Other_Articles

Income Tax - No law to file, no law to pay ! Based on what, for whom, in what jurisdiction ?

a collection of articles compiled by Ted Elden

If you want to see the source of any article, book, tax form, etc. just search google for a quoted string of the text.

Like a finger print, a quoted string or "thought print often finds the unique document" on the internet in seconds.

Red phrase is an example of a quoted string.

The Law that never Was by Bill Benson - The Premise

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

Text of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,

without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Theft by Deception - Deciphering the Federal Income Tax http://www.theft-by-deception.com/

Theft by Deception is a thoroughly documented presentation of how and why certain representations of the Fedearl Government spun a statutory and regulatory web of deception that created the myth of a compulsory federal income tax.” T. Croghan, Attorney, Former Federal Prosecutor U.S. Dept. of Justice.

For decades, millions of Americans have given the federal government a large percentage of their hard-earned money, without ever questioning their “Tax Bill” [The actual written law that imposes the tax].

From the beginning, due to the strict constitutional limits on their power, Congress imposed a very limited income tax, applicable only to those engaged in foreign and international commerce. That tax was then, and continues to be, grossly misrepresented to the American public so successfully that today it is “common knowledge” that the income of most Americans is subject to the tax, even though the entire history of written law proves otherwise.

The product of years of exhaustive research and development, Theft By Deception clearly shows how the current Federal Income Tax law and its legislative history never intended to tax the average American’s domestically earned income.

Combining 3-D animations with a methodical, step-by-step approach, Theft By Deception will unravel the complicated tax law to reveal the very limited nature of the federal income tax. The evidence paints a clear picture that agents of the United States government orchestrated, executed, and then attempted to cover up the most monumental financial fraud in history.

Freedom Above Fortune.com

Joe Banister fight his ongoing battle to expose the truth about the IRS and the federal income tax. On the day Joe resigned from the IRS, he committed himself to raising awareness about the dirty little secrets the IRS keeps from the American people, even if it caused him personal and professional hardship. Joe has endured the personal hardships of quitting a high-paying job and devoting his time to the efforts of the tax honesty movement. Now the IRS is determined to cause him some professional hardships as well. However, the ultimate hardship will be borne by all of us because Joe's representation of clients in IRS matters has helped to further expose how the IRS gets away with their illicit practices. Joe has met face to face with IRS agents all over the country in his capacity as a client representative. Let's be clear - Joe is the first IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent ever to blow the whistle against the IRS in this manner. The IRS has always been able to foster the myth that only anti-government whackos believe the IRS is acting illicitly. Having a former IRS special agent confront current IRS agents with evidence of illicit activity causes current IRS agents to take a second look at agency policies and procedures - something the IRS can not afford to let happen. So, the agency is now trying to lock Joe out - permanently!

You’ll notice that the name of this organization is Freedom Above Fortune.com, not Freedom Without Fortune or Freedom Instead of Fortune. Rather, Freedom Above Fortune is an organization dedicated to the concept that no amount of real or perceived economic prosperity or fortune is worth trading for your freedom. This is not to say that pursuing economic prosperity, in and of itself, is bad. Rather, it is to say that those who are willing to sell their freedom and their children’s freedom for a few pieces of silver, as Judas did when he betrayed Jesus Christ, are shortsighted and foolish. If you are willing to sell your freedom for short term financial security, real or perceived, the willingness to sell your very soul can’t be far behind.

Freedom Above Fortune was founded by Joseph R. (Joe) Banister, a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent who learned of serious constitutional questions relating to the federal income tax and the federal banking and monetary systems. Mr. Banister’s expertise in the fields of accounting, finance, taxation, and law enforcement enabled him to not only understand these issues but realize that he could play a role in bringing the issues into the public arena for analysis and debate.

John Turner John is an Enrolled Agent (E.A.) who spent 10 years as an IRS Collection Division Revenue Officer.Ê He has his own incredible story... LINK

Sherry P. Jackson

Sherry is a Certified Public Accountant and former Revenue Agent with the Examination Division of the Internal Revenue Service... BIO RESUME

Nick Jesson Learn about Nick Jesson's fight against the California Franchise Tax Board LINK

Ken Evans Learn more about Ken Evans' federal refund lawsuit. LINK

Donald E. Iiams, Jr. Learn about the brilliant idea that one man created after having his life devastated by the IRS. LINK

THE POWER TO DESTROY

Protesters to march around IRS building Demonstration comes on heels of Senate hearing on tax 'scams'

By Julie Foster February 6, 2000 The law that never was

Geoff Metcalf's interview answers question, 'Is 16th Amendment legal?'

April 15, 1999 Exposing the IRS fraud

April 14, 1999 IRS special agent is right, says CPA

'We need to take next step'

April 1999 Former IRS agent goes over the wall after learning the real truth on income taxes.

March 26, 1999 IRS special agent challenges system

Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams

American Free Press

Famed IRS Whistleblower Gets Tax Fraud Acquittal

Jury Says Banister Guilty Of No Crime By Peymon Mottahedeh

The Internal Revenue Service’s efforts to silence one of its most formidable critics backfired when a jury acquitted Joe Banister, a former IRS criminal investigation division special agent and fraud expert.

On June 23, in Sacramento, Calif., a unanimous jury of 12 found Banister not guilty of three counts of assisting in preparation of false tax returns and one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.

Had the IRS been successful in convincing the jury that Banister was guilty, he would have faced going to prison for up to 14 years.

Since 1999, Banister had been trying to get the government to answer the questions that he and scores of other Americans have been raising about the legality and imposition of the federal income tax on the average working citizen.

While an IRS agent, Banister wrote a detailed 95-page report on this issue and presented it to his IRS superiors for an answer. He went to Washington to meet with the president, heads of Congress and the IRS. He also appeared on C-Span2 and in nationwide newspaper advertisements telling of his questions.

Rather than answering Banister’s report, the IRS encouraged Banister to resign, which he did. At every turn, the federal government refused to answer Banister’s questions. IRS and the Department of Justice decided to “answer” Banister by charging him with four tax-related charges in November 2004.

IRS claimed that a major part of these “crimes” was Banister’s speech in October 2000 at Cencal Aviation Products in Northern California. This speech was videotaped and reported on by David Cay Johnston of The New York Times.

At this two-hour meeting, Banister presented a case for the questionable nature of the way the federal income was imposed on ordinary Americans and the suspicious behavior of the government in refusing to answer these questions.

During closing statements in the trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Twiss argued to the jury that Banister used false means to “wipe out” taxes that were allegedly owed by Cencal owner Al Thompson, and that to Banister, “it was all about the money, the money.”

However, an April 2001 email between a Department of Justice lawyer named DiLeonardo, who had worked with Banister while Banister was working at the IRS, and Ron Semino, the chief of the Western Division of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division, showed that the government viewed Banister to be the most visible personality in what many people today call “the tax honesty movement.”

After Banister was indicted, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson stated: “Joe Banister, a former IRS agent, knew exactly what he was doing. Tax professionals and employers who break the law will be held accountable.”

Apparently the jury agreed with Everson that Banister knew exactly what he was doing. However, they saw no crime in what Banister was doing.

Two of the jurors, who spoke with AFP right after the trial, related the thinking that led to their decision. They said the false tax return charges were “non-starters with the jury.” The jury saw that the IRS might have disagreed with the position of Banister on the tax returns. However, the tax returns contained no false information.

The jurors said they were surprised when the testimony part of the case ended, since they had yet to see or hear any evidence of a crime.

They said the evidence showed that Banister was honest, straightforward, credible, believed in what he was doing and was trying to follow the law.

They also believed that Banister was honestly trying to get answers, but the government consistently refused to answer his questions and address his concerns.

The government presented enough evidence to acquit Banister, they said. The jurors said they saw nothing deceitful or dishonest on Banister’s part.

And, finally, they said the government simply presented no evidence of any crimes committed by Banister. After a few hours of deliberations, the jury took a vote, and six or seven of them were ready to acquit Banister of all charges. Other jurors still had doubts. But after the jury saw Banister’s video a second time, the remaining doubts as to Banister’s innocence were removed.

This defeat at the hands of one of the most visible figures in the anti-income tax movement dealt a serious blow to the IRS’s image of invincibility. It demonstrated that even in the 21st century, there are Davids, like Banister, who can beat the IRS Goliath.

The question remains: If Banister is correct in his belief that the IRS consistently misapplies the law, who is going to hold the IRS, and officials like Everson, accountable?

(Issue #28, July 14, 2005)

- - - - -

LAW OF THE LAND
Tax activist wins in federal court
Ex-IRS agent says Congress has no power to collect levy on income

Posted: June 23, 2005
6:30 p.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Joseph Banister

A former IRS agent who believes citizens are not required to pay federal income taxes was acquitted today on charges he attempted to defraud the government.

Joseph Banister, a certified public accountant in San Jose, Calif., had been telling his clients they don't need to file federal income tax returns because the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was never properly ratified.

A leading figure in the "tax honesty" movement, Banister was taken into custody Nov. 19 by IRS agents and released on $25,000 bond after pleading not guilty.

A jury in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento found him not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government and on all three counts of aiding and assisting the filing of false tax returns for a client.

Banister's attorney, Robert Bernhoft, told WorldNetDaily the result has no direct bearing on the legitimacy of the 16th Amendment, but he insisted the implications are bigger than the issue of taxes.

"The outcome shows that average, law-abiding, hard-working citizens are not going to criminalize speech -- they're not going to send a man to prison for asking the federal government serious questions about a serious subject," he said.

Last fall, IRS spokesman Anthony Burke insisted Banister's arguments against the federal income tax already had been thoroughly vetted.

"Many constitutional or legal arguments have been tried in the courts, and without fail, they have been held to be without merit," he told WND.

Banister's website offers a defense of his views, including an 85-page report titled "Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report."

The federal indictment accused Banister and co-defendant Walter A. Thompson, of Redding, Calif., of conspiring to defraud the United States of approximately $259,669 in income and employment taxes. In a separate trial, Thompson was acquitted of conspiracy and found guilty on charges unrelated to Banister.

If Banister had been convicted of all counts, he could have been sentenced to 14 years in prison and a fine of $1 million.

Banister left public practice as a CPA in 1993 to become an armed, criminal investigator in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. But he says he resigned after six years because he was "unable to resolve conflicts" between the way the IRS administered the federal income tax and his oath of office.

As WorldNetDaily reported in March 2004, Banister claimed the IRS was illegally using "enforcers" to monitor his political activities and build its case against him. The IRS filed a complaint March 19, 2003, and began what he calls the agency's "mission to silence and discredit me."

In 1996, while working for the IRS, Banister says his view of tax law was jolted when he heard radio talk host Geoff Metcalf interview activist Devvy Kidd on KSFO in San Francisco.

After receiving information from Kidd, Banister used his spare time over two-and-a-half years to compile a report for his superiors, telling them that if they cannot find anything wrong with his analysis, he would have to resign.

Banister said his superiors refused to respond to his report and told him they would facilitate his resignation.

Related stories:

No answers from government, no taxes

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Activist: 'Stop paying federal income taxes'
Civil action urged to pressure government to respond to grievances

In a revolutionary call to arms of sorts, a constitutional activist urges all American employees, retirees and self-employed individuals to stop paying federal income taxes and to help spread the word: "no answers, no taxes."

"It has become necessary for the people of America to drastically change their relationship with their servant federal government by retaining and holding onto all money they would otherwise have given to the federal government," declares Bob Schulz, founder of the constitutional education organization We The People.

Schulz maintains mass civil action is necessary because the government steadfastly refuses to respond to the people's repeated "petitions for redress of grievances regarding substantive abuses and seizures of our constitutionally protected rights."

As WorldNetDaily has reported, the "grievances" for which Schulz seeks redress from the federal government regard the legality of the income tax, civil-liberties abuses of the USA Patriot Act and the seizure of power under the War Powers Act and the Federal Reserve.

In November, We The People, or WTP, sponsored a rally on the National Mall called "Freedom Drive 2002," at which it invited government officials to respond to its petitions – endorsed by approximately 14,000 citizens and hand-delivered to President Bush and all 535 members of Congress.

The invitations were ignored.

Schulz quotes the Founding Fathers in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774 in asserting that the right of redress of grievances before taxes is deeply embedded in U.S. law.

"If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the people, [the people] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility," he said.

WTP estimates at least 300,000 citizens, or one-tenth of one percent of the total population will be participating in the revolution by April 15.

To assist those heeding the call to action, WTP said it will soon make available free instructions and forms for employers, employees, retirees and the self-employed to use, as well as the services of a nonprofit legal-defense organization.

We The People Legal Defense Association, or WTP-LDA, expects to represent members of its "congress" at every stage of the process, including in negotiations with tax officials, representation in court proceedings and Internal Revenue Service administrative hearings.

Technical assistance for resistance

Schulz outlined his call to arms in a live, streaming Web-based broadcast called "The Liberty Hour," on Jan. 7.

But as WorldNetDaily reported, the broadcast got knocked off the Net after three minutes by unforeseen "technical problems."

WTP describes its Internet provider, which prefers not to be named, as a nationally prominent Internet streaming firm with significant telecommunications expertise and the commercial-grade bandwidth capacity to easily handle more than the 120,000 viewers that attempted to watch the broadcast.

WTP's Internet provider reported everything on his end to be working properly and immediately began working with his provider, Time Warner Cable, to investigate the problem. In addition, he made temporary arrangements to download the file of the broadcast and stream it on-demand using a different protocol that was limited to 1,500 simultaneous viewers.

Still, unexplained and continual "technical problems" with Time Warner Cable persisted. In the interest of protecting his own business, which was also suffering from the bandwidth interference, WTP's provider reluctantly removed the broadcast file from his server. As soon as he did so, his full bandwidth capability was restored.

Although a Time Warner Cable spokesman stressed to WorldNetDaily that his company does not "throttle or block individual websites or portals of any content," Schulz remains suspicious.

"The reaction to our broadcast is indicative of the fear and crisis our truths are slowly beginning to infect in the institutions of our foes," he concluded. "It is time to regroup, reorganize and understand the power of the camera and the keyboard."

To that end, WTP plans to implement a "multi-tiered series of tactics" to thwart any further attempts to "censor" the broadcasts. It calls on friends and supporters who own personal computers and websites to join together to form a network of broadcast outlets to distribute the on-demand, archived version of the weekly broadcasts.

WTP also seeks to recruit individuals who have dedicated servers (with at least a T-1 Internet connection) to handle the streaming broadcasts using a telecommunications strategy akin to "daisy-chaining," which is similar to how some public radio stations utilize "repeater" transmitters in rural areas.

WTP expects this would spread the transmission of its broadcast's digital packets across multiple geographic areas and across multiple ISP providers.

"The more personal computers and websites that are part of our network of broadcast outlets the greater the number of people who will be able to view and download the broadcast and lower the risk of anyone being able to shut us down again," Schulz explained, estimating that this new broadcast network will be in place within two to three weeks.

Those interested in participating in WTP's transmission infrastructure are urged to contact Schulz.

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
'Truth-in-taxation' forum ends in D.C.
Hearing put forth 'almost 500 … legal assertions' challenging system

A host of witnesses who offered testimony under oath during congressional-style hearings at a "Truth-in-Taxation" forum in Washington, D.C., say the event went off without a hitch and was generally a success.

Bob Schulz, head of the We The People Foundation, which helped sponsor the event, said the forum – held Wednesday and Thursday at the Washington Marriott Hotel – "brought to public attention" allegations that the government has "intentionally and systematically conspired to deprive the American People of our Constitutional rights. …"

Over the course of the forum, Schulz said that "almost 500 detailed legal assertions and supporting evidence were put forth publicly challenging the legal foundations of the tax system." He also reported that "the legislative (taxing) jurisdiction of the U.S. within the 50 states" was challenged, and alleged "record tampering and fraudulently deceptive training practices for IRS agents" were revealed.

Tax law researchers, ex-IRS agents and officials, as well as practicing attorneys were called to answer a series of questions and assertions made by Schulz and other panel members.

"The evidence was wholly compelling and disturbing," Schulz said in his statement.

The event was originally scheduled for Sept. 24-25, 2001, but was canceled in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Also, officials from the IRS and the Justice Department reneged on earlier pledges to participate, as did Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., who initially agreed to chair the forum.

