Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 05, 1998 at 13:23:59:
In Reply to: Tax Protester Hall of Fame posted by MARTIN on September 05, 1998 at 11:58:48:
: "On the merits, defendant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is solely a resident of the state of Michigan and not a resident of any 'federal zone' and is therefore not subject to federal income tax laws. This argument is completely without merit and patently frivolous." United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
: http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb/tpfaq.html
Yes, Frank Brushaber was a Citizen of New York
state and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn,
in the city of New York. See status statement
in Brushaber's original pleadings. Nevertheless,
the Union Pacific Railroad Company was required
to withhold 30% from Brushaber's dividends,
because the company was the withholding agent
made liable for payment of that 30% to the
United States. To this extent, Brushaber was
"subject" to the federal income tax laws,
although strict liability fell squarely on the
withholding agent. See Treasury Decision 2313
for official elaboration. The decisive issue
is the "source" of the income. If the source
is inside the federal zone, then the income
from that source is taxable; if the source
is outside the federal zone, then the income
from that source is not taxable. See
Knox v. U.S. et al. for authority on this
point.
Unlike state Citizens (nonresident aliens) such
as Frank Brushaber, federal citizens are liable
for taxes on their worldwide income, whether
or not the income has a source inside the
federal zone. See 26 CFR 1.1-1 for the
implementing regulations (now formally
challenged for being an overly broad
extension of the corresponding statute,
i.e. IRC section 1 in toto).
All of this has been explained in very great
detail in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the
Code of Internal Revenue," which was stolen,
modified, and then posted on the file servers
of America Online, Inc., where unauthorized
remnants of the book's electronic chapters
and appendices still remain, in direct violation
of federal copyright laws. Appendix "A"
in the latest edition reproduces the winning
brief in Knox v. U.S. et al., with this author's
clerical edits to perfect the grammar and
spelling, in honor of John Knox's passing.
Chapter 13 can be found at the URL shown infra.
On the merits, the only statutes which create
a specific liability for the federal income tax
are those listed in the definition of
"withholding agent" at IRC section 7701(a).
There are no statutes which create a specific
liability for Citizens of the several states,
because these People are not mentioned as such
anywhere in the IRC; they are identified
indirectly as "nonresident aliens," because
the IRC is a municipal Code.
By the way, Brushaber v. U.P.R.R. was heard
and decided in the District Court of the
United States ("DCUS")! :) The Supreme Court
was correct to emphasize that the apportionment
restrictions at 1:2:3 and 1:9:4 had never been
repealed, even assuming a ratified 16th amendment.
The Constitution cannot contradict itself, and
repeals by implications are not favored. Thus,
the apportionment restrictions are STILL in full
force and effect upon any direct taxes which
Congress may impose within the several states
of the Union, with or without a ratified
16th amendment [sic].
Insofar as the federal income tax is imposed
upon the worldwide income of federal citizens,
Congress has thereby imposed an excise tax
on their exercise of this municipal franchise.
See "The Federal Zone" for clear and
unequivocal authorities on this key point:
"... their political rights are franchises
which they hold as privileges in the legislative
discretion of the congress of the United States."
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885), as quoted
at Internet URL:
http://supremelaw.com/library/nlhc/swornaff.html
The income is not the subject, but the
measure, of the profit or gain derived from
the exercise of this franchise. The subject
of the tax is the exercise of this privilege.
Income is defined as "profit or gain,"
as explained in Eisner v. Macomber.
Nevertheless, within the federal zone, excise
taxes need not be uniform across the several
states, particularly if the territorial reach
of such an excise tax is limited to that zone,
and to citizens of that zone, wherever they
might "reside." It makes no sense whatsoever
to require that an excise tax be uniform
across the several states, if the territorial
reach of such a tax is confined to the
federal zone, which is precisely disjoint with
respect to the state zone. Congress need not
worry in the slightest about ensuring that
an excise tax is uniform across the several
states, if the tax in question is an excise
tax upon the sale and use of dog leashes
within the Capitol grounds.
The USDC DOES lack jurisdiction over the subject
matter. See details in Gilbertson's OPENING
BRIEF. Statutes granting original jurisdiction
must be STRICTLY CONSTRUED (see long discussion
elsewhere in this forum). Moreover, federal
judges have an adverse conflict of interest
to hear income tax cases, if they persist in
maintaining a valid W-4 contract with the
Internal Revenue Service, a/k/a Trust #62
domiciled in Puerto Rico under the colorable
authority of the Federal Alcohol Act,
declared unconstitutional in 1935 by the
U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Constantine.
Federal judges are also heavy investors in
the U.S. Prison Industries, but that is another
matter which is a little bit too far afield for
this discussion. Draw your own conclusions.
For further details, confer at URL infra:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.