Time: Fri Nov 14 06:30:10 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA15467;
	Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:00:47 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA23943;
	Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:59:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:59:45 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Confirm (fwd)

>              Tax Attorney Confirms Article on W-4
>                     by Larry Becraft, Jr.
>Presently, I have an appeal in a criminal tax case pending before the 
>Eleventh Circuit which raises the issue as to who is liable for the federal 
>income tax.
>The government filed its brief in this case and I was utterly amazed at the 
>government's answer to my argument.
>Due to the admission so made, I now realize that my argument is monumentally 
>significant and I feel compelled to tell other attorneys involved in similar 
>Last year, I tried a case in Orlando, Florida wherein Dehur D. Ward was 
>charged with tax evasion.  Ward was a student and follower of a man named 
>George Arlen, who, like Irwin Schiff, advocated the who's liable argument 
>built around 26 USC sections 6001, 6011, and 6012.
>Ward had engaged in a constant stream of letters to both the IRS and his 
>employers which squarely raised the issue that he didn't believe he was 
>liable for the tax because he found no section of the Code that made him 
>expressly liable.
>This position formed the factual foundation for our defense that he didn't 
>act willfully.  It also afforded me the excellent opportunity to raise the 
>same legal argument via requested instructions and motions for judgement of 
>The essence of my argument was that the income tax, pursuant to Subchapter N 
>of the Code, imposed the tax only on aliens and foreign corporations who had 
>sources of income outside the U.S., and also within U.S. possessions.  The 
>only persons expressly made liable for the income tax are section 1461 
>withholding agents for aliens and foreign corporations.
>This was the legal argument created by my requested instructions and my Rule 
>29 Motion.
>My brief in Ward's case to the Eleventh Circuit had several major parts
>constitute my ultimate conclusion that state citizens were not taxed on
>sources of income within the states.
>First, I treated the question of the jurisdiction of the United States and 
>showed that its jurisdiction was only in Washington, D.C., the federal 
>enclaves within the states and the territories and insular ~possessions of 
>the United States.
>Next, I discussed all the federal income tax statutes from the 1913 act 
>forward and showed that, statutorily, the tax was one imposed only in its 
>I then treated all prior regulations promulgated for all the prior income
>acts and showed that the regulations clearly stated that the tax was 
>My argument was thus ended with the conclusion that state citizens are 
>outside the jurisdiction of the United States and were not thus taxed.  As
>brief says:
>     For U.S. citizens, the sources subjected to taxation are treated in 
>     Section 911 and 931.  In Section 911, a U.S. citizen living and working 
>     abroad, and thus having sources without the U.S., is subjected to 
>     taxation.  In Section 931, the sources subjected to taxation are those 
>     sources earned within a possession of the United States.  For U.S. 
>     citizens, who were born in the U.S., who are domiciled in the U.S., and 
>     who have sources of income within the U.S., there is no income tax 
>     imposed.
>     Since Ward did not fall within the statutory classes of individuals 
>     subject either to the tax or filing requirement under section 6012, the 
>     District Court committed error in denying his motions for acquittal.
>I then presented the subchapter N argument and concluded that the only 
>persons liable for the tax pursuant to 26 USC sections 6001, 6011, and 6012, 
>were section 1461 withholding agents.
>I had expected that the government would respond with a lengthy, detailed 
>argument showing that state citizens were taxed via some complicated manner 
>that directly or indirectly so imposed the tax.
>But, when I received the government's brief, I found one page thereof that 
>addressed my issue;..  After calling my argument frivolous, the U.S.
>then stated as follows:
>     The government is unable, therefore, to offer case authority for the 
>     universally accepted proposition that a citizen of the United States, 
>     working and residing in the United States, subject to federal law, 
>     earning wages, and responsible for filing an income tax return, is 
>     liable for taxation.
>Although these are the words of Bruce Hinshelwood, I feel confident that
>other prosecutors would have been compelled to make the same admission.  
>There, indeed, is no case, or statute, that expressly holds a state citizen 
>liable for the income tax.
>It is my hope that you and other attorneys will study this issue...  From my 
>viewpoint, we certainly need to raise this issue in other circuits.
>P.S.  Why is it that the only court which has been given jurisdiction of 
>Title 26 crimes is the U.S. District Court in Guam?  See 48 USC 1421.
>[Reprinted from `American Information Network', Sept/Oct. 1988; from `The 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail