What is the Federal Income Tax?


                Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
                Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
                  and Private Attorney General

                       All Rights Reserved
                       (November 10, 1998)

     The federal  "income" tax  is an excise tax which is imposed
upon profit  or gain  derived from  sources that  are INSIDE  the
"United States"  [sic],  or  from  a  "United  States"  trade  or
business.   In this  context, the  term "United States" means the
territory over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority
and where Congress is the local "State" government.

     "Income" and  "source" are  two entirely   different  terms.
The "source"  is the situs of the income-producing activity.  The
items listed  at IRC 61 are "sources", NOT "income", although the
grammar of section 61 is certainly ambiguous.

     The inside/outside  distinction  is  crucial  to  a  correct
application of the income tax.

     The several  states of  the Union  are OUTSIDE  the  "United
States" [sic], and they are INSIDE the "United States of America"
[sic].   See the  Guarantee Clause  for constitutional authority,
and for correct use of terminology.  See also the Preamble, where
"United States"  and   "United States  of America" are both used;
these two terms define two disjoint geographic jurisdictions.

     Moreover, 28 U.S.C. section 1746  makes  this  all-important
distinction as  well, e.g.  "inside the United States" and "under
the laws  of the United States of America"!  This statute governs
the perjury  jurat on Form 1040!!  Form 1040 is signed INSIDE the
"United States" [sic], and OUTSIDE the "United States of America"
(read "several  states of  the Union").   We  never notarize Form
1040;  now you know why!  Yea Team!!

     Got it?

     The term  "United  States"  here  is  synonymous  with  "the
federal  zone,"  i.e.  the  territory  over  which  Congress  has
exclusive legislative  authority and  jurisdiction.   Pursuant to
the Downes  Doctrine, indirect taxes need NOT be "uniform" within
the federal  zone, and  direct taxes  need NOT  be  "apportioned"
within  the  federal  zone.    See  the  chapter  entitled  "16th
Amendment Post  Mortem," in the case of U.S.A. v. Knudson, in the
Supreme  Law Library at Internet URL:


for a thorough discussion of this key point.

     Those two  restrictions apply  ONLY to  taxes which Congress
imposes inside  the  several  states  of  the  Union,  which  are
"outside" ("without") the "United States" [sic], and "inside" the
United States of America" [sic].

     These findings  are predicated  upon  the  well  established
proof  that  the  IRC  is  a  municipal  Code  ("internal"  means
"municipal").   See the book "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code
of Internal Revenue" for all pertinent authorities, e.g. Treasury
Decision 2313.

     See also  "Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion" in
the Supreme  Law Library  supra,  vis-a-vis  IRC  3121(e).    The
Legislative Counsel and Congressional Research Service both agree
with the  major thesis  of "The  Federal Zone"  [the book which I

     It makes  no sense  to render an excise "uniform" throughout
the several  states of  the Union, if said excise tax is not even
imposed ANYWHERE within that territorial jurisdiction!

     The graduated  income tax  does not  need to  be uniform  OR
apportioned there,  because those  rules are  entirely irrelevant
within that  limited territorial  jurisdiction (according  to the
Downes Doctrine).

     Think about  it ...   Congress  has the  power to  impose  a
local, municipal  tax, and that is exactly what they did with the
taxes imposed by Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

     Just because  Congress intermixed  alcohol,    tobacco,  and
petroleum taxes  in the  same Code, does not change the nature of
the "income  tax" provisions  of that  Code.   The definition  of
"State", in  these other  excise taxes,  clearly mentions the "50
States" [sic], but NOT at IRC 3121(e).  See URL:

     http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/4612.html (a)(4)(A)

     THERE is the crux of their fraud!!!

     Confer at  "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in Black's
Law Dictionary,  to wit:   what  was omitted,  was INTENDED to be
omitted (from those various, DIFFERENT definitions of "State").

     In the  Brushaber case,  that tax was an excise imposed upon
profit  generated   by  a   "domestic"  (read   "federal   zone")
corporation, because  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Company  was
created by  an Act  of Congress, to build a railroad  through the
Utah Territory  (BEFORE Utah  joined the  Union).  Thus, Congress
could tax  the profits  of that  corporation BEFORE  any of those
profits were  paid to  stockholders, in  the form  of  dividends.
Treasury Decision 2313 explains all of this in fine detail;  this
Treasury Decision  has never  been repealed.   The legal situs of
any corporation never changes from its original domicile.

     Congress CANNOT  create a corporation for the entire nation,
because to  do so  violates the  Tenth Amendment, and invades the
province of   the  several states.  See Daly v. The National Life
Insurance Company of the United States of America, Indiana Supreme
Court (1878), for  clear authority  on this crucial point.  Thus,
ALL  FEDERAL  CORPORATIONS  are  domestic  (read  "federal zone")
corporations, by  Law. "Domestic"  in this  context is synonymous
with "federal  zone".   "Domestic" does NOT have the same meaning
in this context as it does in the context of domestic and foreign
flights at international airports.

     The  state zone and the federal zone are perfectly disjoint,
in a  geographic sense. The term "state zone" has now entered our
household vocabulary;   for  proof, search  for "state zone" with
the  Alta Vista search  engine, particularly  in documents  which
also use the term "federal zone".

     Now, federal  citizens [sic] are associated with a political
jurisdiction which  is NOT protected by the Guarantee Clause, and
where the  direct/indirect rules  simply do  NOT apply.   Federal
citizenship is  a municipal  franchise, the exercise of which CAN
be taxed  by the  Congress,  pursuant  to  the  Downes  Doctrine,
because citizenship  is a  term of  municipal law (a/k/a "private
international law" [sic]).

     Congress cannot  re-define the  term "Citizen"  as that term
used in the Qualifications Clauses, because Congress has no power
to amend the U.S. Constitution;   only three-fourths of the Union
states have   that  power.   The  term  "Citizen"  [sic]  in  the
Qualifications Clauses,  in 3:2:1,  and in  4:2:1, each refers to
Citizens of  ONE OF  the States United.  See Alla v. Kornfeld for
authority (cited  and discussed  in  the  Supreme  Law  Forum  at
http://supremelaw.org/wwwboard): i.e.  federal citizens, as such,
were NOT even contemplated when the organic U.S. Constitution was
first written and ratified.

     Although the  Guarantee Clause  appears to authorize unequal
protection of  the Law  here, the Eighth Circuit dropped the ball
completely when  this issue  was put  squarely  before  them,  in
Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF.  That Court has now failed to rule on
an application  by the People of the United States of America for
Intervention of Right, so we are presently in a Mexican Standoff,
as regards  all of  the far-reaching  issues which  arose in that

     If the  People were to obtain leave to intervene, they would
immediately  request  Rehearing En Banc,  on all of these issues,
and then  go up  to the   U.S. Supreme Court "with all deliberate
speed"  (a term from Brown v. Board of Education).

     Instead, you  have seen  the U.S.  House of  Representatives
repeal the  IRC, effective July 4, 2002.  I believe this was done
because the  law as  explained above  has begun  to permeate that
House of Representatives, one Representative at a time.

     The writing is definitely on the wall.

     I hope this helps.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, and Candidate
for the U.S. House of Representatives

email:    Contact Us

website:  http://supremelaw.org

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents for

Paul Andrew Mitchell