Is Taxation Voluntary?

Posted February 10, 2009

Harry Reid seems to think so as do so many of the Democrats in Congress. Reid makes it perfectly clear that paying taxes is voluntary in the following interview.

I actually believe this is true. The tax code states that “…only citizens while living abroad” are required to pay taxes not “citizens living and working at home” I have studied this for some time. The original tax act of 1913 imposed a tax on all “income” of an individual or corporation. In 1916 the wording was changed after the 1913 act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It has never been worded differently invariably because the taxation of income is an enslaving tax and therefore unconstitutional.

With all of the unconstitutional spending going on in Washington, it is more important than ever to begin a tax revolt and stop sending money to the bureaucrats in Washington. Support your state’s economy directly and not the unwise spending of the federal government.

SUMMARY

The Federal Income Tax Act of 1913 contained a sweeping, all-inclusive definition of “income”, it being the clear intention of Congress at the time to apply the “income tax” to all American citizens living at home or abroad. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brushaber substantially affected the government’s interpretation of the definition of “income” within the meaning of the fundamental law, and “to whom” and “where” the income tax could apply.

The Brushaber Court specifically concluded that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation. The Brushaber decision prompted Congress to revise the 1913 Act, and via Section 25 of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1916, amended 1917, declared that the “income” subject to the 1913 Act was not the same “income” to be taxed under the 1916 Act. But, what was the purpose of this change in the language, and by extension, the legal effect of the 1916 Act? UNFORTUNATELY, CONGRESS DID NOT EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MEANT BY SECTION 25.

One theory of the meaning of § 25 of the 1916 Act is based on location, that Section 25 removed the application of the un-apportioned direct “income” tax on salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans living and working at home, leaving the application of the un-apportioned direct “income” tax on salaries, wages and compensation of non-resident aliens and American citizens living and working abroad. This, it is argued is the reason that not a single federal income tax act since 1916 has ever mentioned the imposition of an un-apportioned direct “income” tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of citizens “at home,” although the same acts repeatedly mention citizens abroad and particularly those in the insular possessions.

Evidence of this solely external, “locational” application of the un-apportioned direct “income tax” on salaries, wages and compensation is demonstrated in several ways. First, the IRS Commissioner has been delegated via T.D.O.s published in the Federal Register authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation only in the area external to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union.
If the Commissioner has been delegated authority to administer an un-apportioned direct tax on salaries, wages and compensation in the area internal to the boundaries of the 50 states of the Union, that authority has not been published in the Federal Register and is therefore a secret, so it could not concern American citizens “at home,” without violating their due process Rights.

Further, federal income tax returns are allegedly required to be filed at IRS service centers. But the Administrative Procedures Act demands that any part of an agency’s field structure which affects the domestic American public must be published in the Federal Register. The absence of publication in the Federal Register of these extremely important parts of the IRS field structure further indicates that the service centers do not legally affect the domestic American public and can, therefore, be ignored by the ordinary American wage earner living and working at home.

But perhaps the most compelling proof of the “locational” application of the federal income tax in the manner noted above is derived from analysis of the IRS’ compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The federal income tax is imposed via § 1 of the IRC. But the “information collection request” applicable to this section is Form 2555, entitled “Foreign Earned Income.” Further as shown by the OMB control number assigned to 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-3, the specific tax return required to be filed at service centers is Form 1040NR. And a “TIN” can only be obtained by a non-resident alien; see Form W-7.

Another theory of the meaning of Section 25 of the 1916 Act is that it is based on classifications of people, distinguishing between aliens and citizens, imposing no un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they live and work, but authorizing an un-apportioned direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation on resident aliens working here and on employees of the federal government who voluntarily agreed to labor for the government.

Countering the “location” theory and in support of the “classification” theory is the argument that the fundamental law prohibits the imposition of an un-apportioned tax directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens, no matter where they may be living and working, and there is no Supreme Court ruling that an un-apportioned tax can be imposed directly on the salaries, wages and compensation of American citizens living and working abroad.

Most Americans believe that today, the tax scheme of the 1913 act is still in effect, but the truth of the matter is that it is not.
In fact, the present tax scheme is the exact opposite of the 1913 tax scheme, created by the 1916 act amended by the Act of 1917.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks