FORUMS
(Discuss this)

START HERE!
(Path to Freedom)

• CITES BY TOPIC: "Taxpayer"
• Great IRS Hoax, Section 5.6.1: There is No Statutes Making Anyone Liable to Pay Subtitle A Income Taxes
• Great IRS Hoax, Section 5.6.5: "Taxpayer" v. "Nontaxpayer"

“Whoever guards his mouth and tongue

Keeps his soul from troubles.”

[Prov. 21:23, Bible, NKJV]

 

“Do not speak in the hearing of a fool,

For he will despise the wisdom of your words.”

[Prov. 23:9, Bible, NKJV]

 

“Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth;

Keep watch over the door of my lips.

Do not incline my heart to any evil thing.

To practice wicked works

With men who work iniquity;

And do not let me eat of their delicacies.”

[Psalms 141:3-4, NKJV]

 

He who has knowledge spares his words,

And a man of understanding is of a calm spirit.

Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace;

When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive.

[Prov. 17:27-28, Bible, NKJV]

26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(14) defines the word “taxpayer” as:

26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(14) Definitions

Taxpayer

The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Now if we look up the definition of “subject to” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1425, we find the following:

“Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for.  Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 302.

So being a “taxpayer” means being either someone who is liable to pay tax or who isn’t liable but who has chosen to “volunteer” for the tax or be subservient to it.  When one volunteers for the tax, they are considered to be liable because they assess themselves and claim they have taxable income, even if their income is not, in fact, taxable. By definition then, a “taxpayer” is someone liable for paying tax no matter how you look at it.  Incidentally, this is the term the government and especially the IRS uses to describe EVERYONE, which by implication deceives EVERYONE into thinking they are liable for the tax.  They win the war before it ever gets started just by the language they use.  You have to watch these weasels!  You should therefore refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue office to call you a “taxpayer” and you should emphatically challenge every use of the word.  Here is the way one of our readers humorously described it, and we LOVE his metaphor!:

I refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue office to call me or any client a "taxpayer". Just because I may look like one or have the attributes of one does not necessarily make me one. To one IRS lady, and I have no reason to doubt that she fits this category, I use the following example. "Miss you have all of the equipment to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption." Until it is proven by a preponderance of evidence I must assume you are a lady and you will be treated as such. Please have the same respect for me, and don't slander my reputation and defame my character by calling me a whore for the government, which is what a "taxpayer" is.
[Eugene Pringle]

Therefore, we should be VERY CAREFUL with the language we use, and NEVER describe ourselves as a taxpayer to anyone, and especially the IRS or the courts.  Instead, use the term “American” and vehemently renounce anyone who uses the “taxpayer” word to describe us.  When they use the word, tell them they are wrong and demand that they satisfy the burden of proof under the administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 556(d), which says:

Sec. 556. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision

(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the agency, consider a violation of section 557(d) of this title sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. In rule making or determining claims for money or benefits or applications for initial licenses an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.

Always leave the burden of proving you are liable for tax up to the IRS or you will lose every time! 

We also need to thoroughly understand how to apply the guidance in this section to legal settings and litigation.  If we take the government into court to defend our Constitutional right to not pay income taxes, it is very important that we not use as the basis for our claim any statute from law that depends on us being a “taxpayer”, because by doing so, we are claiming to be a “taxpayer”!

“This record does not call upon us to examine into this challenge of the validity of these statutory provisions, similar as they are to those of many other states and of a seemingly equitable character, for the reason that the appellants, by their action in instituting a proceeding for the valuation of their stock, pursuant to these statutes, which is still pending, waived their right to assail the validity of them. Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Atty. Gen. 124 U.S. 581 , 31 L. ed. 527, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 631; Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489 , 41 L. ed. 1088, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645; Pierce v. Somerset R. Co. 171 U.S. 641 , 43 L. ed. 316, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 64; Leonard v. Vicksburg, [244 U.S. 407, 412]   S. & P. R. Co. 198 U.S. 416, 422 , 49 S. L. ed. 1108, 1111, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 750. They cannot claim the benefit of statutes and afterwards assail their validity. There is no sanctity in such a claim of constitutional right as prevents its being waived as any other claim of right may be.” 
[Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Company, 244 U.S. 407 (1917)]

Below is an example of just such a statute from the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.  Note that we have underlined and boldfaced the word “taxpayer” for emphasis:

SEC. 1203. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MISCONDUCT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (c), the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall terminate the employment of any employee of the Internal Revenue Service if there is a final administrative or judicial determination that such employee committed any act or omission described under subsection (b) in the performance of the employee’s official duties. Such termination shall be a removal for cause on charges of misconduct.

