Hey look ill test this when it becomes a facts and I don't have to worry about agents arresting me or putting leans on property. Once that gets sorted I'm glad to try out the scenario.
100% correct. If you don't file you will have the IRS knocking at your door, auditing you for the past 5 years, putting leans on your home, and garnishing your wages and not a damn thing you can do. This is why they come after you so hard. Because if they didn't, the IRS would have collapsed decades ago from its illegal confiscation of our assets. This needs to be dealt with at a much higher level, and I think Trump is doing that.
If you sign a document that states you do not have tax liability, that's not evidence you believe you do have liability. Volunteering correct info if you understand the law and have no liability is perfectly law-abiding.
Yeah but. Nonfiling is not a solution for most people even though filing is not formally required (it's voluntary). If you don't volunteer, you empower the IRS to draw its own conclusions about your income (confiscation is often legal), which conclusions will generally depend upon the information returns it received that were copied to you. It's all about the info returns, if they are accurate then pay the tax, if they are inaccurate then correct them so that they won't audit you.
OP imagines that the only nexus is DC connection. This is incorrect, because working in territories or for a federal corporation are easy examples of other nexuses. Unless you locate the nexus that associates you with income tax, you won't know for sure how much you owe, and it doesn't help to listen to quick takes.
If you don't volunteer, you empower the IRS to draw its own conclusions about your income (confiscation is often legal)
Theft of property by IRS happens to filers, not non-filers.
When you sign that document as being correct and true, "under penalty of perjury," you WAIVE your rights.
Non-filers do not, and therefore IRS must take them to court, where due process can (and should) apply. Maybe they still take your property, but only after a court battle -- in which YOU do NOT provide any information that could be used against you (5th Amendment).
Joe Bannister, former IRS Special Agent (the ones who carry guns and make criminal arrests) said that when he took on a new case, the FIRST THING he did was pull all past tax returns, so HE COULD USE THAT TESTIMONY AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PERSON.
OP imagines that the only nexus is DC connection. This is incorrect, because working in territories or for a federal corporation are easy examples of other nexuses.
It used to be that way, but over the years, 26 USC 7701 (a)(10) has been re-defined and re-defined until today it ONLY applies to DC.
The other territories have, one-by-one, been given their own tax code so that the federal income tax (26 USC) does not apply to those territories anymore.
it doesn't help to listen to quick takes.
Agreed.
It's a deep subject that must be understood, and a 2-minute rant video does not cut it.
I wonder if we'd have a United States if people back then took the same attitude. We all know what they are doing is wrong and immoral and fueling our enemies. It is our duty to rebel imo. I will not be paying income tax anymore or filing any longer.
I think Willy Nelson tried telling us this decades ago. My patriotic AF veteran dad thought Willy was a POS for not paying his share, but I've had a different perspective the past 10 years.
Ummmm you do you buddy. I wish you the best of luck in your legal troubles, and I really mean that. I voted for the chance to see the its be abolished. It might be a few years but i think it might happen, in the meantime I'm not going to subject my property to that amorphous entity so they can use the system to steal my stuff. I'm hunkering down for these 4 years and prepare to do something in the meantime should the effort fail
It's always been voluntary. There's never been a law that says anybody in any of the 50 states has to pay income tax. The Supreme Court has ruled on this numerous times I mean, it's so obvious to anybody who pays attention.
Not too bad a link, tstr, but somewhat disorganized. Problem is, laws do permit the IRS to collect income tax if it has credible information (via info returns) that sufficient income was earned and if there is no contrary information. In those cases people in the 50 states do have to pay, similarly to if they earn money from a federal corporation. The law hides the nexus and that's why I tell people to find it.
We don't advance the situation by oversimplifying the nexus into things like "not in the 50 states", we handicap ourselves.
That's right, Federal corporations and also the 7 US territories, not just Washington D.C. Guam, Puerto Rico, et al...
The website is ok, the book is where all the good info is. Website is really just for posting his evidence and others successes. There is good info there though.
My employer takes the taxes out of my paycheck automatically. If you read the book at the link I provided, it shows you the law and how to get it back. Labor is not a taxable event.
This part is right: labor without federal nexus is a property right always upheld by the Supremes, and is not taxable in itself. That's why it's so important to determine for sure, according to the IRC, whether your labor generates income or not, as there are several categories of income it can generate. It's not about confessing unless you don't know the law and inadvertently confess to something you don't understand. Read, cross-reference, and understand the law and you'll be fine.
You HAVE to know how to do it, and do it RIGHT!! I knew a guy who did this also, and he never paid tax. They even tried to take his house when he died, but his wife's joint ownership stopped that.
However, uncle did make his life a living hell! And I mean a living hell, but it never slowed him down.
Excellent eye-opener. It doesn't settle on any one theory, just interviews several who have competing views on the correct application of the tax. The correct application is the one in the IRC, but not what its biased explications lead one to believe. Indeed David Rockefeller appears to have hated Aaron Russo after Russo refused an offer he couldn't refuse; but Russo also didn't get the whole story together. The Whitey Harrell trial in the film is gold for teaching jury nullification.
I’ve paid my taxes, reading lately, looks to me that I’m a FOOL, my one Congress person, my two Senators are in it too, once again I’m a FOOL, I have two long time friendships in the pass that never file, there in their 70ies
Basically, if someone accuses you of not filing (W2), you need to correct the record (1099). So it seems like if you don’t correct it correctly, or don’t answer the accusation, or don’t pay the accused amount - 3 effective options - you get in trouble.
Don’t worry, even on this site there’s plenty of us paying fools.
W-2 and 1099 are not accusations of nonfiling or corrections, they are allegations of income categories. Some forms are corrected by edited versions of themselves, others are formally corrected by different forms. I haven't searched this lately, but see if there's an easily found IRS form that is used to correct erroneous forms W-2.
That’s not quite what I meant. Was attempting to summarize the story.
