THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ

[Last updated: 4/10/2001]

Table of Contents

• Introduction
  • What is the purpose of this FAQ?
• Constitutional Fallacies
  • The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a "direct tax" that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
  • The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens, because that would be a "direct tax" prohibited by the Constitution.
  • The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a "direct tax" that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.
  • Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.
  • Wages cannot be taxed because the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
  • Income cannot be taxed unless the source of the income is first determined.
  • The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any provision of Article I of the Constitution.
  • The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.
  • The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
  • The 16th Amendment is ineffective because the word "income" is not defined.
  • The income tax cannot apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia, the territories of the United States, and the forts and military bases of the United States, because the federal government has no jurisdiction outside of those "federal areas."
  • The income tax cannot apply to natural-born "sovereign state citizens" because they are not "citizens" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
  • The federal income tax cannot apply to wages, because forcing people to share the fruits of their labors would be the same as slavery or "involuntary servitude" prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
  • The federal income tax amounts to a deprivation of property without due process and without just compensation, which is contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.
  • Withholding of income tax from wages, and the assessment and collection of income taxes without any court order, is a deprivation of property without due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
  • You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
  • The IRS cannot require anyone to file an income tax return because that would be a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not "income" because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money ("coins in gold or silver") within the meaning of the Constitution.
  • The establishment of a "Pure Trust" can protect income and earnings from income tax, because a trust is a form of contract and is therefore protected from impairment by the contract clause to the Constitution.
• Statutory Fallacies
  • The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income."
  • The Internal Revenue Code cannot define "income" because it is a term used in the Constitution and Congress cannot modify the Constitution by statute.
  • Wages are not income.
  • Wages are not "income" because wages represent an equal exchange of labor (a form of "property") for money (another form of property), so there is no gain and no income.
  • Wages are not income, but only a "source" of income (Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code lists only sources of income), so wages are not taxable.
  • Wages paid within the United States are not a "source" of income defined by section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, and so are not taxable.
  • The income tax does not apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia and territories of the United States because the way "United States" is defined in the Internal Revenue Code does not include the states of the United States.
  • Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax.
  • Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code requires an ordinary citizen to file a return.
  • The income tax is voluntary.
  • The income tax applies only to people exercising "privileges" or engaged in "revenue taxable activities" such as the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
  • The income tax applies only to corporations.
  • The income tax applies only to government employees.
• Procedural Fallacies
  • The Internal Revenue Service has never adopted any regulations imposing any income tax. Furthermore, failing to file a tax return is not a crime because the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code have never been implemented by regulations.
  • The Internal Revenue Code is not a law.
  • The Office of Management and Budget does not require any form for the income tax imposed by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, and identifies section 1 of the Code as applying only to nonresident aliens.
  • The Internal Revenue Code does not require any payment of tax by individuals, and the Internal Revenue Service has admitted this by failing to include any reference to section 1 or section 6012 in the Privacy Act Statement included in Form 1040.
  • The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the federal government, but a private corporation incorporated in Delaware (or, alternatively, an agency of the government of Puerto Rico).
  • The tax laws only apply to "taxpayers" and you are not required to file returns or pay taxes if you are not a "taxpayer."
  • I have revoked my consent to be a taxpayer.
  • I have a letter from the IRS saying that I am not required to file an income tax return.
  • I am not required to file a tax return because I wrote a letter to the IRS demanding to know where in the Internal Revenue Code it says I am required to file and the IRS has failed to respond.
  • The tax laws cannot be enforced against citizens in federal courts, because federal courts are "admiralty" or "maritime" courts.
• Paranoid Delusions
  • There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as John Cheek, Lloyd Long, and Gail Sanocki.
  • There are many lawyers and well-educated people who believe that tax protester positions are valid and have been successful in arguing tax protester cases. People like Lowell H. Becraft, Irwin Schiff, etc.
  • There are lots of court decisions favorable to tax protesters, but the judges always seal the transcripts, suppress the opinions, or issue "gag orders" against the parties so that the opinions are never published.
  • The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by ignorant, corrupt judges who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because their salaries are paid by the income tax and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
  • The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by judges who are afraid of being audited by the IRS and so are afraid to rule against the IRS.
  • The IRS always wins against tax protesters because the IRS only litigates cases against ignorant, ill-prepared defendants it knows it can beat, and it always settles cases against the smart defendants who know how to beat the IRS.
  • The taxpayers who have challenged the tax system and lost all lost because they argued their cases badly.
  • Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong? Couldn't the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?
• More About Tax Protesters
  • What penalties can be imposed on tax protesters?
  • Why do tax protesters keeping violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
  • A "tax protester" is only someone classified as a "tax protester" by the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the IRS definition of "tax protester."
  • The federal income tax is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional because [________________]?

