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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Send this article to your friends
to help fund our work