The basis upon the belief that there is NO such thing as an "income" tax are several sources.

• Of which, the most important is Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v Smietanka (255 US 509). This Supreme court case held that "The word (income) must be given the same meaning in ALL of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909." This meaning holds that income is actually means a "corporate profit". Since individuals cannot generate a profit because of no profit/loss balance sheet, no individual can have income.

• Of no less importance are the IRS Form 1040 instructions (PDF) which clearly states in the Privacy Act Notice that "However, Code section 6103 allows or requires the Internal Revenue Service to disclose or give the information shown on you tax return to others as described in the Code." Simply, you give up your 5th amendment rights if you submit a 1040. Also, the 4th amendment gives the individual "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ..." So, if the Government cannot get your papers (aka Tax Records) then do they have the right to REQUIRE you to give a condensation of those papers? The answer is no. If you do give your papers, then you give up your 4th amendment rights.

• Also in the 1040 instructions, it clearly states in the Privacy Act Notice "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their implementing regulations." Since these three code sections are CLEARLY stated, and these are the only three that pertain to the payment of income taxes. (It must be noted that code sections 6109 and 6103 are mentioned, they deal with the requirement of the SSN or TIN and confidentiality, respectively.)
  • In section 6001, it clearly states "Every person LIABLE for any tax imposed ...", however the problem arises, who is liable for "income" tax?
    • 5005 makes one liable for alcohol taxes.
    • 5703 makes one liable for cigar and cigarette taxes.
    • 5041 makes one liable for wine taxes.
    Commonly the arguements for making an individual "liable" for income taxes are:
    • Section 1, however, the word "liable" isn't used in that section.
    • 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) is also cited, however take a look at 26 CFR 1.861
    Also, if section 1 WOULD make one liable, why isn't it listed in the index? The big secret, is that NOBODY is ever made liable for income taxes.

  • In section 6001, it states "Whenever in the judgement of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns ..." The key here is that NOBODY is ever given notice to make a return for income taxes. Since you're not given notice, how do you know you have to pay?
    • 5142 makes one pay alcohol taxes.
    • 6651 makes one pay cigar and cigarette taxes.
    • 6311 makes one pay taxes by stamp (incl. tobacco)

  • In sections 6001 and 6011, it says "... comply with such rules and regulations ..." If an IRS agent claims one has to pay income taxes, ask the agent where it gives him the authority to make you pay. Since you have to only comply with rules and regulations, you don't have to rely upon the word of an IRS agent. The biggest asset that gives us the power to ask this is Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v Merrill, et al. (332 US 380). This case came to the conclusion that "Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. ... And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority."

  • In section 6012(a)(1)(A), it states "Every individual having for the taxable year gross income ...". The problem with that statement is "Gross Income". Section 61 defines "Gross Income", which is "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived ...". What a masterpiece of deception. If "income" is not defined, then "gross income" cannot be defined as well, this is simple 8th grade English. Though, another key phrase is "from whatever source" it is not "on whatever source" but FROM. What does this mean? It means that if all conditions were right, "gross income" would be FROM salaries, wages, etc., but not ON salaries, wages, etc.

    Another problem, is that in Section 61(a)(1) it states "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;" the most notable abscences are salaries or wages. In section 871(a)(1)(A), it specifically states "interest (other than original issue discount as defined in section 1273), dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums ...". Why in Section 871(a)(1)(A) does it specifically state salaries and wages, but in Section 61(a)(1) it does not?

    The US Constitution, article 1 section 9 states "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Since income tax would fall within "other direct Tax", it has to be apportioned. Since apportionment is EXTREMELY difficult (however not impossible) for the US Government, the Government had to come up with a way to confuse the citizens into believing they have to pay an income tax. Also, since the word income is used in the 16th Amendment Congress cannot define "income" since that would alter the US Constitution by legislation alone, and they cannot do that.

    Section 871 applies to US Citizens working abroad, not connected to a US business. Section 61 applies to US Citizens working within the US for a US business. Since the US Constitution does not apply outside the United States, the 16th Amendment also does not apply. Since the US Constitution does not apply, the Government can collect taxes ON salaries and wages of persons working abroad, without the burden of the US Constitution's apportionment considerations.