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
