(Click on the underlined text to jump to each feature. To
return, use your browser's "back" button. Please keep in mind that
many more items of interest are to be found between featured
articles, so your most profitable course is to scroll through the
it would mean the government's been concealing and
denying the truth for years
and everybody knows THAT would never happen...
(Edward Snowden, come home! It was all just a bad dream; there really is
No Such Agency!)
know someone truly steeped in the Kool-Aid?
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")?
know someone like that? Shake them awake with the latest (fourteenth)
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.
January 25- In 1787, Revolutionary War hero
Daniel Shays attempts to seize the federal armory at
Springfield, Massachusetts in furtherance of a growing rebellion
by the state's rural population over tax policies seen as
favoring narrow factional interests at their expense. In 1890,
Nellie Bly completes a trip around the world in a
record-breaking 72 days. In 1919, the League of Nations is
founded. In 1937, 'The Guiding Light' begins broadcasting (on
radio, before moving to television in 1952). The program ran
until 2009. In 1961, JFK delivers the first live television
presidential news conference. In 2011, the Egyptian revolution
to overthrow the despotic US-backed Mubarak regime begins in
Anniversaries of interest for
each day of this week will be found throughout the newsletter
Which State Outrage Are You Most Pleased
To No Longer Be Paying For?
I'M TAKING A LITTLE POLL, PEOPLE! As an active
CtC-educated American, you are no longer a cooperating
financial participant in every usurpation, assault on good sense
or the rule of law, corruption, scandal or crime committed by
Leviathan at home and around the world. I want to know which
offensive behavior you are proudest to no longer be a part of.
Is it no longer being a party to the NSA's
wholesale violation of your neighbor's Fourth Amendment rights
that puffs your chest the most? Is it having withdrawn your
support for extrajudicial killings? Maybe it's the fact that you
are no longer paying to militarize your local police department?
Perhaps you get the most satisfaction from taking
your name off the list of supporters for Common Core? Perhaps
it's for closing your wallet to the nanny-state, or the welfare
state, or the warfare state-- or all three? Or is it that you've
stopped propping up dictators in other lands; administering
Obamacare here at home; and pushing Agenda 21 everywhere?
WHETHER ITS ANY OF THOSE THAT DOES IT FOR YOU, or
simply no longer paying for Keynesian economists in the White
House, an unlimited CIA budget, and drinks for the presidential
entourage every time it comes to town and snarls traffic all
day, I want to know.
Your answers will help in the crafting of important
new outreach tools (and thinking about the question might help
you produce some nice outreach tools of your own)! So please
participate in this poll about stuff in which you no longer
Use the "Contact" link at the top of this page to
send me an email and tell what rings your bell. Thanks for the
OVER THE NEXT THREE MONTHS, thousands of American
businesses and millions of individual citizens will use tax
preparation specialists or software to help themselves commit
one or more of a variety of serious crimes. Willfully, or, at
best, negligently, these otherwise law-abiding Americans will
prepare and execute a variety of fraudulent affidavits,
resulting in serious harmful consequences for themselves and
others. Despite being 100% personally responsible-- both
morally and legally-- for its accuracy and its effects, these
men and women will engage in a mass exercise of perjury, putting
into the record sworn testimony about matters of which they are
For instance, without ever having looked-- even for
a moment-- at the highly specialized,
quite-different-from-common-meaning statutory definitions of
such custom legal terms as "employee", "trade or business",
"employer" or "self-employed", these people will execute tax
instruments declaring themselves to be one or more of these
things. Those who do so inaccurately (the majority, I'm afraid)
will at the same time subject themselves to a vastly higher tax
liability than is legally appropriate; but whether right or
wrong, each will swear to the truth and correctness of it all,
to the best of their knowledge and belief.
belief. Read carefully now. The oath by which a tax instrument
is executed doesn't say knowledge or
belief, it says knowledge and
belief. To make such an affirmation without any knowledge about
what is being affirmed, and particularly without having made any
effort to acquire such knowledge, is perjury-- a felony carrying
a five year prison term. The criminal nature of the act is even
independent of the accuracy or inaccuracy of what is being
affirmed, just as would be your testifying to having seen the
accused shoot the gun when you really didn't, the fact that he
or she actually did notwithstanding.
A Conspiracy That Isn't, And The
Conspiracy That Is
Dispelling a paralyzing phantasm with a clarifying
dose of state-supplied reality
LET ME START OUT BY SAYING THAT I'M QUITE RELUCTANT
TO EVEN SPEAK of the "conspiracy that isn't" which prompts this
article: the crazy
notion that a regime has been secretly imposed upon us all by
reason of which Americans interact with their government
institutions and in their economic affairs in the guise of
"corporate entities" and/or "trustees". It is embarrassing to
even admit knowing of notions like these.
Those who promote and embrace such notions should
understand that doing so inflicts a fatal wound to their
intellectual credibility in any circle but that of fellow
believers-- and that means any circle in which competent
research and rational analysis is valued, as well as any circle
of what might be described as the "mainstream" of American
I speak of this now, despite my reluctance, because
I have recently been reminded of the astonishingly large number
of good folks who, though courageous and committed
activists by nature, are nonetheless effectively sidelined from making
real contributions to the cause by this bizarre idea. Misled,
these good folks tilt at windmills day in and day out while
leaving the real threat to their well-being unconfronted, like
the bull that wastes all its energy charging the distracting red
cape while the matador steadily draws its blood.
Further, over the years I have watched ludicrous
notions like these infect the "tax honesty" community, and then,
because of the natural migration of "tax honesty" folks into the
CtC community, find their way here in the minds of folks who
haven't yet had their light-bulb moment.
These carriers don't yet understand (or are still
unwilling to face) the fact that the misapplication of the
income tax is a simple matter of their own failure to rebut
state-serving allegations and presumptions that they engaged in
excise-taxable activities (along with a corrupt and steady
effort by those who benefit from that failure to encourage its
perpetuation). Instead, they imagine the misapplication of the
tax (and often many or all other disliked features of modern
life) to be the consequence of a massive "Invasion of the
Body-Snatchers" conspiracy such as I am describing here.
It is beyond me why anyone would ever imagine that (s)he is, or is
treated as, or can only be treated as, a corporation (or a
"trustee") by the government or by others wanting to engage with
that person economically. What is it that would cause someone to
imagine that (s)he is invisible, or untouchable, or incapable of
acting in his or her own natural capacity as a human being when
dealing with other human beings and institutions created by,
composed of, and existing for the purposes of, human beings?
Isn't simply articulating these notions enough to
show their wrongness? Let me articulate further.
This alleged conspiracy, like all those
"cabalistic" notions of the same sort, is argued not to be a simple matter of
multiple interested parties each being happy to encourage and
exploit ignorance of what the law plainly says to anyone who
knows where to find it. Instead, it is a complex and proactive
conspiracy involving the complete capture and transformation of
all legal relationships and practices, and in a fashion that
would strike anyone affected as bizarre, inexplicable
and completely pointless, even for the purposes of the supposed
More, this proposed conspiracy would have to
include pretty much everyone except the guy telling about it and
the guy being told. It would have had to include everyone over the course of
decades, if not hundreds of years (various versions of this lunacy date the
beginning of this bizarre "corporate persona imposition" to
1933, 1873, and even 1789).
This "conspiracy" rests on the invariable and
entirely unspoken institutional embrace of definitions and principles
expressed nowhere in any law of the United States, but which we
are expected to just
assume to be in force. The "conspiracy", we are asked to
believe, somehow plays out in such a way that no one
has ever been able to present for inspection a single documented instance
of it being overcome or even just flatly exposed. Not a single declaration
on a single document produced by the
officials supposedly implementing the thing day-in and day-out
over all the years can be produced in which can be seen,
"John Doe is found to be a
corporation and therefore..." or,
"Charges against Jane Roe, who
has sworn to the court that she is not, in fact a corporation,
and whose attestation meets with no contrary evidence, are
"Mike Moe swears he is not a corporation, but of
course, he really is, and so..." or
"...but of course, Jill has
a Social Security number and is, therefore a [corporation,
employee, trustee, whatever]..."
-- or anything of the sort. Not one.
Nor is there so much as a single law-school text,
or lecture excerpt teaching a word of this notion, nor any thing
else whatsoever supporting this ridiculous "theory".
In short, this "theory" is simply nonsense, and
serves only to distract good Americans from what is REALLY going
on-- a soft, unstructured conspiracy of corrupt individuals with
which the American institutional landscape has become littered,
each operating independently of the others but sharing a common
disdain for the law and a willingness to borrow from each
others' crimes in the furtherance of their own exploitive
SO, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE REAL CONSPIRACY.
The common feature to the varied implementations of
this, the real conspiracy against American liberty and the rule
of law, is a lack of any underpinning in actual authority,
pretended or not. Instead, the real conspirators faced by
upstanding Americans are 100% reliant on the ignorance, timidity
or distraction into ineffectiveness by nonsense like the "we're
all corporations theory" of its targeted victim, and on the
laziness or disengagement of the legal community and the media.
Consequently, unlike simply being the last human in
a sea of pod-people, with no meaningful recourse against a
massive "secret law" conspiracy, accurately-educated American
patriots ARE, in fact, ready and able to take action and restore
the republic. Also unlike the vague conspiracy-theories that
rely entirely on the naiveté of the mark for "proof" of their
existence, the real conspiracy plaguing America is
readily-documented and displayed.
I'm going to walk everyone through one example of
that concrete, documenting evidence of the real conspiracy
plaguing America. In this case, we examine a recent and so-far-unresolved
effort by the Minnesota Department of Revenue to evade an
educated American couples' claim for a complete refund of
amounts withheld as "income" tax.
I want everyone to recognize
that, just as is true of each and every one of the 1,000+
examples of much more common
CtC-related documentation on display
here, and the hundreds of thousands of the same calculated
and the dozens of defeated resistance efforts on display
this one simply would not exist were
CtC-- and only
CtC-- not completely true, correct
and complete, and were the conspiracy anything more elaborate
than I describe it to be.
By recognizing this truth about what is
really going on, you will also recognize that you are not the
helpless victim of an overwhelming organized foe. Instead, you
are Alice assailed by the pack of cards, needing only to take
off the virtual-reality headset that was put on you when you
were asleep, and do the same for your family, friends and
TO A DEGREE UNUSUAL AMONG THE STATES, Minnesota has
been occasionally balky in response to educated claims seeking
the return of property withheld and escrowed against possible
tax liabilities. This past summer a couple of good Americans
making their first-ever claim with the state were subjected to
this graceless behavior, and while their having to go through
this is a shame, and though the matter is not yet concluded and
corrected, the evasion effort by the state Department of Revenue
is instructive and illuminating.
Brief background: on August 21, 2014, some 4 1/2
months after the filing of their claim, and two months or so
after their federal claim for 2013 was honored in full, the
Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDOR) sent these good folks a
"Notice of Change in Minnesota Individual Income Tax or Property
Tax Refund". The MDOR proposed a tax outcome for 2013 quite
different from what the claimants had calculated for themselves.
The purported basis and authority for this will be presented and
Our claimants replied to the notice with a
[unfortunately argumentative] letter that was treated by the
MDOR as an appeal to the substance of the "notice". The MDOR
responded a bit over a month later with a "Notice of
Determination on Appeal" (which you can see
here). This is
what we're going to examine in detail below, by an exact
reproduction of that notice (in blue text) and my comments added
[in brackets] where appropriate.
What will be revealed in this exercise is evasion
and mendacity, and a clever effort to get around the limitations
plainly laid on the state by the actual law on its own books in
a brazen attempt to confuse, intimidate and exploit ignorance of
the state's legal structure. That is, the nature of this
attempt, and the legal restrictions it is intended to evade and
overcome, will make clear to all observers the true character of
the real conspiracy upon which today's American patriots must
focus their attention.
(Other than in its gratuitous and
self-serving deployment of terms such as "wages" and "employer"
"income" and so forth, the "facts" summary of the MDOR appears
accurate enough as I understand the sequence of events, so I
will let it fill in any blanks remaining from that standpoint.)
Summary of Changes
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
Net Change from above or attached schedule: $9,821.68
Loretta Nunn, Supervisor
Less: Offset of prior debt: ($7,736.00)
Appeals and Legal Services Division
Balance Due: $2,085.68
We reviewed the administrative appeal (the
"Appeal") you filed from the Notice of Change to your Individual
Income Tax (the "Notice") dated August 21, 2014. Our
determination is based on available information and applicable
The Minnesota Department of Revenue
(the "Department") reviewed your state individual income tax
return for tax year 2013, which the Department received on April
16, 2014. You entered the number zero on all lines of the
Minnesota individual income tax return, Form Ml, except line 23
reporting your Minnesota income tax withheld, line 29 for total
payments, line 30 indicating your requested refund, and line 31
indicating the bank account into which you request the refund to
be deposited. You requested a refund of $7,736.
You attached your U.S. individual
income tax return. Form 1040, with the Minnesota filing. The
federal return reported the number zero on line 7 for wages,
salaries, tips, etc. You requested a full refund of your federal
income tax withheld from your wages by your employers.
You attached a Form 4852- Substitute
for Form W-2. Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R,
Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or
Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., for your
respective employers, XXXX, Inc. ("XXXX") and XXXXXXXXXX XXXX
XXXXXXX Corporation ("XXXXXXXXXXy"). On the Forms 4852, in item
7, you listed the amounts for the various taxes withheld, and
entered zero in part 7a for wages, tips, and other compensation.
The Department adjusted your Minnesota
individual income tax return, and determined your Minnesota
taxable income based on the wages, as reported to the Department
by your employers. As a result, the Department assessed
additional tax, and a 25% penalty for filing a frivolous return
under Minnesota Statute § 289A.60, subd. 7.
Your Appeal and Forms 4852 contend that you did not
earn "wages" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") §
3401(a) and 3121(a), and your employer incorrectly classified
your compensation for services as wages. Therefore, you
submitted IRS Form(s) 4852- Substitute for Form W-2. Wage and
Tax Statement, indicating that you did not receive wages, tips,
or other compensation, but both federal and state taxes were
withheld. The Appeal argued your employers are non-governmental,
private-sector corporations, and your services are not related
to any Federal functions.
Furthermore, you dispute the assessment of a
frivolous return penalty because you never contended that "wages
are not subject to Minnesota income tax".
Law and Analysis
First, the commissioner is
granted the authority to issue an order of assessment if
the commissioner determines that the correct amount of
tax is different than that assessed on a return filed
with the commissioner. Minnesota Statute ("M.S.") §
270C.33, subd. 4(1).
[This is a
beautiful start for the MDOR, setting the precise tone for all
that follows: this declaration is entirely irrelevant to this
case since, as we will see in a moment, the "determination"
authority itself only provides for recomputation of the tax, not
a change in the gross amount involved in that computation.]
Second, a return or assessment of tax made
by the commissioner is presumed to be correct and valid, and the
taxpayer has the burden of establishing its incorrectness or
invalidity. M.S. § 270C.33, subd. 6.
[However, because of the limits on the "determination" authority
in regard to a filed return, all this amounts to is a presumed
correctness and burden regarding any claimed deductions and the
mathematics with which the rate of tax is applied to "net
Under M.S. §290.014, subd. 1, all net income of a
resident individual is subject to tax, and "net income" is
defined by reference to IRC § 63, which defines federal taxable
income as gross income less certain exclusions and deductions.
"Gross income" is defined by reference to IRC § 61, which
includes "all income from whatever source". Furthermore. M.S. §
290.92. subd. 3. defines '"employee' as "any resident individual
performing services for an employer, either within or without
the state of Minnesota... the performance of which services
constitute, establish, and determine the relationship as that of
employer and employee."
previous one, this entire
paragraph is irrelevant to this contest. All "net income" is
subject to the tax, but "net income" for purposes of 290.014 is
"federal taxable income" (290.01,
subd. 19), which is gross income less
available deductions. The MDOR's authority is to only to adjust
"the taxpayer's computation of federal taxable income"-- that is,
to adjust the application of available deductions to gross
income or the math, as provided for in
ON RETURNS. The commissioner may audit and adjust the taxpayer's
computation of federal taxable income, items of federal tax
preferences, or federal credit amounts to make them conform with
the provisions of chapter 290 or section 298.01 [a mining tax].
If a return has been filed, the commissioner shall enter the
liability reported on the return and may make any audit or
investigation that is considered necessary.
authority" does not extend to changes in the amount of
gross income being used in those computations, as is made clear
not only by the confinement to audit and adjustment of "the
taxpayer's computation" in the authorizing statute above, but
also in the very explicit language in the following portions of
Subd. 7. Federal tax
If the amount of
income, items of tax preference, deductions, or credits for any
year of a taxpayer ... as reported to the Internal Revenue
Service is changed or corrected by the commissioner of Internal
Revenue or other officer of the United States or other competent
authority ... the taxpayer shall report the change or correction
or renegotiation results in writing to the commissioner ...
within 180 days after the final determination and must be in the
form of ... an amended Minnesota ... income tax return conceding
the accuracy of the federal determination or a letter detailing
how the federal determination is incorrect or does not change
the Minnesota tax. An amended Minnesota income tax return must
be accompanied by an amended property tax refund return, if
necessary. A taxpayer filing an amended federal tax return must
also file a copy of the amended return with the commissioner of
revenue within 180 days after filing the amended return.
Subd. 8. Failure to
report change or correction of federal return.
If a taxpayer fails
to make a report as required by subdivision 7, the commissioner
may recompute the tax, including a refund, based on information
available to the commissioner. The tax may be recomputed within
six years after the report should have been filed,
notwithstanding any period of limitations to the contrary.
In short, the MDOR has
no power to unilaterally "adjust" the amount of "income" from
which is derived the "federal taxable income" ("net income")
that is the starting point for a Minnesota return (and can't
even do adjustments according to what it might at some point
have reason to imagine some federal
authority has done until at least 180 days after the federal
authorities actions are finalized). And that's all that is
relevant here. Lacking authority to declare the receipt of
"income" contrary to what appears on the return, everything
going on here is pure eyewash and reliance on the ignorance or
fear of the target. But let's go through the rest anyway, and
get everything possible out of this exercise.]
Your Appeal makes claim that you did not receive
reportable wages because you provide services in the private
sector to "non-governmental, private sector corporations". Your
identification as individuals receiving "private sector
payments" presumably alludes to the position that only Federal
employees or elected government officials are subject to income
tax. [It does not, but see below...]
you mistakenly infer the meaning of "includes" as it is used in
section 3401(c). [Actually, no, but
see below...]Rather, IRC §7701(c) states that the use of the
word "includes" shall not be deemed to exclude other things
otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. Thus, the word
"includes' as used in the definition of "employee" is a term of
enlargement, not limitation, and "employee" generally includes
paragraph is also irrelevant for the same reason as the last
one, but while we're here: On the contrary--or more precisely,
if you prefer--
IRC §7701(c) actually provides that "includes"
is a term of LIMITED
enlargement, allowing for the inclusion of unenumerated things
which are within the meaning of the statutory term being defined
by the shared special characteristics of the enumerated
exemplars. Thus, the fact that the common word "employee"
generally includes private citizens, as you say, is irrelevant
to the scope of the uncommon, statutorily-defined term
"employee" at 3401(c). In any event, and again, all of this is
irrelevant. The MDOR lacks authority to "adjust" the amount of
"income" being used in tax computations, however much it may be
willing to pretend misunderstanding of the meaning of "includes".]
Your tax position is a frivolous argument used by
taxpayers to avoid or evade tax. The IRS listed your present
position as a "Common Frivolous Argument" in its Notice 2006-3,
2006-1 CB 751, and specifically in Revenue Ruling 2006-18,
2006-1 CB 743 (attached for your reference). This tax position
has been litigated in both federal and state courts, and ruled
in favor of the government. See Lindberg v. Comm'r, TC Memo
2010-67; Montero v. Comm'r, 104 AFTR 2d 2009-73 80 (CA5): Sytsma
v. Comm 'r of Revenue, A11-269, (Minn. 2011); Dorschner v.
Comm'r of Revenue, 7700-R (Minn. Tax Ct. Reg. Div., 06/02/05)
[Actually, all the IRS "notices"
listed here are eight years old and were explicitly superceded by the official IRS "Frivolous Position" list
mandated by statute just after the dates of every one of these
notices (as explained in the "Background" section of
this document). See each succeeding version of these lists
CtC-educated "positions" are not on any of these
official lists, a fact very tellingly illustrated by the
"Position #AR" hoax exposed
here. These references by the MDOR are bogus, just like its
citations to irrelevant statutes and its effort to evade by
omission the very plain and strictly-limiting provisions of M.S.
289A.35 and .38.
The court rulings cited in this
paragraph would require several pages-worth of text in properly
parsing out every misconstruction, irrelevancy and falsehood in
which the MDOR would likely be hoping to find support for its
assertion that the return in this case qualifies for a
"frivolous" penalty (something we'll see and address again a
little further down). But it is enough to simply point out that
in none of them was the issue of MDOR's inability to adjust
"gross income" raised or ruled upon; and that lacking authority
to find a receipt of "income"
contrary to what appears on the claimants' return,
whether of "wages" or otherwise, the department plainly has no
grounds for alleging a flaw in a return based on what the filers
do or do not declare in that regard.*]
established that under both Federal and Minnesota law, that (sic)
wages are taxable. For
those reasons, the Department properly included your
compensation in wages from XXXX and XXXXXXXXXX in your income.
[Another effort to skate past the
sole relevant issue here: MDOR's lack of authority to "adjust"
the gross amount of "income". Whether it is "well established
that under both Federal and Minnesota law, wages are taxable" is
of no significance in this whatever. True or not, and even if it
were established that these claimants HAD, in fact, received
"taxable wages", the MDOR lacks the authority to add them to the
gross income figure on the return.
