Am I Exempt from the Income Tax?

[CHH]

My answer to an email from a friend concerning the IRS
Monday, February 4th 2008 — Christopher Hansen

From Simon,

I do NOT believe that this statute imposes a liability on the average American Citizen - but it IS a liability statute that many people seem to claim doesn’t exist.

26 CFR 1.1-1(b):

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 933 with respect to Puerto Rican source income, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

Note: After posting this it was pointed out to me that Simon had posted the Regulation and not the Statute. I have posted the Statute and a short comment at the bottonm of this post.

This was sent concerning a discussion on what, if any, statute in 26 USC commonly called the Internal Revenue Code, makes a person liable to file a return and or pay an income tax. Since I have many reasons I believe the IRC does not apply to me and have been asked many times to state my reasoning I have, herein, done so. This is, of course, my personal belief and not that of the Independent American Party but it does cover many of the principles and reasonings of the Independent American Party concerning the Income Tax and religion. I do hope anyone that reads this finds it enlightening and causes them to consider their own actions when filing a 1040 form, not because of law but out of fear.

The following is my response:

Hi Simon,

The problem with this statute is that it is not clear and unequivocal in and of itself. Therefore it makes anyone that would try to say it was a liability statute “Exempt” according to the Supreme Court in Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain,192 U.S. 397 (1904)

Also since the unit of measurement of income is the ‘dollar’ and there is no legal definition of a dollar in the law currently that makes it also unclear and not unequivocal rendering the statute void once again.

In the Irwin Schiff case the Judge in Las Vegas said that liability came from a combination of four statutes working together. But the Ninth Circus ruled that taxing statutes CANNOT work together but must stand on their own. The IRS claim their power to ask for info comes from three statutes. So who is right?

Of course I don’t even know if the Income Tax is a direct tax like the IRS says it is or an indirect tax like the Supreme Court says it is.

I sure wish I knew who was right.

1. I do not know what a ‘trade or business’ is or if I am involved in one effectively connected with the United States.

2. I don’t know what a ‘dollar’ is and have been unable to find a law that defines what a dollar is even though I have asked many elected officials including Senator John Ensign and also the Department of the Treasury.

3. I can’t find out what ‘Congressional right’ I accepted to make me subject to ‘particularized tribunals’ namely ‘tax court.’ Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, *83-84, (1982)

4. I don’t know if I have income because I do know for sure what income is. The courts seem to disagree and Congress cannot define it because it has a Constitutional meaning that appears to mean corporate profit but I cannot be sure.

5. I know that if I sign a form under penalties of perjury instead of being able to sign it under oath, which would call my God as a witness, that that would substantially burden my religious exercise and that would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act so I don’t have to sign it UNTIL the government demonstrates that they have a compelling government interest in forcing me to violate my freedom of religion exercise.

6. I know Federal reserve notes are not dollars because the Department of the Treasury, Senator Ensigns Office and State Assemblyman Bob Beers said so so I only get paid in those worthless securities so I have no income at all no matter what income means.

7. I know Congressman Dean Heller wrote a letter stating that the closest definition to a dollar currently on the books is 31 USC 5112 (e) but that is the statute about silver coins called dollars and not Federal reserve notes and I don’t get paid in those.

8. I know that the Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto is the Graduated income tax.

9. I know the Fifth Plank of the Communist Manifesto is a national bank that controls credit just like the Federal Reserve bank does.

10. I know we have free government schools that do not allow God to come in through the doors just like the Communist Manifesto calls for.

11. I know Communism is a religion or at least qualifies under the many Supreme Court rulings on the subject of religion and that Dr. Wallace Mills of St Mary’s University wrote the following to me personally:

“I certainly came to the conclusion many years ago that Marxism is a religion, contrary to Marx’s contention that he was being ‘scientific’. This was related to my own upbringing in a fundamentalist, Pentecostal church and I came to see a huge number of similarities and parallels between the two belief systems.”

12. Naturally the government cannot establish the religion of Communism so if the Graduated Income tax is a plank of that religion it would be an unconstitutional establishment of that anti-Christ religion and could not be enforced.

13. I know the Supreme Court ruled in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) that the word voluntary meant that you could not even place social pressure on a person.

14. I know that the Income Tax system is ‘voluntary’ and not based upon distraint. United States v. Flora, 362 US 145 (1958)

Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.United States v. Flora

15.I know that if “dollars” have different weights and measures that they would be an abomination to God see Prov. 20: 10 and 23 and that would substantially burden my religious exercise especially if I could not judge all other forms of money or ‘legal tender’ by the one that has a set or regulated ‘value’ and that the government must FIRST demonstrate that they have a compelling government interest in having no legal definition of a dollar and having many weights and measures for what they claim are dollars and then they would have to demonstrate that such an undefined monetary system used to collect the tax was Constitutional and then, if it was that it was the least restrictive on my personal and individualistic religious beliefs (exercise).

