No Statute Makes Anyone Liable For An Income Tax

[ezrhythm]

Taken from;
http://the-moneychanger.com/dangerous.phtml
All rights reserved,©1998-2006 Franklin Sanders & The Moneychanger

"To the charges of "willful failure to file income tax returns" we argued that no statute makes anyone liable for an income tax (except "foreign withholding agents"). No one -- not the federal district court judge, not the assistant US attorney, not the IRS, no one -- was able to point out that statute, because it doesn't exist.
On July 9, 1991, the jury returned its verdict: seventeen defendants not guilty on all counts! To God be the glory! We threw an enormous party and that Sunday had one bodacious worship service."
–Franklin Sanders

I say AMEN to that!

Truly sad but awesome story of truth and courage at the link above.

[weishaupt1776]

This "no statute makes me liable" is a bad position.

Let's say, hypothetically and for the sake of argument, that the defacto congress writes a law saying that only black left handed *******s are liable.

Would they now be liable just because a defacto congress wrote such down?

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Taken from;
http://the-moneychanger.com/dangerous.phtml
All rights reserved,©1998-2006 Franklin Sanders & The Moneychanger

"To the charges of "willful failure to file income tax returns" we argued that no statute makes anyone liable for an income tax (except "foreign withholding agents"). No one -- not the federal district court judge, not the assistant US attorney, not the IRS, no one -- was able to point out that statute, because it doesn't exist.
On July 9, 1991, the jury returned its verdict: seventeen defendants not guilty on all counts! To God be the glory! We threw an enormous party and that Sunday had one bodacious worship service."
–Franklin Sanders

I say AMEN to that!

Truly sad but awesome story of truth and courage at the link above.

The beeter position to take is that no statute requires one to files a "1040" tax return. Check out Lindsey Springer at penaltyprotester.org. We need to get away from the arguments that lose, such as: "no statute require me to pay an income tax" or "wages are not income" or "the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified." These arguments have all lost in the courts. When you attack the penalty for not filing a "1040," which is bootleg according to the PRA, then the IRS becomes ineffective in their enforcement of any penalties for not filing the " 1040 collection of information request."

It is about PENALTIES, people. Quit making these losing arguments and start using the law that was put in place to PROTECT the public. Go to PRA Showdown thread here and start learning.

[Ice]

Fact: Sanders had a "jury trial". They were cognizant of the fact that the law was never produced.

They made their decision based upon the evidence.

If only we could all be so blessed to have such honest, courageous and valiant men and women serve upon a jury if we ever were brought to such a state.

Ice

I agree with this and freeindeed's post here.
However, there does have to be a statute that makes one liable for a tax, there is no getting around that. Just because a government official writes you a letter and tells you that you owe, does not make you liable. There has to be a statute that specifially says "If you do this, you have to pay this much tax". In the absence of a law that makes one liable, then that individual cannot be liable.

How the matter is argued in court is another issue. I have read cases such as the Williams vs Boulder Dam Credit Union case where the subject of no statute was brought up in the appeal, and the judge indicated that there was merit to the Williams' argument in that regard, however, the court determined that the issue at hand, and the only one that it could rule on was whether or not the Credit Union had immunity under the tax code section granting it to banks. It determined it did have immunity from suit, case closed. The judge did make an interesting comment concerning the Williams' arguments about not being liable, but also stated that a state court could not rule on that issue, that it had to be done in federal court, since it was a federal matter.

I take this to mean that there is still merit to the not liable issue, it just has to be approached properly.

As freeindeed states, there is little merit to the 16th amendment not being ratified issue and other like arguments. But I think that in the not liable issue, we should not discard it as frivilous, as it does appear to be valid, just not argued properly.

I am taking the approach, and trying to get the case put together, to file a motion to compel the IRS to produce that statute. My thinking is that, since there are sections in the code that very specifically make certain activities and individuals liable, then there has to be one for those of us who work in the peonage, namely, unlicensed, at will employees for who ever will hire us. The Supreme Court was very clear on the issue of what is income, who can be liable, etc., and it seems that the issue has never been properly argued in that regard. It is always the "wages are not income" or the 16th amendment drivel, and the like.

There has to be a statute that makes one liable, otherwise there is no authority to collect a tax. The government employee cannot just say that black left handed *******s are liable, Congress has to first write the law, and then it has to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. And the only way it will is when those black left handed *******s demand that it be proven that they can be made liable in the manner the statute states.

Challenges to the tax laws have been successfull where the proper arguments have been made, (the Pollock case comes to mind) where the issue is the constitutionallity of the law.

We have to remember that it is the activity, and not the income, which is being taxed, the income is the measure of the tax, not the subject of the tax.

The tax code clearly says that "The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5701. 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1). "

Where is the one that makes an at will employee liable?

If one studies those sections that make certain activities such as the one above and those who engage in it liable for a tax, then you will see that they all pertain to those who are engaged in some sort of business activity. A person who merely works for another in an unlicensed capacity as an at will employee cannot be grouped in that regard. The court cases such as Flint v Stone Tracy specifically state that it is certain licensed occupations, among other things, that can be taxed. From what i have seen, most of those who argue that wages are not income, etc., are those who are engaged in some sort of licensed occupation, and of course are doomed to fail, given how the courts have stated who is liable.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

This "no statute makes me liable" is a bad position.

Let's say, hypothetically and for the sake of argument, that the defacto congress writes a law saying that only black left handed *******s are liable.

Would they now be liable just because a defacto congress wrote such down?

[PANICPASS]

IRS has been filing NFTL’s into the county record for umpteen years; you would think there would be plenty of case law, favorable, and unfavorable, from the USDC. IOWs, if you find a decision that supports your position, let me know. The Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (UFLRA) supposedly is what gives the states that adopted the Act authority to file them, but—the NFTL’s do not meet the requirements of the UFLRA. In fact, the NFTL’s do not meet the requirements of any state law. The county recorder files these notices as a favor for the feds, and for no other reason. The return for the favor is a salary he would not normally receive, if he did the right thing: reject them. There is a lot more to this story, i.e., the fraud goes deeper, which is what I am working to resolve with the county right now.

Based on the foregoing, state court is where you would take your complaint.

Washington State has this law:

RCW 65.08.150
Duty to record.

A recording officer, upon payment or tender to him of the lawful fees therefor, shall record in his office any instrument authorized or permitted to be so recorded by the laws of this state or by the laws of the United States.


[1943 c 23 § 1; 1927 c 278 § 10; RRS § 10596-10. Formerly RCW 65.04.010.]

and:

RCW 60.68.015
Notice of federal liens.

(1) Notices of liens, certificates, and other notices affecting federal tax liens or other federal liens must be recorded for record in accordance with this chapter.

(2) Notices of liens upon real property for obligations payable to the United States and certificates and notices affecting the liens shall be recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the real property subject to the liens is situated.

(3) Notices of federal liens upon personal property, whether tangible or intangible, for obligations payable to the United States and certificates and notices affecting the liens shall be filed with the department of licensing.


[1992 c 133 § 1; 1988 c 73 § 2.]

There are three courts with orginal jursidiction for tax cases: the Tax Court, federal district courts, and the US Claims Court.

As I understand it, only the federal courts can hear matters regarding the federal tax system.

I suppose a person can challenge how federal tax notices, liens, etc. are filed in the states, but I would think that would only add to the work load involved in resolving a tax dispute. Better to spend that time on the core issue of whether or not you owe to start with, and if the courts decide that you do, then work on a payment plan. I don't like how the states just roll over and do what the feds say to do anymore than anyone else, but I would think the tax issue would need attention before the filing issue.

After all, the auditor has to follow what the state law tells him/her to do, and in our case, as posted above, the law says basicall he/she has to file those things without question.

Now, here in Stevens County, Wash. there is possibly a different way to list those "notices", I have to verify that, not that it does me any good, but they supposedly have a different list for "notices of federal tax liens" than they do for liens originating in the state. It may keep those things off your credit report, but the supposed lien still exists.

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

IRS has been filing NFTL’s into the county record for umpteen years; you would think there would be plenty of case law, favorable, and unfavorable, from the USDC. IOWs, if you find a decision that supports your position, let me know. The Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (UFLRA) supposedly is what gives the states that adopted the Act authority to file them, but—the NFTL’s do not meet the requirements of the UFLRA. In fact, the NFTL’s do not meet the requirements of any state law. The county recorder files these notices as a favor for the feds, and for no other reason. The return for the favor is a salary he would not normally receive, if he did the right thing: reject them. There is a lot more to this story, i.e., the fraud goes deeper, which is what I am working to resolve with the county right now.

Based on the foregoing, state court is where you would take your complaint.

[mrg]

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, U.S. Constitution, "arising under" clause).

See Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U.S. (2002)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-46.ZD1.html

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 witness via testimony (affidavit, deposition, or direct oral examination).

4. The LAW of the case must appear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy neccesarily 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 prove 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.