SOLDIERS READING ROOM!


 

FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS

It is easily recognized that the list of frivolous tax arguments published by the IRS is endless confirmation of various defendants' attempts to prove the basis of what they believe is the grounds for liability of an income tax.

The various defendants attempt to carry the burden of proof as to the imposition of the tax, and then to prove it is inapplicable. It is an impossible undertaking. The courts will require that any defendant making such an effort must prove there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the income tax MIGHT be valid. It cannot be done.

Even the historic case of Springer found the defendant, a lawyer, attempting to prove the income tax of the 1860's was a direct tax. The burden of proof did Mr. Springer in; the government did not have to prove a thing.

It is irrelevant what the IRS declares in publications or what is written in the regulations and manuals. The only place were coercive force can be imposed upon a citizen is via a court, and the court pleadings (including indictments/ informations for criminal proceedings for this writing) are the beginning of any potential incarceration or confiscation of property. Only questions raised in
the pleadings are questions that must be adjudicated by the court.

Due Process has established the burden of proof for a valid tax is upon the government and has been since the Magna Carta. If that burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to disprove the validity of a tax liability, the defendant cannot win. Yet this shift has endlessly occurred over the past 50 years.

The Constitution for the United States grants jurisdiction to the federal courts for "cases and controversies." Controversies are specifically delineated in the Constitution and are irrelevant to this discussion. Criminal pleadings that do not identify a putative violation of a statutory legal duty have been repeatedly declared by the Supreme court to not constitute a case. Jurisdiction therefore does not attach. Thornhill v Alabama, 310 US 88, 96; US v Adesida, 129 F3d 846, 850 (6th. Cir 1997); US v Armstrong, 951 F2d 626, 628 (5th cir. 1992); US v Hughey, 147 F3d 423, 436 (5th. Cir 1998); US v Dabbs, 134 F3d 1071 (11th.Cir. 1998); Thor v US, 554 F2d 759, 762 (5th. Cir 1977).

Criminal proceedings for income tax cases rely upon citations of IRC 7201 through IRC 7215 (Chapter 75). The Supreme court, citing the Congressional Record as authoritative, has declared Chapter 75 provisions apply to ALL taxes collected by the IRS. Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, 348. In addition, a list of 100 cases wherein Chapter 75 has been utilized to impose penalties on defendants in other than income tax cases is available. Chapter 75 therefore cannot identify a statutory legal duty for an income tax. The indictments/ informations are legally invalid. Stirone v US, 361 US 212, 217; Dunn v US, 442 US 100, 106-107.

Appellate review of income tax indictments have ruled that IRC 6012 or other statutes do not need to be identified after Chapter 75 has been cited. The ssence of their position is that the lack of the proper citation does not prejudice the defendant. Their logic is flawed. In the alternative, the practice is a blatant claim by the appellate court that a substantive issue in an indictment can be modified or supplied by a court to justify a conviction. The courts cannot do that.

"Prejudice" is an applicable standard where a statute in the indictment differs from the crime proven. The Supreme court has never accepted such a position where NO statute has been cited that imposes liability. A claim of prejudice when NO criminal statute has been cited is a non-sequitur. Harris v US, 149 F3d 1304, 1308; Kelly v US, 29 F3d 1107, 1113-1114; Patton v US, 281 US 276, 292.

FRCrP 7(c)(3) appears to condone an indictment that does not identify a statutory provision claimed to be violated. If valid, this provision would extend jurisdiction to filings that do not fulfill Supreme court standards for a "case." Procedural rules cannot be used to extend jurisdiction specifically restricted by the Constitution. Further, the two cases relied upon as supporting the procedural change, US v Hutcheson and Williams v US, adjudicate cases involving a wrong statute being cited in an indictment. They do not support an indictment with NO citation of statutory duty. "Deprivation of such a basic right (to be tried only on charges presented in an indictment) is far too serious to be treated as nothing more than a variance and then dismissed as harmless error." US v Miller, 471 US 130, 140 (1985).

Larry Becraft, with all due respect for his professional acumen, is quick to rely upon US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669 as judicial conformance with due process. His confidence that the judicial system would not misrepresent case law to perpetuate the income tax is poorly placed. The Vroman court, along with other appellate courts, have relied upon the Supreme court adjudication of Hamling v US, 418 US 87 as supporting an indictment without an identified statutory duty. Hamling does not support that conclusion. The appellate courts are corrupting the words of the Supreme court. There will be no justice until this breach of consistency is emphatically presented to the courts, and I see no members of the bar that want to lead the crusade. In fact, I see total intimidation by the Bar association.

Reliance by the Vroman court upon the Hamling adjudication included a discussion that mere "elements" of an offense is sufficient for a valid indictment. The concept is inane and is not supported by Supreme court adjudication.

Elements are the components (facts) that must be conclusively evidenced at trial to prove a violation of an alleged offense. If there is no offense alleged, evidencing all of the facts in the world does not prove a thing. An offense cannot be proven if an offense has not been identified. Until an offense has been alleged, it is impossible to know what elements must be proven.

Is the income tax imposed upon a corporate privilege ??? Or upon the status of an alien ??? Or upon the status of a government employee ??? Is it perhaps an exercise of territorial jurisdiction under Article IV ??? Or from section 861 ?? Or based upon the SSN ??? Or upon having a checking account ??? Or some other premise ?? If so, these potential conditions of liability must be alleged and submitted to contestation with the burden of proof upon the government to comply with the mandate of Due Process.

Until the United States, and the IRS, is required to allege and CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF of the validity of a statute that imposes an income tax, as mandated by Due Process, there can be no substantive challenge to its imposition---AND THE GOVERNMENT IS WELL AWARE OF THIS. THE ABSENCE IS A DELIBERATE STRATEGY. The absence of an alleged liability statute in an indictment is not an accidental oversight. The statutory phrase imposing an income tax on "all individuals" was removed in the 1954 rewriting of the tax code, Section one. The tax code is not positive law. Are the courts enforcing a Statute at Large from prior to 1939 that may still exist imposing a tax on "all individuals"?? Without exposing the statute to contestation ?? Continued attempts by defendants to prove the tax does not apply to them will merely be appended to the list of Frivolous Tax Arguments and featured on Quatloos.

Reb

Send this article to your friends         Donate to help fund our work

HAVE A QUESTION?

Click here and I'll answer the best I can.