In a letter sent to Bartlett last November, the Justice Department said neither it nor the Internal Revenue Service would participate in the forum – reversing a July 20 pledge by Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant to participate in the congressional-style hearings.

In canceling his participation, Bartlett told Schulz in a Jan. 20 letter he was "dismayed" by a public-relations campaign sponsored by We The People Foundation that encouraged taxpayers to "wait to file" their tax returns until after the forum.

"I am quite dismayed by Operation 'Wait to File until the Trial,'" Bartlett said, accusing Schulz and his group of advocating "non-payment" of taxes.

"The information that you are currently disseminating concerning the Feb. 27 and 28 forum is misleading. I will not be a party to advocating the non-payment of federal income taxes," Bartlett said.

The IRS, Justice Department and various federal officials and lawmakers have all said the 16th Amendment, which authorizes an income tax, was lawfully ratified by states in 1913, though Schulz and other "tax honesty" advocates disagree.

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Tax group urges Americans: 'Wait to file'
System 'goes on trial' next month during two-day hearing

A noted "tax honesty" organization is urging Americans to hold off filing their 2001 income tax returns until after it hosts a tax information hearing in Washington, D.C., next month.

"The very legality of the U.S. income tax system goes on trial Feb. 27 at a congressionally sponsored public hearing on Capitol Hill," said a statement by the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education.

The two-day hearing, originally scheduled for Sept. 24-25, was postponed until next month in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

At the hearing, the group, in its statement, said it expects "to prove conclusively that the IRS does not have the legal authority to force employers to withhold taxes from the paychecks of their employees, or to force most Americans to file a return or pay the income tax."

"If the research is confirmed publicly, most Americans may be entitled to a refund of 100 percent of the income tax paid or withheld in 2001," the statement continued.

In an effort to alert taxpayers, the group is sending out 300,000 letters and is running a newspaper ad campaign. Its "Wait to File Until the Trial" campaign is currently underway, according to officials with the group.

Public accountants, tax attorneys, independent business owners, lawmakers, news editors and the Libertarian Party hierarchy are among those targeted by the group's awareness campaign.

The group is also planning live online coverage of the event, accessible at its website.

"The IRS and Department of Justice will officially and publicly answer detailed legal allegations directly challenging the jurisdiction of the IRS and the unlawful enforcement and administration of U.S. income tax laws," We The People President Robert Schulz said.

Some lawmakers who back Schulz' plan will attend the hearings.

"Our country has labored under a federal income tax system that is inconsistent with the liberty of a free people," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., in a letter of support sent to Schulz last year.

"Quite simply, the government of a free people should not tax the labor of its citizens, and it is imperative that the federal tax system not be repugnant (contrary) to the Constitution and its laws," said Bartlett, who helped make the hearings a reality.

- - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Tax activists refute IRS claims
Former revenue chief: 'We're confiscating property now. That's socialism'

Posted: August 22, 2001
Editor's note: Brought about by the successful hunger strike of tax activist Bob Schulz, an historic meeting between the federal government and leaders of the "tax honesty movement" will take place in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25 and 26. WorldNetDaily will be there to cover the proceedings.

Leading up to this high-profile confrontation over the legality of the income tax, the following is the second in a series of reports discussing an internal document from the Internal Revenue Service's own website. The document is intended to guide the agency's employees in how to deal with what the IRS calls "frivolous tax arguments." Part 1, "IRS bashes 'frivolous tax arguments," was published in Tuesday's WorldNetDaily.

Tax experts, including one who spent a year researching whether enough states properly ratified the 16th Amendment – which authorizes Congress to collect income taxes -- are as insistent as ever that Americans are not mandated to pay Uncle Sam a portion of what they earn every year.

"I've read all of the cases the IRS mentions" in its 25-page document entitled "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments," said Bill Benson, author of "The Law That Never Was," a book many believe debunks the government's claim that the income tax is legal and that the IRS is a properly authorized government agency.

Very simply, he says there is no actual law authorizing an income tax.

"They must have a law in order to have any of this [the income tax] to apply," Benson told WND. "They must have a law from its inception, and they don't have that."

A former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for nearly a decade, Benson said he has "17,000 certified and notarized documents showing that the 16th Amendment is an absolute, complete and total fraud."

When asked where he got the documents, Benson said they came from "the 48 continental United States," gathered during his one-year research effort in 1984 aimed at verifying whether or not the income tax amendment had been properly ratified.

But even activists within the "tax-honesty movement" grasp the reality of the mission they seek to accomplish: namely, to force an admission from the federal government that their arguments are correct. For Uncle Sam to admit his mistake could open the government up to unfair taxation recovery lawsuits that would make even the landmark tobacco litigation lawsuit – settled for hundreds of billions of dollars – pale in comparison.

"I have made it a personal stand not to argue the code with people. As far as I’m concerned, that is nothing more than willfully walking into quicksand," said Devvy Kidd, another noted tax activist. "You can't win the argument."

In the IRS document cited by Benson, there are lots of references to court cases and IRS code. But the problem, as WND's "TalkNetDaily" radio host and staff writer Geoff Metcalf points out, is getting the federal government to cite the legal chapter and verse of the law that requires mandatory payment of income taxes.

"I have often noted that if in fact we are compelled by law to pay income tax and the 16th Amendment was in fact properly and legally ratified (and it wasn't), then the government should be able to conclude their response in less than five minutes by merely stating, stanza and verse, where the law is, and how it applies: 'See here? Page such and such, paragraph such and such, subparagraph such and such. Now shut up and go home,'" said Metcalf.

One of the most compelling arguments of income tax opponents is the claim that the 16th Amendment was never even properly ratified, although understandably the IRS refutes that.

"This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification," says the IRS document. "This argument survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue."

However, the IRS says the amendment was properly ratified by "forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the [A]mendment."

"There were enough states … even without Ohio to complete" the required three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment, said the IRS document. "Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent" to the ratification of the amendment.

In his research, however, Benson found that only four states ratified the amendment "without changing the wording." He maintains that, constitutionally, states cannot change words or punctuation when voting to accept or reject a constitutional amendment.

"The only thing the states can do is accept or reject the wording (of an amendment) as is," Benson told WND. "The legislatures of each state cannot change any of it. Otherwise, we'd have 48 different versions of the law."

"What is stated [in the IRS document] is a bald-faced lie," Kidd said.

"Since it was never ratified and we can prove it wasn’t, then apportionment is still in effect and again, everything else is moot," she said. The government's "progressive, unapportioned tax is, and always has been, unlawful."

Rather than dicker over IRS codes, legal impressions and court cases, Kidd and other "tax-honesty" proponents believe the key to discovering the legality of income tax lies in proving these contentions:

That the IRS is not an authorized agency of the government and has no authority to conduct business;
That the government's jurisdiction is not valid;
The fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment unlawfully wiped out the apportionment clause of the Constitution;
That an individual is, without question, forced to involuntarily surrender his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by filing any income tax form under penalty of perjury.

Another area of concern, Kidd says, is that the courts themselves can’t even decide, in a universal manner, what constitutes an income tax or what the income tax really is -- direct or excise.

"That’s a fact and it creates what is known as a problem [IRS] document," she said.

Even former IRS commissioners have questioned the legitimacy of the very agency they serve.

"… We're confiscating property now. … That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him," lamented T. Coleman Andrews, the Democratic commissioner of the IRS during the first 33 months of the Republican administration of President Dwight Eisenhower.

But the one fact dogging nearly every tax honesty advocate is this: Regardless of the actual legitimacy of their arguments, the courts, Congress and most of the American public don't see it their way.

The IRS can point to dozens of rules, regulations and court cases -- many decided by the U.S. Supreme Court -- backing the agency's position that it has a right to tax all of the income earned by American workers.

Also, even critics of the agency acknowledge that it must collect the amount of money Congress approves in the federal budget every year. And once passed, Congress expects the Treasury Department to fill the nation's coffers.

Finally, most states have agreements with the IRS to provide the agency with information. Under these agreements, individual states and the IRS notify each other about taxpayers that failed to file returns. The only state that does not have such an agreement is Nevada.

Nevertheless, tax activists say the September meeting in Washington, D.C., will once and for all provide them with an opportunity to address their concerns face-to-face with government and, hopefully, IRS representatives.

"We intend to prove our points at the hearings next month," Kidd said.

Related offers:

"The law that never was," a 2-volume set explaining how the 16th Amendment was never ratified, by Bill Benson.

- - - - - - -

THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS special agent challenges system
Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says

Joe Banister

Joe Banister, on the job with IRS

"The Internal Revenue Service is everything the so-called tax protesters said it was; non-responsive, unable to withstand scrutiny, tyrannical, and oblivious to the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution."

That's how Joseph Banister -- a certified public accountant who, until last month, was an investigator and gunslinger for the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS -- now regards his former employer. His conclusion is based in part on a personal two-year investigation into the agency's history and purpose -- an investigation he began somewhat reluctantly, never expecting he'd reach the conclusion he did.

His research led him to question its very legality and constitutionality. Deeply disturbed by his discoveries, he summarized these in a report which, in February, he sent to his supervisors, and asked them to respond to three allegations:

That the filing of federal income tax returns is voluntary and the filing of federal income tax returns is not required;
That the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified;
That income taxes are not used to pay for daily government operations, but to pay the interest on the national debt.

"All the time I was doing my research, I looked for snags -- looked for things that would prove that everything I was reading and finding out was wrong," Banister told WorldNetDaily. "I had taken this job thinking I'd be wearing the white hat, and I slowly found out I was not wearing the white hat. So something had to change."

The change came quickly last month, when the IRS accepted Banister's offer of resignation rather than respond to the questions raised. He is believed to be the first IRS-CID special agent who -- having determined to his satisfaction that certain allegations about the income tax were true -- confronted the hierarchy at the IRS about his findings.

He has paid dearly for this.

"It's the end of my dream of a career in law enforcement," he said, recalling in a telephone interview the series of events that propelled him from the ranks of armed federal agents to the camp of those reviled by the government as tax protesters. The action also cost him his $80,000 a year job.

Banister, 36, had dreamed that dream for a long time. In 1986, he graduated with a degree in business administration from San Jose State University in the San Francisco Bay area, and for the next three years worked for KPMG Peat Marwick as a senior tax specialist and staff auditor.

A gentle, soft-spoken man -- who chooses his words carefully -- he would seem ideally suited to a job dealing with numbers and accounting. Just the kind of job he had, but it wasn't enough.

"I wanted to get into law enforcement, but had recently (in 1990) gotten my certified public accountant certificate," he explained. "I wondered if there wasn't some way a CPA could wear a uniform, gun and a badge."

A skilled marksman -- Banister has been a member of the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America since 1991 and 1992, respectively -- he began exploring the federal law enforcement agencies for employment opportunities.

In 1991 he applied for a position at both the FBI and IRS-CID, "in case the FBI job didn't work out." Due to a hiring freeze, the FBI kept him at "in a holding pattern" for two years. So when in August 1993, the IRS-CID phoned and asked if he were still interested in working for them, Banister said yes. Although his heart was set on the FBI, working for the IRS as a special agent had definite advantages. He could work in his hometown of San Jose, and not have to move around the country -- as working for the FBI might have required. This was something his wife and sons greatly appreciated. "We'll treat you just as we do every taxpayer -- no special favors," he was promised.

And the IRS was as good as its word.

As part of his background check, Banister's financial affairs were closely audited. Told he owed $4,000, he fought the charge and won -- and even received a $1,000 refund. Despite this small skirmish with the auditors, he was hired anyway, and in December 1993 embarked on his new career as "an accountant with a badge and a gun," as IRS-CID special agents are called.

"The most important day of my career was probably the first day, when I swore an oath to God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," Banister recalled. "I have always taken that oath very seriously."

The newly sworn-in agent enjoyed the changes of pace his work demanded. As one of the 3,000 IRS-CID officers nationwide, Banister was authorized to execute and serve search and arrest warrants, to make arrests without warrant, to carry firearms, and seize property subject to forfeiture. He was eventually advanced to the position of asset forfeiture coordinator and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force coordinator for the Central California District.

He was a firearms instructor for his fellow agents.

"I loved my job," he said. "I was able to do very complicated financial analyses, yet every three months I'd go out and do my shotgun and handgun qualification. I had to do a variety of things and handle a number of situations from helping serve the most scary search warrant to sitting in court and testifying about a 10-year, $10 million financial analysis."

Banister knew the reputation the IRS had earned; that the very name, IRS, inspired fear in people. But, he was not troubled by that and hoped to change public perception.

"I wasn't personally responsible for the IRS reputation," he explained. "I thought in my small way I'd make a difference. I knew it was an unpopular tax, but what tax isn't unpopular? I figured that if it had to be administered it should be administered by people who didn't let the power go to their heads and behave like idiots. If that happened, if the officers knew they were to serve the people, then everything would be OK.

"As corny as it sounds, that's what I believed," he said.

If it hadn't been for a particular talk radio host, Banister might still be a special agent. He liked the work, which included opportunities to listen to talk radio. One of his favorite talk show hosts is Geoff Metcalf, a popular conservative West Coast talk show host and WorldNetDaily columnist.

As he tells it: "In December 1996, I was driving around in my government car and listening to Geoff Metcalf, whom I really like. He had a woman named Devvy Kidd as a guest, and I'd never heard of her -- but she was saying all this stuff about how the income tax was voluntary and the 16th Amendment was never ratified. If she hadn't been on Metcalf's show, I'd have dismissed her as one of those kooky tax protesters we'd been warned about. But being on Metcalf's show lent real credibility. I figured he wouldn't have someone on unless she had something valuable to say."

Kidd, a writer and activist, had recently moved with her husband to California from Colorado. She and constitutional attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama, have founded the Wallace Institute, named after Scottish freedom fighter, William "Braveheart" Wallace.

Curious, but skeptical, Banister sent for Kidd's two booklets -- "Why a Bankrupt America" and "Blind Loyalty" -- and began studying. Looking back, he describes himself as "so uninformed. I didn't know the underlying issues."

"There was so much. There was information about the Federal Reserve System and quotes from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx.). It was overwhelming," he said.

Despite a heavy workload and family commitments, he persisted.

"I'm not only a criminal investigator, I'm basically curious. I don't take anybody's word for things. And this research took me a long time. I was working 50 hours a week to support a wife and kids. It took a while to find the time to do it, but I kept at it."

Banister contacted Kidd and the other writers she listed in her books. There was William Benson, who with Red Beckman had co-authored "The Law that Never Was," which convinced Banister that the 16th Amendment had never been ratified.

He phoned Bill Conklin. "He's the guy that says filing income tax returns is voluntary," Banister explained, impressed particularly by fact that Conklin has offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who can prove him wrong -- "and it's still waiting for someone to collect it."

For background on the Federal Reserve System Banister turned to "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve," by G. Edward Griffin, published by American Media.

In addition, he turned to the statute books themselves and examined the court cases, to see if all these claims and charges he was hearing about for the first time were true. His conclusions:

"The court cases checked out, just as I had been told they would," he said. "The cases can be read in any law library, they haven't been overruled. To this day I haven't been able to find any untruths about what Devvy Kidd has said about the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Everything she said has checked out."

Small wonder Banister found himself asking himself more and more -- "My gosh, what am I part of?"

In early February, Banister submitted his findings -- which he had compiled in a report -- to his superiors at the IRS, asking that they pass along his allegations to those high in the IRS so that they could respond to the three allegations. This was done. Banister learned his report and the allegations were circulated at the highest levels -- including the legal department.

As promised at the beginning of his career, the IRS responded to the once-eager special agent as they do to any taxpayer who asks embarrassing questions about the constitutionality of the income tax and the 16th Amendment. On Feb. 17, Banister was called into his supervisor's office, and assured his report had been reviewed "by the highest levels of the IRS." Then he was handed a memo dated that day, presenting the typical non-response:

"The Internal Revenue Service will not be responding to your request and will provide you with the necessary paperwork to tender your resignation," his supervisor wrote. "You will be placed on administrative leave effective upon receipt of this memorandum for a period of seven calendar days to consider what actions you wish to take."

Banister says he was "astonished" and "confused," at the response -- or rather "the lack of it." After all, he had worked for the agency five years. He believed his allegations were serious enough to warrant a response. Even a personal plea to Commissioner Charles Rossotti himself, wasn't enough. His career as a special agent was so much dust.

