The "Ignorance Tax"
The Final Rites of Spring, 2011
By Pete Hendrickson; "What statutes create a liability for federal income taxes" and professor Ed Rivera: "The Twenty-Fourth Amendment And The Abolition Of The Collector Of Internal Revenue Made Taxes Voluntary"
Date: 4/3/2011 4:49:45 PM ( 32 mon ) ... viewed 1081 times
That means people who are not required by the written law to pay a Federal tax (typically on Federally connected or privileged "income") are actually voluntarily contributing to the IRS (that is not an agency for the treasury of the United States) and if the people are not fully informed about what they are doing then they are doing it in ignorance of the true nature of the written laws on Federal Income Taxes and thereby are paying an "Ignorance Tax".
More on that follows below, but first this just in form my Law Professor:
(Believe or not!) "The Twenty-Fourth Amendment And The Abolition Of The Collector Of Internal Revenue Made Taxes Voluntary
The IRS, Taxes, Passports And The Right To Travel -
Has Barbara Boxer Read The United States Constitution?
A new bill progressing through Congress would authorize the federal government to stop people alleged to owe taxes from leaving the country. State of California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced the 'Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act', which includes a section that allows the State Department to 'deny, revoke or limit' passport rights for any taxpayer with "serious delinquencies."
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on January 23, 1964:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment tells us that after January 23, 1964 governments will not be permitted to impose a poll tax, a tax on the right to vote, or any other kind of tax, in any federal election. But, what does that Amendment have to do with the right to travel?
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment confirms the right of a free inhabitant to be a citizen at will and to cease being a citizen anytime he or she wishes, if the payment of taxes can't be made a condition of federal citizenship what duty can government impose on any inhabitant?
Congress tried to impose the duty to pay a direct income tax on ordinary individuals in Section 29 of the 1894 Income Tax Law and the United States Supreme Court held the entire law unconstitutional as a direct tax, which was not apportioned, as property taxes on homes are apportioned by county assessors.
Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment clarified the power of Congress to enact an indirect income tax: '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.'
The power of Congress to impose direct and indirect taxation began before the ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 in 1783 with the annexation of the Northwest Territory by the April 15, 1783 preliminary ratification of the Articles of Peace with Great Britain ending the American Revolution. The United States
in Congress assembled could impose direct and indirect taxation in the Northwest Territory and similar territory upon attainment of proprietary power over that territory.
The power to tax of the United States in Congress assembled was not dependent on the authority of that Congress to impose a duty to make a return of taxable income on inhabitants of the Northwest Territory. The United States in Congress assembled had proprietary power over the Northwest Territory, it lacked the bureaucracy it needed to lay and collect the taxes it had the authority to impose
with the Northwest Territory. The Constitution of September 17, 1787 provided that administrative capacity by vesting in the President of the United States of America executive power to appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate tax assessors and Collectors of Internal Revenue. Over time the duties to make tax assessments and tax collections were consolidated in the Collector of Internal Revenue and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue. In 1952, the Reorganization of the Internal Revenue Bureau into the Internal Revenue Service eliminated the only two Officers of the United States authorized to assess and collect federal internal revenue.
Abolition of the Collector of Internal Revenue and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue returned the 'power to lay and collect taxes on incomes' back to Congress where it remains today. Congress last acted on the duty to make a return of taxable income in Section 3707 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The effect of that Section which was codified in a Note to Section 6651 26 U.S.C. was to re-define a taxpayer as one who files a return for two consecutive years and who pays the tax on the return. Earlier definitions of "taxpayer" defined that term as someone subject to a tax, after 1952 no one in government had authority to make another subject to a tax.
The basis of federal taxation began as war debt and has always been the repayment of debt, first for the debt resulting from the American Revolution and then for all the debt caused by the spending of every Congress under the Constitution of the United States. Such spending as the Congress of the United States made was ostensibly authorized by voters, who voluntarily registered to vote and paid for in part by taxpayer s, who at least since 1952
have all volunteered to pay federal taxation. As government debt is not personal debt, taxation for the payment of government debt or the use of government is a gift to government. The payment of taxation was declared to be a gift to the English monarch since the Declaration of Rights of 1765 and the consensual nature of taxation was confirmed in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.
The 1952 abolition of the Collector of Internal Revenue and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue confirmed federal taxation as a gift to government. Without the aforementioned officers all tax payments are gifts to government. It follows that a debt cannot be created
from a gift that is not made.
The Twenty-Fourth Amendment imposes a heavy burden on government to show why government may withhold the right to travel when it cannot abridge the right to vote where it is alleged a voluntary payment of a tax has not been made.