Whether I was intentionally (I wasn’t, but nobody can know that) or unintentionally misrepresenting the issue, or accurately representing it, part of the problem with this whole topic is just how precise and accurate it’s necessary to be, legally, while swimming in both intentional and unintentional disinfo, both of which can be quite complex.
It’s very annoying. Hopefully Trump just makes this crap illegal, or we figure out how to make AI prove a path out or something. That’s definitely what most people would need to get out of it.
Thank you for noting. The issue is that the Internal Revenue Code is now designed to make accurate summation so difficult that people fall into traps that then get declared frivolous. It's my opinion that I've got it right and that I can explain it to others, but I could be wrong too! Have been watching for the critical mass to form that is agreed on the same path, but it hasn't and I've been working on other things. It would be interesting if the anons figure it out en masse and force Trump to get ahead of the issue instead of to work around it.
Anyone know how juggling multiple sources of income works in all this. For instance an average FT W2 job that you file, then say freelancer work with a 1099 that you’d prefer not to claim?
There was a man in Sycamore Illinois, who in the late 1980s or early 1990s sued the IRS and won. His case was built on the premise that it is not our responsibility to hire someone to determine how much we owe. It is the IRS's responsibility to tell us what we owe. He actually won the case. Rumor has it, they made his life miserable from then on. Years later, he lost his home to foreclosure. I remember it well, but I cannot find any articles about that lawsuit.
One could argue that this is now true - given the Sept '24 ruling by SCOTUS on the SEC Administrative Courts, stating that Administrative Courts deprive the Citizen of the Rights of Trial By Jury.
IRS Tax Courts are Administrative Courts. Ergo - if you cannot have a Jury, the process is Unconstitutional.
Question becomes - Who is willing to try first? I still hold, that a Nationwide Tax Protest with just one million, or even 100 or 10 thousand US Citizens, banding together in this pursuit would be effective.
Who is subject to the general jurisdiction of the United States?
The guy I knew who fought this, and was always successful, had this premise also. A state resident (as in, born in their state) is a state "citizen" and not a US citizen.
Subject to the general jurisdiction of the United States meant US citizens ie. DC, Guam, Puerto Rico and such! Whether true or not, he never paid income tax. But as said earlier, they made his life hell!
Edit: Seems like "continental" states entered into it somehow, but memory fails as it's been 40 years ago.
The US has Constitutional jurisdiction over "income" earned anywhere in the world by anyone. Therefore "income" must be limited in definition to categories of money transfers that have federal nexus. It's possible to have federal nexus in the 50 states and elsewhere outside the territories, therefore this is not the nexus. It's there in the IRC and it's there in the W-2 and other information returns.
The US has Constitutional jurisdiction over "income" earned anywhere in the world by anyone.
Technically, Congress has not imposed a tax on "income."
Rather, it has imposed a tax on "taxable income," which is a term of art that Congress created and defined.
See: 26 USC 1.
When you research that, you get to the definition of "gross income," and when you research the regulations, including the past history of the regulations regarding "gross income," you find that the regulations say that gross income means ... blah blah blah ... UNLESS EXCLUDED BY LAW.
This does not appear in the statute, but only in the regulations.
The past regulations said, "... unless excluded by fundamental law, or otherwise not taxed under the Constitution." This language has been changed over the years to hide the true meaning, but the meaning still exists because it MUST exist in order to stay constitutional (and to be in line with the SCOTUS decisions about what "income" means).
There are also some areas of the tax code that give a different definition of "income," which are very interesting, as well.
And if you apply for a passport, be sure to check US citizen and DO NOT take advantage of the fact that you can attach a notarized, sworn statement stating that you do not have federal citizenship from the United States and that your domicile is in one of the states of the Union.
Statements like this poison the evidence if the other side were to try to use a passport application in a tax prosecution.
Denying citizenship, denying ZIP code, or denying DC residence do not win cases, return money, or gain points. They do get people in trouble because they are generally not the nexus. Money transfers can constitute income wherever in the world you live and whatever citizenship or nationality you have; read the IRC for details. However, as implied above, if you've received a W-2 that's a credible allegation that you've been paid income and that allegation is not rebutted by referring to ZIP codes or other ineffective demurrals.
You're on the right track, but unless you read and understand the IRC you won't see where the nexus is found. You can start by finding the (three) boxes on the W-2 that allege income and investigating why there are three of them instead of just one.
Yep... it's a "whole thing" and not a life I want to live anymore just to "be right" or principled. It's a hard existence when you either Never was part of "the system" or rescinded everything.
Thoughts for u/MAG768720 mostly all in one place. First point, since I represent the Swamp Rangers at large I'm cautious about saying too much or speaking too directly to this issue, but because you've got the fundamentals I can go into more specifics. Specifically, I encourage everyone to stick to the main issue (income) because it's the side issues that have gotten so many into trouble. When the main issue is seen clearly the pitfalls of the side issues can be avoided.
Income: Yes, the tax is on "taxable income", which is a subset of "gross income", but then you stopped short of quoting 26 USC 61, and that's the statute not the regulation: "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: Compensation ...." So gross income is defined as "income", which is itself never defined. Compensation and thus "wages" are categories of income. Because of the Constitution and the Supremes' constant insistence that labor for pay is a 14th-amendment property right (cf. Declaration), we realize that "income" and "wages" must only mean some evitable earning category, i.e. some transfer of money with federal (not state) nexus. If money changes hands in China without any US federal nexus, obviously it's not "income" or "wages" under US law, even though it may be by the dictionary definition. The law only applies to its jurisdiction. The reason for not defining "income" is that it would explicitly explain the federal nexus and make it much easier for the tax to be avoided by the masses via the structuring of affairs that you advocate. (It's also appropriate to use the former regulatory language, which you quote as "unless excluded by fundamental law, or otherwise not taxed under the Constitution", as indicating that we must apply the Constitution's protections and statements of jurisdiction to determine whether something is income.)