Banister reports no retaliatory actions have been taken. He has not been followed; his phone appears to be untapped.

He is working to have his CPA license reinstated so he can return to the private sector, but he hopes his action will inspire both members of the public and his fellow agents to take some kind of action -- perhaps to demand a thorough review and examination by Congress; something that's never been done.

Says Banister: "I never intended to write a report, but I needed to tell more than one person what I had found. I can't tell people not to file, but I figure if people learn that their tax dollars are going simply to pay interest on a debt and doesn't go to run the government, if they know they have certain rights -- they'll do something.

"So I'm not advocating anything. I'm just trying to tell people the truth. People get mad if their auto mechanic overcharges them by 50 bucks. If they find out the whole darn income tax system is a big fraud, I'm hoping they'll get mad enough to do something about it."

There has been speculation circulated on the Internet that Banister is a "plant" -- an agent provocateur -- sent by the IRS to infiltrate the ranks of the tax protest movement.

Those questioned by WorldNetDaily dispute these charges.

"No way," says Kidd. "I've talked to him, and he didn't just jump in -- I had to really work to convince him. Besides, he's not advocating anything. He's not saying not to file, he's not saying not to pay taxes. He's not doing any of that. He's a really decent guy who loves his family and his country."

Bill Benson, co-author of the "Law that Never Was," agrees.

"I've spent hours and hours talking to Joe," Benson says. "We talked many times on the phone over the course of a year; it wasn't just one casual conversation. If he were a fraud, somewhere in the course of a year I'd have detected something.

"As Joe has discovered -- and will come forward to testify -- there is no law in the Internal Revenue Code that requires anyone to file a 1040 form or pay an income tax. He's done a great service for the people in this country."

Steve Hempfling, director of the Free Enterprise Society, a citizens group based in Fresno, California, also vouches for Banister's authenticity.

"This (Banister's defection from the IRS) could be the most important event to hit the tax-protest movement in years, he says. "Because of his credibility this could start a major tidal wave for the IRS to deal with, if he hangs in there.

"I like him; I think he's sincere," Hempfling continued. "He's done what we've always asked the government officials to do: read our material and show us where we're wrong. He did what we asked. He actually looked it over and couldn't find anything wrong -- so he came over to our side."

- - - - - - -

According to the Department of Justice, aggressive tax avoidance plots are on the rise nationwide--and they're not limited to Posse Comitatus members and kooks living in Idaho shacks. Turns out there are many wealthy Americans who believe that income tax is voluntary or that the government does not have the right to tax citizens. Another popular tax evasion scheme--involving the claim that tax is only owed if income is derived from a foreign corporation--was cited by actor Wesley Snipes in a bizarre bid to secure an unwarranted $7.4 million tax refund, according to documents filed Tuesday (5/21) in federal court in Tampa, Florida. In support of a motion for a restraining order against outlaw tax preparer Douglas Rosile, government lawyers filed a copy of an amended 1997 tax return submitted last year by Snipes, a Rosile client. The amended return, which Justice Department lawyers called the "largest Rosile-prepared bogus refund claim that the IRS has detected," reduced Snipes's adjusted gross income from $19,238,192 to zero. As such, Snipes contended, he was entitled to a $7,360,755 refund. Attached to Snipes's amended return was an attachment--prepared by Rosile--explaining that the refund was warranted because the actor's income was supposedly "not from a taxable source." Snipes's amended return, signed by the actor on April 11, 2001, also included a slightly altered affirmation next to his signature noting that the return was filed "Under no penalties of perjury." It is unclear what, if any, sanctions have been brought (or are being considered) against Snipes for his role in this scam. (6 pages)

- - - - - - - - -

Bill Conklin specializes in the removal of IRS wage levies. He is a paralegal and tax consultant who has been on the front lines of the anti-IRS movement for over 25 years. He has 6 published wins against the IRS in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. His website, anti-irs.com, has been on the web since 1996. Updates have recently been made to this site. Please take some time to look around on my site. There is a lot of information.

Legal Assistant Today March/April 2001

There is an old saying about how the winner of a conflict is determined.

It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.

Bill Conklin has been battling the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on his own behalf for more than a quarter century. The former teacher-turned-tax-consultant and contract paralegal waged his first battle against the IRS in the mid-1970s and said he has never looked back.

Mr. Conklin wrote Why No One Is Required to File Tax Returns. Mr. Conklin's book proves that the IRS cannot legally require the filing of tax returns and that the courts and the government are misrepresenting the law.
The IRS refers to the income tax as voluntary but prosecutes individuals who do not "volunteer" in violation of the law.

Bill Conklin started fighting the IRS in 1979 and he has been whipping them ever since. He started his own freedom group in 1979 and started winning major victories against the IRS in 1981. His most recent book is: Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns.

In Bill's book you will learn that:

· There is no statute that makes a person liable or responsible to pay the income tax. Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they voluntarily file a tax return, or when the IRS follows its assessment procedures as outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.

If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally.

The IRS, under our U.S. Constitution, cannot legally require information on 1040 returns from individuals. That is why the IRS continually refers to the income tax as "voluntary".

- - - - - - -

Syllogism - a sound reasoning
Learn about the Fifth Amendment.

· All individuals who file tax returns waive their Fifth Amendment Rights.

· The Government cannot require individuals to waive their Fifth Amendment Rights.

· Therefore, the Government cannot require individuals to file tax returns.

· If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the government information which could be used against them criminally.

Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns Free download aof Conklin’s book in MS Word Format:

http://www.anti-irs.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/why_no_one_conklins_revised_word_2003.doc

William Conklin. 3296 Raleigh St. , Denver, CO 80212

http://www.anti-irs.com/ Telephone: (303) 455-0837 Fax: (303) 480-1799

- - - - - -

What is Taxed.com

The Income Tax In A Nutshell

Is the Income Tax a scam? It appears so. Thanks to data mining, this can be shown in just 7 steps, by using only 7 sections from the United States Code and Code Of Federal Regulations, Title 26

Taxes, Too Complicated?

Unfortunately, for many people the tax law is just too difficult to comprehend. Primarily, this is due to the many thousands of pages involved.

News commentator Paul Harvey on January 22, 2007:

"Now for what it's worth, the 9th circuit panel in San Francisco has been reversed. The Internal Revenue Service, the IRS, has ruled that Valerie and Robert McKee owed the government $31,000 in unpaid taxes, until Valerie and Robert demonstrated in court that the tax law is so complex nobody can understand it. The court had to agree that the law was indeed so complex that nobody can understand it, and the court reversed itself, and the IRS gets the bill. The government also sought and got us...ha ha ha (laugh)... your government also tried to get a stipulation that this verdict would not be made public, but it just was... Paul Harvey, Good Day!!"
-- Hear this Paul Harvey sound clip and much more at HearLiberty.com

Case Information:
ROBERT C. MCKEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
No. 04-74846
IRS No. 4036-03

The tax law is not as complicated as some believe. Data-mining the tax code and rules with a computer makes it all crystal clear, and shows the whole thing is just a political scam.

Income tax, a scam? This is not perhaps the truth, is it?

Data mining willl show you what the IRS doesn't want you to know.

Step 1.

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual...a tax" - 26 USC Sec. 1

[If their link fails the first time, try again. Sometimes the GPO has problems.]

What is taxable income?

Step 2.

"In general...the term ``taxable income'' means gross income minus the deductions" - 26 USC Sec. 63

It says "In general". Where are the specifics?

What is gross income?

Step 3.

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source" - 26 USC Sec. 61

* The tax is still "imposed on the taxable income". Keep this "code" in mind.

It says "Except". So, what is "otherwise provided" in subtitle A, Income Taxes?

Step 4.

It begins here, "as otherwise provided"...

"Items of gross income, expenses, losses, and deductions, other than those specified in sections 861(a) and 862(a), shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary." - 26 USC Sec. 863

As directed, we must ["shall"] look in the "regulations prescribed by the Secretary" (CFR, Title 26).

What other "items of gross income" exist? What about deductions? Deductions are extremely scarce in USC 861(a) and 862(a). Where are the deductions?

How are tax regulations written? In Code. http://whatistaxed.com Since USC 861 corresponds to CFR 1.861, we could start by looking in 1.861. However, first examine CFR 1.61. It becomes apparent why CFR 1.61(a) is commonly shown by politicians, judges, and bureaucrats, because it says that all income is gross income, but it also says unless excluded. Now you'll see why the other half of this section, CFR 1.61(b), is never mentioned by these bureaucrats.

Step 5.

*Be sure to notice the numbering system used in regulations: USC 61 = 1.61 in the CFR.

"To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder."
- 26 CFR Sec. 1.61-1(b)

Notwithstanding, meaning in spite of, what 1.61(a) says about "all income", paragraph (b) states if there is "another section" more specific, it shall apply.

What section of "the Code or of the regulations...shall apply notwithstanding section 61"?

Where is the "specific treatment for any item of income" implied to exist here?

Step 6.

Now the specifics begin, "as otherwise provided".

"how to determine taxable income" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(1)
[the tax is imposed on the taxable income, not gross]

"This section provides specific guidance" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(1)

"specific sources" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(1)

"specific rules for allocation and apportionment of deductions" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(a)(5)(ii)

"gross income to which a specific deduction is definitely related" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(b)(1)

"exempt, excluded, or eliminated income. For guidance, see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)." - 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8(d)(2)

These are just a few of the results, there are many dozens. You could start by looking here.

We are told, "For guidance" with "exempt, excluded, or eliminated income", to "see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)".

Question: What is taxed? Or, what is not "exempt, excluded, or eliminated"?

Step 7.

"Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:"
- 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)

This is 'the list of taxable income.' It's a very short list, with only 4 items, but it's the only list of taxable income in the USC and CFR. You just saw in step 6 that data mining confirms Sec. 861 is the section with specifics. Now we see that 861-8T has the specific list. Everything in 'the list' is applicable only to foreign related incomes.

This is a brief summary of the list, "Income that is not...exempt", i.e. taxable:

A. "a foreign taxpayer... gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)"
[hence the law, "all income from whatever source"]

B. "gross income of a DISC or a FSC"
[domestic international sales or foreign sales corporation]

C. "gross income of a possessions corporations"
[possessions are places like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc]

D. "Foreign earned income"
[the requirements for making this are greater than you think, data mine it's definition]

* Notice that domestic income, for US citizens, has been "excluded" from the list.
["unless excluded by law" - 26 CFR Sec. 1.61-1(a)].

Now you say "But, but, it doesn't say domestic income is excluded".

It doesn't have to, it's already a fact of statutory construction:

expressio unius est exclusio alterius: A principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.

"expressio unius est exclusio alterius" is known as a "well established, common-sense cannon of statutory construction."

So, the only portion in the 'list of taxable income' applicable to US citizens is line D. If you earn foreign income, this means you. However, most Americans do not have any "foreign earned income".

Thus, according to 'code', most Americans do not owe any federal income tax.

So, Congress, Secretary, IRS, Judges: If Sec. 861 is not correct, where is the law? What is the number for the statute, and regulation, requiring the income tax from US citizens? Thousands of people, including your own IRS agents, have asked you this, but you, and even the Commissioner, have ignored this question. What is the number? If there is an income tax for US citizens, produce the statute and regulation number.

"everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed..."
- John 3:20-21

Truly, the tax law is so simple a kid could figure it out. (If teenagers can hack into NASA, the Air Force, government computers, etc, etc, they can easily figure out the tax code.)

CNN: Teen charged with hacking into Air Force system
PBS: Interview: anonymous. Young hacker caught breaking into NASA's computers
Zdnet: Teen hacks 27 ISPs, gains root access
Cooltech: Another teen hacks NASA

Congress: Even one of your own, Congressmen Ron Paul (who happens to be running for president in 2008), knows the income tax, and the Federal Reserve, are a scam. You the Congress, the Secretary, and Judges, have created this mess; enforcing what is obviously a fraud.

The Code does not lie, but politicians, judges, and bureaucrats do.

Code is precise, always.

Frivolous you say? Judges, phfff... the conflict of interest involved with judges who are payed by the same system which prosecutes does not simply vanish at the bench. There is no justice from you. Just what should we expect a tax judge to rule, "Take my purpose away"? Only under color of law do you rule.

It matters not what you claim. As the saying goes, "there are only three things which cannot be hidden for long: the sun, the moon, and the truth." And, like them, the truth will always comes back around. Even after one million frivolous rulings you will not be able to avoid section 861, it is the Code. It will always return to your courts; Code cannot be hidden in the computer-age. And, now all Titles of Law, everywhere, are suspect of the darkest color - the color of law - and are candidates for a system of data mining. The system will bind you. We are not your slaves. You cannot hide.

- - - - - - -

What is Taxed in the Regulations ?

According to the only list of taxable income, Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii), only foreign income is taxable.

Don't believe this is the right list? Read this.

View on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiucYHplJJg

View on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=what+is+taxed

What is Taxed in the Code ?

View it on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH3eu1VF1x4

View it on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=what+is+taxed

- - - - - - -

What is Taxed.com/conclusion.htm

Conclusion

WHAT DO THE RULES SAY?

1. "The tax imposed is upon taxable income"
[26 CFR Sec. 1-1] (found once in entire CFR)
And according to...

2. "the rules... for determining taxable income"
[26 CFR Sec. 863-1(c)] (found once in entire CFR)

...most U.S. Citizens do not have any "taxable income."

Why are "the rules" located millions of words apart from the imposing tax rule?

It doesn't have to be this way. It goes against the most common of sense. The concept, and explanation of an income tax is not rocket science.

Why do government officials continue to place "the rules" so far away? Who's responsible for this?

Linear Map of CFR showing rules for determining taxable income - http://WhatisTaxed.com

There are many specific terms and rules, which occur only once, or in one regulation, and show that most Americans are excluded from having taxable income.

Some of these specific terms and rules include:

"how to determine tax"
"the tax imposed is upon taxable income"
"the sources of income for purposes of the income tax"
"the rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer"
"prescribing" and "excluded income"
"prescribing" and "excluded" and "taxable income"
"prescribing" and "exempt" and "taxable income"
"Income that is not considered tax exempt"
"the following rules shall apply to... income that is exempt"
"sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income"
"how to determine taxable income"
"how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer"
"determining taxable income of the taxpayer"
"taxable income from sources within the United States shall consist of"
"determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax"
"the rules... for determining taxable income"
"the rules... for determining taxable income from sources within the United States"
"the rules... determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources"
"determining taxable income from specific sources"
"determine the source of income"
"determine the sources of income"
"determination of sources of income"
"gross income from a specific source"
"gross income means only"
"specific sources"

These are the regulations where they can be found: 26 CFR1.861-1, 1.861-8, 1.863-1(c), 1.863-3

WHAT DO THE REGULATIONS SHOW?

All sources are indeed taxable, for someone, and all of us are liable TO the income tax...

However, for U.S. citizens...to see exactly what we are liable FOR...

From one-side of his mouth (the tax regulations), only foreign earned income is taxable.

From the other-side comes easier instructions for The Unconcerned.

26CFR1.861-8, is showing "how to determine tax" and the "sources" of taxable income apply only to those U.S. citizens with foreign earned income, and to nonresident alien individuals and some corporations. It is paragraph (f)(1) of this section [26CFR1.861-8(f)(1)] that gives us the list of taxable income 'sources' under the operative sections. These are all sources most U.S. citizens are not involved with.

Sec. 1.861-8(a) is also showing...
...for the specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, which are taxable, the rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer. If we follow this to 26CFR1.861-8(f)(1), we can see exactly what sources of income are taxable within the United States. Again, these are all sources most U.S. citizens are not involved with.

861-8T(d)(2)(iii) is the only list of "Income that is not considered tax exempt", or stated more plainly, "Income That Is Taxable." Since it is the only list, it must include ANY ITEM of income that is taxable.

We may assume Sec. 1.861-8 does not apply to us, since we may have no foreign source income, and we "shouldn't be looking under Section 861 titled "SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME". But, as shown in 26 USC Sec 7806(b), Construction of title, ... the individual titles of sections, i.e. descriptive matter relating to the contents, or table of contents, and cross references, outlines, etc. are only tools for the location of a subject. The laws (and rules) are only found on the inside of their labeled sections. Obviously, they should have left the title as it was before 1988, which was "DETERMINATION OF SOURCES OF INCOME".

