Here is the Law

That Does Not Make

The Average American

Citizen or Resident

Liable for the Federal Income Tax

Numerous individuals, namely those employed in tax related professions [those same individuals whom get the golden gander to butter their bread]. Have incorrectly asserted or have made the ill guided presumption that American citizens and residents whom are living and working within one of the 50-states of the Union for a non-federally connected employer [be it a business, corporation, partnership, or trade] in exchange for payment [remuneration] of their time, labor, or barter are thereafter federally taxable in respects to the category of 'Indirect Taxes' for simply opting to participate in such a life essential, personally rewarding, and socially productive activity. Such individuals mistakenly believe that somehow there is a generated nexus between the right to employ for sustenance or barter and becoming a legal subject of federal authority for participating in such acts, (with the only exception being for Direct 'Capitation' or 'Personal' Taxes). As if this were a mere privilege that a commonwealth form of government could tax at their preference or choosing. Such individuals usually fall into one of three categories:

Reality Deniers
Scam Artists
Tax Professionals

Then there is this very intriguing group:

Seriously Inspired -- This group ever more growing and vigilant with each passing year, serving to enlarge and strengthen the Tax Honesty Movement as a whole. Those new to this group are likely to begin their journey as your average person whom either has prior performed little to no actual research themselves or has been researching numerous theories in their epic search for seeking out the actual truth. Initially many individuals within this group honestly do not know what to believe, namely this is due to the overwhelming number of theories publicly available in par with the existing conflict with the status quo mentality their government purports to enforce, (much in the same way that investigating the truth about the events that transpired prior to, during, and post 9/11 is a daunting task).

A small percentage of the individuals existing within this group are factually cognizant of the realization concerning the truth about federal taxation directly pertains to current perceptions and misunderstandings based in Fundamental Law and that they as well as other's have been taken advantage of by way of some combination involving their government and greedy self-serving professionals within the occupational tax community, it is because of this that individuals within this group feel a true motivation, a true desire to do something spectacular and worthy to create a better Nation; nay, a better world, for both the future of the global environment, their families, and yours.

Many individuals within this group have graduated from higher education and further still many more are victims of public education, Main-Stream Media and cable television "programming" [PYSOPS]. Do to these ongoing conflicts and lack of courage and perseverance, sadly many within this group after realizing the truth, shalt abandon it for that short lived feeling of safety and solidarity gained by retreating back into the pack and cowering. This is ultimately the result of decades of status quo shelf-building, which has left virtually all of us as outright victims of the misguided socialist, nationalist, globalist, neo-Nazi agendas. Still yet many other individuals will continue onward, forevermore thirsty and thriving in this uphill battle, ultimately coming to challenge the system and will thereafter with all of the knowledge and intrepidness they have gained, defeat it as easily as triumphantly. Knowingly surely for the first time in their lives what actual freedom feels like, what it tastes like, rather then merely engaging that emphatic chanting of its void and hollowed meaning, as such the retreating pack could only pray... as if that will somehow make it true and actual.

The purpose of this web page is simple: This page was created to be a fun and challenging way to refute the myriad of misconceptions spread through the webpage located here and was designed to represent to you the facts about the laws that makes the average American citizen or resident not liable for the federal income tax, (for additional clarification please, see the disclaimer located at the bottom of this page). So, for all you reality deniers, scam artists, and so called "tax professionals" or for those just trying to realize the truth for themselves, here it is:

The Constitutionality of Federal Taxation

Let us begin with a review of our U.S. Constitution, which provides the absolute foundation for all existing laws throughout our Republican Nation. Specifically, in regards to the Internal Revenue Code as enacted by the Congress is provided for as an enumerated power within Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The requirements for laying taxes are also established for within this same Clause as well as two other Clauses and an Amendment, which are: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, and Amendment XVI. The U.S. Constitution stipulates one exception to taxation and two categorical requirements for taxation, which is that Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all, except for what is absolutely necessary to recover inspection costs [Article I, Section 10, Clause 2] and that all 'Direct Taxes' must be levied by the rule of apportionment [Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4]; that all 'Indirect Taxes' must be levied by the rule of uniformity [Article I, Section 8, Clause 1]; and that all 'incomes', regardless are to exist within the 'Indirect Tax' category of taxation [Amendment XVI].

