Current Events and Continuing Education for June 13 through June 26, 2016
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes."
- Thomas Paine
C'mon! CtC can't be right! You're crazy!
If CtC were actually right,
it would mean the government's been concealing and denying the truth for years on end,
and everybody knows THAT would never happen...
(Edward Snowden, come home! It was all just a bad dream; there really is No Such Agency!)
Do you know someone truly steeped in the Kool-Aid?
I mean someone who finds it easier to believe that the far-better-educated, far-more-suspicious-of-government Americans of a hundred years ago were complete morons who granted authority to the state to take whatever it wished from themselves and their posterity than to imagine that they themselves simply misunderstand the true nature of the income tax? Even while knowing that their beliefs about the tax are derived entirely from the representations of those who profit from those beliefs (like tax bureaucrats and "tax professionals")?
Do you know someone like that? Shake them awake with the latest (fourteenth) edition of CtC!
I'm delighted when anyone wishes to share what I have posted here with others! Sharing this page is an important means of moving toward the restoration of the rule of law-- PLEASE DO IT!! But I'd appreciate your doing so by directing your friends here themselves, rather than by copying and emailing the material.
The Newsletter is interested in your work! If you are a writer, scholar, or just a dedicated Warrior with a good story to tell, please consider sharing your words and your wisdom with our thousands of readers! Click here to learn how.
Two Weeks Until The Ninth Annual Declaration Day* Party
...and a chance to say "Hi" to Doreen by Skype!
Please get your RSVPs in NOW!!
The 6020(b) Requirement For The Assessment Of "Frivolous Return" Penalties
Even the feds have to put up, or shut up, under the law
OVER THE YEARS I'VE WRITTEN QUITE A BIT about the statutory requirement for the government's production of it's own return when it actually believes a submitted return is "frivolous". The reason for that requirement, which is codified at 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b), is to allow a proper amount of tax to be collected, something not possible from an actually frivolous return (which will be one not soundly based on the law, and therefore not capable of conveying or creating a valid legal claim to an amount of tax).
Section 6020(b) exists to provide for authority to create a valid basis for the government's claims in any case in which the person who will be liable for the tax fails to do so by self-assessment on his or her own, whether by not filing at all, or by filing, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return-- which language extends coverage to any return which does not contain an accurate assessment:
26 U.S.C. § 6020 Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary
(b) Execution of return by Secretary
(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return
If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
The regulations associated with the section explicitly add "frivolous" to the mix, recognizing that a return for which no basis in law exists falls within the ambit of a return which is, willfully or otherwise, false or fraudulent (and in any event is within the manifest intent of Congress in enacting this statute, since it creates the same need for a valid instrument by which a government claim can be supported):
26 C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Execution of returns-
(1) In general.
If any person required by the Internal Revenue Code or by the regulations to make a return ... fails to make such return at the time prescribed therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false, fraudulent or frivolous return, the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer employee shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.
Proper CtC-educated returns are not frivolous, of course (nor false or fraudulent-- and certainly are not unfiled). Thus not a single 6020(b) return has ever been shown to have been created in response to educated returns.
Though normally it's hard to prove a negative like that statement above, here it's easy. No such returns have been produced even in the case of my and my wife's own returns, which as everyone knows, have been the subject of intense attention by the government for more than a decade.
This fact was admitted by a DOJ attorney on the stand as a government witness in my wife Doreen's second trial, just after the judge and prosecutor in the case each lied to the jury about the content of § 6020(b), perhaps in hope of confusing the jury about the significance of such returns having not been made. It is also shown (by lack of any relevant entries) in the Treasury Dept. Certificates and IRS transcripts concerning our filings for 2002 and 2003, filings which the government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to compel Doreen and me to change to what it wishes said but can't honestly say for itself.
All told, then, when what the government believes are actually "frivolous" returns, are filed, the government must create its own alternatives, in order to collect what it believes is the proper tax due. CtC-educated returns simply do not qualify and do not prompt the creation of such returns.
BUT TODAY I'M NOT FOCUSING on the mandate to create returns for the collection of a proper tax on "income". Today I'm focused on the fiction asserted by trolls across the internet and shameless scoundrels within the IRS that CtC-educated returns prompt "frivolous return penalties".
This fiction is promoted in order to frighten educated Americans from acting on what they know, imagining them to be children who would give up their rights and the rule of law just out of fear that preserving them might come at a cost. It is also promoted to dissuade Americans who don't already know the truth from going to the trouble to learn it.
Happily, the first of these purposes is routinely frustrated. Americans are NOT children, and this is especially true of those who have learned the truth about the tax.
On the other hand, the second purpose has unfortunately had some success, where the fiction about "penalties" has gone unrebutted. This is a real shame, because all that is needed to rebut this false and harmful nonsense is a little clear thinking and observation.
Again, the fact that my own returns have never prompted such penalties stands as sufficient evidence by itself that CtC-educated filings do not qualify. (Indeed, in 2006 the head of the IRS Ogden Frivolous Return Program wrote a declaration-- as part of the CtC-suppression campaign discussed here-- regarding mine and Doreen's 2002 and 2003 returns. This official dances around the subject a great deal but carefully avoids ever declaring our returns to be "frivolous". See the relevant portions of this declaration here, and an analysis filed in response here.)
HOWEVER, DESPITE THE FACT that CtC-educated returns do not qualify for the penalty, some educated filers have been harassed by rogue agents in the IRS with threats of such penalties. Some folks have even had acknowledged overpayments kept from them by the diversion of their money to what will be shown below to be completely fraudulent assertions of "frivolous return penalty" liabilities.
It is these threats (which are sometimes made to look as though the penalties have actually been assessed) and this harassment that fuels the troll-droppings that turn some folks away from the path to learning the truth. It is the misunderstanding about the true nature of these threats and this harassment that keep many folks from becoming part of the solution to the corrupt, systematic misapplication of the tax by which so much harm has been wreaked on America for the last 75 years.
These rumors and the misunderstanding that fuels them must end. Showing what the law requires in regard to these penalties will equip anyone subjected to this harassment to respond to it properly, and will equip everyone else to send the trolls back into the dank darkness under the bridge (or the rock) from beneath which they have crawled.
So, let's parse this out:
IT'S THIS SIMPLE, FOLKS: A sworn and signed 6020(b) return declaring liability for the penalty is a core requirement for the assessment of the penalty. Period. The law is perfectly clear on this requirement.
The "frivolous return" penalty provided for at 26 U.S.C. § 6702 is to be assessed in the same manner as the income tax generally:
26 U.S.C. § 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties
(a) Penalty assessed as tax
The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter [which includes section 6702 -PH] shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Except as otherwise provided, any reference in this title to “tax” imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
Taxes (other than a couple of exceptions concerning stamp taxes and criminal restitution) can only be assessed per a return or list:
26 U.S.C. § 6201 - Assessment authority
(a) Authority of Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.
"List" doesn't mean "recording a liability on a list with a bunch of others", or anything like that. For purposes of this statutory specification, it means what is described in Revised Statute 3176, as amended by Section 1103 of the Revenue Act of 1926. That constitutes the actual statutory authority from which 26 U.S.C. § 6201 is derived-- that is, the actual authority under which the United States is permitted to collect taxes:
Sec. 3176. The collector or any deputy collector in every district shall enter into and upon the premises, if it be necessary, of every person therein who has taxable property and who refuses or neglects to render any return or list required by law, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or list, and make, according to the best information which he can obtain, including that derived from the evidence elicited by the examination of the collector, and on his own view and information, such list or return, according to the form prescribed, of the objects liable to tax, owned or possessed or under the care or management of such person, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall assess the tax thereon, including the amount, if any, due for special tax, and in case of any return of a false or fraudulent list or valuation, he shall add one hundred per centum to such tax; and in case of a refusal or neglect, except in case of sickness or absence, to make a list or return, or to verify the same as aforesaid, he shall add fifty per centum to such tax. In case of neglect occasioned by sickness or absence as aforesaid, the collector may allow such further time for making and delivering such list or return as he may deem necessary, not exceeding thirty days. The amount so added to the tax shall, in all cases, be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the tax; and the list or return so made and subscribed by such collector or deputy collector shall be held good and sufficient for all legal purposes.
Here is the amending language to Sec. 3176 enacted in the 1926 Revenue Act:
SEC. 1103. Section 3176 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 3176. If any person, corporation, company, or association fails to make and file a return or list at the time prescribed by law or by regulation made under authority of law, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return or list, the collector or deputy collector shall make the return or list from his own knowl- edge and from such information as he can obtain through testi- mony or otherwise. In any such case the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may, from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise, make a return or amend any return made by a collector or deputy collector. Any return or list so made and subscribed by the Commissioner, or by a collector or deputy collector and approved by the Commissioner, shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.
"If the failure to file a return (other than a return under Title II of the Revenue Act of 1924 or Title II of the Revenue Act of 3926) or a list is due to sickness or absence, the collector may allow such further time, not exceeding 30 days, for making and filing the return or list as he deems proper.
"The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall determine and assess all taxes, other than stamp taxes, as to which returns or lists are so made under the provisions of this section. In case of any failure to make and file a return or list within the time prescribed by law, or prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the collector in pursuance of law, the Commissioner shall add to the tax 25 per centum of its amount, except that when a return is filed after such time and it is shown that the failure to file it was due to a reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, no such addition shall be made to the tax. In case a false or fraudulent return or list is willfully made, the Commissioner shall add to the tax 50 per centum of its amount.
"The amount so added to any tax shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner and as a part of the tax unless the tax has been paid before the discovery of the neglect, falsity, or fraud, in which case the amount so added shall be collected in the same manner as the tax."
OK, so we have seen that:
As will have been noted in the enacting language of R.S. 3176-- both in the original and as amended, such a return or list must be subscribed in order to be legally effective:
...the list or return so made and subscribed by such collector or deputy collector shall be held good and sufficient for all legal purposes. [Original]
Any return or list so made and subscribed by the Commissioner, or by a collector or deputy collector and approved by the Commissioner, shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes. [As amended]
So, really what we've got so far is:
Now, "subscribed" by itself only means "signed" in everyday useage. But in the case of returns required for assessment of a penalty, "signed" means "signed under oath":
26 U.S.C. § 6065 Verification of returns
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
There is no "otherwise provided" exception for the creation of returns concerning "frivolous penalties"-- in fact, the regulations specifying such returns in particular are comprehensive, and carefully make no such exception:
26 C.F.R. § 301.6020-1(b) Execution of returns-
(1) In general.
If any person required by the Internal Revenue Code or by the regulations to make a return ... fails to make such return at the time prescribed therefore, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false, fraudulent or frivolous return, the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer employee shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise. ...
(2) Form of the return.
A document (or set of documents) signed by the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer or employee shall be a return for a person described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section if the document (or set of documents) identifies the taxpayer by name and taxpayer identification number, contains sufficient information from which to compute the taxpayer's tax liability, and purports to be a return.
So now we have a critical additional element which must be present and accounted for before a "frivolous return penalty" can actually be assessed: a sworn signature, putting a government official at risk of the penalties of perjury if he or she is falsely (or negligently) asserting that the government has a valid claim to seize property from someone else.
It is only with the acceptance of such a risk that claims against someone else's property of this kind can be made legally valid.* This is the whole point and purpose of 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b): authorizing and requiring government officials to properly assert government ownership-interests and claims against those of other people, which the states must do in the same way any citizen would assert interests and claims.
Let's do another recap, then:
What this all means, of course, is that if no sworn return asserting the "frivolous return penalty" exists, no such penalty can be, or has been, lawfully assessed.
SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN IN PRACTICAL TERMS? First of all, it means that where no actual sworn 6020(b) return exists no filed return has been actually even alleged-- much less "determined"-- to be "frivolous". The making of a sworn 6020(b) return is the legal and legally-required means by which such an allegation is made, according to the law; there is no other mechanism provided by which this allegation can be made.
Second, this means if you or anyone you know has been a victim of "penalty" threats or harassments, this bad behavior can and should be challenged on the basis of fundamental invalidity unless sworn returns asserting the government's claims can be proven to have preceded them. If there are no sworn 6020(b) returns, there can be no legally-applicable penalties and none have actually been assessed, whatever the scary notices from the tax agency might be designed to suggest.
It also means that where those sworn returns can't be shown to exist, any rumor about educated returns drawing actual penalties should be denounced as the false troll-spew it is.
More importantly than all the foregoing, perhaps, the facts and law concerning "frivolous" status and the requirements of 6020(b) mean that any threats or harassment by tax agency actors involving "frivolous return penalties" (or the treatment of any filing as "frivolous" in any other way) are almost certainly crimes of some kind, and/or actionable civilly.
SO, IF YOU'VE BEEN THREATENED OR HARASSED or had a claimed refund delayed or denied on the declared basis that the related filing was "frivolous", get your FOIA requests in seeking any evidence of 6020(b) returns. This will equip you with proof that there are none, with all the implications and legal utility of that fact.
And whether you have a direct, personal matter to attend to this way or not, raise your voice about all this. Denounce the trolleries about CtC-educated returns and "frivolous return penalties", and encourage your friends and neighbors to get educated and stand up for the law.
"If the taxpayers of this country ever discovered that we operate on 98% bluff, the entire system will collapse."
-Reported remark by an internal revenue service officer to Sen. Henry E. Bellmon (R. Okla.) on April 15, 1971.
"The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction... The IRS has never really known why people pay the income tax... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through FEAR."
-Jack Warren Wade Jr., former IRS officer in charge of the IRS Nationwide Revenue Officer Training Program, in his book ‘When You Owe The IRS’
*This doesn't mean that such claims automatically are valid, once made according to the prescribed form, of course. But they cannot be legally valid if not made according to these requirements.
P.S. To read a detailed analysis of what really qualifies for "frivolous return" penalties, see the material here. To see a very telling hoax (or fraud, as some would see it) deployed by the IRS in its sporadic efforts to frighten some folks with threats of these penalties, see the write-up here.
Those who have submitted testimonial videos as described here and earned access to restricted assets on this site can study the entire statutory history of 6020(b) returns here. More on the subject of 6020(b) returns can be found here and here.
P.P.S. Find a follow-up to the article above here.
This Week's Featured Victory
A heartwarming story
Grandparents Don and Linda were very pleased and proud to tell me about their granddaughter Allie last week. Allie, only 16 years old and already a warrior for the truth and an agent on behalf of her own freedom and prosperity, has secured her first victory in enforcing the law-- a complete refund of everything taken from her as "income tax" by the federal government during 2015, plus a little interest.
Allie's first victory doesn't amount to a whole lot of money back in her pocket, of course. At her age, and working part time, not much got taken from the not much that was being paid.
But that's not the point, of course. What Allie got back is her money and her power.
More, what Allie kept by reclaiming her property is her dignity.
Allie is a free American to whom the federal government is a subordinate resource upon which she calls as her purposes require, not an "invested partner" in all her affairs with an ownership interest in the product of her efforts, or an overlord which can simply seize property by right. She has made these things true in the only way possible: by behaving accordingly.
Here is Allie's refund check:
Allie's money had been diverted from her and given to Washington on the basis of presumptions that her earnings were of the privilege-based taxable variety. Here is the instrument by which Allie rebutted those erroneous presumptions.
CONGRATULATIONS, Allie! And hats off to good and proper grandparents Don and Linda, who understand the importance and obligation of teaching children well. Allie, now a young lady, and plainly more mature than most her age (and than an awful lot of folks much older, truth be told), has her feet firmly on the path of virtue.
Well done, all!
P. S. Allie's victory joins those of the tens of thousands of other awakened and activated Americans represented here. It is another step toward the restoration of the Founders republic and the true rule of law.
Don't you wish your victories were proudly posted, too? And those of your kids and grandkids?
That's all there is to it!
I Had A Great Meeting With Michigan's Attorney General's Office Last Week...
Federal officials who break Michigan laws are just common criminals in the eyes of the state
THIS PAST THURSDAY I HAD AN EXCELLENT HOUR-LONG MEETING with Carter Bundy, a representative of Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. The subject was the investigation and possible prosecution of the federal judges and DOJ attorneys who have committed crimes against Doreen Hendrickson in violation of Michigan laws.
Michigan, like every other state, criminalizes subornation of perjury, witness tampering and coercion committed by anyone upon anyone else. The state also criminalizes aiding and abetting any of these crimes.
There are no exceptions in Michigan criminal law for government officials, whether foreign or domestic. Nor are there exceptions if the crimes are committed while "official duties" are purportedly being performed.
In Doreen's case, of course, no actual "official duties" were involved at all. The crimes themselves were the objects of the acting officials.
For instance, the subornation of perjury was itself the purported "official act" conducted when orders were issued attempting to control Doreen's testimony. Everything done to Doreen has always been pure crime, committed under the mere "color of law".
A selection of Michigan statutes criminalizing coercion of false testimony can be seen here. As can be seen by a review of those statutes, what has been done to Doreen is a slam-dunk smorgasbord of blatant felonies in violation of Michigan law.
I WILL ADMIT THAT FOR ME this approach to seeking justice for the criminal assaults on Doreen seemed a stretch. Not that it lacked anything in theory, mind-- indeed, the principle involved is about as straightforward as they come.
