Invitation to Our State Governors and Legislators

This is your invitation to visit our website.  https://sovereignstateslibertywatchgroup.com We have posted information gathered from sources that can’t be refuted regarding the Sixteenth Amendment and the Income Tax.  You will find that the Sixteenth Amendment only authorized an excise tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form with the amount of the tax being based on the amount of income received from that corporate activity.

You will see that State citizens not doing business in corporate form are not required to pay income taxes on their earnings.  You will also see why it is the responsibility of the State governments to alter the misconceptions regarding the Sixteenth Amendment by calling for an amendment to the Sixteenth Amendment to specifically denote “corporate incomes”.

When the States put an end to the income taxation of their constituents they will no longer have to reach out to Washington for funds to pay their expenses of operating their government functions.

We expect our representatives in government to take note of the information provided on our site.  We expect to see positive responses from each of you so that We, The People of the Sovereign States in the Union don’t have to take any further action in regards to this issue.

Please leave you questions or concerns in the comment section of each presentment of information.  We want to hear your proposed actions to facilitate an amendment to the Sixteenth Amendment so that it reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on CORPORATE incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Be blessed in all of your endeavors.

Sovereign States Liberty Watch Group

Presentment I – Historical Events Leading Up To The Passage Of The Sixteenth Amendment As The Powers That Be Would Have Us To Believe

Please see below an overview of the Income Tax laws leading up to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment as the powers that be would have us understand it.

16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)” “Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress’s right to impose a Federal income tax.

Far-reaching in its social as well as its economic impact, the income tax amendment became part of the Constitution by a curious series of events culminating in a bit of political maneuvering that went awry. The financial requirements of the Civil War prompted the first American income tax in 1861. At first, Congress placed a flat 3-percent tax on all incomes over $800 and later modified this principle to include a graduated tax. Congress repealed the income tax in 1872, but the concept did not disappear. After the Civil War, the growing industrial and financial markets of the eastern United States generally prospered. But the farmers of the south and west suffered from low prices for their farm products, while they were forced to pay high prices for manufactured goods. Throughout the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s, farmers formed such political organizations as the Grange, the Greenback Party, the National Farmers’ Alliance, and the People’s (Populist) Party. All of these groups advocated many reforms (see the Interstate Commerce Act) considered radical for the times, including a graduated income tax.

In 1894, as part of a high tariff bill, Congress enacted a 2-percent tax on income over $4,000. The tax was almost immediately struck down by a five-to-four decision of the Supreme Court, even though the Court had upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War tax as recently as 1881. Although farm organizations denounced the Court’s decision as a prime example of the alliance of government and business against the farmer, a general return of prosperity around the turn of the century softened the demand for reform. Democratic Party Platforms under the leadership of three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, however, consistently included an income tax plank, and the progressive wing of the Republican Party also espoused the concept.

In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect.

Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income. This document settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and, by so doing, effected dramatic changes in the American way of life.”

Below please find the fruits of many years of research pertaining to the constitutional authority for the U.S. Congress to tax the earnings of State citizens within the States of the Union. We will show you our sources for the information we offer on this site with a brief history of each. This will build a foundation upon which we build our presentment of information for our State Government Representatives and Senators. Our intention is to bring them face to face with the truth about the history and purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment and why it is their responsibility to see that that understanding is corrected ASAP!!!!

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT As it reads today. 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.

As it should read. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on corporate incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Presentment II – Chief Cornerstone and Building Block for Presentment of Information Regarding the History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Why do you pay “Income Tax” on your earnings? Most people will respond like this. “Because I have To pay them.” But is that really the truth?

Our State legislatures believe that the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the authority to tax our earnings. This group is established to broadcast far and wide the truth about the History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment. You have been invited to this group in hopes that you will see the benefit of our endeavors as they relate to your
financial well being as well as the financial well being of our State governments. If you decide that the fire is too hot or our goals are too risky for your “safe zone”, simply request to leave the group.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Our second presentment of information is a joint resolution issued by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress. This information is good for distribution to State legislatures and to the public at large. Lets take it to them!!

PRESENTMENT II.

AUTHORIZATION
PUBLIC LAW 91–589, 84 STAT. 1585, 2 U.S.C. § 168
JOINT RESOLUTION Authorizing the preparation and printing of a revised
edition of the Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and
Interpretation, of decennial revised editions thereof, and of biennial cumulative
supplements to such revised editions.

“Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America—
Analysis and Interpretation, published in 1964 as Senate Document
Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress, serves a very
useful purpose by supplying essential information, not only
to the Members of Congress but also to the public at large;

Whereas such document contains annotations of cases decided
by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 22, 1964;

Whereas many cases bearing significantly upon the analysis and
interpretation of the Constitution have been decided by the
Supreme Court since June 22, 1964;

Whereas the Congress, in recognition of the usefulness of this
type of document, has in the last half century since 1913,
ordered the preparation and printing of revised editions of
such a document on six occasions at intervals of from ten
to fourteen years; and

Whereas the continuing usefulness and importance of such a document
will be greatly enhanced by revision at shorter intervals
on a regular schedule and thus made more readily available
to Members and Committees by means of pocket-part
supplements:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Librarian
of Congress shall have prepared—
(1) a hardbound revised edition of the Constitution of the United
States of America—Analysis and Interpretation, published
as Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress
(referred to hereinafter as the “Constitution Annotated”), which
shall contain annotations of decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States through the end of the October 1971
term of the Supreme Court, construing provisions of the Constitution;
(2) upon the completion of each of the October 1973, October
1975, October 1977, and October 1979 terms of the Su-
preme Court, a cumulative pocket-part supplement to the
hardbound revised edition of the Constitution Annotated prepared
pursuant to clause (1), which shall contain cumulative
annotations of all such decisions rendered by the Supreme
Court after the end of the October 1971 term;
(3) upon the completion of the October 1981 term of the Supreme
Court, and upon the completion of each tenth October
term of the Supreme Court thereafter, a hardbound decennial
revised edition of the Constitution Annotated, which
shall contain annotations of all decisions theretofore rendered
by the Supreme Court construing provisions of the Constitution;”

(Construing provisions of the Constitution – to give meaning to or to interpret the provisions of the Constitution.)

As per this Joint Resolution, we are sharing this essential information revealed in the analysis and interpretation of United States Supreme Court cases giving meaning to and or interpreting the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Be Blessed

Presentment III – History and purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment

Below please find an excerpt from ‘The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation” that shows the History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, prepared by the Congressional Research Service at the request of a Joint Resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States in Congress.

A thorough examination will prove that the Income Tax is a tax on Corporate income rather than a tax on the earnings of State Citizens.

Your State Representatives and Senators believe the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress power to tax our earnings.  The United States Supreme Court says otherwise!!

 

Analysis and Interpretation of Cases Construing Sixteenth Amendment

INCOME TAX

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

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.

INCOME TAX

History and Purpose of the Amendment

The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.1 holding unconstitutional Congress’s attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States.2 A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a “direct tax,” which Congress, under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population. Scarcely fifteen years earlier the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had used this method of raising revenue.6 During the years between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency that Pollock threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or by emphasizing the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax that involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and that was held by the manufacturer for resale. Under this approach, the Court found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise “measured by income” on the privilege of doing business in corporate form.10 The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in Pollock. Indeed, in its initial appraisal 11 of the Amendment, it classified income taxes as being inherently “indirect.” “[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.” 12 “[T]he 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 . . . .” 13

Income Subject to Taxation

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,14 the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”; 15 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Foot Notes:

1 157 U.S. 429 (1895); 158 U.S. 601 (1895).  2 Ch. 349, § 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553.        3. The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from “professions, trades, employments, or vocations” levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire “burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations” after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635.  4 Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881). 5 Ch. 173, § 116, 13 Stat. 223, 281 (1864).  6 For an account of the Pollock decision, see “From the Hylton to the Pollock Case,” under Art. I, § 9, cl. 4, supra. 7 173 U.S. 509 (1899).   8 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

9 184 U.S. 608 (1902). 10 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). 11 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 (1916). 12 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1916). 13 Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916). 14 Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918). 15 Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920); Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926).

Presentment IV – Definition of Income

Collect Taxes On Whose Income!

Below please find excerpts from US Supreme Court Cases analyzed and interpreted by the Congressional Research Service for Senate Document 112 – 9 reflecting the true meaning of the term “Income” as it is used in the Sixteenth Amendment.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an excise as:

Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of  commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges. ” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”.

The Supreme Court case specifically referenced by Black’s, has provided a clear and definite scope of the excise taxing authority. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)ill, the Supreme Court held that:

“Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable …it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151

Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) “It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word “income” has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of “income” which was applied was adopted from Strattons’ Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include “profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,” there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”

So let’s examine the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112).  It states:

“That every corporation, joint stock company or association, organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares … now or hereafter organized under the laws of the United State or of any State … shall be subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to carrying on or doing business by such corporation … equivalent to one per centum on the entire net income over and above five thousand dollars received by it from all sources during such  year….”

The Supreme Court identifies that the constitutional justification for the corporate “income tax”, is as an indirect excise tax “imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form”, just as it has been defined under Flint two years   earlier.

As the court noted in US. v. Ballard 535 F.2d 400 at page 404, the word “income” is not actually defined in the Internal Revenue Code. However, the Supreme Court has consistently defined it in a number of cases. In Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913), the court wrote:

“As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, . . .”

“Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the  amount  of  benefit  presumably derived by  such  corporations  from the  current  operations  of the government. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 165 , 55 S. L. ed. 107, 419,  31  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B. 1312, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise or privilege, was not debarred by the Constitution from measuring the taxation by the total  income,  although  derived  in part from property which, considered by itself, was not  taxable.  It was  reasonable  that  Congress should fix upon gross income, without  distinction  as to  source,  as a convenient and sufficiently accurate index of the importance of the business transacted.” Stratton’s Independence, Ltd.  V  Howbert,  231 U.S. 399, at 416 -417 (1913)

And the Supreme Court tells us again in Eisner vs. Macomber,_252 U.S.  189 (1920), on page   205, that:

“The Sixteenth Amendment  must  be construed  in connection  with the taxing  clauses  of  the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was  adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 Sup. Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553, c.  349, 27),  it was  held  that  taxes  upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns  from  investments  of  personal  property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by  article  1, 2,  cl.  3,  and section 9, cl. 4, of the original  Constitution.

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

‘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.’  ……..“

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects (citizens of the States), but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might  exist for an apportionment  among the states  of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup.  Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic  Mining  Co., 240  U.S.  103 ,  112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278; Peck & Co.  v.  Lowe,  247 U.S.  165,  172 ,  173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Diet.; Webster’s Intemat. Diet.; Century Diet.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.,

247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’ provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied  in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S.  183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469  (62 L.   Ed. 1054).

“Certainly the term “income” has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than in that of  1909 (See Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417), and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts. Southern Pacific  v.Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918)      619

And before the 1921 Act this Court has indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207), what it later held, that “income, “as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the Sixteenth Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchant’s Loan &Y Trust Co. v. Smientanka, 255 U.S 509, 519; see Southern  Pacific  Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 Burnet  v. Harmel,    287 U.S. 103, (1932)

“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain  or increase ARISING FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITIES. As was said in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”‘ Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S. 179, (1918)

In Flint v. Stone Tracy  Co. 220 U.S. 107, 165, 55 S.L. ed. 107, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, 1912 B. 1312, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise or privilege, was not debarred by the Constitution from measuring the taxation by the total income, although derived in part from property which, considered by itself, was not taxable.” Stratton ‘s Independence, Ltd. V. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 417.

 

Be Blessed

Presentment V – Scope of IRS “Income Tax” Collecting Authority

Internal Revenue Service

Please find below proof documents showing the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.  If you have questions or comments please leave them in the “Comment” section for this post.

Exhibit A

Title 26U.S. CodeInternal Revenue Code     https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes.  Jul 18, 2017.

Please note that there are five different kinds of taxes, Subtitle A – E, and only one Procedure and Administration Subtitle, Subtitle F.  How do we know which subsections of Subtitle F apply to each of the five different kinds of taxes?

U.S. Code: Title 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

 

Exhibit B

Tax Code, Regulations

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/tax-code-regulations-and-official-guidance

Internal Revenue Code

Federal tax law begins with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by Congress in Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.).

Treasury (Tax) Regulations

Treasury regulations (26 C.F.R.)–commonly referred to as Federal tax regulations–pick up where the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) leaves off by providing the official interpretation of the IRC by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

 

Exhibit C

Internal Revenue Service – Procedural Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/601.101

26 CFR 601.101 – Introduction.

  • 601.101 Introduction.

(a)General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. Within an internal revenue district the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director of internal revenue. The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States. For purposes of these procedural rules any reference to a district director or a district office includes the Director, Foreign Operations District, or the District Office, Foreign Operations District, if appropriate. Generally, the procedural rules of the Service are based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the procedural rules in this part apply to the taxes imposed by both Codes except to the extent specifically stated or where the procedure under one Code is incompatible with the procedure under the other Code. Reference to sections of the Code are references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, unless otherwise expressly indicated.

(b)Scope. This part sets forth the procedural rules of the Internal Revenue Service respecting all taxes administered by the Service, and supersedes the previously published statement (26 CFR (1949 ed., Part 300-End) Parts 600 and 601) with respect to such procedural rules. Subpart A provides a descriptive statement of the general course and method by which the Service’s functions are channeled and determined, insofar as such functions relate generally to the assessment, collection, and enforcement of internal revenue taxes. Certain provisions special to particular taxes are separately described in Subpart D of this part. Conference and practice requirements of the Internal Revenue Service are contained in Subpart E of this part. Specific matters not generally involved in the assessment, collection, and enforcement functions are separately described in Subpart B of this part. A description of the rule making functions of the Department of the Treasury with respect to internal revenue tax matters is contained in Subpart F of this part.Subpart G of this part relates to matters of official record in the Internal Revenue Service and the extent to which records and documents are subject to publication or open to public inspection. This part does not contain a detailed discussion of the substantive provisions pertaining to any particular tax or the procedures relating thereto, and for such information it is necessary that reference be made to the applicable provisions of law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The regulations relating to the taxes administered by the Service are contained in title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

38 FR 4955, Feb. 23, 1973 and 41 FR 20880, May 21, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 7251, Feb. 1, 1980; 49 FR 36498, Sept. 18, 1984; T.D. 8685, 61 FR 58008, Nov. 12, 1996]

If you want to determine which parts of the IRC the IRS has authority to administer, you must first determine where the regulations for that section of the IRC are found.  If the regulations are not found in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations then the IRS has no authority to administer that section.

The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules will allow you to determine which Sections of the IRC the IRS has authority to enforce.

Exhibit D

Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ptoa/uscode

Please note:

  1. The column at the left is the Subsection of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in question.
  2. The center column shows the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title that interprets the corresponding section of the IRC.
  3. The column to the right shows the part of the CFR Title that relates to the IRC Subsection in question.

Presentment VI – Current Method of Collecting “Income Tax” From State Citizens

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes.  Jul 18, 2017.

Please note that there are five different kinds of taxes listed on the Internal Revenue Code 1st page, found in Presentment VIII, Subtitles A – E, and only one Procedure and Administration Subtitle, Subtitle F.  How do we know which subsections of Subtitle F relate to the taxes that are administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and which subsections apply to each of the five different kinds of taxes?

According to the Internal Revenue Service Federal Tax Law begins with the Internal Revenue Code, enacted by Congress in Title 26 of the United States Code.  They also tell us that the Code of Federal Regulations is the official interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.   If we want to inquire about the meaning or the true intent of a section of the IRC, we must turn to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that gives the true intent of that section.  If we need to know which bureau of the Department of the Treasury has authority to enforce that particular section, we must turn to the CFR.

If we want to know what sections of the IRC the Internal Revenue Service administers, we must also turn to the CFR.  In CFR 26, 601.101 (b) we find these words, “The regulations relating to the taxes administered by the Service (IRS) are contained in title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

In other words, if the IRS has authority to administer a code section, its regulation will be found in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  We can say the same thing in another way – If the IRS gives a section of the IRC as their authority to take action and its regulation is not found in Title 26, CFR, it is attempting to take action that it has no authority to take.

Please find below Sections of the IRC that the IRS gives as their authority to take actions in the process of collecting Income Taxes from the citizens of the States in the Union.

I am listing the IRC Section, Description and CFR Title giving the regulations for that Section of the IRC.  Please check the Table of Parallel Authorities in Presentment VIII to verify the following.

IRC, 26, 6151                      Time and Place for Paying                      CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6201                      Assessment Authority                               CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6301                      Collection Authority                                  CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6331                      Levy and Distraint                                      CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6601                      Interest                                                         CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6651                      Failure to File Return or Pay Tax            CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6671                      Penalties                                                       CFR Title 27

As you can see, the sections of the IRC that the IRS gives as its authority to take the collection actions against the citizens of the States in the Union are not found in CFR Title 26.

To understand the true meaning of the IRC sections listed above we must read the Sections of CFR Title 27 that relate to that IRC Section.  You will see that they do not apply to the citizens of the Stats unless they are dealing in Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms.

Everything you need to know to verify this presentment of information is listed on this site in Presentment VIII.

If you have trouble understanding this presentment of information, post your concerns on the “Comment” section.

Be Blessed

Presentment VII – Why should the State Governments Address the Unconstitutional Federal Income Taxation of Their Citizens Earnings?

In order to answer this question we will review the history and purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Internal Revenue Service tells us that the U. S. Congress passed the Income Tax Act of 1894 but the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional in 1895.  They also make mention that the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 and provided for an income tax to be collected.  They did not give any details about the proceedings leading up to its ratification nor did they give us the definition of the Term “Income”.  The true understanding of the meaning of “income” will go a long way in helping us to understand the true meaning the Sixteenth Amendment.

Following a Joint Resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyzed and interpreted all of the U. S. Supreme Court cases regarding the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

According to the CRS “the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. holding unconstitutional Congress’s attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States. A tax on incomes derived from property, the Court declared, was a “direct tax,” which Congress, under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population.”                        The Internal Revenue Code contains no provisions for an apportionment among the States.

After  a series of decisions the Supreme Court found it possible to allow an excise (indirect) tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form with the amount of the tax being based on the amount of corporate income received from that corporate activity, no matter what the source of the income may be.  Congress has always had the power to lay excise taxes from the beginning.

The CRS concludes its interpretation with these words, “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 . . . .”

As we can see, the Sixteenth Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing power. The Income Tax is a tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form.  What it did do was that it prevented Congress from taxing income derived from property because of ownership.  Our earnings are our property and can not be taxed!

Regarding the definition of the term “income”, building upon definitions formulated in cases that gave the meaning of or the interpretation of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets” by corporations.

To address the question of why should the State governments step in and prevent the unconstitutional taxing of their citizens earnings, we must take a look at the U. S. Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland.

