Attachment A: Jeffrey- Thomas: Maehr

"Income" vs labor.

26 CFR 39.21-1 (1956).. Meaning of net income. (a) The tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law - (the Constitution), nor expenses incurred in connection therewith, other than interest, enter into the computation of net Income as defined by section 21

26 CFR 39.22(b)-1 Exemption--Exclusions from gross income. Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal government;"

Today's regulations put it this way: CFR ~ 1.61-1 (Current)

Gross income. General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever source derived unless excluded by law.

The case I present is that the "excluded by law" clause refers to constitutional forms of taxation and all other applicable laws as set forth herein.

The IR Code defines income as:

Section 22 GROSS INCOME:

(a): Gross income includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service..."

My gross income is NOT a "gain, profit or income," that is "DERIVED FROM" anything but my labor, which is NOT my "profit." Actual "gross income," as defined in IR Code, and in keeping with case law and Congressional records, is any "profit" that is "derived FROM" my income. Example: I receive $10,000 wage for service or labor provided. This is an equal exchange, with NO material difference in the exchange. My labor or service is equal in value to the income (or other compensation) received. This is NOT taxable under law.

I take this $10,000, and invest it in some way, and receive a "profit" FROM this income I received, as interest, or what is termed "unearned income." I exerted NO personal labor, (which I own,) and received an actual "profit" from the investment. THIS, and ONLY this "unearned income" is possibly taxable, but ONLY according to indirect taxation and to the rule of uniformity across the country, and ONLY according to other personal tax liability defined in IR Code and the issues presented throughout this affidavit. The actual principle amount is NOT diminished in any way, and ONLY the profit "DERIVED FROM" the principle is possibly taxable.

"Income Tax: A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions and trades, and offices." Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary 612 (1910).

Income tax: An 'income tax' is a tax which relates to product or income from property or from business pursuits." Levi v. City of Louisville, 30 S.W. 973, 974, 97 Ky. 394, 28 L.R.A. 480.

"The term 'income tax' includes a tax on the gross receipts of a corporation or business." Parker v. North British Ins. Co. 7 South. 599, 600, 42 La. Ann. 428.

My labor is my property...

"It has been well said, 'The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." Adam Smith's Wealth of nations, Book 1, Chapter 10." Butchers' Union Co. V. Crescent City, CO., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (1883).

It has a value, just as an employer or customer's money has value. I agree to my employer's wage or customer's money for my merchandise, and they agree to the labor or service I will "exchange" FOR that income. The process is an even exchange, (See COTTAGE SAVINGS ASSN v. COMMISSIONER, 499 U.S. 554 (1991) and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915):) materially having NO difference in value, and therefore, there is nothing which is an actual "profit" that can be taxed. My labor cannot be valued LESS THAN the value of the money or wage paid to me for my labor or service, but this is what takes place when my wage is directly or indirectly taxed.

Any exchange of my labor (which is my property) cannot be devalued below the value of the wage I received in order to attempt to show that I received a "profit," and possibly make me "liable" for a tax. My labor is valued EQUAL TO the wage I receive. Neither can the wage I make be counted in its entirety as a "profit," or this makes my labor or service worth nothing. I exchange my labor or service, which I value exactly equal to the income I receive. There is NO material difference between the values for either my labor or service provided, and the income received FOR labor or service.

I have the freedom and right to value my labor at any amount, and can, therefore, accept ANY amount of income as equal value to any labor or service I provide any party. Anything short of this that is taxed is clearly due to slave labor, and is theft by coercion, fraud and conversion, and is clearly unconstitutional and against common law and case law. See Attachment C and Attachment F, and the following case law on "material difference" which clearly proves these facts:

An example of "no material difference" in the exchange of labor for wage, salary or compensation:

John has hundred dollar bills but needs some twenty dollar bills. Mary has twenty dollar bills, but needs some hundred dollar bills. They agree to work for each other because John wants some twenties for his $100 bills, and Mary wants some $100 bills for her twenties. They agree to work for each other for the day. John agrees to give Mary one, one hundred dollar bill for the day, and Mary agrees to give John 5, twenty dollar bills for the day. At the end of the day's work for each other, they pay each other, or, exchange the bills. Question: Which one of them has made a "profit" from the exchange made?

When someone works for a wage or salary, they have agreed to exchange their labor for the money offered by the employer or customer. The person has agreed that their labor is worth whatever the employer or customer is willing to offer, (or is willing to accept the pay even though they value their labor at MORE than what is paid, thereby causing them a "material LOSS"). The process is simply an "exchange" of value, 1 to 1. There is NO "profit" being made by either at the point. The employee has his labor and needs cash, while the employer has cash, and needs labor performed.

