861 Evidence

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Complying with the Tax Law (Part 8)

by Larken Rose

[Back] [Next]

So now you've had a crash course (or crash rehash) of the 861 evidence. While the conclusion (that most of us never owed a penny in federal income taxes) is obviously difficult at first to accept, the path leading to that conclusion consists entirely of solid steps.

1. Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that there are some kinds of income which, though not exempted by any particular section of the tax code, are nonetheless NOT subject to the federal income tax because they are, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government"? Since, as we've now seen, that's exactly what many decades of official income tax regulations SAY, how could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

2. Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from international trade MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes must be paid on such income? Since the current regulations, and 80+ years of older regs, have said exactly that (while NOT mentioning purely domestic income), how could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

3. Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points out things to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT apply to anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme Court has said exactly that over and over again (and the principle of law, "inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

4. Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that we should all use Section 861 of the tax code, and the related regulations, to determine how much (if any) taxable DOMESTIC income we have? Since a pile of citations straight from the government's own lawbooks say exactly that, how could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

5. Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from inside the U.S. is taxable for nonresident foreigners, and for certain people who also receive income from federal possessions (e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico)? Since over 80 YEARS of statutes and regulations which "evolved" into the current 861 and its regulations say that as plain as the nose on your face, how could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

6. Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to wonder why the sections of law about "income from sources within the United States have NEVER said that such income is taxable for any U.S. citizen who does NOT do business in federal possessions? Since that has been true for over 80 years, how could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

7. Again, is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points out things to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT apply to anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme Court has said exactly that over and over again (and the principle of law, "inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

So let's put all the non-frivolous, perfectly reasonable (if not downright undeniable) steps together, and see what we get:

There are some kinds of income, not exempted by any statute, that are nonetheless tax-free because of the Constitution itself. Income from international trade, however, MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes must be paid on such income. There are particular sections of law to be used to determine when income from INSIDE the U.S. is taxable, and for over 80 years those sections said that such income is taxable for foreigners, and for Americans with possessions income, but did NOT say that U.S.-source income was taxable for all Americans. It is well established that one should NOT assume that tax laws apply to any matters which are not specifically pointed out.

Not to beat a dead horse, but notice again that all of this is about how to properly determine one's taxable income--in other words, how to correctly COMPLY with the law. It's not about a loophole, a trick, a protest, or anything of the sort--it's about DETERMINING WHAT WE OWE, and that's all. So why are the feds so fond of calling people "tax cheats" and "tax protestors" for talking about this stuff? Why do they paint this conclusion as a "fraudulent tax scheme"? Why do they vilify, demonize, threaten, and prosecute people for believing what THE LAW says, or even for just asking QUESTIONS about the law?

Name-calling is one thing, but how despicable is it for the feds to throw people in PRISON for believing what you see above, having NEVER cited ANYTHING in the law refuting any of it? Is it okay when they refuse to answer simple questions, and instead publicly slander people, characterizing them as criminals and tax cheats, execute armed invasions of their homes, subject them to a mock trials at which all relevant evidence is suppressed, and finally throw them in prison?

The term "terrorism" is often defined as the use of force to achieve a political end. Doesn't that describe what the IRS and DOJ have been doing? Whatever you believe the truth to be, or whatever you think of my conclusions, is it okay with you that your government uses violence to deal with the issue, instead of using the law, or reason, or evidence, or logic?

In my next message, you'll hear a bit about what our lovely "public servants" have done to one person in particular, and you can decide for yourself who is on the side of justice.