In fact, the principle involved here is among the most basic in our American system of government overall: federalism. This is the division of power in this country into coexisting and competing (therefore countervailing) forces, with the feds holding the states accountable when they are abusive to citizens (something we are all very familiar with) and the states doing the same to the feds in return (something we see very little, but only because it has gone out of fashion, not because it isn't the way things are supposed to work).
Nonetheless, I expected something of a "Huh? You've got to be kidding!" reaction from the state. Instead, there was no head-scratching or bemusement at all. Very gratifying.
I'M PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT how this initiative can at least deter future abuses by arrogant and corrupt federal officials. In order to optimize the opportunity here, I'm asking everyone who feels the same to contact Michigan AG Bill Schuette's office and urge a quick decision in favor of prosecuting Doreen's abusers. Contact info can be found here.
This is how it's supposed to work, people. It can be made to do so, if you help.
"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them."
-Alexander Hamilton, to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788*
*Villain and poltroon though he was overall, here even Alexander Hamilton gets it right. Significantly, he does so as part of the argument by which ratification of the US Constitution was achieved. Thus, it is under this explicit construction and this construction only, as to this question, that the Constitution and the federal government which it brought into being can exercise authority. Any exercise of power by the federal government, or construction by any court on behalf of such an exercise, which is contrary to Hamilton's explanation here is without authority.
P.S. Many thanks to my excellent friends Gordon Dye and Eric Bond, who helped make this meeting happen.
Post your comments on the article, people. Share it around. Submit it to Drudge. Let's make this a firestorm!!
Are the presentations and resources offered on this site and in my other work of any value to you?
Tim Kendrick has posted a video on YouTube regarding donations. I didn't know what to do about it to begin with; I don't do what I do intending for anyone to feel obligated in any way.
But of course, no one IS obligated. I will continue to make my work freely-available here, and in my books for only the cost of a cheap paperback.
Thus, even though I post it here below, Tim's very thoughtful personal resolution and encouragement to others is just an invitation for consideration by those who may not be conscious of the fact that I can't do what I do without support. No one is to feel any pressure from it; if it moves anyone to act let it be solely because it seems right.
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION is the key to the restoration of the republic and the rule of law in America. See it below. (NOTE: It's very important that the entire 24 minutes be viewed.)
This video can also be found on YouTube at https://youtu.be/hgzzYl-eeUI.
The other two mentioned in the film are this one (the "bulletin board" stack of 1,200 or so posted refunds and other victories in knowledgably applying the law; and this one (the collection of resisted claims and the outcomes of those little battles).
PLEASE be a real activist about sending this link to every single person in your address book, and about sharing it through facebook, reddit, twitter, and any other distribution channel with which you are familiar. Send it to every journalist you can. It's time to really make something happen.
Accompany your emails and posts with with a strong admonishment to watch the film through, and that doing so will show the viewer an individual-empowering, state-restraining truth about the income tax which the government has been trying to keep hidden from view for 75 years and which that person really needs to know.
BY THE WAY, as is impossible to miss, I have neither the skills nor the tools to make even moderately good films. This is simply not my forte. Anyone able to do better is encouraged to talk to me about that.
As is ALSO impossible to miss, though-- even in my amateur production-- reader video testimonials have GREAT POWER. Send me yours.
How To Explain To A Pundit The Error Of His Ways
Educated, grown-up American Brendan Trainor shares his excellent example
A Patriot Activist Talks About CtC
"McFloyd" on who got the tax wrong, and who gets it right
The IRS and SSA Share A Nice Institutional Acknowledgement Of CtC
It's always gratifying when these agencies just come right out and admit the truth...
OVER THE 12+ YEARS SINCE CtC REVEALED the liberating truth about the income tax, government agencies have steadily issued acknowledgements of that truth to the real American men and women who have applied those revelations and upheld the true rule of law. These acknowledgements most commonly take the form of complete refunds of every penny taken from someone under the auspices of the tax.
But sometimes other forms of acknowledgement are presented. Today we're going to look at one of these more unusual varieties, an example of which was recently sent to one of those real Americans who are standing up to enforce the Constitution.
THE GOOD FELLOW WHO RECEIVED the unusual acknowledgement at which we're about to look is an accomplished upholder of the law. He has three proudly-posted victories to his credit so far since learning the truth about the tax a few years ago, successfully overcoming false assertions that his earnings were subject to the income tax, and recovering everything withheld from him in connection with that tax during each of those three years.
But for today, this gentleman's name is going to go unmentioned, because despite the IRS having faced the truth concerning his earnings for each of those other years (after subjecting each claim to the agency's routine rigorous scrutiny), for some reason the IRS employee that began to process this man's 2012 filing has been dragging his or her feet. A lawsuit is in progress, and what we're going to look at is relevant to that. Our friend doesn't want to show his hand too soon.
So, there is no name to show until this contest is over. But the chink in the tax agency's stonewall that was revealed a few weeks ago will be of great interest to all nonetheless.
WITHOUT ANY PROMPTING, and to our hero's considerable surprise, out of the blue and into the mailbox came a notice from the Social Security Administration announcing the IRS acknowledgment that our hero's earnings as a contractor in 2012 don't qualify as IRC-defined "self-employment income" (the kind of contractor pay that is subject to the tax). Our hero's educated rebuttal of the contrary "1099-MISC" assertions of his payer, on which the tax agency had been mindlessly relying, has prevailed.
This kind of inter-agency acknowledgement happens constantly. But for the filer to get notice of it is rare.
The SSA's accounting of taxable earnings used to calculate any benefits for which our friend might someday want to apply has been reduced accordingly, of course. But even if the gentleman hasn't already accumulated the maximum credit (as many folks of a certain age have done long since, over years of suffering the misapplication of the tax prior to learning the truth) I don't think he minds...
Here's the notice:
Isn't it nice when these bureaucrats finally give up on lying and stonewalling and just do the right thing? Frankly, I'm as happy for the one that found the right path to walk here as I am for our hero.
P. S. Want more? Click here to see some even more fascinating acknowledgements by the IRS of the complete accuracy of the liberating truth about the income tax revealed in CtC. If you've got what it takes to recognize "back-door" acknowledgements, read this page, too.
What's your answer?
How To Be A Leader In The CtC Community
All-in-all, just be the sort of person for others that you would go to yourself for trustworthy leadership.
Leadership is a challenge. But it's not complicated, and you can do it.
True American Joe Black Testifies And Shares Victories For Liberty And The Rule Of Law
...as every American should...
EDUCATED AMERICAN GROWN-UP JOE BLACK has stood up and acted to enforce the law upon its domestic enemies-- or, at least, upon agencies of the state whose operators seem to happily exploit ignorance and mis-apply the law at every chance for their personal benefit. Get inspired and encouraged by Joe's video sharing his spirit, his testimony and the acknowledgements he has secured:
Find more testimonial videos
here, and please, people, share these around as widely as
you can. To learn what, how and why to share your own testimony
(with or without mere practical victories to go along with the
far more important spiritual victories that are the real heart
here. Two Simple Questions For Every Silent
"Alt-Media" Journalist The silence of these folks is the
liberation bottleneck. Maybe this'll help, if enough people
HERE'S A SIMPLE QUESTION: The income tax is, and always has
an excise tax on privilege. This is established beyond any
controversy whatever by
repeated Supreme Court rulings, the words of the related laws,
and, over the last twelve years now,
hundreds of thousands of acknowledgements by federal and state
You, like most folks, have been fooled into inadvertently
agreeing that your economic activities are exercises of
privilege, thereby allowing the tax to be applied to your
earnings. Why is this so hard for you to admit?
HERE'S ANOTHER SIMPLE QUESTION: You and everyone else being
fooled into agreeing that your economic activities are
privileged and thereby allowing them to be taxed is
what enables the flow of wealth that finances all the bad things
done by the state of which you complain in every column. Why
is this so hard for you to admit?