At the same time, the appeals officer's
careful phrasing has to be appreciated. Note the precise
statement that "wages are taxable",
despite the earlier efforts to suggest-- while carefully never
saying so-- that all earnings are taxable.
This is followed by the careful use of the phrase "compensation
in wages" rather than just "compensation" or "earnings".
Contrast the careful wording in this paragraph with what it
would have been if what the appeals officer strove to suggest
earlier were valid:
"It is well established that under both Federal and Minnesota
law, all earnings are taxable. For those reasons, the Department
properly included your compensation from XXXX and XXXXXXXXXX in
While you point out that the IRS refunded the
amount you requested on Form 1040, the Department has the
authority to make an independent assessment of your state tax
liability regardless of any IRS determination, and the
commissioner is not bound by the IRS's determinations.Busch v. Comm 'r of Revenue. 713 NW2d 337 (Minn. 2006);Bond
v. Comm'r of Revenue, 691 N.W.2d 831, 2005 WL 310802 (Minn.,
concerns only the MDOR's authority over the effect of deductions
in computing federal taxable income, as discussed above-- in
this case the MDOR disallowed a deduction for gambling losses
which the IRS had allowed. Although I have been unable to find
the text of the ruling in Bond, based on extensive
citations to the case in other rulings it appears to provide
only that Minnesota courts consider matters already adjudicated
in Tax Court de novo.
Neither of these cited cases,
therefore, offers any support for the invitation by the MDOR in
the preceding paragraph to imagine that the provisions of M.S.
289A.35 and .38 restricting the MDOR's authority over the amount
of "income" relevant to a filing don't mean what they plainly
and exactly say (as also discussed above). Per that plain and
clear language, while the MDOR does indeed have the authority to
make an independent assessment
is the application of the rate of tax to a given amount of what
is taxed-- it does not have the authority
to independently determine how much "income" is to be considered
as an overall starting point
in calculating that assessment. Further, even the MDOR's limited authority
to "recompute" an assessment in accordance to an IRS
determination contrary to the filer's original figures-- if one
should arise, as it has not in this case-- must wait at least
180 days from the time such a determination is finalized.]
The penalty for filing a frivolous return has been
assessed on your 2013 tax return as allowed under M.S. §
289A.60, subd. 7. The burden of proof is on the Commissioner to
prove that your return was frivolous. M.S. § 289A.60, subd. 7.
Your claim for refund is substantially incorrect, has no basis
in law or fact, and it is due to a position that has been
consistently held to be frivolous.
Subd. 7. Penalty for frivolous return. If a
taxpayer files what purports to be a tax return or a claim for
refund but which does not contain information on which the
substantial correctness of the purported return or claim for
refund may be judged or contains information that on its face
shows that the purported return or claim for refund is
substantially incorrect and the conduct is due to a position
that is frivolous or a desire that appears on the purported
return or claim for refund to delay or impede the administration
of Minnesota tax laws, then the taxpayer shall pay a penalty of
the greater of $1,000 or 25 percent of the amount of tax
required to be shown on the return. In a proceeding involving
the issue of whether or not a taxpayer is liable for this
penalty, the burden of proof is on the commissioner.
The MDOR lacks authority to say that the claim for
refund is substantially incorrect, since it cannot dispute the
declared amount of "income" by which that claim was arrived at.
Therefore it has no actual grounds for this asserted penalty.]
ALL TOLD, WHAT WE SEE HERE is a concerted, focused effort to
resist a CtC-educated claim by a state Department of Revenue
which is able to muster nothing on its behalf but evasions and
falsehoods. There is no secret law for it to call on under the
terms of which our claimants can simply be deemed subject to the
tax on their earnings (whether because of alleged "corporate"
status or otherwise).
Instead, the MDOR must resort to invalid "frivolous position"
lists; inapposite case-law; incomplete citations and excerpts of
its own state statutes; and a lot of confusion-generating
conflated irrelevancies-- and all to get around the plain
limiting language of statutes it simply hopes its targets will
There IS a conspiracy, and this is
its substance: lies and dodges and desperate hope that you will
imagine it to be the Great and Powerful Oz, rather than just
that little man behind the curtain struggling to keep the
illusion alive day by day. Defeating it is as simple as knowing
the truth, standing your ground, and spreading
this link far and wide.
By the way, the "everyone is a
corporation" thing is just one of a disturbingly large number of
dangerous and distracting myths, misunderstandings and outright
disinformation infecting various parts of what can be called the
'patriot movement'. Find articles addressing a few dozen of the
most prominent here.
*It is worth pointing out that to the extent that
these cases cited by the MDOR could be seen as taking positions
relevant to a "frivolous" assertion, it is done by the embrace
fallacies. One is that the reporting of amounts withheld but no
"wages" paid is somehow self-contradictory, as though it is
categorically-impossible for withholding to be improperly or
erroneously applied. This argument is nonsense on its face, of
course, and has even been effectively conceded by the IRS itself
last year by way of changes in
latest of its series of post-CtC-publication Form 4852
The other fallacy deployed in an attempt to support
a frivolous penalty is the argument that even if one's earnings
don't qualify as "wages" they must still be "income" which
should be reported under some other "income" category on a tax
return. This manifestly invalid proposition is a futile attempt
to evade the simple fact that when a subclass of
commonly-defined wages is distinguished as being "income"
subject to the tax (under the provisions of 26 USC 3401(a)
and/or 3121(a)), commonly-defined wages NOT so distinguished are
axiomatically NOT "income" subject to the tax.
There's a reason why government schools don't teach
Time, unfortunately, is on the side of the
well-funded disinformation specialists
OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE DEMONSTRATED FAR BEYOND
RATIONAL DOUBT OR HONEST DISPUTE that for the last 75 years
the income tax has been systematically mis-administered so
as to capture far more revenue and from far more earners
than it should and would were its actual statutory limits
more broadly understood. I have further shown that this is
not because of some quirk in the law being exploited by the
IRS but solely because of the ignorance of the Americans to
whom it ends up being misapplied.
People's ignorance is certainly being exploited
by the IRS, of course. But as written, and as interpreted by
the courts and the tax agency itself, the law is perfectly
clear and entirely on the side of most Americans. Even while
corrupt elements in the government have engaged in
create a facade of opposition to what
CtC reveals and thus
shore up the ignorance regime (such as is exposed
here), and even while some folks are unfortunately
annoying and sometimes protracted resistance to their claims
before they are honored, nearly every person who simply
learns how to stop the tax from being misapplied in his or
her own case and acts accordingly has been enjoying
proper acknowledgement and capitulation to the truth by
federal and state tax agencies since 2003.
At the same time, I've
also plainly shown that the collapse of the rule of law
and metastasizing of the rogue State now threatening the
well-being of every American (and possibly the entire world)
coincides with, and results directly and exclusively from,
the onset of the mis-application of the income tax in the
In short, I've shown the nature of the problem
about which every non-state-coopted pundit steadily warns,
and the nature of the solution to that problem. What's more,
I introduce, highlight, and celebrate the tens of thousands
of other American men and women who have also learned these
facts and are leading the way down the only path to that
NEARLY EVERY WEEK FOR NINE YEARS, I have shared
my posts about all these things with all of you. For the
last three years, I have copied those folks in the
(purportedly) non-state-coopted media whose email addresses
I believe I have.