And, Sec. 861, having the only occurrence of the term "determining taxable income from specific sources" in the entire CFR, also explains for 861 (within US), and 862 (without US), and 863 (partly within and without), that ...each... applies independently.

26CFR1.861-8(f)(3)(ii)
Relationship of sections 861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b). Sections 861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b) are the four provisions applicable in determining taxable income from specific sources. Each of these four provisions applies independently.

THE ONLY RULE

Who uses 26CFR1.863-1(c), the ONLY rule, which tells us in Plain English, where the location is for...

"the rules... for determining taxable income from sources within the United States": (1 file(s) found)

26CFR1.863-1(c)
(c) Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.

It states clearly that it is for the "taxpayer".

Some things to consider...

- If "The tax imposed is upon taxable income", why is the rule "Gross income...from whatever source... unless excluded " being used instead of "the rules... for determining taxable income?" Gross is gross, and taxable is taxable, correct? Look again... even it says, "unless excluded." What can be excluded according to "the rules?"

- If the Income tax is imposed upon taxable income, why is Regulation 861-8 not used for doing exactly what it, and only it, says?

- Why does 26CFR1.863-1 (c) exist? And are there any other rules more specific than these?

- Everyone is required to determine taxable income. Why would only some taxpayers need these "rules... for determining taxable income" while others would not? Are there different "rules" for others? If so, where are they? Certainly not in Title 26. Use your computer to confirm it. According to Cross References in Sec. 61, these are the rules for everyone; obviously, since they are written only once.

- Why aren't Tax Pro's using "the rules... for determining taxable income", which are actually written for us? The occasional response is "that only applies to foreigners", or "only if you make money inside and outside the U.S.", but nowhere does it say that. It's first rule even states that it's scope is the "taxable income of the taxpayer... under other sections of the Code." The law itself, USC Sec. 7806(b), shows that the individual titles of sections, i.e. descriptive matter relating to the contents, or table of contents, and cross references, outlines, etc. are only tools for the location of a subject. The laws (and rules) are only found on the inside of these labeled sections. Written very clearly, "the rules" say

they apply for "the taxpayer's taxable income".

"The few who can understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests".
-- John Sherman, "protege of the Rothschild banking family, in a letter sent in 1863 to New York Bankers, Morton, and Gould, in support of the then proposed National Banking Act

Good times are coming to an end,

Is there even a single citation, which overrules, or negates the use of 26CFR1.861-8 and 863-1(c)?

Is there even ONE rule more specific? ...If so, not according to a computer. See the Analysis.

Can the regulations given here be taken out of context, from non-relevant regulations, when the terms or phrases of each state exactly what they, and only they say, and are defined in ONLY ONE regulation? How can it be?

Sherman.

If we follow the regulations, the reasonable conclusion is that only income from sources outside the United States is taxable income for a U.S. citizen.

Please see the analysis and how to search to conduct your own analysis, and if anyone has a regulation or statute, which indicates otherwise..., please, send it ASAP.

Attention Researchers

If any link has disappeared, try to copy and paste the link address at http://www.archive.org

-- DISCLAIMER --

* The intended purpose of this website is to data mine on a computer the Internal Revenue Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, for the "codes" (e.g. taxable income, gross income, excluded income, eliminated income, exempt income, deductions, allocation, apportionment, etc), for the rules, and instructions for determining income tax. The results are provided throughout this website. It should be evident that the search methods can be applied to any Title of Law, or large volume of text, and in any country that has codified their laws and rules. See How to Search.

There is nothing for sale at WhatisTaxed.com. Truth is the only motive. The information posted here is not intended to be and should not be considered as legal advice, it is posted solely for educational purposes. The reader should not rely on information provided herein to determine tax, even though it is the written in the law and you believe it to be accurate. (Those who go against or simply question the US government, even if those who are questioning are, or were, themselves government agents and employees, regardless of what they believe, risk prison time, a bad reputation, or worse.)

Do Not accept this website as tax advice, it is tax research and copyright-free (copyleft whatistaxed.com). To contribute research, see How to Search and Contact Us.

We Do Not sell, promote, or advise anything, except the data-mining and reading of tax code with an appropriate code-tool, a computer.

We Do ensure that we find every occurrence of a particular code-term, to establish precisely what is written, and what is not, in the law. When we say no other rule or statutes exists - for example, regarding excluded income, we show you how many files contain this term and how we searched for it with a computer. You can confirm ANY of the laws, rules, and terms yourself, and you should, because it is your duty to know and follow the law.

You are responsible for doing your own taxes.

Questions: If you have any questions, try asking your Congressperson or Senator. He, or she is responsible for creating the laws.

Find your Congressperson: http://www.house.gov
Find your Senator: http://www.senate.gov

Answers: If you want answers, we don't know of any source; we've already exhausted our Congresspeople, many of whom it would appear are playing a part in the charade. Perhaps you might get some answers by asking the remains of honest government, through the media. And, since data mining law can also be done in several other countries, which may also bring up questionable items, these might be answered by their own medias.

* Code of Federal Regulations:
When searching we pay close attention to the rules in 26 CFR, because the law (USC) gives authority to the CFR. Both the USC and CFR confirm this authority [easily find this authorization with your computer].

"the Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs) are the official Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code" (Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.1).

The Code of Federal Regulations are the rules, written in plain English, which both the public and the IRS must follow:

"The Service is bound by the regulations. The courts are not" (Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.4).

Since "the Service is bound," we can be sure that we are following the same rules. It does not require a law degree to understand them. See How to Search and Search Examples.

- - - - - - -

What is Taxed.com

Data-Mining the Tax Code & Regulations

Why does the tax law contradict what we have been told?
What is deductible? What is excluded? What is taxed?

The real list of taxable income is titled "Income that is not considered tax exempt", i.e. income that is taxable. A simple search with any computer shows that section 861 is the real tax law. There are dozens and dozens of search results to confirm this. These are just a few.

The law currently used by the government implies that "all income" is taxable. But, notice there is a condition - "Except as otherwise provided [all income]". Well, here it is, "as otherwise provided" in Title 26, CFR Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii). It's easiest to see this In a Nutshell.

Because the Income Tax has been codified, it is possible to find every law, rule, and instruction for any subject by using a computer. It can be done fast and easy. You can determine exactly what is written, and what is not. No need to trust that your "tax expert" has actually read the tax law and knows what he or she is talking about. Learn how to search yourself. It's easy.

Find out exactly what you have been commanded to do, and what you have not ... under any Title of Law, or in any country. If the laws (or rules) in your country have been codified, nothing can be hidden from you. The data-mining results provided here cannot be faked. Force yourself to look, it's a duty to know the law. You won't believe it until you see it with your own eyes. But, utilize a computer's precision, it's the only appropriate code tool.

According to Tax Code, and the Code of Federal Regulations, and
"the rules... for determining taxable income"
most U.S. citizens don't owe any federal income tax.

According to the taxable list, CFR Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii), only foreign earned income is not exempt, i.e. taxable. Sure, it's hard to believe, but true. It's not merely an opinion, it's also digitally-precise. All you need to do is search the income tax law to see what is written, and where it is written. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

In the US courts there are three standards for proof, 1) Preponderance of evidence, 2) Clear and convincing evidence, and 3) Beyond reasonable doubt. Each standard is easily met here.

Using your computer, find every deduction available. Have it list all of your excluded income, your eliminated income, and the items exempt or excluded. Find the income that is not considered tax exempt (the list). Learn how to determine taxable income. See what the specific sources are. Find specific guidance. It's the only specific guidance prescribed in the regulations for doing income taxes. You'll see that section 861 is the result, the same section that judges and other "experts" will tell you is frivolous.

Nothing is for sale here. We do not promote anything or offer any tax advice. You'll just have to follow the tax regulations yourself. But, if you use the Code, and a computer, you'll see the judges, politicians, and so-called experts are lying. That they are illegally taxing and scamming Americans under color of law.

Tax Rule No. 1
"The tax imposed is upon taxable income" [Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 1].

So, look for the Code word: "taxable income"

Using the governments own search engine find ...

"how to determine taxable income" (1 regulation)
"income for purposes of the income tax" (1 reg.)
"the rules" AND "for determining taxable income" (1 reg.) [use their Boolean link for AND]
"taxable income" AND "specific sources" (1 reg.)
"taxable income" AND "specific guidance" (1 reg.)
"income that is not considered tax exempt"
[ i.e. Income that is taxable] (1 reg.)

Or, have a computer show you

all rules for "excluded income" (7 regulations)
"income that is exempt" (7 regulations)
instructions for "allocating deductions" (5 regulations)
all rules for "eliminated income" (2 regulations)
the rule for "eliminated items" (1 regulation)

"excluded from gross income entirely" [showing that "more common items are... excluded"] (1 regulation)

Short on time?
- Read In a Nutshell or read this or watch short video
Ignorance is no excuse. Who would Jesus tax?

- Read Who is Taxed and a Graphical View

Nothing is for sale at WhatisTaxed.com
No products. No advice. Just pure data-mining.

Download this site.
Read later or copy to CD. Version 2 (3.95 MB zip. Choose save to disk). Old versions at archive.org

"taxable income" AND "specific sources" (1 file) Sec. 861

What is Taxed?

The only tool you'll need for the Code is a computer. Scan the Tax Code.

Search the rules with your computer to see what is taxed
according to Law

Data-mine the Code.

Taxable, Gross, or Excluded Income, Can you find another section more specific than Sec. 861?

There are dozens. Search for any term (or code) that you have determined is necessary, or even reasonable, for a computation of tax. You'll soon become very familiar with...

"the rules [of Sec. 861] for determining taxable income"

Sec. 861 is the result from every approach, whether you search for taxable, excluded, deductions, allocation, etc.

According to the Code, the US Income Tax is a fraud and a lie.

The Code does not lie. The "US Income Tax" is not followed as it has been written, that means you are being lied to. Do your duty and read the tax code. Using a precise code tool - your computer, you'll quickly see most Americans owe $0.00. It is the computer-age now, scan the code, see the scam.

This simple method of searching applies to all Laws (Homeland Security, Banks and Banking, Food and Drugs, Judicial Administration, Money and Finance: Treasury, etc), and to their Regulations, or anything else codified.

· The research published here (the subject: who, where, what is taxed) assumes there already exists proper authority, jurisdiction, citizenship, you being an employee, earning wages, etc. All of these conditions have major problems also, and could be the topics of their own websites.

Income Tax?

Tax rules should contain 1) a list for what is considered taxed, and 2) instructions for how to determine tax, so people can know exactly what is excluded, deducted, and taxed. Isn't that the purpose of tax rules?

Regulations say "The tax imposed is upon taxable income"
...but only 1 regulation, Sec. 861, provides the following:

"specific guidance" for applying the Code. (1 file)
"specific sources" of taxable income. (1 file)
"the sources of income for purposes of the income tax" (1 file)
"Income that is not considered tax exempt." (1 file) [i.e. the income that is taxable; the taxable items.]
The definition for exempt income : "exempt, excluded, or eliminated". (2 files, both 861)
"eliminated income" (2 files, both Sec. 861)
"determining taxable income of the taxpayer" (1 file)
"determining taxable income from specific sources" (1 file)
"how to determine taxable income" (1 file), which also includes the only occurrence of...
"how to determine tax" (1 file) <-- Why do you suppose this isn't Tax Rule No. 2, but is instead found close to 6000 pages later in the 9th Volume? Why do they hide this simple instruction so far in the middle?

Many more similar terms occur only within "the rules [of Sec. 861]"

The files found are the number of regulations in the entire Code of Federal Regulations (millions of words) that contain the "term" or code. It is far beyond chance that such specific rules would only exist in Sec. 861.

Many more one-of-a-kind instructions, cross references, and an index tell us to use Sec. 861 to determine tax. Why are they ignored and what do regulations specifically tell, or command us to do?

You can search all of the tax regulations, or laws, quickly. Ask your computer what is taxed, and remove all ignorance, doubt, or lies by performing text-data-mining on the Code of Federal Regulations.

See exactly what is taxed.

Many people know there is taxable income and there is non-taxable income. The regulations say,
"The tax imposed is upon taxable income" (1 file).

But, according to "the rules... for determining taxable income " (1 file),
only foreign earned income is taxable income for a US Citizen.

Where are the Rules?
"the rules": (1338 files found)
"taxable income": (817 files found)
"determining tax": (49 files found)
"determining taxable income": (29 files)
"determine taxable income": (6 files)

"the rules...for determining taxable income" (1 file found) 26 CFR Sec. 863-1(c)

Among the millions of words in the Tax Code, in statutes and regulations, this term occurs only once.

If "the tax imposed is upon taxable income", then most Americans owe ZERO.

The United States tax regulations almost completely contradict the IRS. So, which one is broken?

This is not a tax scam promotion - nothing is sold. Do not believe anything we tell you, it is far too easy to see it for yourself. This is only research (easily repeatable) of what is actually written in tax code, and in the US tax rulebook - Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations. According to law, you are reponsible for your taxes, to know all the rules, and to make your own determination of your taxes. We promote nothing, except reading tax regulations, and how to search all of the Tax Code using a computer.

There is no way to fabricate these results, they are computer precise. If you care, you will verify several of them. The research is shocking, but pay attention... the real value here is the search technique that is being used. It can be applied to all Titles of regulations, all statutes, or any large volume of text. Nothing can hide.

The United States tax regulations, from 1913 - 2004, are available here for free download. Search them yourself, on your computer, or search them online with the Government Printing Office search engines. Compare any of the current regulations here, for accuracy to any source you wish. We provide exact digital copies of the regulations from the GPO, but with all of their broken links and missing files repaired.

No need to take our word for it and complicated searches are not required to find all the subjects. The Government Printing Office (GPO) has a excellent new Electronic-CFR (eCFR) search engine to use.

The GPO eCFR search engine (still considered a beta version) is available at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov (Right-click, Open in new window.)

Try searching for this...

From GPO's eCFR >> click on Boolean >> enter Title 26 >> enter these code terms

"taxable income" and "excluded income"

The results show there is only ONE LIST in the Code of Federal Regulations with both of these critical code-terms, and it happens to be The List of Taxable Income. It is located in Sec. 861.

Within the millions of words in the tax code, like where the land meets the sea, there is a place where the two, taxable and excluded, must come together and be defined. Existence for everything is specific, with a defined limit, border, and scope.

Section 861 also exclusively contains "taxable income" and "eliminated income".

Because the US tax system is based on code (the definition of code is a system) then taxable income, excluded income, eliminated income, exempt income, allocation, etc, are required codes. If something can be eliminated, exempt, or excluded then the code must provide specifically what is taxed, or what is not (or by stating what is exempt, and what is not exempt).

The code provides this list of taxable income as "Income that is not considered tax exempt", which is also "Income that is not, not taxable",... or using plain English, "Income that is taxable." It can be seen in Sec. 861-8T(d)(2)(iii).

Here are a few GPO eCFR search examples that we saved:

(So, now notice Sec. 861)

There are so many more.

You can even ask for the "specific guidance" to determine tax.

Whether taxable, gross, excluded, deductions, expenses, trade, business, individual, or eliminated, and the rules for determining all of it, section 861 is always the result.

The tax law really says that only foreign income is taxable, for a US citizen. But, the courts, i.e. judges, say that's just frivolous.

Sec. 861, Frivolous? -- It should be called Obvious.

If we search the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 for:
taxable income
there are 817 regulations found having 5684 term matches*, as of year 2004.

* This number slowly creeps upward every year as more rules are added by the Treasury.

Result: taxable income only exists in 817 regulations among the many thousands.

OK, fine.

Now search for:
taxable income AND specific sources
(Use the Boolean search link on the left side of this page. Tax law is Title 26)

Result: Sec. 861 is the only regulation which prescribes specific sources of (in-and-with-among-etc) taxable income.

Of course, anything is possible and this could be just a coincidence. So, simply use boolean to locate several more of your desired codes and their regulations. This allows you to confirm (or eliminate) EVERY possible condition, instruction, and regulation that's written (something like using triangulation to determine location of codes in the tax rules).

Triangulating the "code."

Pick a target and zero in - http://WhatisTaxed.com

Which regulations prescribe for both taxable income and excluded income? (Why? Because, there must be a place where the difference will occur, i.e. a boundary does exist which provides their defining moment - the separation of taxable and excluded. Each has a scope.)

Pick a target and zero in...
From the Government's eCFR website, click on Boolean Search >> enter Title 26 >> Retrieve...

1. federal income tax AND excluded income
- It's in Sec. 861 - Coincidence? Well, hmmm, OK

2. income tax AND eliminated income
- 861 - Coincidence? OK

3. exempt income AND for federal tax purposes
Coincidence? OK

4. united states trade AND excluded income
Coincidence? OK

5. business AND excluded income
Coincidence? OK

6. individual AND excluded income
Coincidence? Hmm, OK

7. deductions AND eliminated income
Coincidence? OK, but the odds...

8. expenses AND eliminated income

9. rules AND deductions AND expenses

10. sections AND deductions AND expenses
Coincidence? Seems Sec. 861 has some level of relevance...

11. specific guidance AND rules AND taxable income
Coincidence?

12. deductions AND excluded income
Coincidence?

13. items AND taxable income AND excluded income
Coincidence?

14. sources AND taxable income AND/OR excluded income

15. rules AND taxable income AND excluded income
Coincidence? ... or Scam?

16. allocating deductions AND gross income

17. exempt income AND for all purposes

18. excluded income AND for all purposes

19. eliminated income AND for all purposes

20. adding AND taxable income OR excluded income

21. subtracting AND taxable income OR excluded income

22. computation AND taxable income OR excluded income

23. allocation AND taxable income OR excluded income

24. list AND specific sources AND taxable income

25. statutory AND taxable income AND excluded income (referring to the statutes, since we are searching the regulations at the moment)

26. gross income AND taxable income AND excluded income

27. gross income AND taxable income OR excluded income

28. apportion AND taxable income OR excluded income

29. exempt income AND eliminated income AND excluded income

30. items AND gross income AND excluded income

31. all deductions AND items AND gross income

32. items AND gross income AND enumerated (Notice, Sec. 61-1 mentions gross income only nine times, but Sec. 861-8 mentions it over 200 times. Which section provides more "specific treatment"?)

33. items AND gross income AND section 61 (More specific? Sec. 61 or 861?)

34. allocating AND sources AND taxable income (4)

35. allocating AND sources AND gross income (4)

36. allocating AND items AND gross income (3)

37. etc, etc

Result: Sec. 861

Now try the GPO's Proximity Search, which can locate terms (codes) within so many characters of each other. Click on Proximity Search >> enter Title 26 >> search for

(Use default settings they provide, within 80 characters)

1. excluded income NEAR gross income

2. excluded income NEAR items

3. income NEAR not NEAR tax exempt (i.e. is taxable)

4. items NEAR not NEAR tax exempt (i.e. are taxable)

5. income NEAR eliminated NEAR for federal income tax purposes

6. rules NEAR deductions NEAR taxable income

7. rules NEAR for NEAR determining taxable income

8. taxable NEAR specific NEAR sources

9. taxable NEAR specific NEAR activities

10. exempt income NEAR means

11. exempt income NEAR defined

12. tax exempt NEAR income

13. not NEAR tax exempt NEAR income

14. statutory NEAR taxable income

15. allocating deductions NEAR gross income

16. allocating NEAR gross income

17. allocation NEAR excluded income

18. allocation NEAR taxable income

19. allocation NEAR exemptions, within 120 characters

20. statutory NEAR excluded income, within 120 characters

21. taxable income NEAR for all purposes, within 120 chars

22. etc, etc

Results: Sec. 861

This can go on for awhile, and there are dozens of such code-terms, or combinations of them, where the results will only come from Sec. 861.

According to Sec. 61 in the Code of Federal Regulations...

To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply [CFR Sec. 61-1 (b)]

There is no other section of the Code, or regulations, that is more specific than 861.

Try searching for your own terms, after you've written down several that you believe are accurate, or just reasonable

Search any Title using the eCFR

All of these
are located
in Sec. 861
(Title 26, CFR).

Frivolous?
... or ObviOus?

Taxable, gross or excluded income ...try to find a rule more specific than Sec. 861.

(Think of probabilities and statistics)

The Judges, IRS, Senators, and Congressmen say "861 is frivolous."

'Ladies, Gentlemen,' you're lying. Your own code reveals you as frauds.

Ignorantia juris non excusat
("Ignorance of the law is no excuse")

Judges, IRS, Senators, and Congressmen:

If ignorance is not acceptable, what's your excuse?

It's now the computer age and you won't be able to hide your organized crimes anymore. And, be aware that all of the Titles of law can easily be data mined - for your contradicting actions.

What is reasonable?

Now try their Simple Search:
How can the following be just a coincidence? Click on the eCFRs Simple Search >> enter Title 26 >> and search for:

how to determine tax*
(Include the * asterisk. Known as a wildcard, the asterisk will find all the possible endings of the word "tax", e.g. taxes, taxed, taxable,... or just tax)

Result: Only Sec. 861 tells users "how to determine tax"

Now search for:

income that is exempt or excluded

Result: Only Sec. 861 prescribes "income that is exempt or excluded"

Is there any particular income that is eliminated income? Search for...

eliminated income

Result: Only Sec. 861 contains this code word.

This makes complete sense, because only Sec. 861 defines exempt income and only Sec. 861 contains The List of taxable income.

How many times must someone see section 861 before rejecting it as 'coincidence'? Oh... is that you?

Then here are some more results, and more, or these, or these, or try any subject (code-term) that you wish.

Is searching too hard for you? Then watch these short five-minute videos.

To this point we have shown results from the tax regulations.
Now, look what happens when you search the revenue code.

Use the tax law from the Government Printing Office
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/search.html
(right-click link, then Open in New Window):

Searh for:
26USC* AND "united states" AND "citizen" AND "taxable income"
(Copy-paste above line as is. Asterisk * will search all of Title 26 US Code)

Result: Section 861

Now, what is the result if we disregard "united states"?

Search for:
26USC* AND "citizen" AND "taxable income"
(there are only 24 Hits, i.e. sections in the entire code)

No matter where you live, and no matter what you may be a citizen of... Sec. 863, 865, 864 and 861 are all included, but notice Sec. 61 is not. From these 24 total results, it is very obvious who is taxed, and it's all foreign related, to citizens everywhere.

No matter how the tax regulations, or tax laws, are searched Sec. 861 is your final destination. All you have to do is search the Code.

The Code shows that who is taxed is really very limited in scope.

To say this conclusion is frivolous, or even an argument is itself frivolous, because there are NO remaining code-terms to argue over. Whatever approach is used, taxable or excluded, items or sources, deductions or allocating gross income, the results will only come from Sec. 861.

[A taxless conclusion is preposterous to everyone who first hears it, until they've searched with their own computer and seen it with their own eyes.]

The tax code is specific, that is the nature of code. The instructions provided by "the rules [of Sec. 861] for determining taxable income" are clear. According to statutes and regulations, not all sources, or items of income are taxable for every individual.

Any 'expert' can show you that it's "whatever source" [Sec. 61] ...and it's absolutely true ...but only for:

"Gross income"
"...unless excluded"

...and that "more common items...are...excluded from gross income entirely" - Sec. 61(b)

Simple Questions - for the so-called 'tax professionals' and 'experts'

1. Is the tax imposed upon "taxable income" or "gross income"?

2. Is the purpose of tax rules to tell users "how to determine tax" and to "list" what is taxed?

3. What is "excluded income"?

4. What is "eliminated income" and in which section does it occur?

5. In which section is "exempt, excluded, or eliminated" income defined?

6. Where are the rules for the "allocation and apportionment of deductions"?

7. What "common items...are...excluded from gross income entirely"?

8. Is "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" a principle in statutory construction, and considered a 'common-sense canon'? ... How about "lex specialis derogat legi generali", that specific language controls over the general?

9. Can people still be called experts, even tax 'professionals,' without knowing the fundamentals?

The common and the unCommon is in the code, and 'code' cannot be ambiguous. Code is precise, always.

The income tax really does have a limited scope, it is prescribed in the tax regulations. The Code actually does address - who, where, when, what, and how. Just follow the instructions in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26, step by step, as they're written. See what your own "computation of taxable income" produces, despite what previous court cases, judges, and IRS tell you. The emperor really has no clothes on.

By searching with your own computer, you can view only the specific instructions provided in the tax rules, those which have a specific command and a definite action to be performed. You can filter through the many vague, repetitive, and misleading general statements, which command nothing definite (often using words like, "if any", or "unless excluded") and quickly find the specific instructions for each subject. You can even ignore all of the numbering of the sections, the table of contents, the titles, references to references, the other cross references, and even the index.

See what the commands, which actually require you to do some actions are showing, with no uncertainties, no unless this or that, with no ifs, ands, or buts.

WHAT'S IN THE CODE?
Read carefully what's behind the following...

"the sources of income for purposes of the income tax" : (1 file) Sec. 861-1

"how to determine taxable income": (1 file): Sec. 861-8

"specific sources": (1 file) Sec. 861-8

"eliminated income": (2 files) Sec. 861-8 and 861-8T

"income that is exempt": Sec. 861-8T

"income that is not considered tax exempt": i.e. income that is taxable. (1 file) Sec. 861-8T (The List... and the whole purpose of a tax rulebook. "The following items are not considered to be exempt". Because they are taxable.)

Dozens of similar terms (with 1 file found) produce the same section, 861. See the Search Results. According to the instructions in the Code of Federal Regulations, the US income tax has been misrepresented and is more accurately 98% fraud, a lie, color of law.

Are we being used and abused? It appears that we are slaves, forced to give, up to 1/3 or more of our lifes work, rules or no rules.

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
-- James Madison, Speech at Virginia Constitutional Convention, Dec. 1, 1829

Sec. 861, is the only section to actually state that it has, "the rules" that "apply in determining taxable income... from specific sources... under other sections of the Code". Look...

"The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code..." [26cfr1.861-8]

Not one other section, page, or sentence in the CFR claims to contain "the rules" that "apply" in "determining tax." When "the rules" are applied, the amount of tax due for most people is nothing.

Don't believe us, just download the tax rulebook, and the laws. Read what they say clearly. Unlike some books, the US Tax-Rule-Book is not open to interpretation. The Code of Federal Regulations is specific, as with any Code, hence the name.

There is no need to read millions of words, it's the computer age, take advantage of it. See 'How to Search'.

The scope of the US Income Tax, as it is actually written, truly only encompasses:
1. Foreign earned income (of citizens and corporations) - whatever source
2. Foreigners - whatever source

Are you a foreigner, or making foreign earned income? The entire US Income Tax belongs to, and applies only in these two conditions. [Actually, there are other issues to consider such as federal zones and properties, federal citizenship, federal employees, federal jurisdiction, etc, but we don't consider those here. We have assumed for simplicity, that Title 26 does apply.] According to "the rules," as written, the Code only taxes these two. The US Income Tax currently in practice is a giant scam upon America.

For a quick example of how data mining works, watch the short 5-minute videos. For a quick read, see the Summary , Search Examples , Five Minute Reading and A Visual.

To learn more, see the Search Results , 15 Minute Reading and the full Analysis.

See How to Search then download your own copies of the tax laws and rules below.

Many of the searched terms are specific actions that exist only once, or occur in one regulation. The rules they create are unmistakable and cannot be confused. If any subject you desire seems questionable, just know that the most specific rule, action, or instruction can easily be identified with a computer. Verify for yourself the exact list of sources (or items) of taxable income.

Laws: United States Code (26 USC) ~24MB

Regulations: Code of Federal Regulations (26 CFR) ~28MB ~350MB with Acrobat PDF files.

Search Regs: Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) - unofficial Beta with excellent search tool

Source: US Government Printing Office (GPO).

Warning: The GPO doesn't make downloading the regulations easy, see 'How to Search' to be sure you get all the rules, or just rely on what the eCFR tells you, their results match very well.

The Alternate Source: CFR Repaired

The Code of Federal Regulations: Repaired Edition

The official online versions of the Code of Federal Regulations, found on the Government Printing Office (GPO) website are incomplete with missing files, or broken links. The TEXT edition available here is compiled from the most current regulations, with broken links 'repaired'. (The GPO uses the same technique, but less completely.) Available in TEXT & PDF editions.

CFR Options:

Browse online - TEXT edition.
Download and search - TEXT edition. Use the Windows operating system built-in search function to find every file containing the "subject" text. View the results in any browser using the browsers Find tool. (Having a list of results in a folder window provides the most visual demonstration of subject distribution in tax rules, and the TEXT files can be search faster.)
Download and search - PDF edition. Quickly find every occurrence of the "code" text (easiest way to search for most people).

See How to Search.

Source: Copied and compiled from US Government Printing Office (GPO)

You are held responsible for determining your taxes, so shouldn't you be familiar with the rules in the CFR? Only a computer with Internet access is required to verify this information. Download 26-CFR (the rules) and 26-USC (the law) to your computer to conduct your own independent investigation and research.

Learning these search techniques will help you find whatever you are looking for, in any work of text, including bibles, company regulations, books, any rules, whatever. And, if it's codified and digitized, the answers are quickly yours.

Do Not accept this website as tax advice, it is tax research and copyright-free (copyleft whatistaxed.com). To contribute research, see How to Search and Contact Us.

You are responsible for doing your own taxes.

Questions: If you have any questions, try asking your Congressperson or Senator. He, or she is responsible for creating the laws.

Find your Congressperson: http://www.house.gov
Find your Senator: http://www.senate.gov

"the Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs) are the official Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code" (Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.1).

The Code of Federal Regulations are the rules, written in plain English, which both the public and the IRS must follow:

"The Service is bound by the regulations. The courts are not" (Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.4).

Since "the Service is bound," we can be sure that we are following the same rules. It does not require a law degree to understand them. See How to Search and Search Examples.

Did you know... you will work approximately 7 to 20 years solely to pay income tax?
That doesn't include the 100+ other taxes you pay.

- - - - - - -

What is Taxed.com/videos

What does the tax code really say? Where are the “deductions” found? Is there any excluded income or eliminated income? Where is the list of taxable income?

You be the Judge. Watch these short, five-minute videos, about using a computer to search through the U.S. tax code and regulations. Then ask your Congressman and Senator to watch the videos. Ask them... Why is section 861 frivolous?

Video
What is taxed in the Regulations?
The Code of Federal Regulations (26CFR)
05:15

What is taxed in the Code?
The United States Code (26USC)
05:39

Fact

1. how to determine taxable income - is only written in the Code of Federal Regulations in Sec. 861

2. income for purposes of the income tax - is only written in Sec. 861

3. specific sources - is only written in Sec. 861

4. eliminated income - is only written in Sec. 861

5. eliminated items - is only written in Sec. 861

6. exempt income - is defined in Sec. 861

7. the rules for allocating “deductions” are only written in Sec. 861. [One of the ways you can find the rules for deductions is to search for “deductions” at the ecfr.]

8. income that is not considered tax exempt - (the list of taxable income) is only written in Sec. 861

If exempt income is defined in Sec. 861, why is section 861 frivolous?

Watch the videos to see how quick and easy it is to search through the entire tax code on the Government Printing Office website. This applies to every title of law, and the same process can be done in any country that is using codification.

Many more specific codes and instructions are found exactly in Sec. 861, even specific guidance.

Congress - Why does the tax code contradict what you have been telling us about income tax? You can't all be ignorant.

Search the Code and know your rules. Politicians and bureaucrats who tax (steal money) under color of law are criminals.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or defense.

Thou shall not steal.

EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS FROM OTHER WEBSITES
* Note: There are no 'How-to-Do-Income-Tax' packages, products, or services available at WhatisTaxed.com.

Theft by Deception
83 min.

5 Stars from Video.Google.com

http://Theft-by-deception.com

A great presentation with plenty of graphics and details.

By Larken Rose and Dr. Tom Clayton

- - -

America: Freedom to Fascism
http://freedomtofascism.com

5 Stars from Video.Google.com

A documentary from Aaron Russo exposing the government's income tax fraud. (Aaron made the film Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd, and The Rose with Bette Midler.)

- Award winner Russo decides to ask the experts about the income tax. Plenty of interviews, including one with former IRS Chief Counsel and Commissioner Sheldon Cohen, who helped write the Tax Code. Also, interviews with several tax experts, and former IRS agents, who say they are exposing corrupt government politicians and their tax fraud.

The 861 Evidence
72 min.
5 Stars

Another excellent video from Larken Rose and Dr. Tom Clayton.

