I am not advocating that anyone not file any taxes based on this article. What I am requesting is that a sufficient amount of citizens have petitioned the government to openly discuss what part of Section 26 makes it mandatory that a person living and working in one of the states file an income tax return.

I would like to settle this on the house floor. After all, we the people are the government of the United States, or has that somehow changed? When the people fear their government, you have tyranny, but when government fears the people, you have liberty and freedom.

I have been reading and researching the history of the income tax laws in the United States for several years. Based on my information, I cannot find any provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that requires me to file a 1040 income tax return. As a matter of fact, based on my information, Subtitle A and B are mandatory, but in a very limited sense which does not include Citizens. Subtitle D and E taxes might apply to citizens if they are involved in certain activities. Subtitle C, which applies to the income tax, does not relate to a citizen living and working within one of the fifty states. This is because mandatory compliance would be in direct conflict with the United States Constitution's three taxing clauses in "Marbury vs. Madison" [5 U.S. 137, 174, 176] "all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

The appointment clauses of the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned* among the several states which may be included within the union, according to their respective numbers..." and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 specifically states... "No Capitation**, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumerated herein before directed to be taken." The United States Constitution is simply saying that direct taxation shall be apportioned among the several states and it must be in proportion to the census or enumerated herein before directed to be taken.

*Apportion: "To distribute or allocate." (Webster's College Dictionary)

**Capitation Tax: "a tax imposed upon a person or a fixed rate, regardless of the taxpayer's ability to pay, occupation, assets or income." (The Law Dictionary)

The third direct conflict is ironically the 16th Amendment itself. The authors of the 16th Amendment wanted to provide for an unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax, although direct, should not be subjected to the regulations of apportionment. The Supreme Court realized that an improper interpretation of the 16th Amendment would put the United States Constitution in irreconcilable conflict with itself by exempting direct taxes based on apportionment.

Brushaber vs. Pacific Railroad Co. ruled in favor of the United States Constitution. "The 16th Amendment, as correctly interpreted, was limited to indirect taxes, and for that treason is constitutional and the amendment itself contains nothing repudiating or challenging to the Pollack Case.

The Pollack Case [this case was never overturned] was the first Supreme Court case to rule that sections of the Income Tax of 1894 were unconstitutional because it imposed non-apportioned taxes on income. The Court went on to state, "Thus, in the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: the 'rule of apportionment' as to direct taxes and the 'rule of uniformity' as to duties, imposts, and excises."

The decision further stated that the purpose of apportionment of direct taxes by the Constitution was "equality for all under the law." "...Determining that, the classification of Direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible for the government to burden, by taxation, accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment..."

The Supreme Court's decision in the Pollack Case was very significant in relationship to income taxes. The court concluded that a non-apportioned tax on property was unconstitutional. The court was very much aware of the true definition of the word "income" and ruled that a tax on "gains and profits" was a tax on a gain or profit which was derived from property and was the same as taxing the property itself and was also unconstitutional if not equally apportioned.

Based on the Pollack Case, it is my understanding that I am not required to file a 1040 income tax return because:

a. taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property are direct taxes.

b. a tax on personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned.

In another Supreme Court decision, Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205, declares, "The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution."

The confusion arises from an erroneous conclusion that the creation of the 16th Amendment provides a new right to levy a direct income tax regardless of the regulation establishing the rule of apportionment. In Peck vs. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, the High Court once again supported the intentions of our founding fathers by restricting direct taxes, when it declared, "The 16th Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects."

The question that I asked myself, how could the 16th Amendment be Constitutional when it contradicts the taxking clauses of the United States Constitution? The answer is simple.

The 16th Amendment is constitutional because it is limited to only indirect taxes. Conpensation for labor and the exercise of the right to labor are considered property under the Constitution, and items of income are not taxable by the Federal Government. Compensation earned, exercising the Right to Labor is excluded from "Gross authority of TItle 26, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] [39] section 9.22[b]1. What certain items of income..."are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income...those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government." In my opinion, the tax that is exempt from direct taxation by the Federal Government is my personal property or income.

How can the Internal Revenue Service legally justify unlawful interference with one's right to labor by depriving him of his most sacred property [his labor] and appropriate his labor against his will? I know now, that the citizens working and living within one of the fifty states are not subject to the filing of the 1040 income tax form. The American people file taxes primarily out of fear and duress. The Supreme Court ruled in 1970, "Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."

"A State [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." To reinforce my views that "labor" is my most sacred "property [right]", and that a tax on my labor is a direct tax on property without apportionment is in violation of my rights under the taxing clauses of the United States Constitution.

The Butchers' Supreme Court decision reinforces my views when the court states, "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manney not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their facilities, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...

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

To further support my view that my income is my personal property, thus making it not taxable to the Federal Government, I will use only two more Supreme Court cases out of pages and pages that support my views.

In Coppage vs. Kansas, the Supreme Court ruled, "Included in the right of personal property and the right of private property partaking of the nature of each is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property." Wouldn't you agree that ones' labor is his own private property, not to be interfered with by the people's own government?

The second court case has far ranging political and economic implications that would merit books to be written, but let me make it rather simple. In studying, Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400, it states, "The term [liberty]...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract to marry, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to dictates of his own conscience... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action..."

Upon examining this piece of legislation it becomes very apparent that the Government is not only taking away our property through direct taxation, but they are taking away our liberties as well. The term liberty means the right to engage in a contract without government approval, to engage in any legal occupation also without Government licensing and controls, to acquire useful and honest information, to establish a home and raise our children, to worship God according to dictates of his own conscience... not to have a private profit seeking cooperation control our economic future through inflation and then deflation, to decide without Government interference our educational process and to keep out of our churches... We the people are more than capable of deciding what is best for us, the People of the United States, not the people in the United States Government.

The only code section in all of Subtitle A that makes any one liable to pay a tax on income is IRC section 1461 which states; "Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax..." Section 7701 [a][16] defines this person as the "withholding agent", who is "required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, and 1443."

Upon examining these three sections, my understanding of 1441 pertains to nonresident aliens, section 1442 applies only to foreign corporations, and code section 1443 applies to foreign tax-exempt organizations. My research concludes that subtitle A imposes an income tax on foreigners and of U.S. citizens working abroad in a foreign country with a tax treaty with the United States. Subtitle A could also include income earned by an American citizen who has profited by investments in foreign countries, yet still lives in the states.

After critically examining my CD-ROM containing the entire Internal Revenue Code, I could not locate any code section that imposed a liability on U.S. citizens for a tax on income when working within the States of the Union. I have researched specific statutes and implementing federal regulations and can't find where the Internal Revenue Service has the power to impose upon me a liability to file an income tax return.

I can't find where the OMB designed the Form 1040 as the required return law for the reporting of income by a U.S. citizen. I know that my views are not politically correct in today's society. What a price to pay when you are right and your own government is wrong. I'm a product of the old environment where Mrs. Cashmere, a tenth grade history teacher would cry in class when teaching American History, where students learned about great American Patriots, Thomas Jefferson's writing of the Declaration of Independence, the struggle of Independence Hall, the Minute Men, who fought the British at Lexington and Concord.

What about Jackson's defeat of the British in the War of 1812, don't forget about Davy Crockett and the Alamo, what about General Armistead's soldiers who rushed the Union line at Gettysburg, our Fathers and Grandfathers who fought and died on Iwo Jima, Normandy, Pork Chop Hill and our friends and relatives who lost their lives in the jungles of Vietnam, all under the disguise of freedom.

We the people are more than capable of deciding what is best for us, the People of the United States, not the people of the United States Government.

top of page >