16. I do know or at least have read that the Supreme Court was quite clear in Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain,192 U.S. 397 (1904) that when the language of the statue is not clear then the citizen is exempt:

Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid…

17. I know that the USSC essentially ruled the same thing several times in several cases including in White v. Aronson, 302 U.S. 16, 20 & 21 (1937) the USSC ruled that when there is a reasonable doubt as to liability even taxpayers are exempt:

Where there is a reasonable doubt as to the meaning of a taxing act it should be construed most favorably to the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. ‘Tax laws, like all other laws, are made to be obeyed. They should therefore be intelligible to those who are expected to obey them.’ Philadelphia Storage Battery Co. v. Lederer (D.C.) 21 F.(2d) 320, 321, 322.

18. I know the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 U.S.C. CHAPTER 21B § 2000bb RFRA, means, in our view, that we need not comply with acts by the Government that violate our religious exercise UNTIL the government first complies with the RFRA because:

SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. — Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION. — Government may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

19. I know that I am not required to do anything by the RFRA but the the Government is so if my Religious Freedom is substantially burdened that the Government has to take the first action and not me.

20. I know that in order to sue the government using the RFRA that I would first have to exhaust my administrative remedies but cannot find any in the RFRA.

21. I know that if the IRS burden my Religious exercise that they would have to demonstrate FIRST that I am a Taxpayer and they would have to do so in District Court but Congress removed that power from District Court.

22. I know that the IRS can only deal or have remedies for ‘taxpayers’ because of Economy Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. U. S. 470 F.2d 585, *589 (Ct.Cl.,1972) where I learned that we learn that everyone is not a taxpayer.

“All taxpayers who have overpaid their taxes are within this system and must follow the appropriate procedures and regulations, including the timely filing of claims for refunds for overpayment of taxes, if they are to have the benefits of the system. On the other hand, persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds…

“They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.”

23. I know that since ‘taxpayers’ are voluntarily involved in the Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto and using Federal reserve notes to judge their income by and thereby helping the 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto and thereby voluntarily becoming members, at least in part, in the Religion of Communism that I cannot be forced to participate in a religion that is anathema to mine or that would violate the First Amendment and the RFRA.

24. I know that the Social Security Number is directly tied, in law, to the number 666 because of 42 USC Sec. 666(a) (13) (A) and that it also makes it difficult to buy or sell without it so I MUST avoid it on principle as I believe it is the actual of precursor to the Mark of the Beast and that any attempt to force me to use it or to penalize me for refusing to use it would violate the First Amendment and the RFRA.

Rev. 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

25. I know that the Income Tax that is taken from the average American ‘taxpayer’ does not pay for the things that ‘taxpayers’ believe it does because the Grace Commission Report reported in 1984 that:

“100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.”

26. I know that the IMF Federal Reserve and the World Bank create money out of credit which comes from the Latin word for belief or faith.

27. I know that Satan wants a One World Government combined with a One World Religion and that the Federal Reserve, IMF, and World Bank is working to create such a One World Government Religion and that forcing me to participate in such an establishment of religion would violate the First Amendment and the RFRA.

28. I know that if I were to sign a 1040 Form stating that I had income in any dollar amount and in doing so become a voluntary taxpayer that I would be committing perjury (a felony) that I would be joining the Religion of Communism and would be denying my God and become a child and worshiper of Satan and so I cannot do so on legal and religious grounds.

29. I know that Federal Judges lie because I have been in a Courtroom where one Federal Judge in Ohio told the Lawyers that the matter of reasonableness would not be considered by the Jury and then in the jury instructions he told the jury that they would be considering reasonableness AFTER our witnesses were excluded that would have discussed the issue of reasonableness.

30. I know that I asked three Department of Justice Attorney’s and 7 IRS agents, in that same Ohio Courtroom during a lunch break what law made anyone liable for the income tax and they could not give me that law. they then hung their heads and walked out of the Courtroom.

31. I know that Ms Snodgrass of the IRS, while on the stand, could not say what law required a person to file.

32. I also know that Ms. Snodgrass was surprised, while on the stand, when she realized that the information she had demanded from the defendant was being used against him in a court of law after she had said that no such information was ever used against anyone in a court of law and that is why she could demand such information.

33. I know I got signed letter from the IRS saying their records showed that I was not required to file a 1040 form and that I have heard nothing about any change in that status since then.

34. I know that I have not filed in about 30 years and have never been audited or had a lien or levy placed or even attempted (to my knowledge) against me.

35. I know I am not a citizen of the United States, if that means I am a citizen of the area controlled by Congress like a State is by its government and not a Union State Citizen.

36. I know I do not know how to become a Citizen of Nevada but I guess I am a citizen resident since the State of Nevada allowed me to run for Governor in Nevada and it is a Constitutional Requirement that a candidate be a citizen resident.

37. I know that there is a difference between a Citizen and a resident because of the Nevada Constitution.

Sec: 16. Rights of foreigners. [Repealed in 1924.]

