Wednesday, July 15, 2020

jds

Attn: Director of International Operations
Internal Revenue Service
Washington, D.C. 20024

Date: July 15, 2020
   (orig. posted on April 11, 2015)

Re:  jonathan-david: suss
        dba Jonathan D. Suss/ 
        dba JONATHAN D. SUSS
   901 Ednor Road
   Silver Spring, Maryland 20905

        Soc. Sec. No. xxx-xx-xxxx

FILING STATEMENT FOR ALL TAX YEARS IN AFFIDAVIT FORM

Pursuant to 26 USC §§6011, 6012, 6103, 6213(g) and 7203


Dear Director:
I, Jonathan D. Suss, being of sound mind and of the age of majority, having personal knowledge of the facts and law being addressed in this Filing Statement, applicable to any and all years, in Affidavit form, do hereby declare and affirm as follows:
This Filing Statement for All Tax Years in Affidavit Form (and the following Affidavit of Revocation and Rescission), together with each separate Affidavit filed annually with the IRS, constitute “returns” as I can best define a return pursuant to 26 USC §§ 6103 and 6213(g) of the Internal Revenue Code, and 26 CFR § 301.7216-1(b)(1). These returns are filed in lieu of an Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 series and satisfies the requirements of IRC § 6012.  I have read the law and understand that all past filings of Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 by me have been in error. My past misunderstanding of the law does not in any way reflect recognition on my part of any legal requirement or authorization to file Form 1040 and/or 1040A and/or 1040EZ and/or 1040SS. The assigned OMB number identifies the class of individual who is required to file those forms. I am not of that class of individual defined.
Title 26 USC § 6012, states that every person liable for any income “internal revenue” tax must file a return or statement as provided by law.  For the reasons stated herein, I believe that in all likelihood I am not liable for any internal revenue income tax or filing requirement.  However, this statement is filed in order to avoid ambiguity or confusion regarding my filing requirement and status as well as to avoid any possible sanctions for failure to file. If I am incorrect in my understanding, I direct you to immediately inform me of my mistake and identify the Form or Statement I am required to file, if any.
Return. The term “return” includes any return, statement, schedule, or list, and any amendment or supplement thereto, filed with respect to any tax imposed by Subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44. This Statement complies with all legal requirements and is a statement or return within the meaning of 26 USC §§6011, 6012 and 6213(g): 
The question as to which statute controls a duty to file an income tax return is the subject of many judicial disputes by the top legal minds of this country as evidenced by the following:
In Commissioner  v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219, 222, 64 S.Ct. 511, 513 (1944), the Court noted that § 54 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, the predecessor for Internal Revenue Code
§ 6001, related to the filing requirement; see also Updike v. United States, 8 F.2d 913, 915 (8th Cir. 1925).  In True v. United States, 354 F.2d 323, 324 (Ct.Cl. 1965), United States v. Carlson, 260 F.Supp. 423, 425 (E.D.N.Y. 1966), White v. Commissioner, 72 U.S.T.C. 1126, 1129 (1979), McCaskill v. Commissioner, 77 U.S.T.C. 689, 698 (1981), Counts v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 426, 427 (11th Cir. 1985), Blount v. Commissioner, 86 U.S.T.C. 383, 386 (1986), and Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), these courts held that Internal Revenue Code § 6011 related to the filing requirement. In United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 1980), United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1192, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1991), and United
States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991), those courts held that Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011 and 6012 governed this duty. In contrast, the cases of Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983), United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990), and United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992), held that only § 6012 governed this duty. But in United States v. Pilcher, 672 F.2d 875, 877 (11th Cir. 1982), none of the above sections were mentioned and it was held that §7203 required returns to be filed.

It is apparent that there exists an extreme vicissitude of opinion in the federal courts regarding which statutes govern the requirement to file income tax returns.
                                                                                                                
If the Federal District Courts, Tax Court, Court of Claims and the Supreme Court cannot definitively decide the fundamental question as to which section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the filing of an income tax return, whether the tax imposed is an excise or a direct tax, it is obvious that the average American, even one educated in the law, will have great difficulty in understanding the tax imposed and this basic question on filing requirements, the species of the tax, among many other questions. 
                                                                                                    
Since the courts are so deeply split over this issue, how can anyone understand the law in an atmosphere of judicial incertitude?  Due process requires that the law be such that the duty imposed is unambiguous and those subject to it are able to understand the law. This is not the case with Title 26 USC or 26 CFR implementing regulations.

In 1913, a debate on the Senate floor, regarding the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment was held. Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law.

“I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.”

