Subject: tax law Comment: STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS REGARDING THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX FIRST BELIEF: THE RIGHT OF REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF REDRESS BEFORE PAYMENT OF TAXES. 1. The Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People. 2. This Right is the People’s non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having to depend on – or place their trust in -- the government’s willingness to respond to the People’s petitions and without having to resort to violence. 3. As our Founding Fathers explicitly noted, retaining and keeping in our possession the money that we would otherwise have turned over to the government is the only real practical, non-violent method to corral those that have seized power from the People without the People’s consent: "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." 1 4. From 1999 thru 2002 the People have properly petitioned for a Redress of Grievances regarding the federal income tax system. The Executive and Legislative branches have utterly failed to honor their obligation to respond. SECOND BELIEF: THE INCOME TAX IS A TAX ON LABOR, PROHIBITED BY THE 13TH AMENDMENT 1. It was the intent of Congress to require "individuals" to make income tax returns based upon receipt of more than a threshold amount of gross income even if the individual ends up not "liable for" a tax on that gross income. [See 26 U.S.C. 6012 (a).] 2. The "gross income" mentioned in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code is the "gross income" as set forth at Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. (See 26 U.S.C. Sections 61(a) and 6012.) 3. Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income" from whatever source derived, but does not define "income." [See 26 U.S.C. º 61(a)] In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that 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. [See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)] 4. The definition of income as it appears in Section 61(a) is based upon the 16th Amendment and that the word is used in its constitutional sense. House Report No. 1337; Senate Report No. 1622; U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively, 1954. 5. The United States Supreme Court has defined the term income for purposes of all income tax legislation as: The gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it include 1 See, "Continental Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province Of Quebec." Journals of the Continental Congress. 1774 -1789. Journals 1: 105-13. profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. [See Stratton’s Indep. v. Howbert , 231 U.S. 399 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell, 247 U.S. 179 (1920); So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 1 89 (1920); Merchant’s Loan v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)] 6. The United States Supreme Court defined "income" to mean the following: "…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise 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." [See Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918) (emphasis added)]. "This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation… Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 55 L.Ed. 389, 31 Sup.Ct.Rep. 342, Ann. Cas." [See Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414, 58 L.Ed. 285, 34 Sup.Ct. 136 (1913) (emphasis added)]. 7. The term "corporation" as used above infers a federally chartered and not a state chartered corpora tion. 8. The United States Government is defined as a federal corporation: United States Code TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE PART VI - PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS CHAPTER 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER A - DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 3002. Definitions (15) ''United States'' means - (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. (See 26 U.S.C. 3002) 9. Individuals as defined in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and in 26 CFR §1.1441-1 are not federal corporations, and therefore cannot have "profit" or "gain" as constitutionally defined above.(See 26 CFR 1.1441-1) |