User talk:Patriot2013

I hear that you are an expert on the invalidity of the income tax? Would you please provide some of the facts? Patriot2013 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Patriot2013: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I don't know for sure who you are directing your questions to, but I'll respond. First, I'd like to comment on the following material you added to a talk page:

Wow, there are many great cases cited and many great comments made, however, none of it pertains to the lawful sovereign that does not have a contract, adhesion or otherwise, with the federal/national government.

Any talented discerner, that has read the Congressional Record, the Income tax Thesis by the author of Black's Law Dictionary, and a myriad of letters that have been recorded, will certainly come to the conclusion, and, excuse me, also will have read the Constitution of the united States of America, that nothing that the federal/national government does has any authority/Jurisdiction over the lawful sovereign.

First, the Constitution of the united States of America is a design of limited and restricted government; nothing else. The primary function of the federal/national government is to protect the States from foreign intervention. The Statutes nor any of the other actions of the federal/national government only pertain to what powers and authority that the federal/national government may have over the states: For What other reason was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments created?

The Congressional Record stated, iterated and reiterated that the intention of the Sixteenth Amendment was to be the extension of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 to individuals and copartnerships that were "doing business". Since the average wage in 1909 was ONLY $250 approximately, then it certainly 'stands to reason' that the income tax was never intended to be assessed upon any of the lawful sovereigns because the first deduction allowance was $5,000. Again, therefore, it 'stands to reason' that it was fully understood at that time in history that only those entities that were "doing business" were to be the subject of the income tax and whatever profit they were making was to be the object of the income tax: No one with half a brain would ever have thought otherwise (but I will bet that there were those whom I will call the 'powers that are' definitely had long range avaricious plans.

In 1920, the Eisner v MAcomber SUPREME Court case, 252 US 189, 1920, clearly stated that any income, in order to be taxable,must be derived from profit. Also, since the Infernal Revenue Code states that in order for an income to become taxable, it must be 'effectively-connected to a taxable event', ergo, "doing business".

Therefore, it 'stands to reason' that in order for an income to be taxable, there MUST be a federal/national authority/Jurisdiction which would require some form of contract, adhesion or otherwise, and it MUST be statutorally (sp?) approved: Since the Constitution of the united States of America does not have ANY authority/jurisdiction over a lawful sovereign, then it, again, 'stands to reason' that the Sixteenth Amendment does not pertain to a lawful sovereign.

Here is where the aforementioned tale of what is about to become a mendacious, scurillious and nefarious tale of government lies and fraud. In 1935 the Congress approved the withholding of Social Security. In 1941, approximately, the government enacted the Victory Tax and in 1942 ,approximately, the government changed the name of the Victory Tax to the Extended Income tax and the fraud that induced the 'dumbed-down' americans to accept the Victory Tax was expanded to dupe them into accepting/believing that the income tax was compulsory: Even the Commissioner of the Infernal REvenue (dis)service admitted, a while back, that the tax was voluntary: Who would "volunteer" to pay a tax that was not compulsory?

Where were all of the so-called income tax protest gurus doing their research when all of the above is clearly recorded in the Congressional Record?

When I realized that something was "amiss" in 1979, I challenged both my alleged employer and the irs and when no intelligent answers were forthcoming I quit submitting tax returns. It only took a few years and I have not been bothered other than twice where I was called to attend a meeting and both times I was asked to leave. I am recorded as "uncollectible" and that is good enough for me!

Jurisdiction is the key word. The federal/national government has been granted no authority that would grant it any form of Jurisdiction over the lawful sovereign; that is, unless you volunteer by submitting any type of federal/national form that you sign admitting that you ARE a taxpayer: Not I!!!!!!!!!!!

[end of Patriot2013's material].

I don't have time to respond to all your comments, but I'll provide the following.

There is no such thing as a "lawful sovereign" in the sense that you have used the term. A citizen of the United States or a non-citizen resident of the United States is subject to the U.S. Federal income tax, regardless of whether that person has a "contract, adhesion or otherwise, with the federal/national government."

Liability for tax is not based on a contract. (See below.)

The term "sovereign citizen" is a term that has been used by the courts from time to time, but it does not mean what you think it means. NO COURT HAS EVER USED THE TERM TO MEAN THAT SOMEONE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL OR STATE LAWS. Never.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of income in Eisner v. Macomber is not an exclusive definition of income for federal income tax purposes. See the Glenshaw Glass case

Eisner v. Macomber is a leading case. Every tax law student studies the case. The case has nothing to do with whether the income you realize from (for example) working for a living, is taxable. We have covered this point over and over and over and over and over and over again. Tax protesters love to cite Eisner v. Macomber, and they're always wrong when they do cite it.