In this case the State of Maryland wanted to tax United States chartered banks doing business in Maryland.  The United States objected and it went to the Supreme Court.  In order to settle the dispute the Court had to define the taxing power of both the United States and the States.

In addressing the different aspects of the taxing power of Congress the judge goes on to say that “..an indefinite power of taxation in the Government of the Union might, and probably would, in time, deprive the Governments of the States of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature.”

Has that happened in any of the States in the Union?  Is there any of them that doesn’t rely on the federal government to make ends meet?

The Judge goes on to say “The people of all the States have created the General Government, and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation.  The people of all the States, and the States themselves are represented in Congress, and, by their representatives, exercise this power.  When they tax the chartered institutions of the States, they tax their constituents, and these taxes must be uniform.”

In plain simple terms, when the Federal Government taxes the corporations of a State, it taxes its citizens indirectly.

Let us examine these words of the Court.

“..an indefinite power of taxation in the Government of the Union might , and probably would, in time, deprive the Governments of the States of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature.”

How does the unconstitutional taxing of State citizens’ earnings effect the revenue of the States and deprive the States of the means of providing for their own necessities?  If all the money that now goes to Washington in the form of Income Taxes on individuals earnings stayed in the States where it comes from where would it be spent?  No doubt it would be spent in that State.

How mush revenue would that extra money circulating within the States generate for the States in sales taxes and other taxes that would receive a boost from extra money in circulation.  I can answer that for you.  It would generate enough so that the States would not have to go begging for money from the federal government to make ends meet.

That, my friends, is why the State governments must stand up and put an end to the unconstitutional taxing of our earnings.  It would multiply the buying power for the consumers by billions and free the States from the general government’s overreach.

Be Blessed!

Presentment VIII – Proof Documents

Sources of Information
I. Internal Revenue Service

Brief History of IRS

https://www.irs.gov/uac/brief-history-of-irs

Origin

The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created
the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses.
The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the
Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.

16th Amendment

In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states
necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 08-0ct-2015

As you can see, according to the IRS, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional in 1895.

They point out that the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. They failed to give the underlying details of what led to the approval by the Supreme Court of an income tax. In 1909 Congress passed the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 and at the same time passed the Sixteenth Amendment and sent it out to all of the States for ratification.  They failed to give the interpretation of the term “Income”.  See Presentment VI for definition of “Income”.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

II. The Congressional Research Service https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century.

CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

III. House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America

https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017.pdf (Includes analysis of Supreme Court cases decided through August 26, 2017)

JOINT RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZATION PUBLIC LAW 91–589, 84 STAT. 1585, 2 U.S.C. § 168

Authorizing the preparation and printing of a revised edition of the Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation, of decennial revised editions thereof, and of biennial cumulative supplements to such revised editions.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America— Analysis and Interpretation, published in 1964 as Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress, serves a very useful purpose by supplying essential information, not only to the Members of Congress but also to the public at large;

Whereas such document contains annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 22, 1964;

Whereas many cases bearing significantly upon the analysis and interpretation of the Constitution have been decided by the Supreme Court since June 22, 1964;

Whereas the Congress, in recognition of the usefulness of this type of document, has in the last half century since 1913, ordered the preparation and printing of revised editions of such a document on six occasions at intervals of from ten to fourteen years; and

Whereas the continuing usefulness and importance of such a document will be greatly enhanced by revision at shorter intervals on a regular schedule and thus made more readily available to Members and Committees by means of pocket-part supplements:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Librarian of Congress shall have prepared—

(1) a hardbound revised edition of the Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation, published as Senate Document Numbered 39, Eighty-eighth Congress (referred to hereinafter as the “Constitution Annotated”), which shall contain annotations of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States through the end of the October 1971 term of the Supreme Court,construing provisions of the Constitution;

(Construing Provisions of the Constitution = To give meaning to or to interpret provisions of the Constitution.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

IV. Analysis and Interpretation of Cases Construing Sixteenth Amendment by the Congressional Research Service

(Construing Provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment = To give meaning to or to interpret provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment.)

https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-17.pdf (Includes analysis of Supreme Court cases decided through August 26, 2017)

INCOME TAX

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

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.

INCOME TAX

History and Purpose of the Amendment

The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.1 holding unconstitutional Congress’s attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States.2 A tax on incomes derived from property,3 the Court declared, was a “direct tax,” which Congress, under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population. Scarcely fifteen years earlier the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War,5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had used this method of raising revenue.6 During the years between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency that Pollock threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of “direct tax” or by emphasizing the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames,7 Knowlton v. Moore,8 and Patton v. Brady,9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the “incidents of ownership” and hence to be excises: a tax that involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and that was held by the manufacturer for resale. Under this approach, the Court found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise “measured by income” on the privilege of doing business in corporate form.10 The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in Pollock. Indeed, in its initial appraisal 11 of the Amendment, it classified income taxes as being inherently “indirect.” “[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.” 12 “[T]he 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 . . . .” 13

Income Subject to Taxation

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,14 the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”; 15 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy. …………………………………………………………………………………….