All the confusion over an eighty-page Act then, is exponentially compounded by the current ten thousand page+ internal revenue code, 26 USC, along with more than thirty thousand pages of implementing internal revenue regulations contained in 26 CFR, and some unauthorized for IRS usage from 27 CFR. 
In light of this judicial uncertainty, I am doing my best to understand and comply with the law and regulations. In light of the courts’ and indeed of the Congress’ inability to comprehend and agree with the interpretations within the internal revenue laws, I cannot be held responsible for any misunderstanding of internal revenue law which I may have. Since there are no consistent rulings upon which I can depend, I am merely doing what I consider as true, correct and lawful. The Internal Revenue Service’s guidance to me in this matter is absolutely essential and is hereby demanded by rebuttal Affidavit.
Title 26 USC § 7701(a)(14) defines a taxpayer as follows:  “The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.”  The phrase “internal revenue tax” does not appear in the Internal Revenue Code until Subtitle E: Alcohol, Tobacco and Certain Other Excise Taxes.  26 USC § 5005, entitled “Persons Liable for Tax”, provides that proprietors of distilled spirit plants are the persons liable for internal revenue tax.   Since I am not the operator of a distilled spirit plant, I am not, by that definition, subject to any internal revenue tax, and therefore, I am not, by definition, a “taxpayer.”  See, United States v. Cryer, 2007 WL 1805031 (W.D. La., July 11, 2007)(charges of tax evasion withdrawn by prosecutor; self-employed attorney’s revenues not subject to failure to file misdemeanor absent willfulness of criminal intent). 
Any past admissions that I was or am at present a “taxpayer” have been made in error and according to the court; 
“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.”  Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).
I am not authorized to file any form in the Form 1040 series or any other form pertaining to any internal revenue tax for the following reasons:
1.    I have not been able to identify any IRS form in the 1040 series, which displays an OMB number relevant to 26 CFR §1.1-1 and §1.11-1.  I cannot file under penalty of perjury a form, which I know to be the incorrect form for me.
2.    I can find no section of Subtitle A, which makes me liable for Subtitle A (income) taxes, and meets the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act in providing an OMB number which ties a liability section with Form 1040. Therefore, I firmly believe that I have no liability for Subtitle A taxes and therefore no requirement or authorization to file Form 1040 or any other form relative to Subtitle A (Tax Class 2).
3.     It is impossible for me to sign the Form 1040 in that the jurat states under penalty of perjury. As I am not an Officer, Employee or Elected Official who is under Oath of Office, and I have taken no Oath, I cannot sign the Form 1040. To do so, and then while under Oath in a Court of law I stated I did sign under penalty of perjury, I would have created a technical perjury because I was not under Oath when I signed the Form. I may have misled the government when I signed that Form in the past as I was ignorant of the only way a person can be held under penalty of perjury, i.e., under Oath of Office or under an Oath taken before a Notary or a Judge. My filing for 2013, accounting for earnings of non-taxable, lawful money, while not erroneous, as such, the signature of my “straw man” thereon was performed in error. I will not make that mistake in the future and I instruct you to remove all of my signatures from past filings of the 1040 Form and other documents, Nunc Pro Tunc.

My returns are mailed (and incorporated by reference and posted)  to the proper address published in 26 CFR.  The Internal Revenue Service Centers no longer have the authority to receive and process income tax returns.  Delegation Order 99 which authorized the Service Centers to receive and process returns, was declared obsolete, and such authority has been transferred via the functional statement published in IRM 1100, at 1117.22.  The IRM 1117.22 has been declared obsolete, and no authority has superseded or replaced it.  The only office listed as authorized to receive returns is the Director of International Operations pursuant to 26 CFR § 1.6091-3. 
Regulation at 26 CFR § 1.6091-4 provides an alternative to filing a return in a required district.  Therefore, if this return is filed in the incorrect venue, the director will please forward the return pursuant to 26 CFR § 1.6091-4(a)(2) to the proper destination and inform me of that location.
As there are presently no internal revenue districts authorized by law, it is difficult for one to know exactly what is to be filed, when or where. Perhaps a review of the following will explain my confusion over the matter:
Title 26 USC §7621 requires the President to establish “internal revenue districts.” Even if I wanted to volunteer, it would be impossible for me to comply with any alleged requirement to file Form 1040, in that the Internal Revenue Service has no internal revenue districts assigned and therefore no District Directors exist to whom I could possibly send a return 1040 as per the following:

Section 7621-- Internal Revenue Districts.
(a) Establishment of revenue districts.

     The President shall establish convenient internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws. The President may from time to time alter such districts.