Wages: Now you correctly named the categories on the W-2 that might be considered income, but I'm focusing on "wages" because it's mentioned three times (1, 3, 5); and for many people that might seem redundant especially if all three boxes are identical totals. (The operation on other categories than "wages" can be handled separately.) Note that each classification of "wages" has a different withholding amount (2, 4, 6) due to a different tax. The same transaction is being taxed by three different forms of income taxes. In some cases, the amount of "wages" differ from box to box (for instance, if you are earning seven figures, your "Social Security wages" are not that whole number but a smaller maximum as a subset of all your earnings). So it's essential to understand all three taxes: you're taxed on (federal) "wages", "SS wages", and "Medicare wages", each defined differently. It's not redundant, and this is where you make a statement that plays into the hands of the misdirectors, because calling it Social Security or Medicare is not irrelevant at all.
Chapter 24: I like to point out there are actually four taxes of the same kind covered by Chapters 21-24 of Subtitle C: Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Medicare, and Federal Withholding. The first two were passed at the same time, but I don't think anyone's on Railroad Retirement anymore; so W-2 recipients see three. You refer to 3401(a), (c) (Chapter 24), which are definitions for Federal Withholding tax, particularly of "employee". Of course, remember that, in this definition, "includes" is construed according to 7701(c), so it does not necessarily include or exclude things not named; it must be determined what things are of the same category such that they are included along with the things named. So the nexus for box 1, withholding tax or FIT, is established due to the inclusion requirements of 3401(c); the other two nexuses are not.
22: For instruction, the definition of "employee" for Railroad Retirement is completely different and appears at 3231(b) (Chapter 22): it "means any individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation". Here the word is "means", not "includes", because the language is broad. However, "employer" is specifically defined for this chapter only in a very long text in 3231(a) that basically only means railroad employees, which obviously have the federal nexus. Nobody would deny that for RR purposes ordinary businesses are not "employers" but only railroad businesses. This is a clearcut example of how terms of art do not necessarily have the same definitions as the ordinary words they use; 3231(a) "employers" do not include all common-meaning employers. This indicates why we should be on our guard when determining the meaning of the terms of art that rely on inclusion to establish their nexuses. Another essential, when speaking of different taxes, words like "employer" and "employee" change meanings: you must know the scope of which tax you're talking about to know whether the payer is an "employer" or not, as most buyers of labor are not 3231(a) "employers" even though they call themselves employers.
21, 23: Since I've told you that Social Security and Medicare depend on Chapters 21 and 23, I'm sure you can take it under advisement that their taxes depend on different meanings of words like "employee" than the two I've explained. That's a big part of the confusion, because those who are aware of the various scopes can take advantage easily of those who are unaware of them. In particular, since "wages" has multiple meanings we can't just refer to one meaning as if it has universal scope; we must refer as the form does to (federal) wages, SS wages, and Medicare wages. That's why it's not just in DC and/or territories, and/or working for the government, and/or "working on the railroad" for a corporation; it's all cases of federal privilege or nexus that the government enumerates, or includes, anywhere in the law. To say less is to enter a minefield unprepared.
Side trail: The declaration under penalties of perjury (and the dilatory attempt by some to contrast "penalties" and "penalty") does not signify the nexus, it merely establishes that a return constitutes sworn evidence. For instance, the W-3 form is used by a payer to swear that the accompanying W-2's are submitted under penalties of perjury. If you do not submit a 1040 or similar sworn form, it's the payer's word against nobody else's. The 4852 does not have a declaration because it's designed to accompany the 1040 and be covered by the 1040's declaration; the 4868 doesn't have a declaration because it's a courtesy and no significant facts are being attested to. The purpose of the declaration is simply to make the submission actionable. If a person declares they owe the tax but doesn't pay it, that's actionable; if a person doesn't swear they owe the tax (e.g. unsigned 1040) then it's not actionable without some competent person making the assessment. (The IRS is empowered to be the competent person after a year or two; it's better to assess yourself than to let the IRS assess you by your inaction.) If someone says that signing is the activity that causes money to be income, rather than the nature of the money transaction itself, that person is distracting you. The signing of a W-3, a correct or an incorrect one, can't cause money to change its category either from what it was by the nature of its transaction. Those are just forms that report, on the reporter's limited knowledge, what the categories and amounts of the money are. Incorrect limited knowledge can be corrected later under applicable laws and regulations.
Conclusions: (1) If you believe it unnecessary to file anything when someone has filed an info return (W-2, 1099, etc.) stating that you earned income, we might argue that it's "unnecessary" meaning voluntary, but nonfiling abrogates your right to self-assessment, and the info return signed by another begins a clock that allows the IRS to assess you in lieu of your self-assessment, and that process is slow but not fun. (2) So I tell everyone, report on every transaction that others reported on your behalf, and pay all the taxes you owe; nonfiling may be conscientious disobedience but it exposes you more directly to the risks that most people are trying to avoid by adopting it. (3) The simplest case is accurate evaluation of the three categories of "wages" from the W-2, and you need to see the laws as to all three (Chapters 24, 21, and 23 in that order) before evaluating, as well as to understand that 7701(c) inclusion operates to add items similar to those enumerated. (4) I didn't spell out all the details in any of those three chapters because some work must be done by each student of truth; ultimately I can't decide for anyone but me the meaning of those chapters, as each person is responsible to be a sovereign citizen and determine the nature of the tax personally and assess accordingly. (5) In particular, that goes back to inspecting every info return you have received, knowing the definitions of the categories of income there described, and indicating, for your protection, your acceptance or correction of the amounts determined; no tax preparer would tell you any differently in the event that you sincerely contested the amount of "wages" received from a payer.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article 6).
The Constitution grants to Congress (i.e. federal government) certain powers, some of which apply to the 50 States, and some of which apply ONLY to the territory that is owned by the federal government. So, the federal government has a DUAL jurisdiction. THIS is the KEY.
ALL powers not listed in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government belong to the States or the People (10th Amendment).
The constitutional clauses that grant Congress the power to tax (all types of taxes) are: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17; and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
I will abbreviate these as 1:8:1, 1:8:17, and 4:3:2.
1:8:17 and 4:3:2 do not ACTUALLY mention taxes, but they are construed to INCLUDE taxes in the powers listed.