Foot Notes:

1 157 U.S. 429 (1895); 158 U.S. 601 (1895). 2 Ch. 349, § 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553. 3 The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from “professions, trades, employments, or vocations” levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire “burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations” after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635. 4 Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881). 5 Ch. 173, § 116, 13 Stat. 223, 281 (1864). 6 For an account of the Pollock decision, see “From the Hylton to the Pollock Case,” under Art. I, § 9, cl. 4, supra. 7 173 U.S. 509 (1899). 8 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

9 184 U.S. 608 (1902). 10 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). 11 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 (1916). 12 Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1916). 13 Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916). 14 Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918). 15 Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920); Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926).

____________________________________________________________________________________________

V. United States Supreme Court Case

McCulloch v. Maryland

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/316

Excerpt;

“In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceed their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed. The subject of those numbers (from the Federalist papers) from which passages have been cited is the unlimited power of taxation which is vested in the General Government. The objection to this unlimited power, which the argument seeks to remove, is stated with fullness and clearness. It is that an indefinite power of taxation in the latter (the Government [p434] of the Union) might, and probably would, in time, deprive the former (the Government of the States) of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature. As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land; as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be necessary for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it; the National Government might, at any time, abolish the taxes imposed for State objects upon the pretense of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity for doing this, in order to give efficacy to the national revenues; and thus, all the resources of taxation might, by degrees, become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the State Governments.

It has also been insisted that, as the power of taxation in the General and State Governments is acknowledged to be concurrent, every argument which would sustain the right of the General Government to tax banks chartered by the States, will equally sustain the right of the States to tax banks chartered by the General Government.

But the two cases are not on the same reason. The people of all the States have created the General Government, and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation. The people of all the States, and the States themselves, are represented in Congress, and, by their representatives, exercise this power.When they tax the chartered institutions of the States, they tax their constituents, and these taxes must be uniform.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________

VI. Internal Revenue Service – Proof Documents Showing the Method of Collecting Income Taxes on the earnings of the citizens of the member States in the Union.

Exhibit A

Title 26, U.S. Code, Internal Revenue Code https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes. Jul 18, 2017.

Please note that there are five different kinds of taxes, Subtitle A – E, and only one Procedure and Administration Subtitle, Subtitle F. How do we know which subsections of Subtitle F apply to each of the five different kinds of taxes?

U.S. Code: Title 26 – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

US Code
SUBTITLE A – Income Taxes (§§ 1 to 1564)
SUBTITLE B – Estate and Gift Taxes (§§ 2001 to 2801)
SUBTITLE C – Employment Taxes (§§ 3101 to 3512)
SUBTITLE D – Miscellaneous Excise Taxes (§§ 4001.. to 5000C)
SUBTITLE E – Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes (§§ 5001 to 5891)
SUBTITLE F – Procedure and Administration (§§ 6001 to 7874)
SUBTITLE G – The Joint Committee on Taxation (§§ 8001 to 8023)
SUBTITLE H – Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns (§§ 9001 to 9042)
SUBTITLE I – Trust Fund Code (§§ 9500 to 9602)
SUBTITLE J – Coal Industry Health Benefits (§§ 9701 to 9722)
SUBTITLE K – Group Health Plan Requirements (§§ 9801 to 9834)

Exhibit B

Tax Code, Regulations

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/tax-code-regulations-and-official-guidance

Internal Revenue Code

Federal tax law begins with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by Congress in Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.).

Treasury (Tax) Regulations

Treasury regulations (26 C.F.R.)–commonly referred to as Federal tax regulations–pick up where the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) leaves off by providing the official interpretation of the IRC by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Exhibit C

Internal Revenue Service – Procedural Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/601.101

26 CFR 601.101 – Introduction.

601.101 Introduction.
(a)General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed. Within an internal revenue district the internal revenue laws are administered by a district director of internal revenue. The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States. For purposes of these procedural rules any reference to a district director or a district office includes the Director, Foreign Operations District, or the District Office, Foreign Operations District, if appropriate. Generally, the procedural rules of the Service are based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the procedural rules in this part apply to the taxes imposed by both Codes except to the extent specifically stated or where the procedure under one Code is incompatible with the procedure under the other Code. Reference to sections of the Code are references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, unless otherwise expressly indicated.

(b)Scope. This part sets forth the procedural rules of the Internal Revenue Service respecting all taxes administered by the Service, and supersedes the previously published statement (26 CFR (1949 ed., Part 300-End) Parts 600 and 601) with respect to such procedural rules. Subpart A provides a descriptive statement of the general course and method by which the Service’s functions are channeled and determined, insofar as such functions relate generally to the assessment, collection, and enforcement of internal revenue taxes. Certain provisions special to particular taxes are separately described in Subpart D of this part. Conference and practice requirements of the Internal Revenue Service are contained in Subpart E of this part. Specific matters not generally involved in the assessment, collection, and enforcement functions are separately described in Subpart B of this part. A description of the rule making functions of the Department of the Treasury with respect to internal revenue tax matters is contained in Subpart F of this part.Subpart G of this part relates to matters of official record in the Internal Revenue Service and the extent to which records and documents are subject to publication or open to public inspection. This part does not contain a detailed discussion of the substantive provisions pertaining to any particular tax or the procedures relating thereto, and for such information it is necessary that reference be made to the applicable provisions of law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The regulations relating to the taxes administered by the Service are contained in title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

[ 38 FR 4955, Feb. 23, 1973 and 41 FR 20880, May 21, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 7251, Feb. 1, 1980; 49 FR 36498, Sept. 18, 1984; T.D. 8685, 61 FR 58008, Nov. 12, 1996]

Exhibit D

Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ptoa/uscode

Please find below Sections of the IRC that the IRS gives as their authority to take actions in the process of collecting Income Taxes from the citizens of the States in the Union.

I am listing the IRC Section, Description and CFR Title giving the regulations for that Section of the IRC. Please check the Parallel Table of Authorities above to verify the following.

IRC, 26, 6151 Time and Place for Paying CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6201 Assessment Authority CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6301 Collection Authority CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6331 Levy and Distraint CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6601 Interest CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6651 Failure to File Return or Pay Tax CFR Title 27

IRC, 26, 6671 Penalties CFR Title 27

The Parallel Table of Authorities makes it easy for us to know which parts of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has authority to enforce. If a section of the IRC does not have its regulations found in Title 26 of the CFR then the IRS has no authority to enforce that Section of the IRC

Please note the following about the PTOA:

The column at the left is the Subsection of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in question.
The center column shows the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title that interprets the corresponding section of the IRC.
The column to the right shows the part of the CFR Title that relates to the IRC Subsection in question.
To find which CFR Title interprets a section of the IRC, scroll down the list of IRC sections until you find the IRC section in question. There you will find the section of the CFR that interprets that section. If its not CFR 26, the IRS has no authority to enforce that section of the IRC.

 

Our Political System As It Was Intended To Be

An Old Turkey’s Thoughts On Just How Its Supposed To Be

In plain, simple, down-to-Earth terms, the Constitution of the United States of America created two ponds of water.
One pond in which the Federal government functions, and one pond in which State governments function. If you want to go swimming, swim in the water where the Federal government is not allowed to function. That way the IRS tax sharks can’t take a bite out of your earnings!!!

The government that our founding fathers structured and built for us was the result of coming out of a union of thirteen independent Colonies that was not working. It had not produced the results they expected. With that fresh on their minds and knowledge of what was on the other side of the waters lying in wait to take them down, they devised a plan of government to provide the people with strong general government with absolute power over its sphere of sovereignty but no power outside of its sphere of sovereignty.

Sovereignty begins with the people! That sovereignty is divided into three separate and distinct parts and it takes all three to make up the whole.

To the State (Colonies) governments they placed the protection of the citizens and residents within their respective territorial limits. This protection extended to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life includes everything necessary to keep body and soul together. The right to liberty includes everything necessary for them to move about freely, unrestricted by any means. The right to pursue happiness has been understood to be equivalent to property rights. These rights, they pointed out, were God given and not acquired. The Declaration of Independence declared those rights and the Constitution established a government to secure the blessings of those rights to the people. The purpose of the Constitution was to make plain the limitations of the newly formed government in defending the rights declared In the Declaration of Independence. The only restriction being that they could not infringe upon someone’s right to enjoy those same rights.

To the general government, United States in Congress, they placed the protection of State citizen’s rights from being infringed on by powers of a foreign nature whether it be by invasion or otherwise. The only time the general government could step foot inside a State in regards to the State’s citizens, relative to matters outside of its delegated powers, would be at the request of its Governor or someone functioning in its capacity.

The remainder of the people’s sovereignty, they kept for themselves. Their sphere of action was and is to provide for the health and wellbeing of their families and communities.