I GUESS THESE ACTUALLY LEAD TO A THIRD SIMPLE QUESTION: If you
really feel that all these things of which you complain are so
bad, why are you not helping more Americans understand the
nature of the tax and the ill effects of it being misunderstood
Learn how and why you should ask every journalist in the
so-called "alt-media" these questions
here. PRO TIP: By the
physics of the law, an indirect tax is necessarily a
privilege tax. Here's why: The distinction between a
direct tax and an indirect tax is incidence. A
direct tax arises by the direct imposition of the
taxer, without any election of the taxed (other than
that of authorizing the taxing power in the first
indirect tax arises by the taxed
choosing to to do
something by which the taxer's claim is then
created. The choice that is a valid object of an
indirect tax can't be anything done as an exercise
of an untaxable right. Nor can it be any activity of
necessity. A tax on anything done by necessity would
arise not by actual election of the taxed but simply
because the tax had been imposed by the taxer. Such
a tax, whatever it may be called, would be in actual
substance a direct tax, even if one that arose only
intermittently. Think of a tax on eating, for
example, or working, or engaging in trade with
others (all of which are things done by right as
well as by necessity, but you get the point). What is left as the
valid object of an indirect tax is the exercise of
privilege-- something done not by right, and
therefore done by the permission of the taxer (who,
due to being possessed of an ownership right in the
thing being permitted, is entitled to claim of
portion of the proceeds when the thing is profitably
used). "[Although the Legislature
may declare as privileges and tax as such for State
revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that
are not matters of common right], the Legislature
has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for
revenue purposes occupations that are of common
Sims v. Ahrens If you're not talking this one up everywhere and
helping generate a buzz, you don't really want liberty and the
rule of law... PRO TIP: The
argument that a concept explicitly given a statutory
definition for purposes of this or that chapter or
"title" has the same meaning as the common word the
legislature has borrowed for its label-- which
meaning plainly didn't suit the legislature's
purposes, hence its replacement-- is a preposterous
reading of the law. “It is axiomatic that the
statutory definition of the term excludes unstated
meanings of that term.”
Meese v. Keene “[W]e are not at liberty to
put our gloss on the definition that Congress
provided by looking to the generally accepted
meaning of the defined term.”
In light of
the actual evidence, those
who doubt or
deny the accuracy and correctness of
because government officials make weaselly
representations against it are like the 16th-century Europeans who
were mystified by
Copernicus getting all those
astronomical predictions right even though the
church had said he was wrong.
Two Simple Questions For Every Silent "Alt-Media" Journalist
The silence of these folks is the liberation bottleneck. Maybe this'll help, if enough people ask...
HERE'S A SIMPLE QUESTION: The income tax is, and always has been, an excise tax on privilege. This is established beyond any controversy whatever by repeated Supreme Court rulings, the words of the related laws, and, over the last twelve years now, hundreds of thousands of acknowledgements by federal and state tax agencies.
You, like most folks, have been fooled into inadvertently agreeing that your economic activities are exercises of privilege, thereby allowing the tax to be applied to your earnings. Why is this so hard for you to admit?
HERE'S ANOTHER SIMPLE QUESTION: You and everyone else being fooled into agreeing that your economic activities are privileged and thereby allowing them to be taxed is what enables the flow of wealth that finances all the bad things done by the state of which you complain in every column. Why is this so hard for you to admit?
I GUESS THESE ACTUALLY LEAD TO A THIRD SIMPLE QUESTION: If you really feel that all these things of which you complain are so bad, why are you not helping more Americans understand the nature of the tax and the ill effects of it being misunderstood and misapplied?
Learn how and why you should ask every journalist in the so-called "alt-media" these questions here.
PRO TIP: By the physics of the law, an indirect tax is necessarily a privilege tax. Here's why:
The distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax is incidence. A direct tax arises by the direct imposition of the taxer, without any election of the taxed (other than that of authorizing the taxing power in the first place).
An indirect tax arises by the taxed choosing to to do something by which the taxer's claim is then created. The choice that is a valid object of an indirect tax can't be anything done as an exercise of an untaxable right. Nor can it be any activity of necessity. A tax on anything done by necessity would arise not by actual election of the taxed but simply because the tax had been imposed by the taxer. Such a tax, whatever it may be called, would be in actual substance a direct tax, even if one that arose only intermittently. Think of a tax on eating, for example, or working, or engaging in trade with others (all of which are things done by right as well as by necessity, but you get the point).
What is left as the valid object of an indirect tax is the exercise of privilege-- something done not by right, and therefore done by the permission of the taxer (who, due to being possessed of an ownership right in the thing being permitted, is entitled to claim of portion of the proceeds when the thing is profitably used).
"[Although the Legislature may declare as privileges and tax as such for State revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right], the Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right."
Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 SW 720 594, 595 (Ark. 1925)
If you're not talking this one up everywhere and helping generate a buzz, you don't really want liberty and the rule of law...
PRO TIP: The argument that a concept explicitly given a statutory definition for purposes of this or that chapter or "title" has the same meaning as the common word the legislature has borrowed for its label-- which meaning plainly didn't suit the legislature's purposes, hence its replacement-- is a preposterous reading of the law.
“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.”
Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987);
“[W]e are not at liberty to put our gloss on the definition that Congress provided by looking to the generally accepted meaning of the defined term.”
In light of the actual evidence, those who doubt or deny the accuracy and correctness of CtC just because government officials make weaselly representations against it are like the 16th-century Europeans who were mystified by Copernicus getting all those astronomical predictions right even though the church had said he was wrong.
NEW! Orders of twelve or more books now come with a free DVD containing six informative and inspiring videos-- 112 minutes in all. Click here for the details.
Do you have a victory to share? Click here to learn how to do so.
If you're working on one, and just getting stonewalled or speed-bumped, you can still be recognized! Go here to learn what to do.
Did you miss the 'Set Your Church Free' commentaries?
Ignorance of the true nature of the "income" tax has gagged, gutted and seduced-into-disgrace America's ministerial community. This must change.
Copy and post this one around, people!
Time, unfortunately, is on the side of the well-funded disinformation specialists
Illuminating anniversaries of this week: June 24- In 1314, the
Scots regain their independence from Britain with a victory in
the Battle of Bannockburn. In 1664, the colony of New Jersey is
founded. In 1901, Pablo Picasso's first exhibition opens. In
1916, Mary Pickford becomes the first actress to get a
million-dollar contract with a film studio. In 1932, the
absolute monarch of Siam (now Thailand) is deposed by a
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
June 24- In 1314, the Scots regain their independence from Britain with a victory in the Battle of Bannockburn. In 1664, the colony of New Jersey is founded. In 1901, Pablo Picasso's first exhibition opens. In 1916, Mary Pickford becomes the first actress to get a million-dollar contract with a film studio. In 1932, the absolute monarch of Siam (now Thailand) is deposed by a revolution.
Are You Having Trouble Spreading The Word?
SKEPTICISM (SOMETIMES INVOKED BY FEAR) IS TO BE EXPECTED when you're trying to explain to someone that everything they've been encouraged their whole lives to believe about something as entrenched and significant as the income tax is basically nonsense. So here's a way to help cut through the resistance:
Ask your listener how he or she would react if you were to show an announcement from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue admitting that the tax doesn't apply to the earnings of most Americans and is misapplied most of the time because people don't understand how it works? Or how about if you showed a ruling from the Supreme Court saying the same?
Now you just have to explain that you're going to show exactly those things-- but because the state really doesn't want people to know this, these things haven't been said quite as forthrightly as we would all wish. It's going to take a bit more work to take these admissions in than is sufficient for just reading a press release. But it'll be worth the effort...
Real Americans don't accommodate fog, lies and a sliding scale of adherence to the rule of law. Real American men and women stand up for the truth and the law, come what may, knowing that it is only by setting the bar at the top and enforcing it, come what may, that liberties are secured.
"Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
JOB ONE, PEOPLE!!! SPREAD. THE. WORD.
ONLY ONE THING WILL WIN YOU YOUR LIBERTY: Spreading the truth. Accordingly, I've assembled outreach resources into a new, dedicated page. Find it here, and please, USE THESE TOOLS!! I can't do this all by myself.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
How About You?
Are You Governing Yourself?
There is little more important to the long-term health of America than how our children are educated..
Have You Taken A Military, Law Enforcement or Public Office Oath To Uphold And Defend The Constitution?
'Don't Tread On Me' Polo Shirts Say It All!
More Than Two Thirds Of The Several States That Collect "Income" Taxes Have Now Acknowledged The Truth About The Law As Revealed In CtC, And Have Issued Complete Refunds Accordingly! See The Following Chart...
'The BOSTONIAN'S Paying the EXCISE-MAN, or TARRING & FEATHERING' (1774)
(How our forefathers responded to arrogant "Rule of Law defiers"...)
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
Get your FREE* CtC bumper sticker and help spread the word!
Just send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lost Horizons, Bumper Sticker Offer, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382 (*If you want to throw a few bucks into the envelope to help with costs, that'd be nice, but it's entirely optional...)
"Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, wars are raised to carry on taxes."
Warrior David Larson shares this beautiful little farce, wryly observing that, "Depositors have "..not lost one penny.." - OK we could agree on that simple statement ..how about the purchasing power of that same penny 'not lost'?"
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams, Architect of the First American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
Want to get on the Newsletter mailing list? Just send an email from the address you want added to SubscribeMe 'at' losthorizons.com with "Subscribe me" in the subject line, and your name in the body!
© All written and graphic material on this page and website are copyrighted by Peter E. Hendrickson, unless otherwise attributed