1:8:1 is the general power of taxation, but specifically mentions indirect taxes, and says that indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the States, which means THIS clause applies to the States, but ONLY for the purposes enumerated.
1:8:17 is the federal government's jurisdiction for the District of Columbia AND the federal enclaves (military bases, dockyards, etc.). It says the feds have authority to "make ALL laws that are necessary and proper ..." This will always be construed to include taxation.
4:3:2 is the federal government's jurisdiction for the federal territories (which includes DC but also Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). It says Congress has the power to "make all needful rules and regulations ..." which will always include taxation. ALL rules and regulations.
In the OP, a "reader comment" says that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to impose an income tax, being a direct tax without apportionment. THIS IS A LIE! And it is THEE lie that the IRS relies on.
SCOTUS, in TWO cases right after the 1913 income tax was implemented, stated and then re-stated that the 16th Amendment did NOT give Congress ANY new taxing authority. The court specifically addressed the claim that the income tax was a direct tax without apportionment, and REJECTED THAT CLAIM. They stated that ANY income tax is, BY ITS NATURE, an INDIRECT tax.
So, the 16th Amendment is IRRELEVANT, according to the United States Supreme Court (in both the Brushaber case and in the Stanton case).
This means, NECESSARILY ...
That the income tax today is authorized by the Constitution ONLY under 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. Indirect taxes are, by their nature, taxes on PRIVILEGES. Earning wages and other forms of revenue are NOT privileges granted to the People by the Constitution.
However, as a tax ONLY imposed on the people living in, working in, and deriving their "income" from the federal territories and federal privileges, and NOT a tax on the People living in the 50 States, the income tax ... IS constitutional.
That is because of 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 -- NOT 1:8:1.
This is WHY the income tax and the regulations are written the way they are -- IF YOU READ THEM CAREFULLY (which nobody does).
Title 26 includes an income tax, but also includes other taxes.
I wrote about all of this in other threads on GAW:
I realize most people don't want to do their homework. For such people, pay "your" taxes like a good little slave, and stop bitching about it.
For those who want to do the homework, start with the understanding that the income tax is authorized for FEDERAL TERRITORIES, and read everything with that understanding in mind.
You're on the right track. It's true that income tax is indirect and thus uniform, but it's not AND but OR when you say 'living in, working in, and deriving their "income" from the federal territories and federal privileges'. Keep in mind there are many kinds of federal privileges, because if you don't you run the risk of (frivolously) oversimplifying the case. If you don't mind my assigning you homework, which are the privileges referred to on the W-2? They're generally not related to location of the work performed. The several categories and their confusability is one of the reasons people can't get the whole story even though it's in the IRC, and why people with parts of the story get slapped down easily as frivolous.
If you don't mind my assigning you homework, which are the privileges referred to on the W-2?
I'd rather you just state what you know, and we can discuss that.
But regarding W-2, it has to do with "wages," "tips," "dependent care benefits," "nonqualified plans," and "other."
The "social security" and "medicare" designations are irrelevant, as they are just categories of the overall income tax, but under Subtitle C rather than Subtitle A (but same thing, for practical purposes).
"Wages," defined in the code (at 26 USC 3401(a) and (c)) are basically money received for working for the federal government. You are correct that you don't have to do the work within the physical territory of DC. You could do that work anywhere.
The other categories, I have not looked into.
The ideal situation when it comes to W2 and 1099 is to arrange your financial life in such a way that those forms are not legally required to be generated in the first place; and if they are, then you have a legal way to avoid filing returns about them. One example is that corporations are exempt from receiving 1099's. There are a lot of "exceptions" in the tax code.
You can also file for a refund, but I understand that to be a bit "hit or miss," in terms of results.
LOOK how corrupt the judges are chasing after the President Of The United States, look how corrupt our law enforcement is chasing after the President Of The United States, me, I’m Joe Blow, I would be put in the meat grinder.
Hey look ill test this when it becomes a facts and I don't have to worry about agents arresting me or putting leans on property. Once that gets sorted I'm glad to try out the scenario.
100% correct. If you don't file you will have the IRS knocking at your door, auditing you for the past 5 years, putting leans on your home, and garnishing your wages and not a damn thing you can do. This is why they come after you so hard. Because if they didn't, the IRS would have collapsed decades ago from its illegal confiscation of our assets. This needs to be dealt with at a much higher level, and I think Trump is doing that.
It's your signature that makes it a contract - which brings it under contract or maritime law.
First step is don't sign any tax forms.
Your signature does not bring it under "maritime law." And it is not a contract. Who is the other party signing? Nobody, so it cannot be a contract.
BUT ...
Your signature IS prima facie evidence that YOU BELIEVE ... that YOU HAVE A TAX LIABILITY ... that YOU MUST PAY.
"Voluntary compliance."
You CAN volunteer. And if you DO volunteer, then you MUST comply with the rules -- you said so yourself, under penalty of perjury.
What about UCC1-207 signing under protest etc.?
If you sign a document that states you do not have tax liability, that's not evidence you believe you do have liability. Volunteering correct info if you understand the law and have no liability is perfectly law-abiding.
u/gloryhallelujah22
Yes, Form 4852.
But I'm not convinced it is necessary to do even that.
Have you ever noticed something:
Form 1040 requires one to sign under penalty of perjury.
Form 4852 does not.
Form 4868 does not.
Must be a reason ...
Yeah but. Nonfiling is not a solution for most people even though filing is not formally required (it's voluntary). If you don't volunteer, you empower the IRS to draw its own conclusions about your income (confiscation is often legal), which conclusions will generally depend upon the information returns it received that were copied to you. It's all about the info returns, if they are accurate then pay the tax, if they are inaccurate then correct them so that they won't audit you.
OP imagines that the only nexus is DC connection. This is incorrect, because working in territories or for a federal corporation are easy examples of other nexuses. Unless you locate the nexus that associates you with income tax, you won't know for sure how much you owe, and it doesn't help to listen to quick takes.