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Comment: Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the "Power To law and collect Taxes" without further restriction in this Section. Note that the uniformity requirement only applies to "Duties, Imposts and Excises" and not to taxes. This means that "Taxes" are treated differently than "Excises" under the Constitution, since Taxes are not required to be uniform. Those who would equate "Taxes" and "Excises" are simply wrong, and demonstrably so.
The Truth:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

The use of the word "taxes" within this Clause serves as a distinct reference to the category of 'Direct Taxes', which also includes "Assessments". This Clause contains bearing reference to the two (2) categories of established "Taxes", with those being the 'Direct' [requiring apportionment] and 'Indirect' [requiring uniformity] methods of taxation. This Clause begins by first establishing the Congress the general power to tax (being that this was a grave issue that existed with the originating Articles of Confederation, as the federal government was established under very limited and constrictive taxing powers; the U.S. Constitution was Ratified after the Repeal of the Articles of Confederation to resolve this learned issue), although there are conditions to be upheld, when doing so, regardless of the class of taxation.

It is also important to realize that within this enumerated power, the requirements for federal taxes are also established for the sole purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. With this in mind do you consider the federal government using tax revenue to bail out failing private businesses or to purchase their bad debt, issuing funding to other countries and to special interest groups, as well as to organizations such as the United Nations, as keeping within the established boundaries for levying federal taxes?

Article I, Section 9

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Comment: Article I, Section 9, does not ban direct taxes, but merely says that such taxes must be "in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration".
The Truth:

Besides the obvious fact that the above 'Comment' fails to include any mention of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, while instead pointlessly making a strange reference pertaining to the cited Clause not banning such 'Direct Taxes' and incorrectly quoting this Clause as "Census of Enumeration", when it should be "census or enumeration", this 'Comment' serves no purpose other then to inform the reader that direct forms of taxation have been established for within the U.S. Constitution itself. However, never actually elaborating on exactly what this means.

The reason that the above 'Comment' is strange is because the U.S. Constitution does not make references regarding what the federal government cannot or may not do, but only to what they are empowered to do, through their enumerated powers as so established for and of which consists of a total of nineteen, though only eighteen of these established powers pertain to the United States of America, as one of those enumerated powers pertains to our Nations surrounding seas and oceans. This effectively means that if the U.S. Constitution does not make a stipulation for a specific matter then the federal government may not establish presumption over it, except in following through with the Amending process as prescribed for within Article V. For the federal government to presume powers or to self-proclaim empowerments not specifically prescribed [enumerated] for within the U.S. Constitution is a nothing else but a 'de facto' act; meaning that any such assumed laws may appear to have the force and effect of law, though in reality are without any law and are wanting and thereby are unconstitutional. There is one exception to this, which is only permitted within the Seat of the federal government [meaning the District of Columbia, not to exceed 10-square miles in size] as provided or within Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, whereas the federal government is permitted to exercise slight latitude, while still maintaining the indented spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, ..."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4

Now realizing that "shall" means "must", thereby creating a requirement, we can therefore affirm that after a quick review of both Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, that all 'Direct Taxes', specifically 'Capitation Taxes', must be apportioned in a proportion which is in accordance with the most current census [meaning a tally of each individual states population] amongst all of the several states of the Union. In reflecting on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, we realize that all 'Indirect Taxes' are to be established so as to be 'uniform', which means that everybody pays the exact same amount given unto their individual realized amounts of whatever the subject of the tax is, i.e. 'Taxable Income', this is accomplished with the Internal Revenue Code through a ratable "wage" bracket method, [although, 'employee' "withholding allowances" provides 'employers' to withhold their 'employees' 'wages' using either a percentage withholding or "wage" bracket withholding method].

With this in mind and in realizing that the Federal Income Tax has been established as a uniform tax, as it is a form of an Excise Tax, thereby existing within the 'Indirect' category of taxes. Do you believe the Federal Income Tax to legitimately be "uniform" as it is so required to be, (i.e. two individual adult males living within California earning the same exact amount of 'wages', though one is married owns a house, has three children, donates to charity, and it is a traveling salesmen; while the other is single, has no dependents, rents an apartment, and goes to college part-time, while claiming certain federally granted medical benefits)?

Also extremely interesting to note is the distinctive use of the specific reference to the several states of the Union ["several states which may be included within this union"], within Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. As compared to that as prescribed within Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which specifically refers only to the "United States" as pertaining to all forms of Indirect Taxation, ["shall be uniform throughout the United States"]. This distinction will become further apparent in reviewing the Preamble to and Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, and Amendment X of the Bill of Rights.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Comment: Whether or not Article I, Section 9 applies to income taxes, its requirement that such taxes be "in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration" is eliminated.  Note that no new power of taxation is created (Congress already had all the power it needed for the income tax) but a potential restriction (if it existed at all) was abolished.
The Truth:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Amendment XVI

To begin, "Census of Enumeration" should read as "census or enumeration". Both Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 do not, nor ever has pertained to 'income taxes' and no Amendment XVI did not eliminate any other existing Clause within the U.S. Constitution, nor could it if it wanted to, because to do so would destroy the established fundamentals pertaining to our constitutionally guaranteed form of Republicanism; thereby essentially rendering it a broken contract. What Amendment XVI did do was to legally empower the Congress to consider 'incomes' under taxation and to clarify exactly how 'incomes' were to be treated as a class of taxation within the category of 'Indirect Taxes'. Which interestingly enough is a form of an 'Excise Tax', of which exists within the category of 'Indirect Taxes'. If Amendment XVI was truly addressing one's remuneration, the subject of this Amendment would have been 'Capitation Taxes' and not 'incomes', period.

"When legislating for the states of the Union, under the authority of a power granted to the federal government in the Constitution, Congress must stay strictly within the bounds of the power thus granted and limited. However, when legislating for places where the US is the sovereign, Congress may do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution."
Downes v. Bidwel, 182 US 244 (1901), and Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 674 (1945)

"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude what "income" is, 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."
United States Supreme Court, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

Let's break this Amendment down into fragments and have a look at it, shall we...

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,"

Here we realize that Congress is given power to establish taxation, specifically upon 'incomes'.

"from whatever source derived,"

Now we are informed it matters not what the source of the 'incomes' actually is, Congress shall still have the power to lay a tax upon 'incomes' from those sources; keeping in mind of course that this is in accordance with any perspective tax laws, i.e. if the tax law mentions only 'incomes' derived from specific sources are taxable then in actual legal application, only 'incomes' from those stipulated sources would be taxable. Also it is important to realize that the "source" is most likely distinct and different then the realized 'gain' or 'profit' [i.e. stocks, rents, interest, etc.]; however, the received 'benefit' or 'privilege' is very likely to be the same as the "source" [i.e. federal employment, employed by a federal corporation, trade, or partnership, participation within BATFE, railroad, and mining occupations, etc.].

"without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This portion is making it exceptionally clear as to what category of taxation 'incomes' belongs to. Meaning that either one of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 or Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to 'incomes', therefore since 'incomes' cannot exist within the category of 'Direct Taxes', it can only exist within the category of 'Indirect Taxes'. "Tax Professionals" will often vainly argue that Amendment XVI created a new method, form, or category of taxation, which they like to refer to as any one of the following fictitious categories: "Direct-Unapportioned", "Direct-Uniform", or "Hybrid" Tax. SCOTUS has ruled time after time that the XVI Amendment created no new tax, nor Repealed or nullified any prior existing Clause within the U.S. Constitution. Amendment XVI, simply placed an already existing tax back into its correct category, where it had always rightfully existed and inherently belonged. Therefore, any theory to the contrary is outright frivolous.

"The Sixteenth Amendment; although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..."
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

"Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states."
"The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses in the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."

United States Supreme Court, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

"[T]he [XVI] Amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income."
F. Morse Hubbard Treasury Department legislative draftsman (1943)

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws", page CRS-5 (1979)

"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916)."
United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 405 U.S. 505 (1988)

Therefore, this Amendment is stating that (1) the Congress may place a tax upon 'incomes', (2) 'incomes' regardless of the source, and in accordance with established law are taxable and that, (3) 'incomes' are required to be uniform, not apportioned and therefore 'incomes' are an 'Indirect Tax'.