If they both are considered to have made a "profit," just from the exchange of labor for money, in what way has this occurred? What "material difference" is there between the one hundred dollar bill, and the 5, twenty dollar bills? What "material difference" is there between the exchange of labor for cash? Are they not equal in value to each other? What "profit" has been made by labor or service provided in exchange for money or service? How has an actual profit occurred unless the actual labor or service is valued at zero value and ALL that was received was profit?

In the same way, EVERY "exchange" of labor or service for compensation, in whatever form, has NO "material difference" between either. To suggest otherwise, is to effectively make all labor and services of NO intrinsic value, and we become slaves through that process.

I request the IRS or any related agency to explain this "material difference" legal issue and how all that one makes as compensation can be valued as "profit" and yet NOT make a person's labor or service of NO value.

Legal and intended Definition of "Income," and law affecting IRS Actions;

Section 22 GROSS INCOME:

(a): Gross income includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service..."

Gross Income Defined: Section 213. That for the purposes of this title (except as otherwise provided in section 233, [Gross Income Of Corporations Defined -PH]) the term gross income-(a) includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, and compensation for personal service (including in the case of the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as such).

Said "gains, profits, and income" are all classified as being "DERIVED FROM" salaries, wages or compensation..." This is in keeping with the original intent of the 16th Amendment and what the so-called "Income" tax was designed for... to tap the unearned income the wealthy had an abundance of:

"It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not "income"... Congress (and therefore the IRS - JTM) may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised... " Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920).

"It has to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." The United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

"Simply put, pay from a job is a 'wage,' and wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation (wages and salaries)." - Conner v. U.S. 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

The original intent of the founders of the Constitution was NOT to tax wages or salaries of the people of the several states. The word "income" had a completely different meaning then, compared to what is presumed to be the meaning today. Not only Supreme Court Case law, but hundreds of Congressional Records of the time (as documented in the book "Constitutional Income: Do you have any?) clearly show what the "income" tax was understood to be:

"The task of interpretation must therefore be to discover what was the meaning common to each of these terms at the time the Constitution was adopted." Francis W. Bird, Constitutional Aspects of the Federal Tax on the Income of Corporations, 24 Harvard Law Review 31, 32 (1911).

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary [meaning] as distinguished from [their] technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731 (1930).

"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. (1943)

"It is not a function of the United States Supreme Court to sit as a super-legislature and create statutory distinctions where none were intended. " American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 US 63, 71 L Ed 2d 748, 102 S Ct. 1534 (1982)

"...income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words "gains" and "profits" is to limit the meaning of the word "income." S. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 F. 330. (1918)

Gains, profits, and income all relate back to one another as being equal, and quite distinct from "wages and salaries." Working for wages or salaries or other compensation to provide for family and livelihood were NOT "income" nor intended to be taxed. Such taxation diminishes the ability to provide for "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and diminshes wealth... diminishes the "principle" and therefore makes one poorer because of it.

"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right,... It has been well said that the propels which every man has in his own labors as it is the original foundation of all other property, (without said property, ((labor or service, which allows the receipt of money FROM which someone may produce "income")), no "wealth or "income" cold be gained - JTM) so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." Butcher Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883):

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are "exchanged" for money or other forms of property:" Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915):

Such property was NOT to be taxes, but the "gains, profits, and income" from such property WAS available to be taxed, but ONLY according to Constitutional law.

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as her does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 74 (1905):

"Privilege" was what "could" be taxed by the "income" tax. Such privilege was NOT the "RIGHT" to work. "Right" and "privilege" are two distinctly different things.

It was not the intention of the American people to tax the wages and salaries of the working man, but ONLY to reach the "gains, profits and unearned income" of the country... something that was fought by big business and the wealthy of the country, and something which most people in the nation did NOT have...

"We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted." Mattox v. U.S. 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895).

"For 1936, taxable income tax returns filed represented only 3.9% of the population."

"The largest portion of consumer incomes in the United States is not subject to income taxation. likewise, only a small proportion of the population of the United States is covered by the income tax." Treasury Department's Division of Tax Research publication, 'Collection at Source of the Individual Normal Income Tax,' 1941."

Are we to believe that only 3.9% of the entire population of America worked for a living, making wages and salaries in 1936? Despite the incorrect definition for the word "income," the Treasury Department clearly shows how "incomes," while mis-defined, also shows that wages and salaries (what they believed to be income) were not yet the focus of "income" taxes.

