of income as defined in Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, 144 (1911):

"A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 corporation tax act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation.

It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or associations which are organized for profit and have capital stock represented by shares.

Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges."


US v. Whitridge. 231 U.S. 144, 34 S. Sup. Ct. 24 (1913):

"As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Corporation Tax Law of 1909... imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense, a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.

It was enacted in view of the decision of this court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co.. 157 U.S. 429,39 L. ed. 759,15 Sup. St. Rep. 673,158 U.S. 601, 39 L. ed. 1108,15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, which held the income tax provisions of a previous law to be unconstitutional because amounting in effect to a direct tax upon property within the meaning of the Constitution, and because not apportioned in the manner required by that instrument."


Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.. 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Ct. 467; (1918):

"...Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."


Eisner v. Macomber. 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570:

"...In order, therefore, that the [apportionment] clauses cited from article I [§2, cl. 3 and §9, cl. 4] of the Constitution may have proper force and effect... [i]t becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,'...according to truth and substance, without regard to form.

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone, it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised... [Pg 207]...

After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, Stratton's Independence v. Howbert. 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285] and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.. 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469, 62 L. Ed. 1054)..."


Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v Smietanka, 255 US 509, 519 (1921):

"There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word "income' must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by this court."


Bowers v Kerbough-Empire, 271 US 170 (1926):

"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in various revenue acts subsequently passed."


Helvering v. Edison Brother's Stores, 8Cir 133 F2nd 575 (1943):

"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." (See also, Evans v Gore)


Southern Pacific Co. v Lowe, 247 US 330, 335 (1918):

"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income.'

Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."


Butcher's Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 US 746, 757 (1814):

"The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must be therefore free in this country to all alike upon the same applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege claim as their birthright.

It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.

It is an encroachment upon the the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him."


There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III Section 2, Constitution for the United States of America, "arising under" clause).

See Federal Maritime Commission v South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 US (2002)

The following elements are essential:

1. When Challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in record.

2. Facts of the case must be established in record.

3. Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition, or direct oral examination).

4. The LAW of the case must affirmatively appear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarily includes taxing and liability statutes with attending regulations (See United States of America v. Menk, 260 F.Supp. 784 at 787, and United States of America v Community TV Inc., 327 F.2d 79 (10th Cir., 1964).

5. The advocate of a position must approve application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts.

6. The trial court, whether administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.



The IRS is a rogue agency, and its operation is indicative of Congressional deception, Executive abuse of power, and judicial collusion amounting to a syndicated criminal racketeering organization.

[AndyK]

For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61 unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) - Referring to the statute's words "income derived from any source whatever," the Supreme Court stated, "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field 'the full measure of its taxing power.' . . . And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) - The Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

1955 and 1977 are precedential over cases from 1814 (which do not relate to any taxes imposed after the 16th), 1913, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1926, and 1923.

The "no definition of income" is a loser whenever iot is tested.

Perhaps you should brush up on 26USC61 starting from "(a) General definition, Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:"

But weren't we talking about jurisdiction?

Do I win by default when you walk away from an argument?

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by mrg

The IRS is a rogue agency, and its operation is indicative of Congressional deception, Executive abuse of power, and judicial collusion amounting to a syndicated criminal racketeering organization.

Your theory of a vast, secret collusion between every elected official, federal judge, law enforcement agency and the IRS must be right because it is SOOOOO much simpler than the theory that everyone is merely obeying the law.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mrg

Yes, I was pretty sure of it, just wanted to throw that out there too, to make certain.

As per " Congress, IRS, DOJ, And Deception:"

The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the bureau of Internal Revenue, was not created by Congress as required by Article I Section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution for the United States of America; so cannot legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United States in States of the Union.

(See Statement of IRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the Internal Revenue Manual 1100 through 1997 edition.)



Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7.2.9.8 (05-14-99)

"Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others.

A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts.

The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions.

For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code."


That the IRS institutes harassment and prosecutes frivolous cases against people, using the ignorance of the people of the law, which is convoluted, and inaccessible to a layman of average intelligence is unquestionable in light of continual prosecution with the collusion of lower courts in light of decisions which by its own Manual the IRS is bound to follow:



Evans v Gore 253 US 245, 259 (1920) not only established that the 16th Amendment did not confer any new taxing powers to tax the American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it also acknowledged the definiton of income as defined in Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, 144 (1911):

"A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 corporation tax act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation.

It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or associations which are organized for profit and have capital stock represented by shares.

Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges."


US v. Whitridge. 231 U.S. 144, 34 S. Sup. Ct. 24 (1913):

"As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Corporation Tax Law of 1909... imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense, a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.

It was enacted in view of the decision of this court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co.. 157 U.S. 429,39 L. ed. 759,15 Sup. St. Rep. 673,158 U.S. 601, 39 L. ed. 1108,15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, which held the income tax provisions of a previous law to be unconstitutional because amounting in effect to a direct tax upon property within the meaning of the Constitution, and because not apportioned in the manner required by that instrument."


Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co.. 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Ct. 467; (1918):

"...Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."


Eisner v. Macomber. 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570:

"...In order, therefore, that the [apportionment] clauses cited from article I [§2, cl. 3 and §9, cl. 4] of the Constitution may have proper force and effect... [i]t becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,'...according to truth and substance, without regard to form.

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone, it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised... [Pg 207]...

After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, Stratton's Independence v. Howbert. 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285] and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.. 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469, 62 L. Ed. 1054)..."


Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v Smietanka, 255 US 509, 519 (1921):

"There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word "income' must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by this court."