In other words so as to legally prescribe that 'incomes' are to exist within the category of 'Indirect Taxes', either while being in the form 'Duty' or 'Excise' tax, i.e. a tax uniformly assessed upon one's engaged 'activities' or 'privileges'. If in fact Amendment XVI were addressing one's remuneration for time, labor, or barter then the obvious class of tax within this Amendment to be signified and addressed would have been 'Capitation Taxes' not an obscured word not prior referenced or accounted for within the Constitution, that being 'incomes' or now referred to as 'Income Taxes', which derives from the term 'Income Duty'. Most notable is the following, 'incomes' was made into a relevant term within the 'Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909' so as to mean a "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," inclusive of the "profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets", as stated so clearly within the Annotated Constitution.

Now in realizing the epiphany that your commonly earned public or private remuneration is most likely not the 'incomes' being referred to within Amendment XVI, the IRS would have a bit of a difficult and perplexing time trying to explain how you received any 'income' at all. Being as Amendment XVI is referring to taxing the 'incomes' obtained from any source, whatever. In other words, if your remuneration is the source, it can't be the 'incomes' being referred to within the XVI Amendment, now can it? With obvious exception to certain federally connected employments, regardless if they are public or private.

The above 'Comment' is only semi-correct in regards to only one aspect, that the Congress did have all the taxing power they needed. This was until the Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust SCOTUS ruling dissolved it, which is why Amendment XVI was Ratified at the bequest of President William H. Taft in 1909 [quoted below], (not that this case was at all relative to one's remuneration for time, labor, or barter). Ergo, the Pollock case had absolutely nothing to do with federal taxation placed upon a private individuals time, labor, or barter as these were not the issues being addressed within this case, the issues of this case were pertaining to 'Excises' and 'Duties' [both 'Indirect Taxes'], specifically 'incomes' acquired from rental properties (i.e. realized 'gains' and 'profits').

"I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population."
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE [Pages 3344 - 3345], June 16, 1909

Also, it is important to note that the original name of the Federal Income Tax or Internal Revenue Code or Income Tax or IRC, [et al], was "The Tariff Act", also the "Underwood Tariff"; a 'Tariff' is essentially a 'Duty Tax', which is a tax placed upon imported commodities and the like.


Taxation levied upon an individuals remuneration for time, labor, or barter in the form of an 'Indirect Tax' was never an issue until many, many years following the Ratification of Amendment XVI. In fact from 1913 until the implementation of the 'Victory Tax' in 1942 (which is 29-years after the Ratification of the XVI Amendment) not more then 8-percent of Americans filed Federal Income Tax returns in any given year, after-which in 1943 this figure dramatically rose to 38-percent and steadily upwards thereafter, this was attested by President Harry S. Truman himself in 1952, [cited below].

Message of the President
To the Congress of the United States:

I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949 and providing for reorganizations in the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Department of the Treasury.
"The task of collecting the internal revenue has expanded enormously within the past decade. This expansion has been occasioned by the necessary additional taxation brought on by World War II and essential post-war programs. In fiscal year 1940, tax collections made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue were slightly over 51/3 billions of Dollars; in 1951, they totaled almost 501/2 billions. In 1940, 19 million tax returns were filed; in 1951, 82 million. In 1940, there were 22,000 employees working for the Bureau; in 1951, there were 57,000."
Harry S. Truman.
The White House, January 14, 1952.

For brevity the following are the census counts for: 1940 -'131,954,000', 1951 - '153,982,000', and 2007 - '301,621,157'. There was a mere resulting population growth of '22,028,000' people during the 11-year span from 1940-1951 and a near double population growth of '147,639,157' people during the 56-year span from 1951-2007. On average the IRS states a total of '130,910,333' Individual Income Tax Returns are now filed annually [figures averaged from: 2003-2005].

To quickly encapsulate, in 1940 with a total population of 131,954,000 people, 19-million Individual Tax Returns were filed [equal to 14% of the population]; in 1951 with a total population of 153,982,000 people, a total of 82-million Individual Income Tax Returns were filed [53% of the population]; and in 2007 with a total population of 301,621,157 people, a total of 131-million Individual Income Tax Returns were filed [43-percent of the population]. This then raises the question as to how does one successfully explain how the quadrupling in Individual Income Tax Returns filed occurred (increasing from 19-million to 82-million), meanwhile the Nation's population itself only grew by 22-million people? Are we to believe that the answer simply derives from the creation of 63-million brand new jobs that came into existence for those prior years, 63-million [ranging between 40-48% of the population] unemployed citizens? To believe that of course one would also have to believe that nearly 1/3 of the entire population of America was either unemployed or was unable to meet the IRS 'Income Tax' filing requirements, during this same time period. Which of course means that 2/3 of the population had to support 1/3 of the population for approximately 11-years! Though how is this even remotely plausible? Being that in today's times we are struggling to support even our own families! Did credit cards even exist back then?