USC case –

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.
Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.\
Experience made the fact known to the people of the United States that they required a national government for national purposes. The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States. For this reason, the people of the United States, ‘in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for [92 U.S. 542, 550] the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty’ to themselves and their posterity (Const. Preamble), ordained and established the government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adopted as its fundamental law, and made its rule of action.
The government thus established and defined is to some extent a government of the States in their political capacity. It is also, for certain purposes, a government of the people. Its powers are limited in number, but not in degree. Within the scope of its powers, as enumerated and defined, it is supreme and above the States; but beyond, it has no existence. It was erected for special purposes, and endowed with all the powers necessary for its own preservation and the accomplishment of the ends its people had in view. It can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.
The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship [92 U.S. 542, 551] which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.
The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people.”
United States Supreme Court, U S v. CRUIKSHANK, (1875)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html

The fifty States have citizens of their own and the United States, in a territorial sense, has citizens of its own. State citizens are citizens of the State in the Union in which they are domiciled, while United States citizens are citizens of the States under its exclusive jurisdiction which are the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and any other lands within its jurisdiction providing that those citizens are subject to its jurisdiction. (Foot Note 1) The laws of the United States only apply to its citizens, the citizens of the Several States in certain instances and any other entity subject to its jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution and clarified by its laws and United States Supreme Court decisions relative to its jurisdiction.

Regarding territorial jurisdiction, there are two things that are territorial in their nature, taxation and criminal procedure.

In regards to employee taxes, we turn to
26 U.S. Code § 3121 – Definitions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3121USC, Section 3121 (e)
(e)STATE, UNITED STATES, AND CITIZEN
For purposes of this chapter—
(1)STATE
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2)UNITED STATES
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

A look at USC, Title 18, Part 1, Subsection 5 and 7 will help clarify the meaning of the term United States and the extent of its Special Maritime and Territorial jurisdiction regarding criminal activity.
US Code, Title 18, Part 1,
Subsection 5, Crimes and Criminal Procedure
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/5
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
Subsection 7, Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
Please read all of Subsection 7 for other details of importance.

The term “United States” can be understood in any one of several ways.
Hoovan & Allison v. Evatt – “The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672] tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

The only understanding of the use of the term United States that requires governing and regulation is as it relates to its territorial jurisdiction.
As you can see below, all legislation of Congress does not apply to within the States unless a territorial extent clause exists that says that that law applies to within the Several States.

Foley Bros. v. Filardo: 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949);
“First. The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Blackmer v. United States, supra, at 284 U. S. 437, is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained.”

Blackmer v. United States, supra, at 284 U. S. 437
“While the legislation of the Congress, unless the contrary intent appears, is construed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,“

CAHA V. UNITED STATES
“Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909);
“The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. “All legislation is prima facie territorial.” Ex Parte Blain, L.R. 12 Ch.Div. 522, 528; State v. Carter, 27 N.J.L. 499; People v. Merrill, 2 Parker, Crim.Rep. 590, 596

The general government is made up of the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches of government. The Legislative branch includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Executive branch includes the President, the Vice President and the Presidential cabinets. The Judicial Branch includes the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The House of Representatives represent the people of all the member States in the Union. The Senate represents the governments of all the Fifty States. The members of the House of Representatives are supposed to be chosen by the people of all the States while the members of the Senate are supposed to be chosen by the legislatures of the Several States. The President is supposed to be chosen by electors that are chosen by the legislatures of the Several States, not by the people.

Regarding the choosing of national representatives in government the State legislators represent the State governments in the choosing of the Senators and the President and Vice President. The Senate is where the State governments are united while the House of Representatives is where “We THE People” of all the States in the Union are united.

The President of the United States is the President of that entity that was created by the people of all the States and not the president of any of the States or of their citizens. We have Governors to see that our laws are carried out as our State legislatures intended for them to be.

The method of choosing the members of the general government has been changed because of the negative effects of political parties that have been allowed to commandeer our political processes. Our founding fathers warned us time and again of the dangers of allowing political parties to gain control of our political processes. The political parties that have commandeered our political processes were not provided for in the Constitution and have been the vehicles through which foreign powers are gaining control of our government to some extent.

There are two kinds of taxes that the US Constitution allows – direct and indirect. Indirect taxes are taxes based on the performance of some privilege or activity that is rightfully regulated by the federal Government. Direct taxes have been held by the U S Supreme Court to be taxes on land and property or assets because of ownership.

The U S Supreme Court has ruled that the Income Tax is a tax on corporations for the privilege of doing business in corporate form. The amount of the tax is based on the total income received from doing business in corporate form. If you are not incorporated then you don’t owe the Income Tax. Your earnings are your property and are not subject to the Income Tax.

This site is all about the History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment. All of your United States and State Representatives and Senators believe the Sixteenth Amendment to be what authorized the U S Congress to tax your earnings. The U S Supreme Court says otherwise!!!

For more information go to http://sovereignstateslibertywatchgroup.com.

Be Blessed

Foot Note 1

U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I
8 U.S. Code Part I – Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
• US Code
prev | next
• § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
• § 1401a – Birth abroad before 1952 to service parent
• § 1401b – Repealed. Pub. L. 92–584, § 2, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289
• § 1402 – Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899
• § 1403 – Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
• § 1404 – Persons born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867
• § 1405 – Persons born in Hawaii
• § 1406 – Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands
• § 1407 – Persons living in and born in Guam
• § 1408 – Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
• § 1409 – Children born out of wedlock