Also available at
http://www.imageteam.com/861

More at
http://irobyou.info

With Disney even a child could understand.

The Spirit of 1943 - Donald Duck Pays Income Tax
5 min 48 sec. 4.5 Stars

For a long time, the U.S. government operated perfectly fine on the taxes it was receiving, but beginning in 1942 the politicians decided to take everyones money. (Notice they used war as the reason to tax, then continued to tax after the war.) The 'Revenue Service' began by grabbing the money before people received their wages. This is when the modern-day slave system began in the U.S. It required a war to get their slave system operational. The user-friendly-term for the system was called "withholding". Originally, withholding was known as Pay-as-you-go.

"Payday! Payday!"

"Every dollar you spend for something you don't need, is a dollar spent to help the Axis."

"What are you going to do? Spend for the Axis, or save for taxes?"

COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU?

Actor Wesley Snipes - Tax Cheat or Tax Pro-Tester? Income Tax This
Starring Wesley Snipes
5 Stars

Based on a true story, and still in progress. Not too many people are willing to slap the trolls hiding under the bridge, but Snipes is one of the millions who couldn't resist (Yes, there are millions. You are aware of nothing if you're still listening to Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Washington Post, etc).

Snipes stars as a man wanted by the United States government for his role in a 'tax scam' that claims his income is "not from a taxable source." Guest starring IRS special agents, and IRS lawyers.

Here is someone who seems to know the script. Evidently, actor Wesley Snipes has actually read and followed the United States income tax regulations. Perhaps mere opinions were not enough for Mr. Snipes who wanted to see the law for himself, and did so. Page two of his tax return (at theSmokingGun.com) states that Snipes is specifically citing sec. 861 for a refund, essentially saying that his income is not on the lists, of taxable items or sources. It is unclear exactly what Snipes knows about tax regulations, because a tax preparer did his taxes, but he appears to know the truth about the governments tax scam, since the claim is right on the money and he signed it.

Could it be that Snipes, like the countless millions* who have actually read the regulations, considers the truth more important than his own personal security and comforts? For Snipes, the story is yet to be written, because he has yet to have his day in court, since re-filing for a refund. Wesley Snipes appears to be a real-life action hero, and America seems to have an endless supply of them. According to former IRS agent Sherry Jackson (in Aaron Russo's documentary film Freedom to Fascism) * approximately 67 million Americans don't file an income tax return. It seems that at least a third of the available taxpaying population have the guts to say no to the illegal tyrant trolls.

The IRS now says

1. 120 million people are expected to file.

2. The IRS does not keep count of non-filers.

3. Relatively few ever face charges for not filing.
Source: IRS spokesman Robert Marvin

Math:
120,000,000 expected to file
067,000,000 don't file

Apparently, less than half (120 - 67 = 53 million), or maybe one-third of working-age Americans are filing (120 + 67 = 187). In either case, millions of the American people don't do it. Why? What do all these people know? Maybe they have actually read the tax rules. These rules are available to everyone at the Government Printing Office website.

"Bring it on."
Snipes vs. Sam

A real-life, action hero who actually knows and plays by the rulebook. Wesley Snipes wants some time in the ring with Uncle Sam.

"I'm not your slave."

Wesley Snipes found out what the tax law really says and now he wants his money back. Snipes believes that his income is not from a taxable source [excluded income] "per Sec. 861."

He is not alone, many former IRS agents agree.

Update: Eddie Kahn, tax advisor for Wesley Snipes, was kidnapped in Panam, by the FBI in front of his attorneys office. The FBI entered Panama then illegally kidnapped Kahn against the orders of the Panamanian Supreme Court. He was then flown to the United States, reportedly as a local gang held back, with machine guns, the Panamanian officials trying to stop the FBI.

Snipes returned from filming a movie in Africa to appear on charges. Snipes has become the latest celebrity IRS victim when he made the mistake of acting honestly and following the tax law.

In case you think only crazy tax protesters are protesting, take a look at this news report showing that over 382,000 federal employees are not paying their taxes. In total, they owe nearly $2 billion.

Notice that one of the highest tax deliquency rates belongs to the Government Printing Office. Evidently, since a GPO job involves printing our laws, many of the GPO employees may be actually reading and following them.

See Theft by Deception on Google Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023

Data-mine the Code, so that you know what you speak.

No tax advice, just digital facts. - WhatisTaxed.com

"the Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs) are the official Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code" (Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.1).

The Code of Federal Regulations are the rules, written in plain English, which both the public and the IRS must follow:

"The Service is bound by the regulations. The courts are not" (Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.7.2.3.4).

Since "the Service is bound," we can be sure that we are following the same rules. It does not require a law degree to understand them. See How to Search and Search Examples.

- - - - -

Who is Taxed

Once in a while, a citizen (and law-abiding person) who has actually read the tax regulations is arrested and ends up in court before a Judge ... charged with being a bad guy, a 'tax cheat.'

'Tax Cheat':

"I followed the rules and regulations. I followed the Law."

Judge:

"Don't tell me about the Law. I decide the Law here."

'Tax Cheat':

"But, your Honor, the regulations say ..."

Judge:

"Be quiet! ... Mr. [Tax Cheat]. Your argument has already been ruled frivolous. I'm going to fine you for making a frivolous argument."

Citizen: "I did follow the law."
Judge: "That's Frivolous!
You're out of order!"

Frivolous?

There is true and there is false. There is computer-precision, and there is the Code.

The Treasury Secretary interprets the US Code created by Congress, then prescribes his own code in the Code of Federal Regulations

So, what does the Code say? Beginning with Law One, and Rule One.

TAX LAW #1

United States Code

Determination of Tax Liability

TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

Sec. 1 Tax imposed
(a) individuals filing joint returns...
imposed on the taxable income
(b)imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b))
[Sec. 2(b)- an individual...]
(c) Unmarried individuals
(d) individuals filing separate

TAX REGULATION #1

Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual. ... The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by... deductions from gross...

Code words: Notice the required codes prescribed by the Secretary in CFR Sec. 1.1-1

1. Who = "individual", "citizen", "resident", "nonresident alien individual"

2. Where = "united states"

3. What = "taxable income"

Condition: Notice the required condition prescribed by the Secretary in CFR Sec. 1.1-1

Tax imposed = [individual + (citizen OR resident) + alien] + united states + taxable income

= [who] + where + what

= ?

How did the Treasury Secretary arrive at his required condition?

What did the Secretary see in the Code?

Is Sec. 861 Frivolous?

The code is not complex. The code is simple.

In Two Easy Steps: Who + Where + What is Taxed

1. Go to the search page at the Government Printing Office website:

www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/search.html (Right-click, Open in New Window)

2. Find...

"every individual who is a citizen" - CFR Sec. 1.1-1

Which section has all of the required codes for a citizen? Which section meets the required condition?

Copy and paste the following line into the GPO's search box, then click Submit. (If typing, note the *)

26USC* AND "citizen" AND "united states" AND "taxable income"

This boolean search string will filter through all of the Tax Laws and leave only Laws that contain all three of these essential codes. Visually, it looks like this...

26USCode AND

Who is "citizen" AND

Where in "united states" AND

What "taxable income"

(The Treasury Secretary's required codes and required condition)

GPO Search Results: Total Hits = 22

Here are the top 6 results provided by the Government Printing Office website search engine...

Position	USC Section Number and Title
1	Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
2	Sec. 7701. Definitions
3	Sec. 864. Definitions and special rules
4	Sec. 863. Special rules for determining source
5	Sec. 168. Accelerated cost recovery system
6	Sec. 865. Source rules for personal property sales

Result: Section 861

Sec. 861 is number One. And 864, 863, and 865 (known as the regulations thereunder) occupy the top 6 positions. Notice, Sec. 7701 doesn't even count (if we're looking for tax instructions). CFR Sec. 861 and the regulations thereunder are the Top 3 results.

So, why is Sec. 861 so important? Because, Sec. 861 contains The List of taxable income, exclusively.

CFR Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income...
  (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer...gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)
  (B) ...the gross income of a DISC or a FSC [Ed: Internat'l Sales or a Foreign Sales Corp.]
  (C)...the gross income of a possessions corporation...
  (D) Foreign earned income... [Ed: This is the one that applies to the average American]

By the way, 26 USC 861(b) is not a list, but simply a paragraph subsection referring to another paragraph subsection.

WHO? (The Resident)

"every individual who is a ... resident" - CFR Sec. 1.1-1

Do you reside in the United States? Copy and paste this line into the GPO search box...

26USC* AND "resident" AND "united states" AND "taxable income"

Here is what you get...

Only 30 sections are capable of meeting the required condition, but again...

Result: Section 861

And again, 864, 863, and 865 occupy the Top Six positions (and 861, 864, and 863 are the Top 3).

WHO? (Nonresident Alien Individual)

"a nonresident alien individual" - CFR Sec. 1.1-1

Which section has the codes for a "nonresident alien"? Copy and paste this line into the GPO search...

26USC* AND "nonresident alien individual" AND "united states" AND "taxable income"

Here is what you get...

Result: Section 861 is The Law

Sec. 861 is the code which is to be used for all three of the individuals having the income tax imposed upon them, but what about just the "individual"?

WHO? (The Individual)

"every individual" - CFR Sec. 1.1-1

Find the average "individual"... Copy and paste this line into the GPO search box...

26USC* AND "individual" AND "united states" AND "taxable income"

Here is what you get...

Sec. 861 is the 2nd result, but still hits the bullseye...

Considering the kind of instructions which are needed at this point - i.e. how to determine taxable income and not some instructions about credit - then Sec. 861 is again the first result. You will find that only USC Sec. 861 has the list of taxable income.

Notice Sec. 861, 864 and 865 occupy the Top 8 results at the GPO, even though there are nearly 10,000 sections of the income tax law.

If you read Sec. 904, you'll notice it also demonstrates that the tax imposed is upon the foreign income of an "individual". And, Sec. 904 is even located, appropriately, in "Part III--Income from sources without the United States."

THE 'LOCALS'
Combining all the Required Codes for Domestic Individuals

If one must judge based on the prescription of all required domestic codes...

Is there a law which commands all of the domestic persons, i.e. 'locals'?

26USC* AND "individual" AND "citizen" AND "resident" AND "united states" AND "taxable income"

And finally, if one must judge based on the entire prescription of the Secretary's required codes in Tax Reg. 1 ...

Which section of law meets the required condition for everyone?

26USC* AND "individual" AND "citizen" AND "resident" AND "nonresident alien individual" AND "united states" AND "taxa Result: Sec. 861

Sec. 861 is THE LAW.

WHAT ABOUT THE RULES

"But, your Honor, I was just following the rules."

So far, we've seen that the USC will produce Sec. 861 as the tax law. But, rules in the CFR are written to provide specifics - the instructions needed to enforce the tax. So, what do tax regulations prescribe for a citizen? Most Americans only have domestic income, so...

Where is "domestic income" prescribed in US tax regulations?

There are thousands of sections in the tax regulations, but just 5 of them prescribe anything for "domestic income". Why so few? From the domestic citizen's point of view, isn't the whole CFR about domestic income? Not at all.

Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov
(Right-click, open in new window)

Where is domestic income prescribed?

"domestic income" is written just 23 times, within 5 regulations.

Keep in mind that numbers shown here are based on year 2004 regulations, and these numbers will slowly increase every year as new rules are added by the Treasury, but in 2004, "domestic income", is only written 23 times (and found among only five regulations) in the entire Code of Federal Regulations. Four of the five regulations are under Sec. 861, and this code-word, "domestic income" is used specifically to demonstrate regulation income tax examples.

The Treasury doesn't seem to be too concerned with "domestic income." But, then... that would mean the only alternative source of income is foreign.

So, how often is "foreign income" prescribed compared to "domestic income"?

Which income are the tax regulations for? Foreign or domestic?

The tax regulations are written primarily (approx. 98%) for "foreign income." Evidently, the Treasury Secretary takes a big interest in foreign items.

Total incomes written = 1042 foreign + 23 domestic = 1065

1042 / 1065 = 97.84% Foreign

23 / 1065 = 2.16% Domestic

Where is "domestic source income" prescribed?

The Treasury Secretary has placed 96% of his regulation tax examples of "domestic source income" within CFR Sec. 1.861.

Where is the "domestic source income" prescribed?

Almost everything prescribed for "domestic source income" (49 / 51 = 96%) is located in Sec. 1.861.

Why do tax court judges rule that Sec. 861 is frivolous when tax regulations prescribe otherwise? The tax rules were created to list, instruct, guide, and to provide examples. It is so easy to see that nearly all examples for "domestic source income", 96% of them, are found in Sec. 861.

Where is "foreign source income" prescribed?

Where is the "foreign source income" prescribed?

Even the term "foreign source income" is concentrated under Sec. 1.861.

Domestic income or foreign income, Sec. 1.861 is required.

Want to examine more graphs? See a Graphical View.

If the earlier results in the US Code were not clear enough... notice that in the CFR, which provides a citizen with all of the specific instructions, only Sec. 1.861 prescribes the following...

1. how to determine taxable income

2. income that is exempt or excluded

3. computation of taxable income from sources within the united states

4. determining taxable income of the taxpayer

5. determining taxable income from specific sources

6. eliminated income

7. eliminated for federal income tax

8. Only Sec. 861 defines exempt income [search for "exempt income" and "defined"]

9. income for purposes of the income tax

10. specific sources

11. specific guidance

12. specific deductions

13. allocate deductions [the rules for allocating deductions]

14. all deductions of the taxpayer

15. gross income enumerated

There are many more, but the most vital element in any set of rules is The List. In the US tax regulations, the list is called...

Ixncome that is not considered tax exempt
[i.e. income that is taxable]

These are just a few of the many simple text strings (instructions and codes) found in the tax rules - all of which are located in Sec. 861.

Even more powerful are the boolean searches, where you can data-mine all tax regulations quickly and produce only those regulations having the specific codes. For example...

deductions AND excluded income

Boolean searches also produce Sec. 861 and confirm that the "simple text string" instructions that are located in Sec. 861 (such as those listed above) are applicable to all taxpayers.

Using the Government Printing Offices' eCFR, you can combine up to three codes, or text strings, to perform a boolean search, e.g. you can ask their computer to show you all regulations that provide rules and instructions for...

computation AND taxable income OR excluded income
sources AND taxable income OR excluded income
items AND taxable income AND excluded income
rules AND taxable income AND excluded income
allocating deductions AND taxable income
allocating deductions AND gross income
etc

Tax regulations results

The rules and instructions for income tax (i.e. "how to determine taxable income") are located in Sec. 861.
Thre rules and instructions for "expenses, losses, and other deductions" are located in Sec. 861.
Many boolean results (e.g. "determining taxable income" AND "excluded income") and even the results for certain code-words (e.g. "eliminated income") are located only in Sec. 861.
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

[Using your computer's operating system, your own local copy of regs, and a directory comparison tool, such as WinMerge, you can combine an unlimited number of code-terms. See How to Search. There are more examples in the 'Details' below.]

Result: Sec. 1.861
Domestic income or foreign income, the regulations concur with the Tax Code.

CONCLUSION

Section 861 is not frivolous, it is the truth.

1. When searching US tax laws , Sec. 861 is No. 1 (among nearly 10,000 sections).

2. The US tax regulations coincide with the tax code... Sec. 861 is the result.

Only USC 861 meets the required condition of the imposition of the income tax in CFR 1.1-1

"You are not to be moved in your judging by a man's position, you are not to take rewards; for rewards make the eyes of the wise man blind, and the decisions of the upright false."
- Deuteronomy 16:19 BBE translation

Do you even know the fundamentals of codification? Why won't you use your computers to search the Code? Even you must obey it. Apparently, you've all been flying by the seat of your pants thus far, judging others without much knowledge of your own expertise.

Honor? You have disrobed yourselves. You've kept Law books from Juries, the books written specifically for the People. Can't the People, when they need it most to decide the fate of their fellow citizen, read their own rules and laws in a court of law?

You've kept Jury Nullification from the Jury. Why hide the right to Nullify? The system is owned by the People, it is their right to Nullify. You serve them.

"...everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed..."
- John 3:20-21 World English translation

Frivolous? Only in a scam do bad guys need to call the Truth frivolous. Your interpretation does not change what is plainly written in Code. The Truth is manifest.

Mr. Commissioners, Mr. Secretaries, Mr. Presidents, Senators, Congresswomen, Judges, your Honors, your Majesties, et al.,

You are Frivolous!

"You're out of order! This whole court is out of order!"

But, more than that, you are all insignificant. The System is owned by the People and operated by the system, not you. We are not your slaves. We do not belong to you.

We the People have a Constitution!

The System, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, contains limits for you, not the People.

You are limited ... and easily replaced.

It is the digital-age now. More of the People are searching the Code. Your tax scam can no longer be hidden. And, it goes well beyond a scam, it is treason. You should re-read the laws for treason (Learn How to Search).

Your organized crimes may be well-organized, but you are still just criminals. The Law will catch up, and there will be justice for all.

Who are the Americans that would betray their own country?

"By their fruits you will recognize them." - Matthew 7:15-16

Who is the Biggest Fish in the pond? Politicians, bureaucrats, executives, and other assorted liars... you are just puppets... foot soldiers, temporary Princes, and micro-Queens at best. You treasonously help to continue an illegal income tax; this modern-day slave system.

Elected today, gone tomorrow. You come and you go - off in your golden parachutes.

But, such puppets do not control themselves.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money at its issueance."
- James Madison "Father of the Constitution"

Who are the Puppet Masters?

Slave Engine

Who are the Slave Masters?

Who are the Rulers?

WE ARE NOT YOUR SLAVES!

Look into the future, Ruler.

You cannot hide... ...from the Big Castle

the Truth has come.

Money is power, knowledge is more, but Truth is King.
All will obey Him.

"If there should be unmistakably found in his hand what was stolen ... he is to make double compensation"
-- Exodus 22:4 New World translation

You are going to pay.

DETAILS: WHO IS TAXED?
Analyzing the "Individual"

For whom are the tax laws and regulations written? Simply judging from the numbers, the income tax has been created for the alien individual.

Searching the US Tax Regulations
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov (Right-click link, Open in new window)

The CFR Numbers:

1. Choose Simple Search
2. Enter Title 26
3. Search without quotes for...

individual citizen (15 matches)
individual resident (18 matches)
individual alien ( 0 matches)

Now alternate...

citizen individual (a false positive)
resident individual (1 match)
alien individual (639 matches)

[ Numbers may gradually increase with each new year.]

Results:
- Over 200 regulations containing 639 matches are written for ... alien individuals.
- Only 10 regulations containing 15 matches even mention an "individual citizen".
- Other individuals don't appear to be of much concern to the tax regulation writers... and the regulations prescribed for all individuals, even the citizen, are about ... foreign income.

The CFR Instructions:

While examining the regulations, we see that the Treasury Secretary keeps the instructions for the computation of taxable income together in one section ...

how to determine taxable income
the sources of income for purposes of the income tax
eliminated income
determining taxable income of the taxpayer

Result: Sec. 861

There are many more...

"CITIZEN?" WHO?

Who is a citizen? You'll find that the citizen is just an individual.

The Law
Here is the only definition for "citizen" in the United States Code, Title 26 (see data-mining results below)...

USC Sec. 3121 Definitions
(e) State, United States, citizen

Notice that the definitions of the "State" and "United States" create many citizens or residents from those whom would otherwise be alien. The [unusually vague] definition of a "citizen" follows the definition of State and United States

The Regulation
The CFR definition for "citizen" ...

CFR Sec. 1.1-1(c) - "Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen."

For simplicity we'll ignore jurisdiction...

citizen = person

But, look at who is also included as an American citizen...

CFR 31.3121(e)-1

(b) ... The term "citizen of the United States" includes a citizen of... Puerto Rico... the Virgin Islands... Guam or American Samoa.

Who is a "person"? The definition is found in the USC...

Definitions USC Sec. 7701(a)(1) - "The term ``person'' shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."

Like some kind of a blob A "person" can be one of several entities a "person" can be one of several entities.

We'll ignore all of the other entities for now and say ... person = individual

So, the tax is upon the "individual", as stated in USC Sec. 1...

citizen = person = individual

No big surprises here. A citizen is just an individual.

"TAXPAYER?" WHO?

Who is a taxpayer?

See Definitions, USC Sec. 7701(a)(14) - 'The term ``taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.'
For simplicity we'll disregard the second condition, "subject to", so ...

taxpayer = person

Who is a person?

Again, see Definitions, USC Sec. 7701(a)(1) - "The term ``person'' shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."

Person includes other entities, but for now... person = individual

So... taxpayer = person = individual

KEYWORD: "individual"

So, the tax is imposed on the individual, as written in the USC, but is it just any individual?

FINDING THE INDIVIDUAL

Find the Individual Searching the US Tax Law
Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/search.html
(Right-click, open in new window)

The USC Numbers: The tax imposed is upon "every individual ... citizen or resident" and the "alien individual." But, it appears that the income tax laws are really written for the "alien individual"...

Copy and paste these into the GPO search box...

26USC* AND "citizen individual"
(2 Total Hits, but no definition or results)

26USC* AND "individual citizen"
(5 Total Hits, but no definition)
- Even for an individual citizen, 'Sec. 933 Income from sources within Puerto Rico' is the first result.

26USC* AND "resident individual"
(6 Total Hits)

26USC* AND "individual resident"
(6 Total Hits)

26USC* AND "alien individual"
(51 Total Hits)

The tax laws are primarily concerned with alien individuals. Notice the definition of alien, which is located in USC Sec. 7701(b)(1).

The USC Instructions: What does the term "individual" mean, and include, in the United States?

26USC* AND "term" AND "individual" AND "means" AND "united states"
(174 Total Hits)
- Notice how high Sec. 861, 864 and 865 are in results for this query [position 4, 7, and 12 ].

26USC* AND "term" AND "individual" AND "includes" AND "united states"
(106 Total Hits)
- Sec. 861, 864 and 865 are again in the same positions [4, 7, and 12 ].

You will see that there isn't a section prescribing what an "individual" means or includes, in the USC, but it's obvious where the subject matter for these codes has been written in the USC.

Want to compare it to something?

All are liable to the tax imposed, but liable for what?
Isn't it taxable income?

What is "taxable income" for a "citizen", regardless of the "individual" or "United States"?

26USC* AND "citizen" AND "taxable income"
(24 Total Hits)
- Notice, Sec. 863, 865, 864 and 861 are all included, but Sec. 61 is not. And notice, only 23 sections exist which prescribe anything for this part of the equation (24th Hit is just a query report)...

Data-mining here shows that taxable income, even for a citizen, regardless of the United States, is everything foreign and alien This concurs with data-mining for the "individual citizen" and "alien individual" in tax regulations, which we listed earlier.

For example, "citizen" AND "taxable income" in 26USC will produce:

Citizens moving in and out of Puerto Rico - Sec. 933. (Again, the 1st result after Sec. 1 imposition.)
Citizens who are involved with "foreign personal holding companies" - Sec. 6035
Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations - Sec. 906

The remaining results are all about foreign 'this' and foreign 'that.'

This result shows very well 'who' the citizen with taxable income is, maybe for good reason, because it defines "foreign earned income" and "earned income", and is logically located under "Part III--INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES":

Sec. 911. Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad

It turns out that you won't find the definition for "individual" in the Tax Laws.

Why?

TheTreasury Secretary defines the "individual" in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Treasury Secretary's job (or his delegate) is to interpret the laws from the USC, and then write the tax rules in the Code of Federal Regulations:

Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization

Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.

The Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules for the enforcement, and so far, we know with certainty that the "individual" is a necessary subject of enforcement.

1. An Individual's Identity

"all persons, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the slaves... a mark... and that nobody might be able to buy or sell except a person having the mark, the name... or the number of its name. Here is where wisdom comes in: Let the one that has intelligence calculate the number... for it is a man's number"
-- Revelation 13:16-18

What does the Treasury Secretary prescribe for the "individual"?

The I.D. number of the "individual" ... is the I.D. number issued to an alien individual for use in filing.

This implies something ...

If an alien is identified, by the regulations, and apparently by the IRS, as the individual who must have the "individual taxpayer identification number", then ...

Can an Alien also be a Citizen?

Evidently, an alien may have a Social Security number ...

CFR Sec. 301.6109-1
(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons--(1) General rule--(i) Social Security number. A social security number is generally identified ... as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual.

If an alien individual can have a social security number, can an alien individual also be a citizen or resident of the United States? Let's see...

"individual who is a citizen"

Considering that CFR Sec. 1 imposes an income tax on every "individual who is a citizen"...

Who is the "individual who is a citizen"?

USC Sec. 3121. Definitions
(e) State, United States, and citizen

(1) State
The term "state" includes ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(2) United States
The term "United States" ... includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

An individual who is a citizen of... Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

Isn't this the "individual who is a citizen"? You'll quickly see Sec. 3121 is the only section in the USC that defines a "citizen." Take a look...

Search the USC (GPO) for ...

26USC* AND "individual who is a citizen"
(6 Total Hits)

The results:

1. Sec. 6039G. Information on individuals losing United States citizenship

2. Sec. 906. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations

3. Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

4. Sec. 3231. Definitions

5. Sec. 6654. Failure by individual to pay ...

6. Query Report

Why won't the GPO search function return the 'individual who is a citizen' located in Sec. 3121? Is this term being filtered?

Now try this same search using your own copy of the Tax Laws, and your own computer to do the searching.

Open or download a copy of the Tax Code from the U.S. House website: http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml

To search, use Edit >> Find, or Ctrl+F and try searching the law again with your web browser. Search without quotes for ...

individual who is a citizen
(15 matches)

The results:

1. Sec. 406. Employees of foreign affiliates covered by section 3121 ...

2. Sec. 407. Certain employees ... engaged in business outside the United States

3. Sec. 679. Foreign trusts ...

4. Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States

5. Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States, in Amendments

6. Sec. 864. Definitions and special rules

7. Sec. 872. Gross income

8. Sec. 872. Gross income, in Amendments

9. Sec. 943. Other definitions and special rules (from Part III - Income from Sources Without The United States)

10. Sec. 1361. S corporation defined

11. Sec. 1361. S corporation defined

12. Sec. 3121. Definitions (the only definiton of "citizen" in 26USC -'An individual who is a citizen' )

13. Sec. 3306. Definitions (notice how carefully the term "American employer" is defined compared to "citizen", in 3121. Shouldn't the law be required to define "citizen" with the same language and statutory construction?)

14. Sec. 3306. Definitions, in Amendments.

Sec. 6038A. Information with respect to certain foreign-owned corporations

Read them all. You'll see these are all about foreign income
... and that the "individual who is a citizen" is an alien

Now re-examine the tax regulations...

CFR 31.3121(e)-1

(b) ... The term "citizen of the United States" includes a citizen of... Puerto Rico... the Virgin Islands... Guam or American Samoa.

If the CFR and USC Sec. 3121(e) and USC 3306(j) can make citizens and residents out of aliens, then the question becomes...

Who is the individual?

The law states it clearly...

USC Sec. 7701. Definitions
(b)(1)(B) Definition ... Nonresident alien

An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States.

If such individual is neither a citizen nor resident, an individual is a nonresident alien. USC Sec. 7701 states it accurately...

individual = alien

(This is also how the CFR prescribes the definition of "individual", see definitions below).

According to USC Sec. 3121(e), it is possible that an alien "shall be considered" a citizen or resident of the United States. And, by re-defining "State" and "United States", USC Sec. 3121(e) transforms many aliens into "every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States".

Evidently, an alien can be a citizen.

2. Withholding

Whose idea was it to take the money from a citizen, resident, or alien before it even gets to our bank?

Pay-as-you-go

Milton Friedman, Bernard Baruch, Beardsley Ruml

Is withholding for citizens written in the Code? Is it in the regulations? Is it color of law?

Which "individuals" are subject to withholding?

"the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual." - CFR Sec. 1

Is withholding for the citizen, the resident, and the alien?

Withholding? Search the Tax Regulations (CFR)
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov
(Right-click, Open in new window)

eCFR Boolean Search - a search which will find this AND that AND the other thing.
1. Click on Boolean Search
2. Enter Title 26
3. Search for...

scope AND withholding (45 matches)
scope AND rules AND withholding (38 matches)
scope AND rules for withholding (1 match)

You'll find that the "scope" for "withholding" is in Sec. 1441-1, a section about "foreign persons".

rules AND withholding AND citizen (31 matches)
rule AND withholding AND citizen (21 matches)

requirement AND withholding AND citizen (21 matches)
require AND withholding AND citizen (11 matches)

Where is the coded requirement for deducting and withholding of tax for citizens? Notice, even the instructions written for the citizens are about foreign income

withholding AND nonresident alien (83 matches)
withholding AND resident (80 matches)
withholding AND citizen (44 matches)
withholding AND alien individual (52 matches)
withholding AND individual resident (3 matches)
withholding AND individual citizen (3 matches)

"Withholding" of tax on an "individual citizen" is missing.

The data-mining results are foreign and alien ...even for American citizens.

eCFR Simple Search - Finds simple text strings.
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

Copy and paste these lines in the Simple Search box, enter Title 26

withholding of income tax
(18 matches)
subject to withholding of tax
(6 matches)

Notice the results focus on everything foreign
rules for withholding
(6 matches)
rules of withholding
(5 matches)
requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax
(2 matches)
This requirement is only written for a "foreign person" It is located within the title of CFR Sec. 1.1441-1. There is only one regulation with this title.

If a regulation exists with the "requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons"... Why is there no regulation prescribed for "payments to U.S. persons" or "domestic persons"?

Is this why?

withholding of federal income tax
(1 match)
-- Voluntary?

Voluntary... how familiar. Isn't that what the tax pro-testers have called the income tax for many years? It appears they were correct.

eCFR Proximity Search - a search that will find this [within X number of characters from] that.
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov
1. Click on Proximity Search
2. Enter Title 26
3. Search for...

requirement NEAR withholding (63 matches)

Incredibly, the very first match begins with alien individuals and foreign corporations

require NEAR withholding (24 matches)

Clearly, Sec. 1.1441, withholding tax on foreign persons, is the prevalent section

withholding NEAR alien (39 matches)
withholding NEAR resident (38 matches)
withholding NEAR citizen (1 match, but it still applies to aliens)

withholding NEAR alien NEAR individual (24 matches)
withholding NEAR resident NEAR individual (11 matches)
withholding NEAR citizen NEAR individual (0 matches)

There are plenty of tax regulations for resident and alien individuals ...but not for citizens.

withholding NEAR individual NEAR united states (5 matches)

The individual in/of the United States appears to be; a foreign corporation, a foreign person, or a nonresident alien individual (i.e. [individual] foreign corporation, [individual] foreign person, nonresident alien individual).

It is impossible to not notice that all of the regulations are about foreign income and aliens.

united states NEAR individual NEAR income tax (29 matches)
united states NEAR individual citizen NEAR income tax (3 matches)

Even in the United States, for a citizen or any individual, the results are foreign and alien ...

Withholding for Who? Searching the Tax Laws (USC)
Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/search.html
(Right-click, Open in new window)

Copy the following lines "as is."
Use quotes and asterisk.

26USC* AND "withholding"
(83 Total Hits)

'Sec. 3402. Income tax collected at source', the requirement of withholding is the first result

26USC* AND "individual" AND "withholding"
(44 Total Hits)

Notice how many laws are written for foreign incomes and aliens

The Law defines a "withholding agent", but not "withholding"...

26USC* AND "term" AND "withholding" AND "means"
(44 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "term" AND "withholding" AND "includes"
(32 Total Hits)

26USC* AND "definitions" AND "withholding"
(39 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definitions" AND "withholding" AND "means"
(34 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definitions" AND "withholding" AND "includes"
(28 Total Hits)

26USC* AND "definition" AND "withholding"
(17 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "withholding" AND "means"
(16 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "withholding" AND "includes"
(13 Total Hits)

Notice that for most of us a withholding agent is not our employer.

According to the law, a "withholding agent" is only allowed to deduct and withhold from "nonresident aliens" , "foreign corporations", and "foreign organizations"

USC Sec. 7701(a)(16) Withholding agent
The term ``withholding agent'' means any person required to
deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

All of the laws, and regulations, that make a "withholding agent" required (CFR Sec. 1441... ) to deduct and withhold any tax are laws for aliens and foreign corporations. So, why is there no "withholding agent" for a U.S. citizen, or U.S. individual, or U.S. person?