(b) ACTS OR OMISSIONS.—The acts or omissions referred to

under subsection (a) are—

  (1) willful failure to obtain the required approval signatures

       on documents authorizing the seizure of a taxpayer’s home,

      personal belongings, or business assets;

  (2) providing a false statement under oath with respect

       to a material matter involving a taxpayer or taxpayer representative;

  (3) with respect to a taxpayer, taxpayer representative,

       or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service, the violation

       of—

      (A) any right under the Constitution of the United

       States; or

        (B) any civil right established under—

            (i) title VI or VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

            (ii) title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;

            (iii) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

                  of 1967;

            (iv) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975;

            (v) section 501 or 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

                  of 1973; or

            (vi) title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act

                 of 1990;

   (4) falsifying or destroying documents to conceal mistakes

       made by any employee with respect to a matter involving

       a taxpayer or taxpayer representative;

   (5) assault or battery on a taxpayer, taxpayer representative,

       or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service, but

       only if there is a criminal conviction, or a final judgment

       by a court in a civil case, with respect to the assault or battery;

   (6) violations of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Department

       of Treasury regulations, or policies of the Internal Revenue

       Service (including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the

       purpose of retaliating against, or harassing, a taxpayer, taxpayer

       representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue

       Service;

   (7) willful misuse of the provisions of section 6103 of the

       Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the purpose of concealing

       information from a congressional inquiry;

   (8) willful failure to file any return of tax required under

       the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on or before the date prescribed

       therefor (including any extensions), unless such failure

       is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect;

   (9) willful understatement of Federal tax liability, unless

       such understatement is due to reasonable cause and not to

       willful neglect; and

   (10) threatening to audit a taxpayer for the purpose of

       extracting personal gain or benefit.

(c) DETERMINATION OF COMMISSIONER.—

   (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of Internal Revenue

        may take a personnel action other than termination for an

        act or omission under subsection (a).

   (2) DISCRETION.—The exercise of authority under paragraph

         (1) shall be at the sole discretion of the Commissioner

        of Internal Revenue and may not be delegated to any other

        officer. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in his sole

        discretion, may establish a procedure which will be used to

        determine whether an individual should be referred to the

        Commissioner of Internal Revenue for a determination by the

        Commissioner under paragraph (1).

   (3) NO APPEAL.—Any determination of the Commissioner

        of Internal Revenue under this subsection may not be appealed

        in any administrative or judicial proceeding.

(d) DEFINITION.—For purposes of the provisions described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iv) of subsection (b)(3)(B), references to a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or an education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance shall include any program or activity conducted by the Internal Revenue Service for a taxpayer.

If you try to prosecute an IRS agent and use any of the above statutes that use the word “taxpayer” as the legal basis for your claim, then you are a Fool with a capital “F”.  You don’t need a statute like the above to sue an IRS agent, and if you cite the above statute, you are indirectly claiming that you are a “taxpayer”…BAD IDEA!  Instead, all you need to do is invoke the equity jurisdiction of any federal court and show that your property rights were invaded and injured.  You can cite as your authority, for instance, the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison, which states:

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.  One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection…”

“it is the general indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit, or action at law, whenever that right is invaded….”

“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.  It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right…” 

“The government of the United States is the latter description.  The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.  To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?  The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation.  It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.”
[Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]

You can also cite other parts of the U.S. codes as your basis, but only when they use the word “person” instead of “taxpayer” when referring to the injured party, which is going to be you.  Here are a few examples of statutes that do not use the word “taxpayer” for the most part, and instead use the word “person”:

·         26 U.S.C. §6304: Fair tax collection practices

·         26 U.S.C. §7214:  Offenses by Officers and Employees of the United States

Likewise, when you are dealing with state taxing authorities, watch your use of the word “this State” or “State of” or “State”.  If you use these terms to describe your residency or yourself, this is tantamount to admitting that you are a resident of the federal zone who has no Constitutional rights!  Here’s the federal definition of “State”:

26 U.S.C.§7701(a)(10) State. -- The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

And here is California’s definition of “State”, right from the California Revenue and Taxation Code:

6017.  “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior [outside] limits of the [Sovereign] state of California and includes [only] all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States

17018.  "State" includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.
[which don’t include the 50 sovereign states but do include federal enclaves  within those states]

You can read the last quote above for yourself at:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=rtc&group=17001-18000&file=17001-17039.1.  Instead of using “State of” or “this State”, you should just use the name of the state, such as “I’m a citizen of California and I live in California” rather than “I’m a citizen of the State of California and I live in the State of California.”

Similar arguments apply to the following important terms:

·         “United States”

·         “employee”

·         “person”

·         “includes”

·         “income”

·         “individual”

·         “trade or business"

We can’t very well tell you to stop using certain words without replacing them with something.  We have therefore prepared a table showing you how you need to modify your language to avoid throwing yourself into a due process trap or creating false presumptions about yourself.  The left column is the word you used to use and the middle column is the replacement word.  The right column of the below table describes why you need to use the substitute word instead of the original word.  The terms in the left column are in alphabetical order:

Table 8-6: Due process word traps to avoid

IMPORTANT!:  Any government form that you see with the above words in the left column, you should replace them with the words in the middle column.  Be sure to read and understand the whole table above before you start filling out government forms, and especially tax or citizenship or voter registration or jury service forms.  We have modified several IRS forms to remove all the presumptions indicated above, and the modified forms appear on our website at the address below:

Don’t let evil and idolatrous and greedy politicians, lawyers, and IRS employees distort and destroy the very meaning of our language with their profane babblings, because:

“When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.” 
[Confucius, circa 500 B.C.]

Instead, God commands us to shun the “profane babblings” of such evil doers in 2 Timothy 2:15-17:

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  But shun profane babblings for they will increase to more ungodliness.  And their message will spread like cancer.”
[2 Timothy 2:15-17, Bible, NKJV]

Knowledge, diligent action, and speaking out against injustice frequently are the only weapons we have against the government and their evil propaganda.  We need to learn to think and communicate with precision, passion, and force if we will ever win this war of words!

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship