Re: 16th amemdment

And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx, was also ratified.

Contrary to popular BELIEF, the 16th amendment did not create a third category of tax. One subjects himself to the payment of revenue taxes, for the most part, because he BELIEVES he is a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code, hence, he BELIEVES he is required to pay:

"The Internal Revenue Code is clear in showing which persons are liable for a tax. For example, 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1) states:

"The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be liable for the taxes imposed by section 5701. 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1). " 26 U.S.C. 5703(a)(1) (Emphasis added.)

And, another example:

Sec. 5005. Person liable for tax.

(a) General. The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1). 26 U.S.C. 5005. (Emphasis added.)

I ask you to try to find a similar place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax on an activity that I am involved in.

I can also suggest to you that the courts have ruled that liability for taxation must clearly appear. "[L]iability for taxation must clearly appear." Higley v. C.I.R.,69 F.2d 160, at 162-163 (8^th Cir. 1934).

Furthermore, I deny being a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code. I also deny that I have any "taxable income" or "taxable year" as these terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

If you continue to act on a mere assumption that I am subject to or liable for any revenue tax, you will carry the burden of proof as to the lawfulness of your actions.

You should note that the courts have clearly stated the revenue laws relate only to those who are subject to or liable for a tax.

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They 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. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws.

Note 3. The term " taxpayer " in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means any person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer." Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, 589-590 (U.S. Court of Claims, 1972). (Emphasis added.)

In other words, all the statutes and regulations under the internal revenue laws apply only to those who are subject to or liable for a revenue tax.

I submit that you do not have the authority to determine who is and who is not subject to or liable for a tax. Before you proceed to act on a mere assumption that I am someone who is subject to or liable for a particular tax, I suggest you try to determine whether the subject of the tax is in the category of people, property, or activities, and then try to find a place in the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a tax on that particular subject.

I submit that there is no tax within the Internal Revenue Code imposed on people or property. A federal court stated: "Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 277 f.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1960).

I submit that there is no tax imposed by the internal revenue laws that has been apportioned among the States as the United States Constitution requires of direct taxes. Obviously, since there are no federal taxes apportioned among the States (including social security taxes) there is no tax imposed on either people or property.

[T]here is no tax imposed by the internal revenue laws that has been apportioned among the States as the United States Constitution requires of direct taxes. Obviously, since there are no federal taxes apportioned among the States (including social security taxes) there is no tax imposed on either people or property.

The United States Supreme Court stated: "In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, at 557 (1895); and Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 13 (1916). (Emphasis added.)

In the event your attorney claims the Sixteenth Amendment authorized a direct tax without apportionment, let me advise you that the United States Supreme Court said:

"[B]y the previous ruling [referring  to the Brushaber case above] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112. (Emphasis added.)"

Excerpt from: The Biggest Tax Loophole of All by Otto Skinner, "Letter to the Employer".