Another noteworthy anomaly for consideration is that even though the total population, while virtually doubling between the span from 1951-2007 [a 51% resulting increase of 147,639,157 people], resulted in only an Individual Income Tax Return filing increase of 48,910,333 [a 37% increase], (increasing from 82-million to 131-million Individual Income Tax Returns being filed annually). Most obviously these numbers just do not "add" up. This means that to date annually 170,710,824 people do not file Individual Income Tax Returns with the IRS [57% of the population], respectively. To further clarify, one-percent of the total population in 2007 is equal to: 3,016,212 individuals.

At this point, it is unavoidably clear that the plain text of the Constitution authorizes a type of 'Income Tax' without regard to either apportionment or proportion to the census, being that 'Income Taxes' exist in the form of an 'Indirect Tax', thereby requiring 'uniformity' throughout the 'United States' and that all such taxes are to be levied for the paying of debts, providing for the common defense and general welfare of the 'United States', as so provided within Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

In determining one's 'gross income', it is the source of one's 'income' that is entirely relevant to the extent that only 'incomes' deriving from sources identified within the Internal Revenue Code as being a bona fide federally taxable activity and of which have accumulated an amount that has realized a profit and that is over the established deduction threshold which are federally taxable. Ergo, respecting the U.S. Constitution simply makes all the difference in truly understanding our Nation's laws.

Finally, Congress passes the tax laws according to:

Article I, Section 8

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Summary: It is crystal clear from a reading of the Constitution that Congress has the power to tax (I.8), that "Taxes" are not the same as "Excises" (I.8), and that income can be taxed without regard to either apportionment or a census (Am.16). Congress is also authorized to draft income tax legislation (I.8). The "direct" versus "indirect" argument is simply a red herring, and -- if the issue exists at all -- is conclusively resolved by the passage of the 16th Amendment.
The Truth:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

The Congress has been established to make all laws, which are both necessary and proper to thereby enable them to effectively carry out their [vested] powers of which are specifically enumerated to them throughout the U.S. Constitution, keeping in mind that at all times such established laws are to remain within the confined intentions of Fundamental Law and the spirited foretaste of a free society entitled to inalienable rights, which includes the protection of life and property.

The context of the word "taxes" within Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, is meant to be a straightforward reference to all classes of tax which exist with the "Direct" category of taxation and thereby subsequently is meant to exclude all forms of "Indirect Taxation". 'Income Taxes' exist specifically within the class of 'Excise Taxes' and therefore are within the category of "Indirect Taxes". Therefore it is obvious and apparent that the only requirements for all taxes levied upon 'Incomes' is that: (1) they be uniform, (2) that they exist within the "United States", and (3) that their proceeds be used "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States", [Article I, Section 8, Clause 1].

The U.S. Constitution created a Republican form of federal government which consists entirely of enumerated powers. Knowing and understanding the law is your individual responsibility as a citizen or resident of the United States of America and quite contrary to the assertions of the myriad of misguided "Tax Professionals", it does not require a team of highly trained tax attorneys, CPA's, or for that matter other such accountants, to instruct you on the wisdoms and justness of a given law. Otherwise such an almighty law it not at all practical, while in reality serves no truthful or positive purpose, whatsoever. Perhaps, you might consider pondering as to what good are the laws of our Nation, if you are unable to understand them for yourself, in such a situation how could one ever become legally cognizant to laws which are utterly superfluous, (notwithstanding after the fact)? How could any such laws ever be foundationally upheld?

This is not about challenging the Federal Income Tax, this is about exposing the gluttonous and abominable misapplication of the Internal Revenue Code. This is about the widespread misconception about what 'Capitation Taxes' are; the polar opposite of what truly, what realistically represents the 'Income Tax'. It is your patriotic duty to stand up and defend the truth, no matter what that truth is, whom that truth represents, or what impact from that truth results.