Theft of property by IRS happens to filers, not non-filers.
When you sign that document as being correct and true, "under penalty of perjury," you WAIVE your rights.
Non-filers do not, and therefore IRS must take them to court, where due process can (and should) apply. Maybe they still take your property, but only after a court battle -- in which YOU do NOT provide any information that could be used against you (5th Amendment).
Joe Bannister, former IRS Special Agent (the ones who carry guns and make criminal arrests) said that when he took on a new case, the FIRST THING he did was pull all past tax returns, so HE COULD USE THAT TESTIMONY AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PERSON.
It used to be that way, but over the years, 26 USC 7701 (a)(10) has been re-defined and re-defined until today it ONLY applies to DC.
The other territories have, one-by-one, been given their own tax code so that the federal income tax (26 USC) does not apply to those territories anymore.
Agreed.
It's a deep subject that must be understood, and a 2-minute rant video does not cut it.
I am thinking about testing this already. Not this year.
losthorizons.com
Buy the book and read it. You'll be surprised...
Appreciate that. I will look into that definitely.
^ what u/tstr said
I wonder if we'd have a United States if people back then took the same attitude. We all know what they are doing is wrong and immoral and fueling our enemies. It is our duty to rebel imo. I will not be paying income tax anymore or filing any longer.
I think Willy Nelson tried telling us this decades ago. My patriotic AF veteran dad thought Willy was a POS for not paying his share, but I've had a different perspective the past 10 years.
Ummmm you do you buddy. I wish you the best of luck in your legal troubles, and I really mean that. I voted for the chance to see the its be abolished. It might be a few years but i think it might happen, in the meantime I'm not going to subject my property to that amorphous entity so they can use the system to steal my stuff. I'm hunkering down for these 4 years and prepare to do something in the meantime should the effort fail
It's always been voluntary. There's never been a law that says anybody in any of the 50 states has to pay income tax. The Supreme Court has ruled on this numerous times I mean, it's so obvious to anybody who pays attention.
Losthorizons.com
A income tax return is a confession form. Fill in out and sign it. Then everything changes. My father taught me this 40 years ago.
Thank you for the link!
Trust me, I did that b4 and almost ended up getting my wages garnished. Don't want to do that.
Not too bad a link, tstr, but somewhat disorganized. Problem is, laws do permit the IRS to collect income tax if it has credible information (via info returns) that sufficient income was earned and if there is no contrary information. In those cases people in the 50 states do have to pay, similarly to if they earn money from a federal corporation. The law hides the nexus and that's why I tell people to find it.
We don't advance the situation by oversimplifying the nexus into things like "not in the 50 states", we handicap ourselves.
That's right, Federal corporations and also the 7 US territories, not just Washington D.C. Guam, Puerto Rico, et al...
The website is ok, the book is where all the good info is. Website is really just for posting his evidence and others successes. There is good info there though.
So you don’t pay income tax?
My employer takes the taxes out of my paycheck automatically. If you read the book at the link I provided, it shows you the law and how to get it back. Labor is not a taxable event.
This part is right: labor without federal nexus is a property right always upheld by the Supremes, and is not taxable in itself. That's why it's so important to determine for sure, according to the IRC, whether your labor generates income or not, as there are several categories of income it can generate. It's not about confessing unless you don't know the law and inadvertently confess to something you don't understand. Read, cross-reference, and understand the law and you'll be fine.
u/Planetaryoverdrive u/Transamerican
If you are AFFRIAD to NOT PAY your taxes, just a reminder the people who file no taxes the most, are the people who work at the IRS. Let that SINK IN
I know someone who works for the IRS since college days and he files taxes. I now that.
Interesting, but I bet a lawyer in Texas would not even test it.
I would not test it yet.
I know someone who fucked around about this, and he definitely found out.
You HAVE to know how to do it, and do it RIGHT!! I knew a guy who did this also, and he never paid tax. They even tried to take his house when he died, but his wife's joint ownership stopped that.
However, uncle did make his life a living hell! And I mean a living hell, but it never slowed him down.
Hence I don't dare yet.
I recommend watching this documentary:
America: Freedom to Fascism (2006)
A documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772153/plotsummary?item=po1081880
Excellent eye-opener. It doesn't settle on any one theory, just interviews several who have competing views on the correct application of the tax. The correct application is the one in the IRC, but not what its biased explications lead one to believe. Indeed David Rockefeller appears to have hated Aaron Russo after Russo refused an offer he couldn't refuse; but Russo also didn't get the whole story together. The Whitey Harrell trial in the film is gold for teaching jury nullification.
u/AmateurExpert
You read Tom Woods’ book on JN?
“I wonder why he would have died right after making this.”
https://archive.org/details/youtube-2jcW226e57Q
Thank you so much. I love all the information everyone is bringing to me.
I'll wait til Trump says not to file
Which he could’ve done in front of congres.
2nd that.
What about our diamonds?? When the federal reserve is destroyed, will our diamonds be returned??
Waiting.
Is this our liberation on April 2nd?
I sure hope so.
All they need is your consent.
I don't consent.
I’ve paid my taxes, reading lately, looks to me that I’m a FOOL, my one Congress person, my two Senators are in it too, once again I’m a FOOL, I have two long time friendships in the pass that never file, there in their 70ies
I know people who haven’t paid in 20 years. They had some trouble when they didn’t file, as I understand it.
Might want to check this out, it seems fairly accurate. https://greatawakening.win/p/19AwoddNxK/bobs-bicycles--a-story-of-the-in/c/
Basically, if someone accuses you of not filing (W2), you need to correct the record (1099). So it seems like if you don’t correct it correctly, or don’t answer the accusation, or don’t pay the accused amount - 3 effective options - you get in trouble.
Don’t worry, even on this site there’s plenty of us paying fools.
W-2 and 1099 are not accusations of nonfiling or corrections, they are allegations of income categories. Some forms are corrected by edited versions of themselves, others are formally corrected by different forms. I haven't searched this lately, but see if there's an easily found IRS form that is used to correct erroneous forms W-2.