Here's what the Supreme Court stated about Eisner v. Macomber many years later:

Nor can we accept respondent's contention [the taxpayer's contention] that a narrower reading of § 22 (a) [section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, now section 61 of the current Code] is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 207, as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." ... The Court was there endeavoring to determine whether the distribution of a corporate stock dividend constituted a realized gain to the shareholder, or changed "only the form, not the essence," of his capital investment. Id., at 210. It was held that the taxpayer had "received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id., at 211. The distribution, therefore, was held not a taxable event. In that context—distinguishing gain from capital—the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions....

--from the U.S. Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

No, the Internal Revenue Code does not state that in order for an income to become taxable, it must be 'effectively-connected to a taxable event', ergo, "doing business". No. Completely false. There is no provision of any Federal tax law that says any such thing.

The statement that "the Constitution of the united States of America does not have ANY authority/jurisdiction over a lawful sovereign" is complete, utter hogwash.

As anyone who has actually studied federal tax law knows, the term "voluntary" as used in relation to the Federal income tax means that you file a tax return. It does not mean that filing the return is not required by law, or that payment of the tax is not required by law.

No, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has never stated that the federal income tax is voluntary in the sense in which you are using that term.

No, "jurisdiction" is not the key word. "Jurisdiction" is one of those legal terms that tax protesters use over and over and over again, often without any understanding of what it means.

No, your liability for federal income tax is not depending upon your submitting a "federal/national form that you sign admitting that you ARE a taxpayer". No.

And, no, a statement in the Congressional Record is not the law. There are many correct and incorrect statements in the Congressional Record, but NOTHING IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD IS LAW MERELY BECAUSE IT'S FOUND IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

As far as I know, you're also wrong about what the Congressional Record has stated. I know of no provision in the Congressional Record that has stated that the "intention" of the Sixteenth Amendment was to be "the extension of the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 to individuals and copartnerships that were doing business." If there is such a statement somewhere in the Congressional Record, it's incorrect. Again, under our legal system, you have to look to court decisions for the authoritative interpretations of the law, not to the Congressional Record. The courts have ruled that the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the requirement imposed in the Pollock case that the income tax on dividends, interest, and rent be apportioned among the states according to population. I can provide that citation if you like.

Your argument that the Federal income tax is somehow associated with a "contract" is incorrect. From the United States Supreme Court:

Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract.

---from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 (1938) (bolding added).

There is no impediment, under the Constitution, to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labor. From the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in the Funk case:

They [Mr. and Mrs. Funk] argue that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax, that an individual's labor is capital in which he or she possesses a property right, that an individual has the right to exchange that property for other property, i.e. money, and that such a transaction is an equal exchange which does not give rise to any profit. [ . . . ] Taxpayers' argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors. [ . . . ]

--from Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (bolding added).

Federal income taxation is not tied to the exercise of a "privilege." From the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:

Coleman [one of the parties in the case] thinks that only net income may be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment — net income as Coleman defines it, rather than as Congress does. Holder [another party], who styles himself a "private citizen," insists that wages may not be taxed because the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only excise taxes, and in Holder's world excises may be imposed only on "government granted privileges." Because Holder believes that he is exercising no special privileges, he thinks he may not be taxed. These are tired arguments. The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61.

--from Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986).

The Tenth Amendment was not created to limit the power of Congress to impose taxes. Indeed, the Amendment was not ratified for the purpose of limiting any power delegated to the national government. From the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Tenth Amendment does not operate as a limitation upon the powers, express or implied, delegated to the national government. ... The amendment has clearly placed no restriction upon the power delegated to the national government to lay an excise tax qua tax [to lay an excise tax as a tax].

---from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 66 S. Ct. 178, 45-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶10,239 (1945) (bolding added).

No federal court has ever upheld any of the arguments you have provided regarding taxation. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, even a non-citizen who has never resided in the United States and has never even been to the United States can be subject to the U.S. Federal income tax. The Internal Revenue Code has specific provisions on how such persons can be taxed. If you think about it, you may be able to guess how such a person can be legally subject to the U.S. Federal income tax. Famspear (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)