Remember in a Commonwealth Republic, the ends never at any time or under any circumstances, ever justifies the means. Now that we have proven that the Federal Income Tax to be one-hundred percent Constitutional, let us move on and examine the laws passed by our Nation's Congress.

The Law

The law that does not make the average American citizen or resident the subject of Federal Income Taxes is located in Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC § 1. The Congress placed the law right up front so that nobody could miss it... (well, nobody who was actually interested in knowing, anyhow).

The statutory scheme that creates the imposition of Federal Income Taxes for certain individuals whom willingly choose to participate in Constitutionally taxable activities is discussed below:

To begin this portion let us have a brief look at IRS Publication 2105, which in part states the following:

"The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on February 3, 1913, states, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment, and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax."

In actuality, Amendment XVI uses the term 'incomes' not 'income'. Regardless, here we have a clear admission on the part of the IRS themselves, stating that the Internal Revenue Code is reliant upon this Amendment in addition to the U.S. Constitution itself, at least to a noticeable degree at the very minimum. Thus, in respects to Amendment XVI we can rightfully deduct that if the scope of it, meaning that if Amendment XVI 'incomes' are not applicable to you (similarly as to how Amendment XVIII did not have any direct impact up dedicated non-drinkers), then neither is the Internal Revenue Code, correct?

Section 1. Tax Imposed

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [various categories, such as married individuals, single individuals, etc., omitted for sake of this discussion] a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table omitted for brevity].

Comment: This is THE LAW that makes the average American liable to pay income taxes. Some idiots claim that this statute doesn't create liability because it doesn't use the magic word "liable". Of course, the Constitution does not require the use of the specific word "liable" and the word "imposed" makes it clear that the tax is on the income.

Note also that there are only two parties involved: The one paying money (to whom it is an expense) and the party receiving the money (to whom it is income, which is shorthand for "money coming in"). Thus, it is only "income" as to the person receiving the money and thus the person receiving it is the only person who could be liable for paying it (although there can be separate liability for failure to withhold).

The Truth:

To begin, being that we have previously addressed this in the foregoing, we will simply note that it is an indisputable fact that 'Income' is not "shorthand for "money coming in", nowhere in law is such a definition to be found or referenced. Any other perspective on this issue is itself outright frivolous. At best it could only be stated properly that such is to mean qualifying gains, profits, or monies that has come in.

It is monumental to realize that Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code is respective only to that which is 'taxable income' [26 USC Section 63]. Therefore, if one has received such 'income' from Constitutionally taxable sources of which exceed the allotted exemption amount, then they are for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax a bona fide 'taxpayer' [26 USC 7701(a)(14)]; otherwise they are for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax a 'non-taxpayer'.

Additionally, there are a few realizations in regards to the "separate liability for failure to withhold" claim as quoted from the above 'Comment', being that the related Section is found within 26 USC 7202 and it only pertains to a limited class of 'persons' as defined within 26 USC Section 7343, and finally, 26 USC 7202 is nowhere listed within the 'Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules', therefore the enforcement of 26 USC Section 7202 is extremely limiting.

Regarding the issue pertaining to the non-mention of the word 'liable', throughout Subtitle A of 26 USC, with the only exception being Section 1461 which has only to do with 26 7701(a)(16) 'Withholding Agents'. The lack of this work is of importance being that many of the relevant requirements, penalties, and fines found throughout 26 USC Subtitle F use the following language: "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title". Therefore, while Subtitle A does meet the 'imposition' requirement, it fails in addressing the 'liability' requirement, in these many respects. In ignoring this paramount discrepancy, we might as well ignore other similar discrepancies, such as if 26 USC Section 1, happened to fail in mentioning the 'imposition' requirement.

"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".
Boathe v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

Section 63. Taxable Income Defined

     (a) In general

[T]he term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

Comment: This means that taxable income is all the income that you receive less any deductions to which you may be entitled.

So what is "gross income"? Let's check out Section 61.