That’s not quite what I meant. Was attempting to summarize the story.
Whether I was intentionally (I wasn’t, but nobody can know that) or unintentionally misrepresenting the issue, or accurately representing it, part of the problem with this whole topic is just how precise and accurate it’s necessary to be, legally, while swimming in both intentional and unintentional disinfo, both of which can be quite complex.
It’s very annoying. Hopefully Trump just makes this crap illegal, or we figure out how to make AI prove a path out or something. That’s definitely what most people would need to get out of it.
Thank you for noting. The issue is that the Internal Revenue Code is now designed to make accurate summation so difficult that people fall into traps that then get declared frivolous. It's my opinion that I've got it right and that I can explain it to others, but I could be wrong too! Have been watching for the critical mass to form that is agreed on the same path, but it hasn't and I've been working on other things. It would be interesting if the anons figure it out en masse and force Trump to get ahead of the issue instead of to work around it.
Oh derp. I see what you meant now too. Yeah that’s worded poorly. As noted on the first comment, how easy it is to do that is part of the problem.
Anyone know how juggling multiple sources of income works in all this. For instance an average FT W2 job that you file, then say freelancer work with a 1099 that you’d prefer not to claim?
I just scheduled my tax preparer. I probably shouldn't but then, I don't want that knock on the door. They will shoot my dogs.
Sovereign states should pay tariffs if they want to continue to do business in the USA!
I think TN and AR will be the first.
There was a man in Sycamore Illinois, who in the late 1980s or early 1990s sued the IRS and won. His case was built on the premise that it is not our responsibility to hire someone to determine how much we owe. It is the IRS's responsibility to tell us what we owe. He actually won the case. Rumor has it, they made his life miserable from then on. Years later, he lost his home to foreclosure. I remember it well, but I cannot find any articles about that lawsuit.
Right now, I don't dare to do this yet.
One could argue that this is now true - given the Sept '24 ruling by SCOTUS on the SEC Administrative Courts, stating that Administrative Courts deprive the Citizen of the Rights of Trial By Jury.
IRS Tax Courts are Administrative Courts. Ergo - if you cannot have a Jury, the process is Unconstitutional.
Here's a Grok summary of these points: https://x.com/i/grok/share/NV3qNBynSIhOkv7eUrmgKDsIv
Question becomes - Who is willing to try first? I still hold, that a Nationwide Tax Protest with just one million, or even 100 or 10 thousand US Citizens, banding together in this pursuit would be effective.
I would not dare.
https://boundarystones.org/view.php?stone=EAST
One side says "JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES".
The other says MARYLAND.
Think deeply on this simple idea. Who is subject to the general jurisdiction of the United States?
The guy I knew who fought this, and was always successful, had this premise also. A state resident (as in, born in their state) is a state "citizen" and not a US citizen.
Subject to the general jurisdiction of the United States meant US citizens ie. DC, Guam, Puerto Rico and such! Whether true or not, he never paid income tax. But as said earlier, they made his life hell!
Edit: Seems like "continental" states entered into it somehow, but memory fails as it's been 40 years ago.
The US has Constitutional jurisdiction over "income" earned anywhere in the world by anyone. Therefore "income" must be limited in definition to categories of money transfers that have federal nexus. It's possible to have federal nexus in the 50 states and elsewhere outside the territories, therefore this is not the nexus. It's there in the IRC and it's there in the W-2 and other information returns.
u/Archon69
Technically, Congress has not imposed a tax on "income."
Rather, it has imposed a tax on "taxable income," which is a term of art that Congress created and defined.
See: 26 USC 1.
When you research that, you get to the definition of "gross income," and when you research the regulations, including the past history of the regulations regarding "gross income," you find that the regulations say that gross income means ... blah blah blah ... UNLESS EXCLUDED BY LAW.
This does not appear in the statute, but only in the regulations.
The past regulations said, "... unless excluded by fundamental law, or otherwise not taxed under the Constitution." This language has been changed over the years to hide the true meaning, but the meaning still exists because it MUST exist in order to stay constitutional (and to be in line with the SCOTUS decisions about what "income" means).
There are also some areas of the tax code that give a different definition of "income," which are very interesting, as well.
The United States ('the' is used because United States is singular)
these united states ('these' is used because united states ARE plural)
If you are past 50, maybe you remember a Reader's Digest humor section called Life in these United States.
What great info.
Correct.
Just keep checkin that box that acknowledges you are a "US Citizen" to confirm you really reside in DC...complete with "ZIP code"...
…. Well now I want to know what a ZIP Code actually is.
Maybe Uncle Remus can help...
u/#catdance
Lul
You know what legislation it was passed in?
Lots of details on how the numbers break down, not so many on where it came from, legally.
Just a quick search: https://satcomm911.com/PDFS/Mailing%20To%20States.pdf
Use discernment...I didn't read thru more than the 1st page and a quick scroll...
Maybe this Yandex Query will help... Uh huh huh, he said Query...
Ty!
And if you apply for a passport, be sure to check US citizen and DO NOT take advantage of the fact that you can attach a notarized, sworn statement stating that you do not have federal citizenship from the United States and that your domicile is in one of the states of the Union.
Statements like this poison the evidence if the other side were to try to use a passport application in a tax prosecution.
Denying citizenship, denying ZIP code, or denying DC residence do not win cases, return money, or gain points. They do get people in trouble because they are generally not the nexus. Money transfers can constitute income wherever in the world you live and whatever citizenship or nationality you have; read the IRC for details. However, as implied above, if you've received a W-2 that's a credible allegation that you've been paid income and that allegation is not rebutted by referring to ZIP codes or other ineffective demurrals.
You're on the right track, but unless you read and understand the IRC you won't see where the nexus is found. You can start by finding the (three) boxes on the W-2 that allege income and investigating why there are three of them instead of just one.
Yep... it's a "whole thing" and not a life I want to live anymore just to "be right" or principled. It's a hard existence when you either Never was part of "the system" or rescinded everything.