26USC* AND "withholding" AND "alien" AND "individual"
(22 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "withholding" AND "resident" AND "individual"
(21 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "withholding" AND "citizen" AND "individual"
(17 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "withholding" AND "u.s. person"
(No results, but a U.S. person is defined.)

Is it just a coincidence, that Secs. 1441, 3401, and 3402 are found in nearly every search?

Take a look at the specific instructions in the USC, and you'll see the requirement.

USC Sec. 3402(a) Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold...

Who is the employer?

USC Sec. 3401 Definitions
(d) Employer
... the term, "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service...

Notice that the employer is employing an individual.

Where is the definition of "withholding"?

Where is the definition of "individual"?

3. Definitions

Leaders? Search the Code of Federal Regulations
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

Definitions: Withholding

Choose Proximity Search >> Enter Title 26 >> Search for...

term NEAR withholding NEAR means (12 matches)
term NEAR withholding NEAR includes (9 matches)

definition NEAR withholding NEAR means (0 matches)
definitions NEAR withholding NEAR means (1 match) Use plural word - definitions.

The definition of "withholding" is only written in CFR Sec. 1.1441-1.

But, section 1.1441-1 is for aliens and foreign incomes

Here is just one of the many examples where a term is hidden on the eCFR website, at least that is the effect when a term is written in italics. The codes, if they include a word in italics, are not returned in search results...

Testing a False Negative Result -
Choose Simple Search >> Enter Title 26 >> Search for...

the term withholding means
(0 matches)
-- No matches?

But, it does exist - in Sec. 1.1441-1(c)(1) - next to the definition for "individual" and "U.S. person."

Notice this text string shows up just fine on the other GPO CFR website, put this into their search box:
"the term withholding means"
(http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200526)

The tax imposed is upon the "individual" and the "alien individual" (CFR Sec. 1.1-1), ... And, the "employer" is a "person" A "person" can be one of several entities [the blob] that is served by "an individual" (USC Sec. 3401)...

So ... Where is the definition for "individual" written?

Definitions: Individual

The definition for "individual" is located in the same paragraph as the definition of "withholding"... (see Data-mining for the "individual" below)

26 CFR 1.1441-1 "Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on [...everyone]"

(c) Definitions--
(1) Withholding. The term withholding means the deduction and withholding of tax at the applicable rate from the payment.
(2) Foreign and U.S. person. The term ... U.S. person is a person described in section 7701(a)(30), the U.S. government (including an agency or instrumentality thereof), a State (including an agency or instrumentality thereof), or the District of Columbia (including an agency or instrumentality thereof).
(3) Individual--
(i) Alien individual. The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See §1.1–1(c).
(ii) Nonresident alien individual. The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and §301.7701(b)–7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under §301.7701(b)–1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.

That's it? What about a citizen? Why isn't a individual citizen included in the definition of "individual"?

The definition of an individual is clearly written in plain English. The Treasury Secretary didn't just forget to add a citizen to the definition of individual. He knew better, obviously. Notice, this is the only definition of "individual" (determined by data-mining the government's own GPO) that exists in the CFR.

According to the tax regulations...

individual = alien

This definition concurs with all of the data-mining results we've seen so far...

1. The required codes - individual, citizen, resident, united states, and taxable income; and the required condition for the tax imposed (who + where + what = USC Sec. 861) clearly demonstrate the income tax belongs to aliens and foreign income

2. The examples given for "domestic source income" and the instructions for a "computation of taxable income from sources within the United States" are found in CFR Sec. 1.861; all alien , foreign

3. The number of laws and regulations written for an "individual" are overwhelmingly for aliens and even the instructions for citizens will be for aliens and foreign items

4. The IRS's own ID-number, for the individual taxpayer, is for aliens [CFR 301.6109-1(d)(3)]

5. The fact that aliens can also be considered citizens or residents of the U.S. [USC 3121(e)]

6. "Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax" from any person or individual [CFR 1.1441-1], and the duties of a withholding agent [USC Sec. 7701(a)(16)], are exclusively for aliens

7. And finally, CFR 1.1441-1(c)(3) shows that the definition of "individual" means only an alien

Notice section 1.1441-1 also defines a "U.S. person", so....

Why doesn't Sec. 1.1441-1 define a "U.S. individual"?
Why isn't "foreign person" or "U.S. person" included within the "definitions" for "Individual"?
Why isn't "foreign person" or "U.S. person" included in the imposition of tax in Sec. 1.1-1?

Isn't it because a U.S. individual is not taxed on domestic income, and that in addition to being "a citizen or resident of the United States", a "U.S. person" is also:

1. A "person" can be one of several entities "the U.S. government"

2. "a State"

3. "the District of Columbia (including ...)"
-- [26CFR 1.1441-1(c)(2)]

"More!..."
[the blob grows bigger as it consumes]

CFR Sec. 1.1441-1 has the only definition for "individual" (specifically) and the only definition for "withholding" in the CFR or USC.

If you still want to confirm that CFR Sec. 1.1441-1 contains the only definition for "individual" in the Tax Laws or Regulations, it's very easy to do so by using the Government Printing Office search engine...

Data-mining for the "individual"

Searching the Laws (USC) for the definition of "individual"
Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/search.html
(Right-click, Open in new window)

Use the quotes as shown, and note the asterisk*.

26USC* AND "individual" AND "means"
(334 Total Hits, see last Hit called Query Report; 333 docs)
26USC* AND "individual" AND "includes"
(194 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "individual"
(103 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "individual" AND "means"
(97 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "individual" AND "includes"
(59 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "individual" AND "resident"
(26 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "individual" AND "alien"
(22 Total Hits)
26USC* AND "definition" AND "individual" AND "citizen"
(19 Total Hits)

26USC* AND "individual" AND "united states"
(234 documents found) -- See last Hit called Query Report for number of documents found.

Notice how high Sec. 861, 864 and 865 are in the list of results for this query; position 4, 7, and 12. If you consider the content required for this query, then Sec. 861 is the primary result.
You also shouldn't miss the fact that the next applied result is Sec. 871, "Tax on nonresident alien individuals"

Even if this search is narrowed further, the laws for an individual in the United States will differ little...

26USC* AND "term" AND "individual" AND "means" AND "includes" AND "united states"
(100 Total Hits)

Again, see how high Sec. 861, 864 and 865 are in the list of results for this query; 4, 7, and 12.

The next applied result is again Sec. 871, "Tax on nonresident alien individuals"

The definition of "individual" is not written in the USC, it's in CFR 1441-1.

Search the Code of Federal Regulations for the definition of "individual"
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov
(Right-click, Open in new window)

eCFR Proximity Search
1. Click on Proximity Search
2. Enter Title 26
3. Search for...

individual NEAR means (161 matches)
individual NEAR includes (141 matches)

term NEAR individual NEAR means (83 matches)
term NEAR individual NEAR includes (44 matches)

definition NEAR individual NEAR means (3 matches)
definition NEAR individual NEAR includes (0 matches)

definition NEAR individual NEAR taxpayer (2 matches / 1 reg) - This search produces one regulation, CFR Sec. 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers, "issued to an alien"

eCFR Boolean Search
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov
1. Click on Boolean Search
2. Enter Title 26
3. Search for...

individual AND means (618 matches)
alien individual AND means (58 matches)
nonresident alien individual AND means (54 matches)

Sec. 1.1441-1, for aliens and payments to foreign persons , is found in each.

term AND individual AND means (522 matches)
term AND alien individual AND means (52 matches)
term AND nonresident alien individual AND means (49 matches)

Sec. 1.1441-1, for aliens and payments to foreign persons , is found in each.

definition AND individual AND means (283 matches)
definition AND alien individual AND means (28 matches)
definition AND nonresident alien individual AND means (25 matches)

Sec. 1.1441-1 has the definition of "individual"; the individual is an alien

There aren't too many regulations to read in order to confirm. And, it's a quick read, because all the keywords are highlighted by the Government Printing Office.

eCFR Simple Search
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

individual who is a citizen
(21 matches)

All foreign income or not applicable to Income taxes, e.g. Gift taxes,...

individual means
(3 matches)

Why is Sec. 1.1441-1(c)(3) missing?

Italic words experience a filtered effect on the eCFR GPO search engine. So, try searching again at the other GPO CFR website:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200526

individual who is a citizen
(23 Total Hits)
individual citizen
(23 Total Hits)
individual means
(27 Total Hits)

Notice Sec. 1.1441-1 is found at the other GPO website.

You may also want to try searching through a PDF copy of regulations on your own computer. Download PDF-format regulations here.

Code is precise. There can be only one definition for an object. That's the reason for codification; to have specified instructions and definitions is the only way any system can work.

There is only one definition for an "individual", it's written in 26CFR 1.1441-1(c)(3).

The "alien individual" is the legally defined "individual."

The tax imposed is on the legally defined.

4. Individuals required to file income tax

Who must file an income tax return?

§ 1.6012-1 Individuals required to make returns of income.

(a) Individual citizen or resident—(1) In general. Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an income tax return must be filed by every individual for each taxable year beginning before January 1, 1973, during which he receives $600 or more of gross income, and for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1972, during which he receives $750 or more of gross income, if such individual is:

(i) A citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad

(b) Return of nonresident alien individual—(1) Requirement of return—(i) In general. Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, every nonresident alien individual (other than one treated as a resident under section 6013 (g) or (h)) who is engaged in trade or business in the United States at any time during the taxable year or who has income which is subject to taxation under subtitle A of the Code shall make a return on Form 1040NR. For this purpose it is immaterial that the gross income for the taxable year is less than the minimum amount specified in section 6012(a) for making a return.

(Notice that only aliens are absolutely required to file a return. A citizen is provided a condition in which it's possible that the citizen may not need to file an income tax return. It is a small amount, but the condition does exist.)

Individual citizen

Who is the "individual citizen" that must file a return?

Search the Code of Federal Regulations

eCFR Simple Search
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov
(Right-click, Open in new window)

individual citizen
(15 matches)

There are only 15 matches in 26CFR with rules for an "individual citizen". What do they say?

eCFR Boolean Search

individual citizen AND income tax (7 matches)
individual citizen AND file AND return (5 matches)
individual citizen AND filing AND return (7 matches)
individual citizen AND required to file AND return (5 matches)
individual citizen AND required to file (5 matches)
individual citizen AND filing AND instructions (3 matches)

You'll see that everything written for an "individual citizen" is found in just 10 regulations (*eCFR, 2006).

We know that Sec. 1 says the income tax is imposed on all three of these individuals...

1. the individual citizen (individual who is a citizen)

2. the resident

3. the nonresident alien individual

And, we know the required condition for the income tax in CFR Sec. 1...

Tax imposed = [individual + (citizen OR resident) + nonresident alien] + united states + taxable income

= who + where + what

And, if you look, you'll see that the following is the required condition for the income tax given in USC 1...

Tax imposed = taxable income + every individual

So, notice that even when a citizen is referred to as an "individual citizen", the rules exist together...

individual citizen AND resident AND income tax (6 matches)
individual citizen AND nonresident alien AND income tax (6 matches)
individual citizen AND nonresident alien AND resident (6 matches)

eCFR Proximity Search
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

individual citizen NEAR income tax (6 matches)

Key: Who must file an income tax return? And, what about the condition in which it may be possible for a citizen to not have to file a return?

Who must (shall) file is easily found above within the 15 matches for an "individual citizen"...

In addition to those who shall file, the individual citizen must file only if he receives $750 or more of "gross income" (in the worst case) - CFR Sec. 1.6012-1, unless the individual citizen meets an exception provided by subparagraph (2).

However ... there may be no gross income at all. Why? Because it's possible to not have any gross income ... the rules say it is so...

"more common items ... are ... excluded from gross income entirely." - CFR Sec. 1.61-1(b)

Notice that only Sec. 1.861 tells us how gross income is excluded entirely...

eCFR Proximity Search
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

income NEAR excluded NEAR entirely
(2 matches) - Sec. 1.861
["See paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to ... excluded income."]

Only Sec. 1.861 tells us about the gross income enumerated in Sec. 1.61 ["Except as otherwise provided..."]

eCFR Simple Search

gross income enumerated
(1 match) - Sec. 1.861
["namely: (i) Compensation...; (ii) Gross income...; (iii) Gains...;" ]

According to regulations, only a nonresident alien individual must file. There isn't a minimum requirement for aliens, they must simply file returns - CFR 1.6012-1(b)

What's the deal with the citizen?

How can common items be excluded entirely?

A domestic-citizen reading the tax rules will find that their income belongs in a specified "class of gross income". It cannot be confused, because the rules say it again clearly...

"[gross income] may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income" - CFR Sec. 1.861-8
"a class of gross income may include excluded income." - CFR Sec. 1.861-8

And, if you look just a little harder and closer...

e-CFR Simple Search
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov , Title 26

class of gross income
(102 matches) - Almost all are in Sec. 1.861 and thereunder.
excluded income
(13 matches) - Six are located in Sec. 1.861
eliminated income
(4 matches) - All matches are located in Sec. 1.861
there may be no item
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8
[An instruction, a conditional statement, a vital condition that truly exists in the Code of Federal Regulations, and would be a critical condition within any Code.]

So, if there may be no item of gross income, a citizen will definitely need...

specific guidance
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8
specific sources
(3 matches) All matches are in Sec. 1.861-8

A citizen will also need any rules written for the specific deductions...

specific deductions
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8

And, a citizen will need to know how to...

allocate deductions
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8
allocating the deduction
(2 matches) Both in Sec. 1.861
some deductions
(2 matches) Both in Sec. 1.861-8
most deductions
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8
various deductions
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8
all deductions of the taxpayer
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8
deductions to gross income
(3 matches) One refers to 1.861, and one is Sec. 1.861-8
deductions to excluded income
(1 match) Sec. 1.861-8
And, of course, along with the instructions for deductions, the instructions for...
how to determine taxable income
(2 matches) Both in Sec. 1.861-8

It cannot be missed, Sec. 1.861 is not frivolous, it is vital.

Exempt income? What do the rules say?

Only 1.861 prescribes what is eliminated for federal income tax. Only Sec. 1.861 defines "exempt income"...

eliminated for federal income tax
(1 match)
["Exempt income ... defined"] - Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)

Conclusion

"every individual... and nonresident alien individual"
- 26CFR Sec. 1.1-1

Who is the "nonresident alien" ?

"26USC 7701
(b) Definition of ... nonresident alien
  (1) In general...
   (A) An...individual"
   (B) An individual..."

"alien" = individual.

Definition: alien = individual

Who is the "individual" ?

You may consider yourself an "individual"... but are you the legal definition of an "individual"?

After seeing all of the data-mining results on this page, which produce foreign and alien income ... isn't this all you really needed to know about the income tax...

1. There is an income tax ...

USC Sec. 1 "imposed on the taxable income of ... every ... individual"

2. The definition of "individual" ...

CFR Sec. 1441-1 "Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax
[...for anyone]
(c) Definitions--
(1) Withholding.
(2) Foreign and U.S. person.
(3) Individual--
(i) Alien individual
(ii) Nonresident alien individual..."

The "individual" is an alien!

Definition: individual = alien

Notice, it has been verified from both perspectives, both sides, both definitions...

Definition: individual = alien

Definition: alien = individual

Result: individual = alien = individual

Concurrence.

The codes are clear. The Code is simple.

Organized-criminals are operating under color of law, stealing labor from countrymen. Simple treason.

Liars and Traitors: Giving us the Business

"The business ... is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify... to sell his country... We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents... and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
-- John Swinton, New York journalist speech before his fellow news writers

Traitors:
Truth also has a code, a pattern, but you do not fit the pattern. Your pattern is bad. You lie. You are a virus in the system, to be quarantined.

Good or Evil? Truth and false. What's your choice?

"If there should be unmistakably found in his hand what was stolen ... he is to make double compensation"
-- Exodus 22:4 New World

None can hide. The Law will catch up with Truth, and the guilty.

You are all going to pay.

This is a compilation of information gathered from many web sites.

Notes at the top of this page show you how you can find the original source documents.

It is not intended, nor does the this web site offer any advice and or tax advice
on your particular situation, nor on the accuracy of this information.

Your own research should yield great pearls of knowledge & your understanding of these issues.

Good luck in your search.