To learn all details involved in the operation of law and government, enroll in my online course, the Basic Course in Law and Government, by contacting me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera"
Now Pete Hendrickson:
The effort to dissuade you continues by suggesting that if you DO make your own study, and conclude that the law ISN'T the tool of those acting in the name of the State -- that it means what it says, even when that meaning is inconvenient to the voracious State (and that it's important that everyone understand this and act accordingly, or there is no real law, and no liberty)-- and if you make your understanding matter by expressing it in a practical manner (rather than just griping, or standing silent while your wealth is lawlessly stripped away), you will then be savaged by the wrath of the sociopaths infesting Washington and its myriad little fortresses of darkness currently littering this once and future great country of ours.
So (continues the twisty little argument), just submit to the sociopaths from the get-go. Do what they want you to do and believe what they want you to believe (or at least profess what they want you to profess). Submit from the outset.
It will be better for you, because resistance is futile...
Everyone knows you can't fight City Hall; resistance is futile...
It's OK to submit-- everyone else does; and anyway, resistance is futile...
America is full of nothing but couch-potatoes and you're entirely alone; resistance is futile ...
What's the matter with you? Didn't you hear?! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!
Just lie back and get comfortable. It won't hurt a bit, as long as you don't struggle.
(And this will remain true until you've let yourself be bled to the point where you CAN'T struggle, at which point it will start hurting A LOT, because then resistance really WILL be futile, and those feeding on you won't have to worry about maintaining your cooperation and quiescence...)
For those who DON'T buy the baloney, and who are on their feet and standing their ground because they know that resistance to lawlessness and despotism is not only NEVER futile, but is always required of those who love and are worthy of the blessings of liberty and the rule of law, here is this week's Tax Tip:
Don't Forget What Comes First (A Cognitive Cue)
It's important to keep from letting the tail wag the dog in your understanding of the limitation of the tax.
The exploiters of ignorance encourage everyone to imagine that all economic activity happens within the 'federal universe', and that all receipts are 'income' unless exempted by Congress. This, in turn, encourages the notion that it is by looking to the statutory definitions and other tax-related provisions of law that we discover whether our receipts qualify as 'income', and taxable as such, under such designations and definitions as 'wages', 'self-employment income', and so forth; or prove that they do not. But this notion has things exactly backwards.
One's non-federally-connected earnings as a commonly-defined 'employee' don't fail to qualify as 'wages', for instance, because they (or one's commonly-defined 'employee' status) are not described in the statutes concerning 'wages'. It is precisely the other way around: it is because one's non-federally-connected earnings can't qualify as 'wages' that they are not described in those statutes. The statutes aren't the description of everything Congress chooses to designate as 'wages'-- they are the description of every employment-related receipt Congress CAN Constitutionally describe as "wages" (from which it then provides some number of exceptions in service to its own agenda).
The fact is, even if the statutes, or some construction of them (whether legislative, regulatory or judicial) APPEAR to describe unprivileged earnings as being within their scope, they really do not, and one can take it as a given that the disconnect is simply not superficially obvious.
Thus, even if a statute were to be found that says, 'Pete Hendrickson's earnings are "wages", and subject to a non-apportioned federal tax', this wouldn't mean that the Constitution had been overthrown, or that my unprivileged earnings are subject to a direct federal tax without apportionment. It would simply mean that somewhere else in the law must be buried a special definition of 'earnings', or even of 'Pete Hendrickson's earnings', that reconciles the apparent contradiction. Somewhere will be found a section that says, 'For purposes of chapter ___, "Pete Hendrickson's earnings" includes Pete Hendrickson's federally-privileged earnings', or even just 'earnings includes federally-privileged receipts' etc..
In fact, even if a qualifying section DIDN'T exist, the construction that would have to be given to 'Pete Hendrickson's earnings are "wages" and subject to a non-apportioned federal tax' would amount to the same qualified effect. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is still the law to which the federal government is subject, and it still says that my non-privileged earnings (and yours) cannot be taxed by the feds other than through apportionment. As is true of all law, no matter what a statute facially declares, it CAN'T have (or be held to have) a meaning in conflict with the Constitution.
Understanding this important aspect of the tax (and law in general) will help you immensely in dealing with the thicket of custom definitions, and the deployment of same by the tax agencies and legal departments that badly want you to be confused and uncertain of your ground. Knowing that whatever it may look like, the thicket must conform to the fundamental law, and must be held to do so no matter whether it is easy to see how it does or isn't easy to see how it does, will allow you to step right over the thicket.