At the same time, week after week the
well-financed and much more influential enemies of the
state-restraining, liberty-enhancing truth have steadily
injected more and more noise into the ether in an attempt to
drown out my signal. This means that the window of
opportunity in which the liberating truth has a realistic
chance to do its good work-- which it can only do by
becoming widely known-- is finite and narrowing.
And yet every week the acknowledgements and
desperately-needed signal-amplification offered by the
purportedly-non-coopted media amount to... nada. Zero,
zilch, radio silence.
This won't do. It also makes no sense-- unless
my emails to these folks simply aren't getting through.
There are several reasons why my emails may not
be making it. Some are as mundane as the possibility that
they are being spam-filtered away from these folks' inboxes.
It is known to me that, for instance, anyone on a pacbell,
swbell or optonline server won't receive my emails-- these
servers systematically (and apparently automatically, for
reasons known only to their programmers) reject my emails as
spam. There may be others that do the same without doing
bounce-backs to me to let me know.
Then there are darker possibilities. As
was posted here a few months ago in a letter from an
educated American who works for the City of Los Angeles,
while no other websites that might be described as "outside
the box" are known to be so treated, access to
losthorizons.com is blocked on the city's
internet-capable computers. Wikipedia won't allow links to
documents posted on
losthorizons.com. Recent additions to the ongoing
treasure-trove of revelations from the heroic Edward Snowden
have awakened us all to the possibility of other knobblings
of the same sort on a grander scale. It's also possible that
some of these folks may simply have closed their own minds.
IN RESPONSE TO THIS PROBLEM, I
am going to ask for everyone's help. Following is a short
list of publicly-available alt-media-pundit email addresses
which I have accumulated.
Because my emails do not seem to be making it
through to these folks, I'd be grateful if you were to see
if yours do. Compose your own thoughtful, courteous but
plain-spoken entreaties and admonishments to these folks
making clear to them that patriotic, activist and educated
Americans are wondering why they are not contributing their
voices on the side of the angels in this
critically-important contest between State-serving myths and
corruption and the liberating truth. Forward my emails to
them, as well.
EXPECT RESISTANCE FROM THESE FOLKS! All of them
are likely to think they already know all about the income
tax, and will have opinions based on either some theories of
their own or from the "tax honesty" community. Or they will
be standard victims of "ignorance tax" mythologies.
These folks are also likely to imagine that
they're just being told about another version of Irwin
Schiff. Some will even reflexively resort to the troll sites
and other noise generators maintained by the IRS and DOJ on
the internet and fall prey to the fallacious notion that
since I have been attacked by the government what I say must
somehow be wrong, despite all the unambiguous evidence to
the contrary. (This is as crazy as concluding that because
John Kirkiaou and Chelsea Manning are in prison, and the
government is salivating over the prospect of getting its
prosecutorial hands on Edward Snowden and Julian Assange and
Kangarooing them in as well, all the state crimes these
folks revealed must not really have happened. But believe it
or not, people can be that thoroughly conditioned to
worship the State.)
None of these folks will know a tenth of
what you know about the tax. None of them will know a
hundredth of what you know about
CtC, its history, and the ferocious campaign to keep
people like them from knowing the truth about it.
For one reason or another, I am unable to deal
with this problem myself; your help will be greatly
appreciated and may do much good. The email addresses are
all offered with disabling formatting to protect against
abuse from spiders, so to use them, please replace the "at"
with @. By the by, if you have any other addresses of the
same sort, please share them with me for addition to this
list. (For instance, I have long sought an address for Paul
Craig Roberts, whose work I esteem, and who seems to me a
very likely ally in this fight, but who I am unable to
contact, even through his website "contact form".)
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
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...
Do you have a victory to share?
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.
A New Book On The Truth About The
TOM BOTTARO, ChFC, HAS JUST PUBLISHED 'SECRETS of the Income Tax Code- What the IRS
doesn't want you to know!' Tom's book is a nice,
accessible drill-down on several key aspects of the tax.
Find many other printables and
sharables suited to every different occasion and purpose
IF YOU'RE NOT SPREADING THIS LINK with every bit of
energy you can, to school libraries, homeschool
families and community groups, your neighbors, your
family members, your pastors and
co-congregationalists, journalists, lawyers, CPAs,
members of congress, tax-agency workers, Wikipedia,
Anonymous, WikiLeaks, the Tax Foundation, everyone
in the "tax honesty" movement, the 9/11 truth
movement, other activist movements and everyone
you have only yourself to blame for your
troubles with the tax, and a whole lot else of which
you might complain. It's on you.
WRITE A NICE, FRIENDLY AND BRIEF introductory note
explaining what will be seen at the link-- cryptic
is bad; excited is good-- and then send this WMI
(weapon of mass instruction) far and wide.
"I am a great believer in luck, and I find the
harder I work, the more I have of it."
A teacher asked
her 6th grade class how many of them were fans of Big Government.
Not really knowing what a Big Government fan is, but wanting to be liked by
teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little TJ.
The teacher asked Little TJ why he has decided to be different...again.
Little TJ said, "Because I'm not a fan of Big Government."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Big Government?"
Little TJ said, "Because I'm a libertarian."
The teacher asked him why he's a libertarian. Little TJ answered, "Well,
my Dad's a libertarian and my Mom's a libertarian, so I'm a libertarian."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your dad were a moron and
your mom were an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little TJ replied, "That would make me a fan of Big
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
January 26- In 1837,
Michigan is admitted to the union as the 26th of the several
states. In 1861, Louisiana becomes the sixth of the several
states to secede from the Union. In 1920, Henry Leland launches
the Lincoln Motor Company (later bought by Ford). In 1934,
Germany and Poland sign a non-aggression pact (later nullified
by Germany by the deployment of a "false-flag"
operation suggesting a Polish attack on a German radio
station). In 1998, Bill Clinton issues a nationally-televised
denial of having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.
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.
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.
This Week's Outreach Bon Mot:
an excise is no more an "exercise of sovereignty"--
which is to say, no more special, and no more entitled
to special advantages under the law-- than is charging
parade-watchers for the use of your restaurant's
"In a time of
universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
SanDiegoScott has put together a great little 20-question quiz
to test your knowledge of the law regarding the United States
"income" tax. Test yourself, test your friends and family!
Test your accountant and tax attorney, and help them learn the
For a brief time after the 9/11 terror attacks,
Americans could be heard asking the reasonable question: Why do
these men from Middle Eastern countries (back then, mostly Saudis)
hate us so much that they would give their own lives to cause us
pain? Within a few weeks, the official explanation became: They hate
us for our freedom, end of story.
When you follow the money, it is easy to understand why
the government avoided any honest discussion of the causes of
terrorism. By one estimate, U.S. taxpayers have squandered $10
trillion over four decades to protect the flow of oil on behalf of
multinational corporations. The result is an empire of U.S. military
bases which have garrisoned the Greater Middle East. In the Persian
Gulf alone, the United States has bases in every country save Iran.
These bases support repressive, undemocratic regimes, and act as
staging grounds to launch wars, interventions and drone strikes. And
they generate tremendous profits for defense contractors.
The existence of these bases helps generate radicalism,
anti-American sentiment and terrorist attacks. The drone attacks
have incited even more hatred for us, which should come as little
surprise. The U.S. uses drones to incinerate suspected militants
(and anyone else in the vicinity) on secret evidence, but only if
they are living in Muslim nations like Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq or
Somalia. We don’t fly killer drones over dangerous neighborhoods in
Detroit or Chicago, or in Iguala, Mexico, where 43 students were
recently massacred by gang members aided by corrupt police.
The fact that our misguided foreign policy creates
terrorism is almost never discussed in polite society. There is of
course no justification for a terror attack on innocents. But if our
leaders truly cared as much about protecting Americans from terror
as they do about protecting corporate profits, they would have an
honest discussion of what’s prompting the violence.
Now ask yourself this: Have I really done
all that I can to urge everyone I
know to also stand up and act in the only way that will really bring
about change in my lifetime?
Even as ardent a statist as Abraham
Lincoln, in announcing his willingness to burn the Southern states to the ground in order to
keep them paying the tariff for the benefit of Northern interests in
his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, paid at least lip
service to the Founders design of leaving control over the fuel
available to feed the fires Washington wants to light in the hands
of the individual citizenry when he said, "Doing this I deem to
be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, unless my
rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite
January 27- In 1606,
the trial of Guy Fawkes over the 'gunpowder plot' begins. In
1825, Congress establishes the territory to which the Eastern
Native American populations will be forcibly relocated by way of
the 'Trail of Tears'.
Are You Ready
For More Power?
"Peter Hendrickson has done it again! 'Upholding The
Law' does for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did
for tax law compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable
-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado
false-flag in Paris; civic dysfunction; an upcoming
evil of Obamacare rarely noted; more...
THE WEEK BEFORE LAST, SOMEONE ENGAGED IN SOME TERRORISM
IN PARIS, FRANCE. It wasn't Muslim jihadis.
Let's remember the definition of "terrorism": the
creation of a sense of danger in members of society through acts of
violence against non-combatantsfor the purpose of influencing public
policy. The attacks on
the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have no
discernable potential for influencing public-policy decisions for
the benefit of jihadis.
The only "policy" related to the attacks from the
standpoint of Islamists is that of disrespect to Islam or its sacred
figures by people like the satirists at Charlie Hebdo. Such
disrespect is not a "public policy" matter.
Those who incline toward such disrespect will persist
or refrain of their own individual accord in the wake of this event,
just as has been true in the wake of each previous expression of
Islamist anger over previous juvenile goadings. It is only the
policies of these individual actors that could be addressed or
affected by these attacks, from the Islamist's point of view.
These attacks could not be expected to generate an
official banning of expressions of disrespect for Islam and its
sacred objects, because one is completely unnecessary. If Islamists
committed these attacks, doing so has explained with much greater
effect than would be carried by any censorship legislation or other
public policy change that those who choose to disrespect Islam and
its sacred objects face a summary death penalty.
And maybe that's all this was. If so, it remains
heinous and unforgivable, but it is NOT "terrorism". It is no more
"terrorism" than is the beating administered by Bubba to some punk
who bad-mouths Bubba's sister or mama.
BUT THERE IS PUBLIC
POLICY THAT IS ALMOST CERTAIN TO BE INFLUENCED BY THESE ATTACKS--
and that is the official demeanor of France in several areas of
considerable interest to certain parties' areas, and public pressure
on the French government in its choices regarding these areas.
Public views prompting both these public-policy
positions would likely be influenced toward reversal by an event
certain to demonize Muslims in the French perception generally. The
murders at Charlie Hebdo surely qualify.
The reason for the influence against supporting
Palestinian statehood is obvious and need not be explained here. The
(admittedly more strained) possible reason why demonizing Muslims
might be expected to influence French popular views toward Russian
sanctions is Russia's close alliance with the Syrian regime of Shia
Muslim Bashar al-Assad.
IN SHORT, WHILE ISLAMISTS HAD NO REASON TO EXPECT
public policy changes in their favor by virtue of this Charlie
Hebdo crime, Israel, the United States and the government of
France surely did. If this event merits being called "terrorism", it
can only be if it was NOT committed by the couple of non-descript
malcontents we are told to view as the perpetrators, but was
the act of someone with a plausible policy-influence expectation,
such as Israel, the United States, or the government of France-- or
some combination thereof.
Looking at the evidence currently available, this
conclusion forces itself upon an objective viewer even without the
foregoing reasoning in any event. The little
excerpt of the alleged shooting of the cop on the sidewalk video
here is sufficient all by itself:
(If your browser lacks a needed plug-in or otherwise
won't play this video, you can download it
here, and play it in Windows Media Player.)
It is plain that this cop was NOT shot as shown in this
video, despite continuing official claims to the contrary. There
isn't even so much as a jiggle in this fellow's head, much less the
violent bounce off the sidewalk that would result from taking a
round to the head even from a small caliber weapon (which this was
not). No spray, no wound, no nothing-- just a dust puff off the
sidewalk where whatever left that rifle barrel actually hit.
This one thing alone is more than enough
dog poo on this dinner plate to make the whole meal a non-starter.
The official story being plainly false, the logical conclusion is
that officialdom is responsible for what really did happen, which
DOES make this a terrorist incident-- but not one committed by
P. S. Paul Craig Roberts has good articles on this
NOTE: I have seen the argument that this assault really
was terrorism by Muslims, based on the reasoning that the attack was
intended to prompt repressive anti-Muslim policies by the French
government which will polarize and radicalize France's Muslim
population and generate more "soldiers" for the jihadi cause. I
don't buy it.
For one thing, if this were true, it would be
counter-productive to kill some of the talent which was already
contributing to that radicalization, and would certainly have gone
into hyper-drive doing so after an attack which didn't kill them.
For another, killing the Charlie Hebdo folks is not nearly as
likely to prompt serious and enduring French public support for
seriously oppressive policy changes as would have been the killing
of, say, a bunch of random schoolkids, or any other selection of
victims who could never be said to have knowingly and deliberately
provoked their murderers.
All in all, the selection of the Charlie Hebdo
people as targets rings of a slightly tin-eared false flag
operation, where those responsible instinctively recognized that the
satirists would be seen as plausible targets of Muslim violence,
without thinking further and realizing that targets plausible for
other reasons don't support a "terrorism" meme very well. And in any
event, there is that video...
IT WAS REPORTED THIS WEEK WITHOUT A EVEN A HINT OF
DISMAY that Arizona will become the first and only state of the
union (in modern times, at least)
government school students
to demonstrate some mastery of civics in order to
graduate from high school. The required level of mastery? A mere 60%
score on the test routinely given to immigrants who hope to be
granted American citizenship. I guess mild kudos are in order for
Arizona, but surely the rest of the states earn major raspberries.
Thank God for homeschooling!
AS WE ALL NOTE THE NEW TAXES AND OTHER UGLINESS
ASSOCIATED WITH OBAMACARE that are popping out this month, one very important
aspect of this massive price-control program is routinely
overlooked: When the state pretends to be paying people's bills, it
finds itself justified in seizing control of people's behavior.
After all, your "bad" behavior choices will increase the public
expense in remediating them, right?
For a discussion on this political dynamic, see
this. For information on what really constitutes America's
"health-care" crisis, and on why educated Americans need not really
worry about Obamacare as a personal matter (however much it still
needs to be scrubbed from the books as a policy matter), see the two
SAY, HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN ANY THOUGHT to
what will happen when 30 million other Americans-- or even just 3
million-- learn what you
know about the "income" tax and begin following your example of
acting to protect your own interests and uphold the law?
January 28- In 1547, a
nine-year-old becomes King of England (Edward VI). In 1909,
U.S. troops leave most of Cuba in the hands of American puppet
Jose Miguel Gomez (operating under a U.S.-dictated
"constitution"), continuing to occupy only the naval base at
Guantanamo Bay. In 1958, "Lego" is patented. In 1981, Ronald
Reagan ends federal price controls on petroleum first put in
place during the 1970s.
Some Observations Regarding
Educated And Accurate Filing
BASED ON MY OWN READING OF THE RELEVANT
LAWS AND RULES, my own experience, and my own
observations, I have come to the following conclusions.
They may or may not have relevance to any particular
person's situation, and of course everyone should make
their own studies and come to their own conclusions.
They are presented in no particular order, and I suggest
everyone read through them all.
1. If "information returns" by a payer make
what are believed to be erroneous allegations of the
payment of "wages", "non-employee-compensation" or other
revenue purportedly in connection with the conduct of an
"income-taxable" activity, a filing intended to be true,
complete and correct would seek to rebut the erroneous
allegations and provide what the filer believes to be
the correct amounts. This might be done by, for
A. Attaching sworn statements specifically
rebutting the errors on those forms with correct entries
to one's 1040. Examples are Forms 4852 (to rebut and
replace errant W-2s or 1099-Rs), or photocopies of
errant original 1099-MISCs (or any other type of 1099
other than the 1099-R) with correct information
replacing incorrect entries, and a sworn statement added
declaring the instrument to be a rebuttal of an
erroneous 1099-(xx) known to have been submitted by the
B. Using the rebuttal instruments as
replacements for the erroneous "information returns" and
the correct information from the rebutting instruments
to complete one's 1040. For instance, if one has
received erroneous W-2s and has created a rebutting
4852, where a 1040 asks for "wages received" and says to
attach a W-2, one would declare the "wage" entry from
line 7(a) of the 4852, and attach that form instead of
the erroneous W-2.
Instruments rebutting erroneous 1099s
(other than 1099-Rs) are attached to the return by
themselves-- that is, not with some kind of schedule--
unless one really IS operating some kind of tax-relevant
business or other activity, and one is acknowledging
having had SOME "trade or business" "income", but just a
different amount than what was reported on the erroneous
• If one engaged in no tax-relevant
activities during the year there are likely no schedules
that are appropriate for one's filing (unless, I
suppose, one has something being carried over from a
previous year in which something taxable WAS done...).
• If erroneous forms were included with a
filing in which those erroneous forms are rebutted it
would cause a contradiction in entries and make the
return invalid and "frivolous", since everything
included with a return is presumed to be attested to as
correct by the filer.
• Failing to combine all amounts withheld
as or for any kind of federal tax as a single figure on
the line designated for "Federal income tax withheld",
and/or failing to include and claim back any withheld
amount while claiming back other amounts, is to create
an apparent contradiction.
For instance, to report $0 "wages" and
claim back amounts listed as withheld on a W-2 or 4852
as nominal "federal income tax" but to not also claim
back amounts withheld as "Social Security tax" and
"Medicare tax" would be to declare oneself to have not
received "wages" as defined in 26 USC 3401(a) but to
HAVE received 'wages" as defined in 3121(a). Since both
designations of "wages" refer to the same receipts and
activities which produce them (with the latter being
merely a surtax on a portion of the former) the
declarations are contradictory of each other.
The same contradiction would arise if one
listed anything as "Excess social security and tier 1
RRTA tax withheld", while denying having received
3121(a) "wages". One can only have "excess SS tax
withheld" if one has had "SS tax" properly withheld up
to the amount at which anything further becomes
2. A return is NOT an appropriate document
for making legal arguments of any kind. To include a
cover letter explaining what is seen in the return (such
as that erroneous "information returns" have been
rebutted with instruments completed and attached for
that purpose) does no harm, but this is neither the time
nor the place to be making assertions about whether one
is or isn't an "employee", arguments about the nature of
the tax, and so forth. A return is just a statement of
the amounts one knows and believes to be true, complete
and correct in regard to each item inquired-about on the
1040, properly-understood as to its statutory meaning.
It's neither a soap-box nor a legal brief; further,
some kinds of arguments can actually invite a
3. Amounts improperly or erroneously
collected, withheld, paid-in, what-have-you can only be
claimed for refund looking back three years. On the
other hand, rebuttals/corrections of erroneous
assertions for their own sake, or as a response to
collections efforts based on erroneous information
returns, have no look-back limit. Learn more about both
4. Returns varying from (or attempting to
supplement) the principles and points listed here,
and/or reflecting notions not presented in
CtC or on this site (exclusive of forum pages)--
such as adding "UCC" references to jurats, or otherwise
marking-up or adding-to a return-- invite problems. I
believe such variations are sometimes seen as reflecting
(and therefore an insincerity) about
one's filing, which can
create a pretext for treating a return as "frivolous"
and invalid. They also make one appear to be a soft
target for harassment, ill-equipped to stand one's
ground and deal competently with pushback, which is
therefore more likely to be attempted.
5. Most all of the above has long been
posted amongst much other useful material on
the FAQ pages. Make a point of staying up to date
with those pages, and everything linked from
the Site Map!!
most important question facing Americans today
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: The People impose restraint on the rogue
state by choosing-- one by one-- to cease voluntarily turning
control over their resources to the state, and choosing instead to
retain control over those resources. This is done by refusing-- one
by one-- to engage in "income tax" excisable activities (and
refusing to blindly or fearfully allow their activities to be
treated or taken as excisable activities upon which the tax arises,
when they really are not).
The refusal of individual Americans to voluntarily engage in
excisable activities forces the state to resort to
alternatives revenue sources. These include options like direct,
apportioned taxes (which will not be tolerated by the people or
approved by Congress at $multi-trillion annual volumes), and/or
increased revenue tariffs (which can raise amounts adequate for
legitimate state needs, but are very self-regulating, since
consumers naturally choose domestic product alternatives when higher
tariffs raise the prices of imports beyond a certain point).
This solution is precisely the one intended and provided for by the
Founders-- who didn't impose the taxation rules in the US
Constitution just so they could admire their handwriting. They put
those rules in place in direct anticipation of state behavior of the
sort with which we are now plagued.
As even so odious a character as Hamilton pointed out in Federalist
“Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles
of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time,
find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be
contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own
option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources.
...If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the
collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so
great as when they are confined within proper and moderate
bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material
oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself
a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
What we've got today is simply the direct (and perfectly
predictable) consequences of NOT adhering to the Founders' plan. As
Frederick Douglass trenchantly observed,
“Find out just what any people
will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the
injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."
We've got plenty of injustice and wrong these days. But our fix to
the problem was bought for us with blood a few hundred years ago.
[Y]ou really need to familiarize yourself with Pete
Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and in
his book(s). He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the
code" regarding the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."
-Mark C. Phillips, JD
"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."
-Jerry Arnowitz, JD
"Your book is a masterpiece!"
-Michael Carver, JD
"Received your book yesterday. Started reading at 11
PM, finished at 4 AM." "I have 16 feet (literally 16'
4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your
book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer
before being admitted to any Bar." "I hope you sell a
million of them."
-John O'Neil Green, JD
“Thanks again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot
to a lot of people.” “…as an attorney, I am humbled by your
knowledge and ability in navigating the law. THANK YOU for
your hard work and sacrifice.”