 

Via Reorganization Plan 3 of 1940, President Roosevelt reassigned duties of the Federal Alcohol Administration to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, thereby abolishing an agency Congress established by law in 1935, then via Reorganization Plan 26 of 1950, President Harry S. Truman abolished offices of internal revenue assessors and collectors that had existed since 1862 legislation. But these changes did not adversely affect the American people at large. Since implementation of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, there have been no Federal internal revenue districts in the several States. The Internal Revenue Code limits IRS assessment and collection activity to whatever revenue districts are established under authority of 26 USC § 7621. The vast majority of Internal Revenue Code taxing authority is geographical in nature and is limited to the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States, exclusive of the 50 states of the Union.

In 1998, via Executive Order #10289, as amended, President William J. Clinton authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish revenue districts under authority of §7621 of the Internal Revenue Code. Although §7621 is not listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, E.O. #10289 is listed. The implementing regulation is Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 101. This regulation establishes “customs collection offices” in each state of the Union; it does not establish internal revenue districts. A note at Part 301.7621-1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations confirms that E.O. #10289 is the only authority for establishing revenue districts.

The Internal Revenue Service has no jurisdiction in Maryland and other States of the Union to enforce the internal revenue tax laws, as there exist no “internal revenue districts” pursuant to §7621, within the 50 states of the Union. The Federal tax enigma is resolved to a certain extent in understanding that there is another application of tax other than the geographical. Most of the reorganization plans, executive orders, etc. are intra-governmental in nature. The application is for government agencies and personnel, not the general population of the 50 states of the Union of the united States of America.

The term “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code; see United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1976).  I did not receive "income" as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 26 CFR § 1.643(b)-1, which is the only definition of "income" published in the Internal Revenue Code or its corresponding internal revenue regulations. 
In Nicholas v. Fifteenth Street Inv. Co., 105 F2d 289 (CA10 Colo., 1939), concerning 39-2 USTC ¶ 9571, it was ruled that the power of Congress to lay and collect tax on income cannot be extended by legislative definition of the term “income.”
Since I did not receive “income” nor income from any “source,” as identified by the Secretary for purposes of the income tax, I presumably did not receive “gross income,” and thus did not have “taxable income.” I have no “earned income” or income from any “source” as defined by 26 USC §861 and 26 CFR 1.861.(8), generally. As the only “source” for income tax purposes promulgated by the Secretary is contained in this section I surmise that in all probability I have no federal income tax liability, as I have no income from any source listed.  The term “earned income” means wages, salaries, professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered including the fair market value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash. However, earned income is foreign earned income, and must come from sources wholly outside the United States, as evidenced by 26 CFR § 1.911-3, and IRM 3(38)(147) 7.1.
The face of Form 1040 indicates that it originates with the “Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.”  I cannot determine who or what this “agency” is, or when or how it originated. Apparently, neither the Department of Treasury nor the National Archives or Records Administration is able to determine who or what the “Internal Revenue Service” is. One cannot file any private financial information with the “Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,” since the IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service are entities of unknown power and duties. No confidential financial information will be provided to either, nor agents of either, unless and until I am provided with the documents, which state the origin, powers and duties of these entities, duly recorded in the Federal Register. 
It appears that the “Internal Revenue” is the Puerto Rico special (trust) fund, as evidenced by 31 USC § 1321 (62), and “internal revenue” is the Philippines special (trust) fund, as evidenced by 31 USC § 1321 (2).  I have incurred no liability to either the Philippines special fund or the Puerto Rico special fund. It may be a quaint notion, but possibly the Internal Revenue Service could publish in the Federal Register its structure and field offices and other recordings which are mandated by Congress for Agencies of Government by Title 5 USC §552(a). This certainly would be helpful to all and reduce the uncertainty I now feel with an agency of government which is invisible to the law.
The Form 1040, if processed, would be processed under the supervision and authority of the Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service. No authority appears to exist for this officer to administer taxes, other than wagering taxes under Treasury Delegation Order 221-3.  I have had no wagering income.  Therefore, I have no filing and/or tax liability with this Officer.  Further, I have not been able to locate any statute, regulation or other document, which authorizes and/or creates the office of Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service.
I am not an “individual” described at 26 CFR § 1.6017-1.  An individual is defined as a person who is liable for self-employment tax in the territories. For purposes of venue, TC 150 pertains only to the Virgin Islands. In Mills v. United States CIV-94-114-TUC-JMR (USDC AZ), a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit was instituted by Mr. Fred D. Mills, wherein he requested a copy of the documents indicating that Transaction Code (TC 150) on the Individual Master File, meant anything other than and/or in addition to the Virgin Islands.  The U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division stated that, “…no other responsive document exists.” This confirms that Transaction Code 150 means exclusively Virgin Islands, relevant to Venue, as is indicated at IRM 30(55) 4.2(29), now 30(55) 4.2(30).
Based upon the nonexistence of any document other than IRM 30(55) 4.2 (29) disclosable under the FOIA, Mr. Mills stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice.  Therefore, the input of Transaction Code TC 150 (VIRGIN IS) on my Individual Master File Transcript for all years is a clear violation of the Privacy Act and Treasury Department Regulations. The information maintained by this system of records, is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete and is maintained in a system of records not authorized pursuant to Title 5 USC §552(a).
The status of TC 150, assigned to me by some entity within the Internal Revenue Service, is either computer fraud or an innocent error of input of data.  Whatever the case may be I demand an immediate correction of the error and a notification from you that the error has been corrected and informing me of the proper Transaction Code assigned to me.
I have made no election for the Internal Revenue Service to make any return for me, pursuant to 26 USC §§6014 or 6020. The Form 1040 is not approved by the Office of Management and Budget for use in either Substitute Return procedures under 26 USC §6020(b) or deficiency/Substitute for Return procedures under 26 USC §6211.
The Privacy Act System of Records 24.030, Individual Master File (IMF), Returns Processing – Treasury/IRS, is maintained on taxpayers who file Forms 1040 or power of attorney notifications.  Since a taxpayer is defined by law as one who operates a distilled spirit plant and since I do not operate a distilled spirit plant; the maintenance of any records in such system of records would violate the provisions of the Privacy Act and 31 CFR §§ 0.735-60 and 0.735-310. The records maintained would not be relevant, accurate or complete, and may be an indication of computer fraud.
First and foremost I am a flesh-and-blood person, an American State Citizen  (Maryland State) and a non-citizen national of the united States of America and I have been so since