The Tax Protester FAQ

Introduction

What is the purpose of this FAQ?

The purpose of this FAQ is to provide concise, authoritative rebuttals to nonsense about the U.S. tax system that is frequently posted in misc.taxes, and on web sites scattered throughout the Internet, by a variety of fanatics, idiots, and dupes, frequently referred to by the courts as "tax protesters".

This "FAQ" is therefore not a collection of frequently asked questions, but a collection of frequently made assertions, together with an explanation of why each assertion is false.

And the assertions addressed in this FAQ are not merely false, but completely ridiculous, requiring not just ignorance of law and history, but a suspension of logic and reason.

In this FAQ, you will read many decisions of judges who refer to the views of tax protesters as "frivolous," "ridiculous," "absurd," "preposterous," or "gibberish." If you don't read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument "frivolous" or "ridiculous." Perhaps an analogy will help the attitude of judges.

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time. That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for "absurd."

The frustration of judges is well described in the following opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal raising some of the ridiculous constitutional claims described in this FAQ:

"We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always--or often--frivolous. However we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and leglistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1418 (5th Cir. 1984).

The court not only ruled against Crain, but imposed a damage award against him (essentially a fine) of $2,000 for bringing a frivolous appeal. Id at 1418.

So, when a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side.. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.

This FAQ addresses only assertions that are frivolous, and only questions of law, not politics or economics. It is not the purpose of this FAQ to criticize any opinion, or stifle any debate, about the proper scope or operation of the federal tax system. For example, claims that the federal income tax is unfair, morally equivalent to theft, or bad economic policy are all matters of opinion, not law, and are outside the scope of this FAQ. However, a claim that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, unenforceable, or inapplicable is an assertion of law and is within the scope of this FAQ.

Finally, it should be noted that this FAQ does not include all of the decisions of all the federal courts that have been forced to deal with tax protesters and tax protester arguments, but includes mainly published decisions of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of Appeal that have most clearly refuted these tax protester claims. A few District Court and Tax Court decisions have been included to fill some gaps, as well as a few unpublished Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, but hundreds of published decisions of the Tax Court and District Courts have not been included, as well as many published and unpublished decisions of the Courts of Appeals.

[Return to Table of Contents]

Constitutional Fallacies

The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a "direct tax" that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

False. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, clearly states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the constitutionality of an income tax was determined under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Exactly what the framers of the Constitution meant by "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" is a little unclear. The concern seems to have been about a form of "capitation" (or "per person") tax imposed in England before the Revolution under which taxes were imposed on each citizen based on the value of the land owned by the citizen. The wealthy southern states of the new United States, with large plantations owned by relatively few people, may have been concerned about the imposition of a tax on the value of land and so sought an assurance that all "capitation" taxes would be allocated among the states in proportionate to their populations, not their wealth.

The U.S. Supreme Court adopted this narrow view of "Capitation, or other direct, Tax," when it decided the case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Four separate opinions were written by the justices who heard the case (separate opinions were the common practice of that day), and all four justices agreed that "direct tax" was limited to a tax on the value of land (and slaves, who were considered to be part of the land).