Constitutional income" means what We the People say it Means. Any word or term used in the Constitution has the meaning the People intended that word or term to mean at the time the Constitution was ratified. Or, in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, we use the words therein as the American People understood them to mean at the time the amendment was (supposedly) ratified by the several States. To understand what the meaning of the word "income" is, we must examine the history of income taxes in America prior to the "ratification" of the 16th Amendment.

"It has to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." The United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

"Income" as the framers and people of America understood it, was not "all that comes in"... (S. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 F. 330. (1918)) but was, as The United States Supreme Court, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), above, states it, was "gains and profits DERIVED FROM salaries, wages, etc." In other words, wages were NOT income, but interest FROM wages sitting in a bank, or rent received FROM property, or interest FROM a loan to another WAS "INCOME"... but was STILL subject to Constitutional law in HOW that "income" is taxed.

"All are agreed that an income tax is a "direct tax" on gain or profits..." Bank of America National T. & Sav. Ass'n. V United States, 459 F.2d 513, 517 (Ct.Cl 1972).

"Simply put, pay from a job is a 'wage,' and wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation (wages and salaries)." - Conner v. U.S. 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

Sec. 30 Judicial Definitions of income. By the rule of construction, noscitur a sociis, however, the words in this statute must be construed in connection with those to which it is joined, namely, gains and profits; and it is evidently the intention, as a general rule, to tax only the profit of the taxpayer, not his whole revenue." Roger Foster, A treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913, 142.

Mr. Heflin. "An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share." 45 Congressional Record. 4420 (1909)

Mr. Heflin. "But sir, when you tax a man on his income, it is because his property is productive., He pays out of his abundance because he has got the abundance." 45 Congressional Record. 4423 (1909)

INCOME TAX: A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices." Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary 612 (1910).

INCOME TAX: An 'income tax' is a tax which relates to product or income from property or from business pursuits. Levi v. City of Louisville, 30 S.W. 973, 974, 97 Ky. 394, 28 L.R.A. 480.

"There can be no tax upon a man's right to live and earn his bread by the sweat of his brow." O'Connell v. State Bd. of Equalization, 25 P.2d 114, 125 (Mont. 1933).

"So that, perhaps, the true question is this: is income property, in the sense of the constitution, and must it be taxed at the same rate as other property? The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the ' fruit. The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed...and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat... it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit. (Income)" Waring v. Citv of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.

The point being made is that the tree (Wages, salaries, compensation) is NOT taxable, while the "fruit" (income derived FROM) of the tree CAN be, but must be Constitutionally applied.

"The poor man or the man in moderate circumstances does not regard his wages or salary as an income that would have to pay its proportionate tax under this new system." Gov. A.E. Wilson on the Income Tax (16th) Amendment, N.Y. Times, Part 5, Page 13, February 26, 1911.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation".
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. V. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purpose of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Stratton's' Independence v. Howbeit, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. V. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

"... the Corporation Tax, as imposed by Congress in the Tariff Act of 1909 , is not a direct tax but an excise; it does not fall within the apportionment clause of the Constitution; but is within, and complies with, the provision for uniformity throughout the United States; it is an excise on the privilege of doing business in the corporate capacity..." Flint v. Stone Tracey Company, 220 U.S. 107, 108 (1911).

By this decision, the Court stated that it would accept only one definition of "income" [under the 16th Amendment] and that any tax law that Congress wanted to pass under the authority of the 16th Amendment would have to use just that one definition of "income" - and that definition was the one Congress used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act! In short, the Court was telling Congress that since the 16th Amendment was a part of the Constitution [the non-ratification issue had not yet been raised] its meaning must be fixed and permanent, and since Congress could not be trusted to stick to one single definition, the Court was giving Congress one single definition with which to work if it wished its income tax acts to pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Court.

"[Income is] derived--from--capital--the--gain--derived--from--capitol, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capitol, not growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value...severed from capitol however invested or employed and coming in, being "derived,"that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal--that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description...." [emphasis in original]

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

"...I therefore recommend an amendment imposing on all corporations an excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity" President Taft, Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344

"The word 'income' as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states..." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

While a "cash dividend" represents profit to the shareholder, and is thus "income" under the 16th Amendment, a "stock dividend" is not profit that has been "severed from capital" as is required to meet the definition of income under the 16th Amendment (ibid, Eisner). The Eisner quote featured above clearly illustrates that the apportionment clause of the Constitution is alive and well and has not been repealed or substantially altered by the 16th Amendment.