AFFIDAVIT OF REVOCATION AND RESCISSION
           
            I, Jonathan D. Suss, over eighteen (18) years of age and being duly sworn, do hereby make the following statements of fact and affirm:

1.      That I recently became aware that under the provisions of the United States Code, Title 28, Section 1746, the law thereunder states that any statement such as IRS/Income-Excise Tax Form 1040 which is signed under the penalties of perjury has the same legal effect as a document which contains a notarized signature under oath; that the knowledge I had acquired from reading said Section 1746 of Title 28, United States Code, led me to look up the term “presumption” in Black’s Law Dictionary because I remembered that I had, over many years past, filed IRS Form 1040 tax returns which I had signed under penalties of perjury, thereby certifying that my earnings in the form of wages, salaries, commissions, receipts were income and that I owed an income tax on these earnings.  All such actions were legal grounds for a presumption by any court that I was subject to or liable for the payment of federal and/or state income tax.  I related such action on my part to acts that I wanted to rescind and cancel retroactively; that I found the following definitions (in part) of the word “presumption” contained therein:  “A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, “until presumption is rebutted” Van Wart v. Cook, 557 P.2d 1161, 1163 (Okla. Civ. App. 1976); that I further read in said Black’s Law Dictionary under sub-heading “effect of presumption” the following: “…the better rule is that once evidence tending to rebut the presumption is introduced, the presumption loses all its force”; that I understand from this definition that the rebuttal burden falls upon me to effectively state my reasons for writing and filing this Affidavit, providing detailed rebuttal information of the knowledge and beliefs that I have acquired in order to establish this, my rebuttal, and these reasons for my rebuttal are contained in paragraph numbers 1-30 of this Affidavit;
2.      That I was unaware that a completed, signed and submitted “Form 1040” or “income tax return” and a “W-4 Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate”, the authorization document that allows an employer to withhold a worker’s money from his pay are voluntarily executed instruments which could be used as admissible evidence against me in criminal trials and civil proceedings to show that I had voluntarily waived my constitutionally-secured rights, and that I had voluntarily subjected myself to the income/excise tax, to the provision of the Internal Revenue Code, and to the authority of the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter referred to as the IRS) by signing and thereby affirming under penalties of perjury, under the legal doctrine of “presumption”, that I was, in effect, a “person” subject to the “income” tax thereunder. (NOTE: The same reasoning applies to a “W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification and Certification”);
3.           That I was unaware that the signing and filing of an income tax return and other IRS forms are acts of voluntary compliance for a free, sovereign individual; that I was unaware that in a court of law the completed and signed IRS documents can become prima facie evidence sufficient to sustain a legal conclusion by a judge through the legal doctrine of “presumption” and the provisions of Title 28, Section 1746 as stated in Paragraph #1 of this AFFIDAVIT that the signer has voluntarily changed his legal status from that of a free, sovereign, non-citizen national who is not subject to any Federal tax and who possesses all his God-given, constitutionally-secured rights when dealing with government, into the new legal status of a “taxpayer”;
4.      That through research I discovered that “taxpayer” is a term defined in the Internal Revenue Code in I.R. Code Section 7701(a)(14) as “any person subject to any Internal Revenue tax”; that I further found that a “person” is also a defined term in I.R. Code Section 7701(a)(1) as “an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation”; that the only one of these definitions of the term “person” that could possibly apply to me would be the word “individual”; that I am not such a “person” or “individual” who is “subject to” or “liable for” any Internal Revenue tax; that I found that an appellate court, in the decision of Houston Street Corp. v. Commissioner, 84 F2d 821 (5th Cir., 1936) explained in its decision that the terms “subject to” and “liable for” were interchangeable terms; that, therefore, I determined that the only “person”  “made liable” for any income tax in the Internal Revenue Code is a “withholding agent” who is “made liable” only under I.R.C. Section 1461; that a “withholding agent” is also defined in Code Section 7701(a)(16) as “any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of (Code) Sections 1441, 1442, 1443 or 1461”; that I am not a “person required to deduct and withhold” as those words are used in Code Sections 1441, 1442, 1443 or 1461; because I am not a person who is, or has ever made, any payments to any foreign person, partnership or corporation; that I saw that Chapter 3 of the I.R.C. applies only to those who are handling monies being paid to foreigners; that Code Section 1461 imposes liability only on those handling money being paid to foreigners; that, therefore, I am not a person or individual “made liable for such tax”; that I am, therefore, not subject to the authority, jurisdiction and control of the Federal government under Title 26 of the U.S. Code (the Internal Revenue Code), the statutes governing Federal taxation or to the regulations of the Internal Revenue Service; that it was never my intent to impose any income tax on myself or to waive my God-given, constitutionally-secured rights in respect to the Federal income/excise tax statutes or to their administration by the IRS, thereby establishing myself as one who has privileges only, but no rights in dealings with the IRS, the same as a corporation;
5.      That I have read the decision in the case of Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F2d. 504 (2d Cir., 1961) in which the following statements were made by the Court: 

1.  Moreover, even the collection of taxes should be exacted
    only from persons upon whom a tax liability is imposed 
   by some statute.

2.      It is equally well settled that the revenue laws apply only
to taxpayers.

3.      However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes
does not include vesting any tax official with absolute
power of assessment against individuals not specified
in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without
an opportunity for judicial review of this status
before the appellation of “taxpayer” is bestowed
upon him….
(Botta, emphasis added)                    

