Time: Sat Nov 15 05:46:59 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA22901;
Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:39:01 -0700 (MST)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA10574;
Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:38:48 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd010567; Sat Nov 15 05:38:34 1997
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:38:53 -0800
To: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: liability for the federal income tax
References: <3.0.3.16.19971114182407.3c4fbf5c@pop.primenet.com>
<199711142055.MAA26825@kalptaru.com>
Harold,
Our thinking is nearly identical on this point.
I have attacked the regs at 26 CFR 1.1-1 for being
an overly broad extension of the corresponding
statutes. See Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF for
the full discussion, in the Supreme Law Library.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: SLS
At 01:27 AM 11/15/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>I am aware of the "implied consent" doctrine and find it almost as
>absurd as the "necessity" doctrine called up by the supreme Court
>every time it decides to do something out in the open which blatantly
>violates the Constitution.
>
>As for 26 CFR 1.1-1(b), the wording is "liable to" -- the only such
>wording in the entire Code that I can find. Now, just what does
>"liable to" mean? "Liable to owe the taxes if I file the return?"
>They certainly know how to say "liable for the payment of" when that
>is what they mean, just like they know how to say "means the fifty
>states" when that is what they mean.
>
>Further, I don't believe a regulation can "impose" any requirement
>not first clearly imposed by the statute it is implementing. Thus,
>any "liability for the payment of" would needs be clearly
>distinguishable in the language of the Code itself. The CFR can say
>whatever it wants, but it SHOULD BE of no effect unless growing out
>of the Code. This is illustrated by 26 CFR 6012 which fairly
>clearly imposes a filing requirement upon all "U.S. citizens", and
>then, in a later paragraph, even spells out Form 1040 as the form
>generally used for the purposes of that section. Yet, the language
>in the Code at 6012(a) itself does not support such specificity as is
>found in CFR.
>
>I tend to agree with you in an academic sense about the multiple
>definitions of "United States" and the different classes of
>"citixen". Where I feel it all falls apart is in the courts of the
>"United States" and the court of public opinion.
>
>This is where another kind of "implied consent" comes into play. The
>American people have given their "implied consent" to the entire
>conduct of the "income tax" for some 80 odd years, the text of the
>Code or the CFR notwithstanding. Thus, judges can say just about
>whatever they wish and the contents of the Code or the Regs are just
>so much window dressing.
>
>I think you should continue to raise these arguments no matter how
>they are dismissed by others (even Larry B. whom I do respect),
>because those who point out that the arguments "lose in court" still
>themselves miss the very point that it is THE COURTS that are the
>problem: with honest, uncorrupt judges and informed, educated
>jurors, the mess known as "case law" would clear itself up in a few
>years easily. With corrupt judges and sheeple in the jury box we
>are beating our heads against a reinforced concrete wall!
>
>Take care.
>
>Harold
>
>> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:24:07 -0800
>> To: libnw@circuit.com
>> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> Subject: SLS: liability for the federal income tax
>
>> The liability for citizens of the United States [sic]
>> is imposed by the regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b),
>> and by Section 4 of the so-called 14th Amendment.
>> Notice the nearly identical language in Section 1
>> of that so-called amendment, and the definitions
>> in the regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1(c).
>>
>> The U.S. Constitution does not extend beyond the
>> limits of the states which are united by and
>> under it. Thus, Congress can regulate its own
>> [federal] citizens, via regulations published in
>> the Federal Register. Even Becraft has argued the
>> doctrine of implied legislative consent, i.e.,
>> these regs have been in existence for decades,
>> and thus Congress has given its implied legislative
>> consent [sic] to 26 CFR 1.1-1(b).
>>
>> I know: this is garbage law. But, you must read
>> Downes v. Bidwell, and the scathing critiques
>> which were published soon after, in the Harvard
>> Law Review; one of these critiques was even
>> anonymous, I believe for fear of reprisal.
>>
>> Becraft still does not believe there are two classes
>> of citizenship, despite the decision by the Supreme Court
>> in his own home state: Gardina v. Board of Registrars,
>> 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909), quoting now:
>>
>> "There are, then, under our republican form of
>> government, two classes of citizens, one of the
>> United States and one of the state."
>>
>> His office is in Huntsville, the last time I checked.
>>
>> The only liability "statutes," as such, that we can
>> find, are the ones listed in the definition of
>> "withholding agent" in IRC 7701(a)(16), namely:
>>
>> sections 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461
>>
>> There you have it. Without a valid W-4, there
>> can be no withholding agent. When there is a
>> valid W-4, the withholding agent is holding
>> money which belongs to the United States.
>>
>> Until such time as that money is paid, the
>> withholding agent is legally liable for it.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:55 PM 11/14/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> >
>> >------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>> >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:59:33 -0600
>> >From: Jim <jsh@IO.COM>
>> >To: "liberty-and-justice@pobox.com"
>> <liberty-and-justice@pobox.com>
>> >Subject: L&J: [Fwd: Confirm]
>> >Reply-to: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tax Attorney Confirms Article on W-4
>> >
>> > 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 litigation.
>> >
>> >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 acquittal.
>> >
>> >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 which constitute my ultimate conclusion that state citizens
>> >were not taxed on their 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 jurisdiction.
>> >
>> >I then treated all prior regulations promulgated for all the
>> >prior income tax acts and showed that the regulations clearly
>> >stated that the tax was jurisdictional.
>> >
>> >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 my 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. attorney 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 most 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 Correspondent']
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE Fidonet 1:346/16 (208) 267-9851
>> >"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
>> >the Fidonet Backbone..." SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
>> >Visit Liberty Northwest on the Web: http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/
>> >Subscribe: libnw-on@circuit.com -- Unsubscribe: libnw-off@circuit.com
>> >
>> >...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ===========================================================================
>> 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
>>
>Harold Thomas
>harold@halcyon.com
>http://www.halcyon.com/harold/
>
>
===========================================================================
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