The Truth:

This is entirely correct, 'taxable income' is all 'income' minus all deductions that an individual might be entitled to receive as so stipulated within the Internal Revenue Code, itself. The result of this equation is the legal basis for determining your 'Income Tax' liability as reported by yourself, so far as to whether or not you are a qualifying individual for the purposes of the federal income tax. The IRS uses the W-2 'Information' Form, which was sent to them by your employer to verify the figures reported under penalties of perjury upon the face of your IRS 1040 Individual Income Tax Return by yourself.

Although it is important to bear in mind that a definition or 'legalese', 'terms of art', etc., are simply that, specialized definitions, which no longer carry their common English meaning. Under the 'Rules of Statutory Construction', such specialized definitions thereafter carry only that specific definition as so written with that body of law, which may include not only that which is prescribed for within that definition, but all related classes as well, (i.e. a specialized definition which defines various types of carbonated soda pops would include other types or flavors of carbonated soda pops not specifically mentioned therein, though would be taken to ostracize [through purposeful exclusion] alcoholic beverages, sports drinks, health drinks, tonics, flavored drinking water, et al). Additionally, specialized definitions themselves have absolutely no legal standing to enforce any Section or establish any requirements within a specific body of law. Their sole purpose is to clarify the intention and scope of an established body of law.

We are fairly confident that you can determine for yourself that a non-resident alien, and a foreign business are entirely distinct than that a citizen, resident, or domestic business (which is why the former are addressed separately within the Internal Revenue Code), and that a laborer with a federal nexus is entirely different from a laborer that has none.

"[W]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words..."
Circuit City stores v. Adams, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001)

Section 61. Gross Income Defined

     (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:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

(2) Gross income derived from business;

(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;

(4) Interest;

(5) Rents;

(6) Royalties;

(7) Dividends;

(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;

(9) Annuities;

(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;

(11) Pensions;

(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;

(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;

(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and

(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Comment: Everything that is listed in Section 61, and all other income, is considered "Gross Income" for purposes of determining sections 1 and 63 above.


Did you know...

That George Washington had himself served in the Virginia Militia, beginning his career as a Major, went on approximately 20-years later to Found our Nation and thereafter, become the first President of the United States of America and lead the small and newly formed Continental Army alongside his "rag-tag" Militia soldiers (of which consisted mostly of volunteer members) to fight in the 'American Revolutionary War' in a coordinated effort, to ultimately gain our Nation's independence in 1783. Thus, it was shown that local defensive control by way of a voluntary service provided by a free, disciplined, and responsible people could and did prevail.

The Truth:

The above 'Comment' is not entirely correct or truthful, 26 USC Section 61 only includes 'incomes' of which are Constitutionally taxable, meaning that if the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence; in addition to supporting arguments within the 'Federalist Papers', then such tax is outright unconstitutional. Our Nations Founding Fathers abhorred Democracies; they were in opposition to all unfair and unjust forms of taxation which ultimately works to pave the pathway to assumption over another's property and freewill, such as: 'taxation without representation', the taking of life, liberty, or property without due process or fair compensation, and 'involuntary servitude' (with exceptions in the course of serving a prison sentence).

To further note, 'compensation' is defined within Black's Law Dictionary [3rd Edition] as: An indemnification; payment of damages; making amends; making whole; giving an equivalent or substitute of equal value. Therefore, "compensation for services" has no bearing on 'gains', 'profits', its use is meant to only ensure that an equal recovery of accrued or realized losses has or should occur. Moreover, 'services' as clarified within the Classification Act of 1923 [42 Stat. 1488], has to do with willful participation in governmental employment, such as serving in a public office, the uniformed services, federal instrumentality's or other federal associations or partnerships.

The Whiskey Rebellion was a transgression which had much more to do with allegations of biased and unfair taxation, ultimately leading to "tax protesting", being as large distilleries were taxed at a rate equal to approximately one-third less then small distilleries. Meanwhile, George Washington himself owned a large distillery; hence, you can see where it is that this path leads to, right? However, this being said are you personally aware of any "tax protesters" to date who do not pay the full purchase price for their alcoholic beverages? What about when they purchase fuel for their vehicle, pay their home utilities, make purchases at a privately owned store or restaurant, pay their parking citations or fines, pay their tobacco related taxes, pay their DMV license and registration fees? Are you aware of anybody whom "protests" these types of taxes?