Just spit it out, rather than playing guessing games.
I know right?
Apparently when you acknowledge your zip code it means you are acknowledging that you are a resident of DC.
A trick.
Thoughts for u/MAG768720 mostly all in one place. First point, since I represent the Swamp Rangers at large I'm cautious about saying too much or speaking too directly to this issue, but because you've got the fundamentals I can go into more specifics. Specifically, I encourage everyone to stick to the main issue (income) because it's the side issues that have gotten so many into trouble. When the main issue is seen clearly the pitfalls of the side issues can be avoided.
Income: Yes, the tax is on "taxable income", which is a subset of "gross income", but then you stopped short of quoting 26 USC 61, and that's the statute not the regulation: "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: Compensation ...." So gross income is defined as "income", which is itself never defined. Compensation and thus "wages" are categories of income. Because of the Constitution and the Supremes' constant insistence that labor for pay is a 14th-amendment property right (cf. Declaration), we realize that "income" and "wages" must only mean some evitable earning category, i.e. some transfer of money with federal (not state) nexus. If money changes hands in China without any US federal nexus, obviously it's not "income" or "wages" under US law, even though it may be by the dictionary definition. The law only applies to its jurisdiction. The reason for not defining "income" is that it would explicitly explain the federal nexus and make it much easier for the tax to be avoided by the masses via the structuring of affairs that you advocate. (It's also appropriate to use the former regulatory language, which you quote as "unless excluded by fundamental law, or otherwise not taxed under the Constitution", as indicating that we must apply the Constitution's protections and statements of jurisdiction to determine whether something is income.)
Wages: Now you correctly named the categories on the W-2 that might be considered income, but I'm focusing on "wages" because it's mentioned three times (1, 3, 5); and for many people that might seem redundant especially if all three boxes are identical totals. (The operation on other categories than "wages" can be handled separately.) Note that each classification of "wages" has a different withholding amount (2, 4, 6) due to a different tax. The same transaction is being taxed by three different forms of income taxes. In some cases, the amount of "wages" differ from box to box (for instance, if you are earning seven figures, your "Social Security wages" are not that whole number but a smaller maximum as a subset of all your earnings). So it's essential to understand all three taxes: you're taxed on (federal) "wages", "SS wages", and "Medicare wages", each defined differently. It's not redundant, and this is where you make a statement that plays into the hands of the misdirectors, because calling it Social Security or Medicare is not irrelevant at all.
Chapter 24: I like to point out there are actually four taxes of the same kind covered by Chapters 21-24 of Subtitle C: Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Medicare, and Federal Withholding. The first two were passed at the same time, but I don't think anyone's on Railroad Retirement anymore; so W-2 recipients see three. You refer to 3401(a), (c) (Chapter 24), which are definitions for Federal Withholding tax, particularly of "employee". Of course, remember that, in this definition, "includes" is construed according to 7701(c), so it does not necessarily include or exclude things not named; it must be determined what things are of the same category such that they are included along with the things named. So the nexus for box 1, withholding tax or FIT, is established due to the inclusion requirements of 3401(c); the other two nexuses are not.
22: For instruction, the definition of "employee" for Railroad Retirement is completely different and appears at 3231(b) (Chapter 22): it "means any individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation". Here the word is "means", not "includes", because the language is broad. However, "employer" is specifically defined for this chapter only in a very long text in 3231(a) that basically only means railroad employees, which obviously have the federal nexus. Nobody would deny that for RR purposes ordinary businesses are not "employers" but only railroad businesses. This is a clearcut example of how terms of art do not necessarily have the same definitions as the ordinary words they use; 3231(a) "employers" do not include all common-meaning employers. This indicates why we should be on our guard when determining the meaning of the terms of art that rely on inclusion to establish their nexuses. Another essential, when speaking of different taxes, words like "employer" and "employee" change meanings: you must know the scope of which tax you're talking about to know whether the payer is an "employer" or not, as most buyers of labor are not 3231(a) "employers" even though they call themselves employers.
21, 23: Since I've told you that Social Security and Medicare depend on Chapters 21 and 23, I'm sure you can take it under advisement that their taxes depend on different meanings of words like "employee" than the two I've explained. That's a big part of the confusion, because those who are aware of the various scopes can take advantage easily of those who are unaware of them. In particular, since "wages" has multiple meanings we can't just refer to one meaning as if it has universal scope; we must refer as the form does to (federal) wages, SS wages, and Medicare wages. That's why it's not just in DC and/or territories, and/or working for the government, and/or "working on the railroad" for a corporation; it's all cases of federal privilege or nexus that the government enumerates, or includes, anywhere in the law. To say less is to enter a minefield unprepared.
Side trail: The declaration under penalties of perjury (and the dilatory attempt by some to contrast "penalties" and "penalty") does not signify the nexus, it merely establishes that a return constitutes sworn evidence. For instance, the W-3 form is used by a payer to swear that the accompanying W-2's are submitted under penalties of perjury. If you do not submit a 1040 or similar sworn form, it's the payer's word against nobody else's. The 4852 does not have a declaration because it's designed to accompany the 1040 and be covered by the 1040's declaration; the 4868 doesn't have a declaration because it's a courtesy and no significant facts are being attested to. The purpose of the declaration is simply to make the submission actionable. If a person declares they owe the tax but doesn't pay it, that's actionable; if a person doesn't swear they owe the tax (e.g. unsigned 1040) then it's not actionable without some competent person making the assessment. (The IRS is empowered to be the competent person after a year or two; it's better to assess yourself than to let the IRS assess you by your inaction.) If someone says that signing is the activity that causes money to be income, rather than the nature of the money transaction itself, that person is distracting you. The signing of a W-3, a correct or an incorrect one, can't cause money to change its category either from what it was by the nature of its transaction. Those are just forms that report, on the reporter's limited knowledge, what the categories and amounts of the money are. Incorrect limited knowledge can be corrected later under applicable laws and regulations.
Conclusions: (1) If you believe it unnecessary to file anything when someone has filed an info return (W-2, 1099, etc.) stating that you earned income, we might argue that it's "unnecessary" meaning voluntary, but nonfiling abrogates your right to self-assessment, and the info return signed by another begins a clock that allows the IRS to assess you in lieu of your self-assessment, and that process is slow but not fun. (2) So I tell everyone, report on every transaction that others reported on your behalf, and pay all the taxes you owe; nonfiling may be conscientious disobedience but it exposes you more directly to the risks that most people are trying to avoid by adopting it. (3) The simplest case is accurate evaluation of the three categories of "wages" from the W-2, and you need to see the laws as to all three (Chapters 24, 21, and 23 in that order) before evaluating, as well as to understand that 7701(c) inclusion operates to add items similar to those enumerated. (4) I didn't spell out all the details in any of those three chapters because some work must be done by each student of truth; ultimately I can't decide for anyone but me the meaning of those chapters, as each person is responsible to be a sovereign citizen and determine the nature of the tax personally and assess accordingly. (5) In particular, that goes back to inspecting every info return you have received, knowing the definitions of the categories of income there described, and indicating, for your protection, your acceptance or correction of the amounts determined; no tax preparer would tell you any differently in the event that you sincerely contested the amount of "wages" received from a payer.
You are so knowledgeable.
I regularly larp as knowledgeable!
You are. Bless you.
I remember there was an IRS agent who got online and said these things, and she ended up in jail.
Yeah. I don't want them harassing me day and night.
She is correct, but she does not explain WHY.
Here's why:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article 6).
The Constitution grants to Congress (i.e. federal government) certain powers, some of which apply to the 50 States, and some of which apply ONLY to the territory that is owned by the federal government. So, the federal government has a DUAL jurisdiction. THIS is the KEY.
ALL powers not listed in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government belong to the States or the People (10th Amendment).
The constitutional clauses that grant Congress the power to tax (all types of taxes) are: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17; and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
I will abbreviate these as 1:8:1, 1:8:17, and 4:3:2.
1:8:17 and 4:3:2 do not ACTUALLY mention taxes, but they are construed to INCLUDE taxes in the powers listed.
1:8:1 is the general power of taxation, but specifically mentions indirect taxes, and says that indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the States, which means THIS clause applies to the States, but ONLY for the purposes enumerated.
1:8:17 is the federal government's jurisdiction for the District of Columbia AND the federal enclaves (military bases, dockyards, etc.). It says the feds have authority to "make ALL laws that are necessary and proper ..." This will always be construed to include taxation.
4:3:2 is the federal government's jurisdiction for the federal territories (which includes DC but also Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). It says Congress has the power to "make all needful rules and regulations ..." which will always include taxation. ALL rules and regulations.
In the OP, a "reader comment" says that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to impose an income tax, being a direct tax without apportionment. THIS IS A LIE! And it is THEE lie that the IRS relies on.
SCOTUS, in TWO cases right after the 1913 income tax was implemented, stated and then re-stated that the 16th Amendment did NOT give Congress ANY new taxing authority. The court specifically addressed the claim that the income tax was a direct tax without apportionment, and REJECTED THAT CLAIM. They stated that ANY income tax is, BY ITS NATURE, an INDIRECT tax.
So, the 16th Amendment is IRRELEVANT, according to the United States Supreme Court (in both the Brushaber case and in the Stanton case).
This means, NECESSARILY ...
That the income tax today is authorized by the Constitution ONLY under 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. Indirect taxes are, by their nature, taxes on PRIVILEGES. Earning wages and other forms of revenue are NOT privileges granted to the People by the Constitution.
However, as a tax ONLY imposed on the people living in, working in, and deriving their "income" from the federal territories and federal privileges, and NOT a tax on the People living in the 50 States, the income tax ... IS constitutional.
That is because of 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 -- NOT 1:8:1.
This is WHY the income tax and the regulations are written the way they are -- IF YOU READ THEM CAREFULLY (which nobody does).
Title 26 includes an income tax, but also includes other taxes.
I wrote about all of this in other threads on GAW:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17t1k8Zymy/
https://greatawakening.win/p/17txk0DrkW/
I realize most people don't want to do their homework. For such people, pay "your" taxes like a good little slave, and stop bitching about it.
For those who want to do the homework, start with the understanding that the income tax is authorized for FEDERAL TERRITORIES, and read everything with that understanding in mind.
You're on the right track. It's true that income tax is indirect and thus uniform, but it's not AND but OR when you say 'living in, working in, and deriving their "income" from the federal territories and federal privileges'. Keep in mind there are many kinds of federal privileges, because if you don't you run the risk of (frivolously) oversimplifying the case. If you don't mind my assigning you homework, which are the privileges referred to on the W-2? They're generally not related to location of the work performed. The several categories and their confusability is one of the reasons people can't get the whole story even though it's in the IRC, and why people with parts of the story get slapped down easily as frivolous.
I'd rather you just state what you know, and we can discuss that.
But regarding W-2, it has to do with "wages," "tips," "dependent care benefits," "nonqualified plans," and "other."
The "social security" and "medicare" designations are irrelevant, as they are just categories of the overall income tax, but under Subtitle C rather than Subtitle A (but same thing, for practical purposes).
"Wages," defined in the code (at 26 USC 3401(a) and (c)) are basically money received for working for the federal government. You are correct that you don't have to do the work within the physical territory of DC. You could do that work anywhere.
The other categories, I have not looked into.
The ideal situation when it comes to W2 and 1099 is to arrange your financial life in such a way that those forms are not legally required to be generated in the first place; and if they are, then you have a legal way to avoid filing returns about them. One example is that corporations are exempt from receiving 1099's. There are a lot of "exceptions" in the tax code.
You can also file for a refund, but I understand that to be a bit "hit or miss," in terms of results.
Thank you so much. We have great knowledge in this community.
LOOK how corrupt the judges are chasing after the President Of The United States, look how corrupt our law enforcement is chasing after the President Of The United States, me, I’m Joe Blow, I would be put in the meat grinder.
Oh I know.