Bowers v Kerbough-Empire, 271 US 170 (1926):

"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in various revenue acts subsequently passed."


Helvering v. Edison Brother's Stores, 8Cir 133 F2nd 575 (1943):

"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." (See also, Evans v Gore)


Southern Pacific Co. v Lowe, 247 US 330, 335 (1918):

"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income.'

Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."


Butcher's Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 US 746, 757 (1814):

"The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must be therefore free in this country to all alike upon the same applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege claim as their birthright.

It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.

It is an encroachment upon the the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him."


There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III Section 2, Constitution for the United States of America, "arising under" clause).

See Federal Maritime Commission v South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 US (2002)

The following elements are essential:

1. When Challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in record.

2. Facts of the case must be established in record.

3. Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition, or direct oral examination).

4. The LAW of the case must affirmatively appear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarily includes taxing and liability statutes with attending regulations (See United States of America v. Menk, 260 F.Supp. 784 at 787, and United States of America v Community TV Inc., 327 F.2d 79 (10th Cir., 1964).

5. The advocate of a position must approve application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts.

6. The trial court, whether administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.



The IRS is a rogue agency, and its operation is indicative of Congressional deception, Executive abuse of power, and judicial collusion amounting to a syndicated criminal racketeering organization.

Nice list of cites mrg.

I need to find my list of lower court cites (state courts, circuit courts, tax courts) and post it here. In a number of cases the courts state the income tax is a direct tax and in a number of other cases the court calls it an indirect tax.

No wonder the minions call it a "practice".

[mnchicago]

mrg:

I would not call the IRS a rogue agency because it does
have powerful legitimacy when within the
jurisdiction of the "United States."

It ain't going to go away, regardless of how one feels/thinks
about it. A more effective tact is to recognize exactly
what it is, where is has jursidcition, and where it does
not have jurisdiction, like anywhere in the 50
States of the Union, except federal forts and federal
enclaves.

Rather than p1ss and moan about it, learn to make it
the impotent agency it is outside of its jurisdiction. Once
you learn that, then pass on that knowledge to someone
else.

Actually, calling it a vast, secret collusion between
every elected official, federal judge, law enforcement
agency isn't too far from the truth.

Anytime you see one of the quatloser-types referencing
those same tired IRS rules/regulations, always remember
that they only have force and effect against hapless
"United States" citizens, and there is a valid way
of getting out from being under that sordid jurisdiction.

---

FreeFromContract:

I do not recall the specific wording, but the IRS is
precluded from citing any lower court decisions,
as they only apply to the specific "individual" involved
in that specific case. Of course, the IRS and DOJ
routinely ignore this constraint against them.

Arrogantly, they believe no rules apply to them, and no
one should get in their way.

Idiots.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

FreeFromContract:

I do not recall the specific wording, but the IRS is
precluded from citing any lower court decisions,
as they only apply to the specific "individual" involved
in that specific case. Of course, the IRS and DOJ
routinely ignore this constraint against them.

Arrogantly, they believe no rules apply to them, and no
one should get in their way.

Idiots.

Correct. Each case is decided on merit of the facts independent of other case decisions with materially similar facts.

I just find it amusing that these supposedly well educated folks can't come to consensus on just what type of tax the income tax is - some experts!

[mnchicago]

FreeFromContract:

I just find it amusing that these supposedly well
educated folks can't come to consensus on just what
type of tax the income tax is - some experts!

That is the whole point. If Congress, or the IRS, were to
identify what type of tax the so-called "income" tax is,
then we wouldn't be having all these discussions.

By not identifying what type of tax, direct or indirect,
the focus is kept on the total ambiguity of the code.
To identify it, they would blow their cover.

Cheers.

[mnchicago]

That pesky word, source, - the IRS loves to threaten
that taxes are owed on "income'" from whatever source
derived.

IRS publication 54 spells it out:

"The source of earned income is the place where
you perform the services."

Where is the place?

IRC 872(a)
(1) gross income which is derived from sources within
the "United States" and which is not effectively connected
with the conduct of a trade or business within the
"United States" and

(2) gross income which is effectvely connected with the
conduct of a trade or business within the "United
States."

What gross income is was disposed of earlier. Oh, I feel
a pun coming on, disposable gross income!

So the source is the place where you
perform the services. That source within the "united
States" refers to the federal "United States," and
its citizens, (small "c," statutory strawman--seems
like an apt definition to me.)

The reason for highlighting "its" in that last sentence
is that it shows the reference to the "United States" in
the singular, a corporation. Were it referring to the United
States of the Union, their Citizens would have been
used denoting the plurality of the collective States.

Everything that happens in the coporate "United States,"
that federal area over which congress can run amok, and
does, happens in a municipal environment.

What a minute!

This is beginning to sound a little bit like TicketSlayer stuff.

Hee Hee!

[mnchicago]

They are like trying to get rid of mesquitoes.

Many times, I will put forth an observation or make a
distinction about something, and these quatloser-types
feel it their obligation to chime in and say, Yeah, but that
won't fly in court, etc, as though I were presenting a
court arguement of some sort.

Information is information. It is needed in order to put
these tax issues into a context, to show an on-going
pattern of deceit and deception.

Would these be my arguments in court? I never said
such a thing. What I have said, many times over, is
keep the burden of proof on the IRS. Never argue
the code. That is a sure way to lose in court.

Quatloser-types should just ignore my posts as "frivolous."
Everyone else seems to understand they are a theme,
not a court argument.

I haven't gotten there yet, fools.