After reading the above quotations from the Botta v. Scanlon decision,  I became even more firmly convinced that I was not a “person required to deduct and withhold” which would make me a person “made liable for such tax” as those words were used in I.R.C. Section 1461 referred to in paragraph 4 of this AFFIDAVIT;  
6.      That it is my understanding that the change of status resulting from signed IRS documents can be very similar to the change of status that occurs when one enlists in the military service and voluntarily takes an oath that subjects oneself to the authority, jurisdiction and control of the federal government under Title 10 of the United States Code, the statutes governing the Armed Forces and to the regulations of the military service, thereby waiving one’s constitutional rights in relation to dealings with the military service; that I was unaware of these legal effects of signing and filing an income tax return as shown by the ruling in the case of Morse v. U.S., 494 F.2d 876, 880 (9th Cir., 1974), wherein the Court explained how a citizen became a “taxpayer”:  “Accordingly, when signed returns were filed by Mrs. Morse declaring income to her for 1944 and 1945 and making her potentially liable for the tax due on that income, she became a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code” under the legal doctrine of “presumption”;
7.      That my attention has been directed to the fact that an official Internal Revenue Service form letter FL1264 states:  “The fact that you sent us (IRS) this Form 1040 shows that you recognize your obligation to file…”; that, contrary to the conclusion stated in this form letter, it has never been my intention or desire to show the Internal Revenue Service or anyone else that I recognize any such obligation and that, as a non-citizen national protected by the United States Constitution, I legally do not have such an obligation;
8.      That I am a natural-born, free, sovereign, non-citizen national, and I am endowed by my creator with numerous unalienable rights including my right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which rights are specifically identified in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the United States Constitution; that my birthright to “pursuit of happiness” has been interpreted by both the framers of the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court as including my unalienable right to contract, to acquire, to deal in, to sell, rent and exchange properties of various kinds, real and personal, without requesting or exercising any privilege or franchise from government; that I have learned that these unalienable property rights also include my right to contract for the exchange of my labor-property and for the other properties such as wages, salaries, property exchanges and other earnings, and that I have never knowingly or intentionally waived any of these unalienable rights either through the legal doctrine of “presumption” or by filing IRS forms 1040, W-4, W-9, or other documents;
9.      That I understand that if the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights were subjected to taxation, the rights could be destroyed by increasing the tax rates to unaffordable levels; therefore, courts have repeatedly ruled that government has no power to tax the exercise of constitutional rights of any citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) stated:  “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution”;
10.  That for years past I have been incorrectly influenced by numerous and repeated public warnings by the IRS via radio, television, the printed press and other public communication media warning of the “deadline” for filing a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return” and/or other IRS forms and documents, which warnings had falsely convinced me that I had an obligation to file IRS forms 1040 and others;
11.  That in addition to the aforesaid warnings, I have also been influenced by the misleading and deceptive wording of IRS publications, IRS-generated news articles, the pressure of widespread rumors and misinformed public opinion and the advice and assurance of lawyers, CPAs and income tax preparers who misled me to incorrectly believe that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution somehow authorized Congress to impose a direct tax on me, my property, my exchanges of property and/or property received as a result of exercising my constitutionally-secured right to earn a living and to contract; that I was further misled into incorrectly believing that (because I now know to be false information) I had a legal duty and obligation to file a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return”, a “Form W-4 Employees’ Withholding Allowance Certificate” and/or a W-9 and other IRS forms and documents;
12.  That I have in the past also been further influenced, misled and alarmed by rumors, misinformed public opinion and the advice and assurance of lawyers, CPAs and income tax preparers to the effect that “the IRS will get me,” and that it would be a crime punishable by fine and/or imprisonment if I did not fill out, sign and file with the IRS a “Form 1040”;
13.  That in addition to all of the reasons already stated in the paragraphs of this Affidavit, I was influenced by the common and widespread practice of employers who unknowingly mislead their employees to believe that they are also subject by law to withholding of “income taxes” from their earnings, either with or without their permission, based upon those employers’ mistaken assumption that they, as employers, are required by law to withhold “income taxes” from the paychecks of their employees via a W-4, or effectively report them as “independent contractors” via a W-9, all of which I now know is not true;
14.  That I have also been influenced by the IRS’ annual public display and indiscriminate offering of large quantities of the “Form 1040” in banks, post offices and through the U.S. mail which also reminded me of and induced me to “volunteer” by filling out, signing and sending to the IRS a “Form 1040”;
15.  That neither the “Form 1040” or its instruction booklet contained any reference to any law or laws which would explain just exactly who is or is not subject to or liable for the income tax, nor did it contain any notice or warning to me or to anyone that by merely sending said completed “Form 1040” to the IRS I would waive my right to privacy secured by the Fourth Amendment and my right to not having to be a witness against myself secured by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that the filled out and signed “Form 1040” would, in itself, constitute legal evidence admissible in a court of law under the law of “presumption” that I was subject to and liable for the income/excise tax even though and regardless of the fact that I, as a free, sovereign, non-citizen national, am actually and legally not subject to or liable for any income/excise tax and have no legal duty or obligation whatsoever to complete and file a “Form 1040”;