"[The Pollock court] recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct tax was adapted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard the form and consider the substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation of apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply." Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916)

What the Brushaber court is saying is that any income tax, which has been structured as an excise tax, but is enforced in such a way as to effectively convert the tax to a direct tax, would cause the court to declare it unconstitutional due to lack of apportionment. What type of enforcement might effectively convert an excise tax to a direct tax? Once the demand for the tax money is unavoidable, and I can no longer avoid the demand and/or the collection of the tax, even when I have not engaged in any excise taxable activity, that is when the Executive Branch's enforcement of the tax has converted the tax, in substance, from an excise into a direct tax.

The 16th Amendment only pertains to "income" in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment. The 16th Amendment tax is upon the privilege (to shareholders) of operating a business as an artificial entity. The 16th Amendment tax is not upon "income"; the income is only the yardstick used to determine the value of the privilege, and hence the amount of tax to be paid.

The 16th Amendment overturned the Pollock Decision by way of a constitutional amendment allowing income taxes on net income from real estate and personal property to be levied according to the rule of uniformity instead of the rule of apportionment.

"Indeed, in light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the (16th) Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away from the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided." Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 18 (1916).

More Case law:

"The privilege of giving or withholding our money is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights, and how important would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator." Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775, Papers 1:225.

" If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." Continental Congress To The Inhabitants Of The Province Of Quebec. Journals of the Continental Congress. 1774 -1789. Journals 1: 105-13.

"Although the [enforcement] power provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are to be liberally construed, a court must be careful to insure that its construction will not result in a use of the power beyond that permitted by law." United States v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 488 F.2d 953 at 958 (5th Cir. 1974).

"Under the facts and the law, the Court should satisfy itself, via sworn testimony of the Defendant, that the IRS is not acting arbitrarily and capriciously, and that there was a plausible reason for believing fraud is being practiced on the revenue. The Court is free to act in a judicial capacity, free to disagree with the administrative enforcement actions if a substantial question is raised or the minimum standard is not met. The District Court reserves the right to prevent the "arbitrary" exercise of administrative power, by nipping it in the bud." United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 654.

"The IRS at all times must use the enforcement authority in good-faith pursuit of the authorized purposes of Code." U.S. v. La Salle N.B., 437 U.S. 298 (1978).

"A statute must be set out in terms that the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with, without sacrifice to the public interest." See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 159, 40 L. Ed. 2d 15, 94 S. Ct. 1633 (1974) (quoting United States Civil Serv. Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 579, 37 L. Ed. 2d 796, 93 S. Ct. 2880 (1973).

How do the "People" judge the actions of the IRS and related agencies, in light of these case rulings? Where does the Federal Government have jurisdiction and to whom do the "People" owe allegiance?

" The income tax system is based upon voluntary compliance, not distraint." United States Supreme Court, Flora v. United States, 362 US 145.

Voluntary: 1 a: proceeding from one's own free choice or consent rather than as the result of duress, coercion, or deception b: not compelled by law: done as a matter of choice or agreement

Distraint: The seizure and holding of property as security for payment of a debt or satisfaction of a claim.

"The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system-- Jerome Kurtz, IRS Commissioner,

"Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance." Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner

"Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns..."Johnnie Walters, IRS Commissioner.

"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply," Testimony of Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, before the House Ways and Means committee on Restructuring the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953).

Voluntary compliance can only respond to a request or as a choice. It cannot and does not respond to a requirement. The word "voluntary," which connotes an agreement, implies willingness, volition, and intent. It suggests a freedom of choice and refers to the doing of something which a person is free to do or not to do, as he so decides.

"In its legal aspect, and as commonly used in law, the word 'voluntary' is defined as meaning gratuitous; without valuable consideration; acting, or done, of one's own free will without valuable consideration, acting, or done, without any present legal obligation to do the thing done." Corpus Juris Secundum (C..J.S. 92: 1029, 1030, 1031)

I could voluntarily and willingly file a 1040 and pay taxes according to IRS schedules to contribute to government expenses CONTRARY to constitutional authority. I could ALSO voluntarily enter into a taxable activity, such as a corporation, where excise taxes are required. I "voluntarily" can enter into this taxable activity and make myself potentially liable for income taxes. I choose to do neither.

Since the "income" tax is "voluntary,"how can the IRS or other government agencies force payment, especially without due process of law? How can it be made a "law" which all Americans are forced to comply with?

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to super cede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution - JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

(See Attachment F).

The Constitution and case law is clear; Most Americans are NOT liable to pay "income" taxes, and are free to ignore all their unconstitutional activities and claims.

I present this as further evidence of crimes being committed on a daily basis, and require responsible parties to act on this criminal knowledge by commencing a Grand Jury to publically investigate this or be personally liable.

Jeffrey- Thomas: Maehr, Copyright (C) 2006, All rights reserved.