The precise question of whether an income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

Hylton and Springer were limited (or "distinguished") in 1894, when the Supreme Court decided to re-examine the question of whether an income tax was a "direct tax." In the first Pollock decision, a narrow majority of the court (5 of the 9 justices) began with the premise that a tax on the income from property is the same as a tax on the value of the property itself, a premise completely inconsistent with every other Supreme Court decision before or since. The Court then concluded that a tax on rents received from real property was a "direct tax" and unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). On rehearing, the same five justices decided that a tax on dividends, interest, and other income from personal property (property other than land) was also a "direct tax" and so unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

The Pollock court was very clear that it was only a tax on the incomes from property that was a "direct tax," and other forms of income could be taxed without apportionment. This was confirmed by the court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). (See below for a more detailed discussion of the taxation of the income from labor.)

After the Pollock decisions, and before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court also held that a corporate income tax was constitutional if it was based on the income from the manufacture and sale of goods, even though real and personal property were used to manufacture the goods. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

Because of the Pollock decisions, Congress was limited in its ability to impose a tax on incomes, because it was necessary to determine the source of the income. Wages, salaries, and other earned incomes could be taxed, and income from manufacturing and other business activities could be taxed, but rents, interest, dividends, and other incomes from property could not be taxed without apportionment (a very awkward process). The 16th Amendment was therefore proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states, so that Congress could tax incomes "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In claiming that Congress cannot tax incomes, tax protesters ignore both the plain language of the 16th Amendment and the fact that Congress could tax wages and other income from employment even before the adoption of 16th Amendment, based on the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court in Springer and both the majority and dissenting opinions in Pollock.

As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals ("free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law `de jure' citizens of a state, etc.") are not "persons" subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue code; (2) the authority of the United States is confined to the District of Columbia; (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895), is authority for that and other arguments against the government's power to impose income taxes on individuals; (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations; (5) wages are not income; (6) the income tax is voluntary; (7) no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals; (8) the term "income" as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite; (9) individuals are not required to file tax returns fully reporting their income; and (10) the Anti-Injunction Act is invalid." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

[Return to Table of Contents]

The income tax cannot apply to individual citizens, because that would be a "direct tax" prohibited by the Constitution.

False. Although the meaning of "direct tax" is a little unclear, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens.

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use. Of the four justices who heard the case, three were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.

Since the Hylton decision, no judge in the United States has ever suggested that the federal government cannot impose a tax on individual citizens.

"It is generally agreed that Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax the income of individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement that such taxes be apportioned among the states." In re: Michael Fleming, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000).

"Congress may impose taxes on individuals in the states without apportionment among the several States, and 'without regard to any census or enumeration,' and 'on incomes, from whatever source derived.'" Secora v. United States, 1997 WL 460162, at 6 (U.S.D.C. Neb.).

As recently as 1991, the Supreme Court referred to arguments that the federal income tax was unconstitutional as "surely frivolous." Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

The mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected directly from the person on whom it is imposed, while "indirect" taxes such as "Duties, Imposts and Excises" are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer). However, this is not the meaning of "direct" and "indirect" that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution divides all taxes into two groups. One is any "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" (usually referred to as "direct taxes") and the other is "Duties, Imposts and Excises" (usually referred to as "indirect taxes"). The difference between the two is that "direct taxes" must be apportioned among the states based on the census of the population, while "indirect taxes" need only be uniform throughout the U.S.

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), all four Supreme Court justices who heard the case agreed that the meaning of "direct tax" was limited to a tax on the value of land (and slaves, who were considered to be part of the land).

This principle was expanded by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), to apply to taxes on the value of personal property (property other than land) as well as taxes on the value of land, but the Supreme Court has been consistent in holding that any tax on a transfer or other transaction, whether a sale, gift, or inheritance, is an "indirect tax," even though the tax is measured by the value of the property transferred (or the amount of the income). See, for example, Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880); Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (); and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

So, a "direct" tax is a tax on the ownership of property, while an "indirect" tax is a tax on a transaction or transfer of money or property.

And these interpretations are consistent with the meaning of "direct taxes" in the Federalist Papers, which show that "direct taxes" were taxes on wealth (i.e., the value of property), while "indirect taxes" were taxes on commerce.

For example, in Federalist #12, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. . . .
"No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description."

And, in Federalist #21, Alexander Hamiton wrote:

"Impositions of this kind [taxes on articles of consumption] usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment."