16.  That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the IRS, by any of its agents or employees, nor by any lawyers, CPA or tax preparer of the fact that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) identified the income tax as an indirect excise tax in accordance with, and authorized by, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.  I further learned that the Sixteenth Amendment did not repeal Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 or Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution which sections protect me against any direct taxation on my salary, wages, property dealings or any other earnings;
17.  That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the IRS, its agents or employees or by any lawyer, CPA or tax preparer of the fact that the tax on income which is referenced in the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been identified by the Supreme Court as an excise tax upon activities involving the exercise of government-granted privileges such as doing business in the United States as a corporation or as a non-resident alien.  By contrast, I have not asked government for any such privilege.  To the contrary, I now know that both the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court protect my non-taxable right, as a non-citizen national, to earn a living in any lawful occupation of my choice; 
18.  That my attention has been called to Report No. 80-19A titled Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws published by The American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress updated January 17, 1980 and that this publication described the tax on “income” identified in the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as an indirect excise tax; that this report stated that “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the taxing limitations of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 or Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution.”  I have learned that these sections prohibit any direct tax unless apportioned amongst the states of the union (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3) or any capitation tax which means a tax on me or my labor (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4).  These taxing limitations can clearly be determined from decisions of the United States Supreme Court which identify the income tax as an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, thus proving in my mind that the income tax is not a tax on me or my earnings.  Rather, I have learned that it is a tax as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), wherein the court defined excise taxes as “…taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country…, and upon corporate privileges.”, none of which classifications apply to me; that, in fact, such a corporate-privilege tax is imposed under the I.R.C. in Section 11 which is also inapplicable to me;
19.  That I was unaware of the IRS’ rarely publicized statement that the “income” tax system is based upon “voluntary compliance with the law, and self-assessment of tax”; that it has never been my intention or desire to voluntarily self-assess any tax upon myself; that I always previously mistakenly thought that my compliance was required by law;
20.  That I have examined Sections 6001, 6011, 6012, 7201, 7203 and 7205 of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 USC), and I am convinced and satisfied that, as a non-citizen national protected by the Constitution, I am not now and never was any such “person” or individual referred to by these sections; that I noticed that, although Code Section 6012 has the misleading heading “persons required to make returns of income”, I found that by reading the wording in Code Section 7806 which reads “nor shall any descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect…”; that the heading in Code Section 6012 which includes the word “required” has no meaning; that, in fact, the word “shall” is used in the body of this Code section means “may” in my case, because a mandatory meaning of this word would be unconstitutional according to the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision of Cairo and Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170 (1877), in which decision the Court stated:  “…as against the government, the word ‘shall’, when used in statutes, must be construed to mean ‘may’ unless contrary intention is manifest.”; that this decision was followed by the decision in Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 A. 136 (Del. Ch. Ct., 1933), wherein the Court stated:  “If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, ‘shall’ will be deemed equivalent to ’may’, and the word ‘may’ obviously has a voluntary meaning.”  I now know that I am neither a “taxpayer” nor a “person” or an “individual” “liable for” or “subject to” income taxes under Sub-Title A as those terms are used in the Internal Revenue Code;
21.  That after careful study of the Internal Revenue Code, I have never found or been shown any section of the Internal Revenue Code that imposed any requirement on me as a free, sovereign, unprivileged, non-citizen national, to file a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return” or that imposed a requirement upon me to pay a tax on “income” or that would classify me as a “person liable”, a “person made liable” or a “taxpayer” as the term “taxpayer” is defined in 26 USC, Section 7701(a)(14) which states:  “The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any Internal Revenue tax”;
22.  That included in the study previously mentioned, my attention was called to 26 USC, Chapter 1, Sub-Chapter A, Part 1, Section 1 which is deceptively titled “TAX ON INDIVIDUALS”; that a careful study and examination of this part of the Code showed no provision in the body of the I.R.C. which covers income tax imposing any liability or requirement on me as a non-citizen national for payment of a Federal excise tax on “income”.  That my study previously mentioned in this AFFIDAVIT showed me that the law is determined by the actual wording contained in the body of any Code section and not by the title; that the title of a statute is merely a general guide to the contents of the Code section, and the title has no force or effect at law as stated in I.R. Code Section 7806(b);
23.  That after more study and consultations, my attention was called to the Table of Contents of the Internal Revenue Code Chapter 21 which is deceptively titled:  “Federal Insurance Contributions Act” (social security) and to Sub-Chapter A of Chapter 21 titled:  “Tax on Employees”; that Chapter 21 includes Sections 3101 in which the “social security” tax is identified as a tax on “income” and not as an “Insurance Contribution”; that it is also not a “tax on employees,” nor on wages or earnings, and that there is no provision in the Code that imposes the so-called Social Security tax on employees or requires them to pay the tax; that only a voluntarily-signed and completed W-4 “Employees Withholding Allowance Certificate” allows (permits) an employer to withhold money from a workers’ pay for the so-called (social security) flat-rate “income tax”; that no employer has any authority to withhold money from a worker’s pay for the misnamed (social security) “income” tax or the graduated “income” tax or any IRS-imposed penalty or assessment unless there is a voluntarily-signed W-4 or a W-9 form in force which has been voluntarily signed by the employee or independent contractor, respectively;