When confronted by a skeptic (or agenda-driven opponent) who challenges you to explain why your earnings don't fall within some definition or another, whether the broad 'Gross income is all income...' definition in section 61, or a more specialized definition of a subclass of 'income', like that of 'wages' at 3410(a) or 3121(a), you don't have to argue over what is said in those definitions. All that need be pointed out is that the 'no capitation other than by apportionment' Constitutional prohibition remains in force, and thus, whatever those definitions may appear to say to your unschooled correspondent, what they DON'T and CAN'T say is that non-federally-privileged earnings or receipts are federally-taxable without apportionment.
Keep this very clear in your mind, and teach it to others as you introduce them to the liberating truth about the completely benign 'income tax', and educate them about the completely pernicious 'ignorance tax' by which they have been being victimized for their entire lives. (For a detailed discussion of the subject of this Tax Tip, see 'What "Income" Means, And Why' in 'Was Grandpa Really a m*o*o*n?'. (Visit http://losthorizons.com/WGRAM.htm
to learn more about this companion to CtC.)
Now, armed with this clear understanding of what rules, and what is subordinate, and everything else you've learned in 'Cracking the Code - The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America', go forth into these last couple of weeks before April FOOL'S Day and choose your side (and help your neighbors, friends and family understand the choice that they inescapably face, as well). Are you going to stand with the grown-ups who understand that Heaven knows how to put a proper value on its blessings, and it would be a strange thing indeed if Liberty didn't command a high price, as Thomas Paine helped the Founders remember 235 years ago?
Or are you going to 'lie back and get comfortable', and bleed away in a peaceful but ultimately fatal bovine torpor?
What will you teach your children? To stand beside you? Or to lie beside you?
Will you teach them that the State belongs to the law?
Or will you teach them that the law belongs to the State, and the State can make the law mean what it wants; that those who run the State are the law; that the Constitutional republic that is your children’s rightful heritage is dead, and that they will live their lives as ruthlessly exploited serfs because, you know, 'resistance is futile'?
Get CtC for free at http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf
Learn about the seven-year-and-counting desperate effort to keep you from the knowledge in CtC at http://losthorizons.com/ADocumentedCtCSuppressionHistory.pdf
Learn the liberating Truth about the Tax at losthorizons.com
What statutes create a liability for federal income taxes?
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") contains no provisions creating a liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A. Other than the statutes which apply only to Treasury entity or other Federal entity employees, agents or officers pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of "Withholding agent" at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for "employment" taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.
When a private sector worker authorizes the private sector entity to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W 4, the payroll department then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker's paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 ("Treasury of the United States").
The worker may instead complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate or written notice to the private sector entity, consistent with IRC section 3402(n). The payroll department is then not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes, including social security, Medicare, etc. In this scenario, there is absolutely no liability for the private sector worker or for the private sector payroll
department. There is no liability PERIOD because there is no
authority to withhold AND there is no withholding agent.
Hierarchy of Authority:
"As much as the legal guild likes to cultivate the notion that the law involves specialized, even secret knowledge, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, since you-- as one of "the people"-- are the authorizing entity for all valid law, if it's too much for you to understand, it's inherently invalid...
But it's not too much for you to understand. All that is required for reading and fully understanding everything being addressed in this paper is a grasp on the fact that there is a hierarchy of authority: Constitution, statute, judicial precedent, regulation. This means that the first question is always "What does the Constitution permit and prohibit?" -- that provides the limits within which all else can legitimately exist and apply.
Beyond that, you just need reasonable attention to detail of no greater rigor than would be called for in doing story-problems in a middle-school algebra class, and a common-sense recognition that a law must say what it means and mean what it says. You also need a common-sense understanding that when something is said in a legal context that DOESN'T make sense, seems incomplete or contradictory of itself or something else, or is overly-complicated beyond what is to be expected when folks who don't necessarily have any writing talent write briefs and opinions, it's almost certainly an evasion.
Dissonant legal briefs and opinions might need a little more careful parsing to winnow out their deceptions, and discover what is really being said, and what isn't, but that they are dissonant is NOT because there's anything wrong with your ability to handle legal material. It's because there's a lot of deception practiced in the "halls of justice." We're going to parse several such deceptions in the pages that follow."
Last (but by all means not least) is the good news that Sherry Peel Jackson is released from her political imprisonment. Please read about that here:
I attempted to submit the following at her official blog site:
and apparently it didn't take. Here it is:
It is so very good to know that you have been released and are now safe from harm's way!
I appreciate your gratitude to Ron Paul, his wife and his consistency and all!
I agree, the truth will triumph!
Bright blessings -
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!