Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

Cracking the Code In Three Easy Lessons

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

-United States Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624

THERE ARE ONLY THREE fundamental elements to the entire legal structure involved in the truth about the tax. Understand them and you understand everything you need to know about all legal issues involved in rebutting contested allegations of "taxable activities" and reclaiming amounts improperly or excessively withheld or paid-in. Understand them and you understand everything you need to know about sporadic government efforts to discourage or resist such rebuttals. Those three things are:

1. Not everything earned or received by everyone is legally subject to a federal claim on a portion thereof.

2. Every person has a right to come to his own conclusions as to whether his receipts qualify as those to which the federal government has a lawful claim.

3. Every person has a right to declare his conclusions as to whether the feds (or anyone else) have a claim to his receipts in a manner that provides legal protection of his interests.

That's it.

When any CtC-educated American acts on his or her knowledge, these legal principles are being invoked, and these are the only legal principles involved.

In fact, on those (happily rare) occasions when any corrupt tax agency or other government actor resists a CtC-educated filing (as in the episodes collected here) these core legal principles are what the malfeasor is trying to defy and deny. That bad actor is doing nothing less than trying to hinder or thwart an American's unquestionable right to come to his or her own conclusions and express them in a fashion that meaningfully secures his or her interests.

In such a case the resistance isn't a commentary or dispute regarding the nature of rightness of those conclusions.

The nature or rightness of your conclusions have NOTHING to do with your right to come to them or to register them. The government's resistant behavior is simply an expression of its not wanting you to come to, and register in a legally-meaningful manner, any conclusion other than what suits its convenience-- and its hope that you can be browbeaten into instead creating a claim on its behalf (either by actively doing so or by standing silent). It wants to evade having its revenue-collection reduced to what it can prove is owed to it WITHOUT your acquiescence.

Doubtless, the thought will cross some minds that the government just doesn't want to have to litigate tax collection. Well, of course it doesn't!

I don't ever want to have to go to court to prove MY claims against anyone, either. I MUCH prefer the idea of frightening or punishing everyone into endorsing all my claims for me, making litigation unnecessary-- and if I were a despot, that's what I would do.

But everyone facing a claim by someone else has an absolute right to say, "I disagree; bring your proofs." By virtue of that fact, everyone knowing that an allegation has been made on the basis of which a claim against them will (or could) arise has a right to rebut that allegation. Anyone whose property has been placed in escrow awaiting claims to its ownership has a right to lay his own claim to that property. Doing so imposes no harm on anyone else; any other party has its opportunity to pursue a legitimate, good-faith claim as a plaintiff in a proper court.

UNSURPRISINGLY, THE LAW IS DESIGNED to conform to your rights and the government's proper limitations. This is nicely demonstrated in the "deficiency" structure, for instance, in which the reversal of role putting the citizen as "petitioner" and providing "tax court" as a venue only applies insofar as a filed return shows enough "income" for a tax liability to potentially exist. See this, too, concerning some of the legal specifics involved in the design and purpose of a tax return.

Just as unsurprisingly, the tax agencies, when they have chosen to attempt resistance to an educated filing, are reduced to doing so through scary-seeming but bogus threats all predicated on the proposition that a targeted return is legally-defective as an affidavit, not on what the return reports as the amount of "income" received. Just as in the "deficiency" structure, this "defective affidavit" assertion conforms to, and evidences, your rights to conclude and express and the government's limitations in the face of those expressions.

So, that's it for the core dynamics of the tax, and for all of the occasional bad behavior by tax agencies. Usually these agencies don't behave badly at all-- unable to support a counter-claim, the agencies usually just honor the owner's claim and return escrowed property. But when these agencies DO behave badly, it's always in an effort to discourage, hinder or burden an American's exercise of some of the most fundamental, important rights of all.

Indeed, the whole point of the intense campaign to suppress CtC since 2003 has been to frighten YOU into RELINQUISHING YOUR RIGHTS.

I'm glad it hasn't worked.

"But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself.  Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe...  When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime."

-Thomas Paine

PAST THESE CORE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS, 'cracking the code' can be summarized in three simple secondary elements:

1. What is actually subject to the tax.

2. What is the proper manner in which to register one's conclusions about one's own receipts in light of what is actually subject to the tax.

3. Why learning the first of these and doing the second is so important.

The first of these is easy-- the federal income tax is just what it says, a tax on "federal income". The details about what qualifies as "federal income" and what doesn't are a bit more complicated, but are laid out in depth in Part I of CtC, and I'll not repeat them here.

The third of these is somewhat harder, in that it involves most every aspect of a person's civic, social and familial responsibilities, and really getting the "why" requires a mature understanding of history, politics, and the corruptions and foolishness to which men and women in all places and times are susceptible. I've taken a stab at the subject here and here and hope that these observations help, and even inspire. In the end, though, each person must look to his own heart and soul and do the "why" for himself.

The second item on this list of secondary code-cracking elements is the focus of Part II of CtC, which covers the subject thoroughly enough, as is demonstrated by the tens of thousands of occasions in which the information there has been successfully used to recover everything withheld or paid-in-- and I mean EVERYTHING-- as well as producing those Notice of Deficiency closing notices, lien releases, levy releases, "zero" transcripts and other victories in upholding the law of which the CtC-educated community is so rightly proud, a sampling of which can be seen here, here and here.