[Sec. 16 of the original constitution was repealed by vote of the people at the 1924 general election. The original section read: “Foreigners who are, or who may hereafter become Bona-fide residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights, in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property, as native born citizens.”]

38. I know that no man can buy or sell today in America on a normal day to day basis without using Federal reserve notes that are numbered and that Government cannot grant a power to a private bank that they, themselves, do not possess, and yet that is exactly the “color of law” that we are forced to worship under. Mr. George Read, from Delaware and signer of the United States of America Constitution, said if the power to print paper money was given to the Federal government it would be, “as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.

39. I know that Banker Amschel Mayer Rothschild, reported said in 1838 “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

40. I know that when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce American under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So that is a short list of what I know.

What I don’t know is:

1. What the United State is, exactly. Is it the USA, the Union States, a corporation or the territories where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction and the Constitution does not apply unless Congress says it does.

2. If I can be forced to be a ‘taxpayer’ without a court hearing because:

However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of ‘taxpayer’ is bestowed upon them and their property is seized and sold. A fortiori is the case where the liability is asserted by way of a penalty for a willful act.Botta v. Scanlon 288 F.2d 504, 508 (C.A.2 1961)

3.How the IRS can meet the compelling government interest clause of the RFRA.

4. How the IRS can meet the least restrictive clause of the RFRA on MY beliefs and exercise.

5. How the Federal government can meet the compelling government interest clause of the RFRA concerning the lack of legal definition of a dollar.

6. How the Federal government can meet the least restrictive clause of the RFRA on MY beliefs and exercise concerning the dollar and how to calculate income.

There is of course much more I know and don’t know but in conclusion I can unequivocally solemnly swear in the Name of Jesus Christ that I have not acted willfully in refusing to file a 1040, to pay any, as of this day unknown, alleged tax. That I have an honest and sincere belief that no law compels me to file a 1040, that even if it did that I do not knowingly have taxable income that exceeds the filing requirement in the code (which code does not apply to me anyway as no court has ruled I am a taxpayer) in “dollars” that are currently defined by Congress as required by the Constitution. That the Government has, indeed, substantially burdened my religious beliefs by establishing. under color of law, the Social Security system, if it is mandatory which I do not believe it is, the IRS and the Income Tax, if it is mandatory which I do not believe it is, the Federal Reserve banking system which is a fraud based upon a fraud based upon a lie that is enslaving Americans and the whole world with its Religion of Credit and that the government is unconstitutionally establishing a civil religion and that religion has as its core principles the 2nd, 5th and 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. therefore I cannot be forced to be a contributing member of such a civil religion that takes from A and gives to B for that would violate certain vital principles in our allegedly free Republican government as noted in Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, *388-389, (U.S. August Term 1798) which states in part:

The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.

Therefore I have done nothing that is a crime and have ONLY sought to live my religion as I see fit and not force my beliefs upon any other man nor woman and that I am, for the reasons stated above and for many more reasons that I have left unstated, “exempt from taxation” that would, in my mind and beliefs, be a tithing to the American Civil Religion founded on the Communist Manifesto and unconstitutionally collected by the Internal Revenue Service.

Christopher Hansen

Here is the Statute (in part) as mentioned from above.

26 USC Sec. 1 Tax imposed 01/02/2006

-STATUTE-(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses, There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of - (1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,and

(b) Heads of households

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households) There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns, There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual…

Obviously if married individual file a joint return they have determined they are taxpayers and have taxable income.

But what does this statute REALLY say? It says if you have taxable income then the income tax is imposed upon TAXABLE INCOME. It does not say on ALL INCOME. It does not say on wages or salaries or exchanges for labor. It says on TAXABLE INCOME. So the first thing that MUST be determined is if you (THAT”S RIGHT YOU THE ONE READING THIS) has TAXABLE INCOME. Do you know what TAXABLE INCOME is? Do you know what Income is? I don’t. but from what I can tell you must be receiving a Congressional right (like a being an officer of a United States Federal Corporation (not just a State Corporation)or being a Federal Employee) in order to have TAXABLE INCOME. If you have NOT received a Congressional right then you cannot go to Tax Court (a particularized tribunal) and that is the ONLY established relief for ‘taxpayers’.

Economy Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. U. S. 470 F.2d 585, *589 (Ct.Cl.,1972)

”**[P]ersons who are not taxpayers** are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers…” )

Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, *83-84, (1982)

Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress and other rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell’s and Raddatz’ recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.

What seems to me to be the correct answer is that the only people that have TAXABLE INCOME are people that are government employees or have received a Congressional right to work like a Federal Corporate officer. I could be wrong but if I am why can ONLY ‘taxpayers’ go to Tax Court and why is Tax Court a PARTICULARIZED TRIBUNAL?

I did not voluntarily accept a Congressionally created right. Did you?
Design and Original Content Copyright © 2005 - 2008 Independent American Party of Nevada

[CHH]

To see the above with links go to
http://www.independentamerican.org/blog.php?blog=971