24.  That my attention was called to I.R.C. Section 1441 titled “Withholding of Tax on Non-Resident Aliens which identifies “dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits and income…” as being “items of ‘income’” but only when received by non-resident alien individuals, foreign partnerships or corporations as set forth in Sections 1441(a) or 1442(a).  After reading these Code sections, I recognize that all the provisions therein were applicable only to non-resident alien, foreign partnerships or foreign corporations or those acting for or representing those individuals, foreign partnerships or foreign corporations, but not to me as a non-citizen national (viz., an American State Citizen of the united States of America);
25.  That after the study described in the preceding paragraphs, my attention was called to Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code which lists under Section 61(a)(1) “compensation for services including fees, commissions, fringe benefits and similar items”; that these items are sources of “income” as confirmed by IRS Collection Summons Form 6638 (12-82) which identifies these items as sources, not “income”, by stating that the following items are “sources”:  “wages, salaries, tips, fees, commissions, interest, rents, royalties, alimony, state or local tax refunds, pensions, business income, gains from dealings in property and any other compensation for services (including receipt of property other than money)”: that sources are not “income”, but sources can be and/or become “income” only if they are entered as “income” on a signed “Form 1040” because the signer affirms under penalty of perjury that the items entered in the “income” section of the “Form 1040” are “income” to the signer, or if I were a non-resident alien as stated in paragraph 26 that follows;
26.  That after further study it appears clear to me that the only way that property received by me as a free, sovereign, unprivileged, non-citizen national in the form of wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest, dividends, rents, royalties, pensions could be, or could have been, legally considered to be taxable as “income” would be if I were a non-resident alien individual as stated in I.R.C. Section 1441, Sections (a) and (b), which status I deny; or if I voluntarily completed and signed a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return”, thereby affirming under penalties of perjury that information on the “Form 1040” was true and correct and that any amounts listed on the “Form 1040” in the “income” block are “income”, thereby acknowledging, under oath, that I am or was subject to the tax and had a duty to file “Form 1040 Income Tax Returns” and/or other IRS forms, documents and schedules, none of which instruments I have ever signed with the understanding that they are voluntarily signed, but rather that I thought such acts were legally required;
27.  That with reliance upon the previously-numbered statements in this AFFIDAVIT and the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court rulings and upon my constitutionally-protected rights, and particularly those rights enumerated in the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Thirteenth Amendments of the Constitution to lawfully contract, to work and to lawfully acquire, buy, sell and possess property without interference by government, I am convinced and satisfied that I, as a non-citizen national, am not now, nor was I ever subject to, liable for, or required to pay any income/excise tax on any of my earnings or receipts; that I am not now and never was in the legal status of “taxpayer” as that term is defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code, and that I have never had any legal duty or obligation whatsoever to file any “Form 1040”, make any “income tax return,” sign and file with any employer or the IRS any W-4 “Employees’ Withholding Allowance Certificate” or other Internal Revenue forms, submit documents or schedules, pay any income tax, keep any records or supply any information to the IRS;
28.  That the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by deceptive and misleading words and statements in the Internal Revenue Code, as well as IRS publications and IRS-generated news articles, has committed constructive fraud by misleading and deceiving me and the general public into believing that I was required to file “Form 1040 Income Tax returns”, Form W-4 Employees’ Withholding Allowance Certificates” and other IRS forms, documents and schedules and also to keep records, supply information and to pay income taxes, when I now know that, as a free, sovereign, non-citizen national I do not have, nor have I ever had, any requirement to file any such forms;
29.  That further I do hereby declare that I am not, and never was, in the legal status of a “taxpayer” as the term “taxpayer” is defined and used in Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code, a “person required to deduct and withhold any tax” or a person “made liable for such tax” as these phrases are used in the I.R.C. Section 1461, which my study and research shows is the only section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes anyone liable for payment of income tax; that I am and have always been a “non-taxpayer”; that courts have recognized and acknowledged that individuals can be non-taxpayers, as stated in Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922); Economy Plumbing & Heating v, U.S.,470 F.2d 585, 589 (1972); Delima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 176, 179 (1901); and Berth v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955) “…FOR WITH THEM (non-taxpayers) Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws…”.
WHEREFORE, that by reason of the aforementioned facts, I do hereby exercise my right as a free, sovereign, non-citizen national, upheld by various court decisions, to revoke, rescind, cancel and to render null and void both currently and retroactively to the time of signing, based upon the constructive fraud perpetrated upon me by the U.S. Congress and the Internal Revenue Service all “Form 1040 Income Tax Returns, all Form W-4 Employees’ Withholding Allowance Certificates”, all Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, and all other IRS forms, schedules and documents ever signed and/or submitted by me and all my signatures on any of the aforementioned items; that this revocation and rescission is based upon my rights in respect to constructive fraud as established in, but not limited to, the cases of Tyler v. Secretary of State, 183 A.2d 101 (1962); Economy Plumbing

No comments:

Post a Comment