-Eric Smithers, JD
"I am an attorney and want to give a testimonial to your
book, which I find to be compelling. I am exercising these
rights for myself and my adult children. I'm even considering
making this my new avenue of law practice."
Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD
Learn what these colleagues already know, then step forward and
become part of a coordinated, mutually-supportive squadron
focused on developing strategy and deploying the law in
courtrooms across the country. There's a lot of suing that
needs doing right now.
Are you ready for a challenge that'll put some real meaning
behind all the effort you went through to get your credentials?
Send me an email.
Have You Taken
A Military, Law Enforcement or Public Office Oath To Uphold And Defend The
January 29- In 1845,
Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven" is published. In 1861, Kansas is
admitted to the union as the 34th of the several states. In
1886, Karl Benz patents the first successful gasoline-powered
automobile. In 1891, Queen Liliuokalani takes the throne of
Hawaii. In 2002, George W. Bush delivers his State of the Union
address in which he deploys the phrase "axis of evil" in regard
to Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
An Introduction To The Liberating Truth In Ten Easy Segments
CtCW, author of 'Secrets
of the Income Tax Code- A Guide for Businessmen',
has shared another fine outreach effort. Tom has been writing and
sending a series of short wake-up and educational essays to friends
and family, one by one, for some time. When Tom told me about this,
I asked him to compile the pieces and let me post them for everyone
to enjoy and share with their own people. Tom, good guy and warrior
for the truth that he is, was perfectly agreeable.
CtC Warrior David Sides says, "Bumper stickers?
Nice, but NOT BIG ENOUGH!"
the way, Dave's got it precisely right-- If you want your power
to be secure, your neighbors have to be empowered with the same
knowledge that you've acquired. Click
here for ideas about
spreading the truth-- which include normal bumper stickers
available for free, by the way....)
Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri
At a rally outside the Alamo
CtC Warrior Brian H. in Alaska has a great INDOOR approach
to spreading the transformational truth. Here's Brian's desk at
You notice the big glass container to the right of the CtC
in the first pic above?
Tasty freebies for Brian's co-workers-- candy and brain-candy
all in one:
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...
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
January 30- In 1649,
King Charles I of England is beheaded after attempting to claim
more authority than the people were prepared to recognize in a
ruler. In 1835, Richard Lawrence attempts to assassinate
President Andrew Jackson, but both his pistols misfire. In
1933, Adolph Hitler is sworn in as chancellor of Germany. In
1948, Mohandas Gandhi is assassinated. In 1956, Martin Luther
King Jr.'s home is bombed. In 1968, the Tet Offensive begins in
Vietnam. In 1969, the Beatles give their last public
performance, an impromptu concert played on the roof of Apple
Records in London. In 1976, George H. W. Bush becomes director
of the CIA. In 1982, Richard Skrenta creates the first computer
If You're Not Standing Up, Then You're Standing Down
...and "standing down" means "going down"...
MY FRIENDS, IT IS MY SINCERE BELIEF that this community of
activists has been encouraged, inspired, enlightened and
expanded over the years by the steady posting here of
your ongoing victories on behalf of the rule of law.
Certainly, it has been my pride and my joy to help you share
with the world your honorable testament to the liberating truth
about the tax, widespread knowledge of which is so critical to
the well-being of ourselves, our children, and our beloved
However, unless YOU send those victories I can't post them.
Unless YOU stand up, your courage and commitment can't inspire
YOU WILL RECALL THAT FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO I've been telling
you that we are in a transformational moment. Look around at
what is going on today and recognize the truth of what I say.
Even before Edward Snowden's documentation of particular crimes
being committed against the American people the
Washington Times and other mainstream organs were
editorializing about Leviathan having grown too big, and gotten
dangerously out-of-hand (see stories at each of the preceding
links). In the Spring Rand Paul's filibuster denouncing the
lawlessness of Mordor-on-the-Potomac prompted a major buzz
across the country, and in July Justin Amash shocked Washington
by very nearly defunding a huge portion of the illegal
surveillance state's crimes.
CtC community has been winning legal victories and refunds
which are ever-more significant and telling. Consider, for
instance, the victories which have qualified for
the EWWBL collection. Every one of these is an especially
illuminating acknowledgement of the truth about the tax, and now
include a very significant two-time victory in a federal
Things are happening!
HOW IT ALL SHAKES OUT is still up for grabs, though. This is not
the time for either complacency or paralysis, because both of
those don't amount to "doing nothing"-- instead they amount to
"standing down". And standing down means conceding the fight,
letting all these eleventh-hour sparks of light burn out
unnurtured and the moment be a transformation for the worse.
This is not the time for standing down. This is the time for a
This is the time for educated American grown-ups to stand up
tall and firm, pulling others to their feet by their very
gravity. This is the time for leading the way.
STAND UP! SEND THOSE VICTORIES-- the new ones, and those of the
last few years as well. Click
here to learn how. Even if you don't have checks to scan,
send your testimonials. Learn how to do that
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'?"
January 31- In 1606, Guy Fawkes is executed for
the Gunpowder Plot. In 1876, the federal government orders all
Native Americans onto reservations. In 1930, 3M begins
marketing Scotch tape. In 1945, Private Eddie Slovik is
executed for desertion from the U.S. Army. In 1950, Truman
announces a program to develop a hydrogen bomb. In 1958, an
American satellite is successfully launched into orbit. In
1995, President Bill Clinton authorizes a $20 billion loan to
Mexico. In 1996, a truck-bomb is detonated outside the central
bank of Sri Lanka.
"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."
Adams, Architect of the First American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
Is this newsletter of any value to you? If so, please
consider a donation
to help keep it available, or it soon won't be. Donations can
be sent to:
Hendrickson is also a widely-read essayist on matters of
politics, public policy and law; many of these works are
collected in his second book, ‘Upholding
the Law And Other Observations’. He is a member of
award-winning artist; and has paid his dues as a youth
soccer coach. He is a long-time political activist as
well, and has served as co-chair and platform convention
delegate of Michigan’s largest county Libertarian Party
organization; as a consultant to the National Right to Work
Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy; as a member of the
Heartland Institute; and as a member of the International
Society for Individual Liberty. He is a frequent
radio-show guest on stations across the country.
Hendrickson's business career has included nearly a
decade-and-a-half at the leading edge of the renewable-energy
industry, both as Director of Purchasing and Materials
Management and member of the R&D board at Starpak Energy
Systems, the mid-west's then-largest solar heating and
energy-recovery-and re-utilization company; and as founder and
president of AFJ Inc., a high-efficiency lighting design,
manufacture and installation firm.
Beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing for the twelve years
before his present full-time focus on the restoration of the
rule of law in America, Hendrickson directed purchasing
activities for the $84 million-a-year multi-family-housing
division of the Farmington Hills, Michigan branch of Edward Rose
and Sons, with responsibility for 18,000+ apartments, direct
supervision of 35 technicians and agents, and incidental
authority over several hundred divisional workers. He also
ran the division's 10 cable television earth-station and
distribution systems in four states, and designed and
administered the company's website.
rather the other end of the spectrum, amidst these more mundane
pursuits Hendrickson co-founded and was the primary creative
force behind a small
card-game company that enjoyed a modest success for several
Hendrickson makes his home in southeast Michigan, with his wife
and two children. He is currently working on his next