So far as "tax protesting" or for that matter "tax denying" is concerned, it is not that American citizens and residents whom are living and working within the several states of the Union in exchange for remuneration of which is without any federal nexus are unlawfully protesting against federal income taxes. Such a stigmatic label is nothing more then an unimaginative attempt by so-called "Tax Professionals" to avoid the onslaught of truth, from bearing at hand factually based issues; by instead attempting to flagrantly paint the entire Tax Honesty Movement as social outcasts, whom dabble self-obsessively by floundering for fictionally created proverbial 'red-herrings'. No other such claim could be more wanting in truth.

The correct question to ponder is: are you an established subject of the 'Income Tax'? It is not that such aforementioned individuals are 'exempt' [as within the meaning of the law] from the Internal Revenue Code, rather it is that they are not the subjects of the Internal Revenue Code for the purposes of the activities they had (or still are) been engaged in. Common employ in exchange for one's time, labor, or barter is an inalienable right established in life, and is therefore only taxable as a Direct Tax as per the U.S. Constitution. Fundamental Law [Constitutional Law] is the supreme law of our Republican Nation.

Finally, it is true the Framer's of our Nation really did not like "Tax Protesters", as has been correctly pointed out in the above 'Comment'. However, the issue at hand is not protesting valid tax laws. The issue at hand is for us each individually as well as collectively to realize what the tax laws are and who they pertain to. If the Internal Revenue Code was to be applied in the manner and fashion that "Tax Professionals" allege it to be, then it would be downright unconstitutional. Though this is not at all the case, the Internal Revenue Code is perfectly Constitutional. The problem is the widespread misapplication of it on the part of these same "Tax Professionals". Below is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, may this serve as both a reminder and a warning to us all...

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty... ...and what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned, from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson in writing to New York Senator William S. Smith on November 13th, 1787 in regards to 'Shays' Rebellion'


In the case Long v. Rasmussen [Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238 (1922)], the court found that "The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection." And that as such "They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers, 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 of the object of the revenue laws."

In the case Helvering v. Gregory [Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809 (1934)], the court not only found that 'Tax avoidance' is not synonymous with 'tax evasion', but that the mere act of paying one's taxes is not even considered a 'patriotic duty'!

Senator Danaher in a subcommittee hearing [Hearing Before a Subcommittee of The Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 77th Congress, Second Session on: Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act, August 21 and 22, 1942], posed the following question: "Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but non-taxpayers." Mr. Charles O. Hardy, of Brookings Institution, responded with the following statement: "Yes."


  • 'Tax evasion' is knowingly and deliberately not complying with terms of perspective law and is subject to legality.

  • 'Tax avoidance' is organizing one's affairs in a manner which does comply with terms of perspective law, whereas the tax results thereof are personally more advantageous than had those affairs been organized in some other fashion; however, withstanding and legal.

  • A 'non-taxpayer' is an individual not legally 'liable' (thereby subject) to any taxes pertinent under a given law.

  • A 'tax protester' is an individual ['person'] whom is legally 'liable' (thereby subject) to specific taxes pertinent under a given law, though chooses to protest against such taxes due, usually in a manner consistent with outright refusing to make payments of which the individual is or would be otherwise legally 'liable' for, based upon constitutionally established impositions concerning their engaged activities.

  • A 'taxpayer' is an individual ['person'] whom has been made legally 'liable' for a constitutionally 'imposed' taxable activity and makes timely arrangements to make such payments due in full, [see: 26 USC § 7701(a)(14) - 'Taxpayer'].

So there you have it folks! The law that does not make the average American citizen and resident liable for the Federal Income Tax for the purposes of remuneration received in an even exchange for their personal time, labor, or barter!

For those who wish to understand more about the technical basis behind taxation and our Nation's founding principles, to seek and observe further substantive facts and evidence regarding taxation, and to learn why the so-called "Tax Professionals" continue to peddle ignorant and frivolous theories, please see:

Want to discuss this further or give your comments? Click Here

[Originating Page: © 2007 by Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.];
© Copyright   iWarrior Working Group

DISCLAIMER: This page and all related pages have been designed for those with a good sense of humor, whom are interested in learning. These pages and all related pages are intended as factual spoofs created entirely for education purposes, while remaining based and likened to the originating aforementioned page. By the grace of the Almighty, holds absolutely zero affiliation or association with 'Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc.' or ''.