And, in Federalist #54, Hamilton or Madison wrote:

" It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the appointment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection. In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. ..." (Emphasis added.)

Each of these quotations is consistent in their understanding that a "direct tax" is a tax on wealth (primarily land), while taxes on consumption, trade, or commerce are "indirect taxes." This is consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court in Hylton, Springer, and even Pollock.

Unfortunately, the majority opinion in one of the Pollock decisions introduced some confusion about the meaning of "direct tax" and "indirect tax" through the following statement:

"The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895).

There are several problems with the meaning of "indirect taxes" as "all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else" and "direct taxes" as taxes "the payment of which cannot be avoided":

• There is no support for those meanings in the words of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any writings of the authors of the Constitution. As noted above, both the Federalist Papers and the opinions of the justices in the Hylton decision who were members of the Constitutional Convention support the conclusion that a "direct tax" is a tax on the value of property.

• There is no support for those definitions in any previous (or later) decision of the Supreme Court.

• The court admits, in the very next sentence, that "the constitution may bear a different meaning." As explained previously, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a tax on incomes is not a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution. The Pollock court itself held that a tax on incomes from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations," is not a "direct tax" without ever discussing whether the tax was one "the payment of which cannot be avoided." (158 U.S. at 637.) The above definition of "direct tax" is therefore inconsistent with the decisions of the justices who wrote the the definition.

The meaning of "direct tax" urged by many tax protesters (and a few mistaken legal commentators) as a "tax imposed directly on someone who cannot shift the burden to someone else" would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of "direct tax" to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a "direct tax" according to the tax protester definition, but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an "indirect tax" and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax). The meaning of "direct tax" that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than how the tax is collected.

In any event, this is all academic, because the 16th Amendment plainly states that Congress can impose taxes on incomes without apportionment, so it is constitutional to require individuals to pay a tax directly on their incomes, regardless of what the Constitution previously said.

And the federal courts have consistently refuted the argument that an income tax is a "direct tax" because it is collected directly from taxpayers:

"[Becraft's] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ... We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens." In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989).

"[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)" United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895), is authority for that and other arguments against the government's power to impose income taxes on individuals.. .." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

A final note:

That some courts refer to the income tax as a "non-apportioned direct tax," is unfortunate, because it suggests that the income tax is a "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" that does not need to be apportioned, a suggestion that was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber. As explained above, a "direct tax" must be apportioned, while an "indirect tax" must be uniform. The question was raised in Brushaber as to whether the 16th Amendment created a type of tax that need be neither apportioned nor uniform, and the court rejected that possibility, stating (in a rather convoluted sentence):

"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

The court then went on to hold that the income tax satisfied the requirement of geographical uniformity imposed by the Constitution, even though the rate of tax was not uniform on all incomes.

Did the court in Becraft, quoted above, mean to say that the income tax is a "non-apportioned direct tax" that need not be uniform? No, because the question of uniformity was not raised with the court. This is merely confusion in terminology, the court using the word "direct" to describe a tax that is collected directly.

[Return to Table of Contents]

The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a "direct tax" that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.

False. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that wages or income from labor cannot be taxed, or that a tax on wages or income from labor is a "direct" tax. And it has been the consistent opinion of the Supreme Court beginning with Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), and continuing with Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), that the phrase "direct tax" only applies to a tax on the value of property.

The majority opinion in the Pollock decision states that, if only the tax on interest, rents, dividends, and other income from property were ruled unconstitutional, "this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor." 158 U.S. at 637. The majority opinion therefore held that the entire tax act was unconstitutional, even though Congress had the right to impose a non-apportioned tax on the income from employment. (The minority opinion in Pollock believed that the entire tax was constitutional, and so did not need to distinguish between income from property and income from employment.)

That a tax on wages and other compensation for labor would have been constitutional even before the adoption of the 16th Amendment was confirmed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Brushaber, in which the court stated:

"Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations,' (158 U.S. 637), its validity was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

As recently as 1991, the Supreme Court referred to arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, and that the federal income tax was unconstitutional, as "surely frivolous." Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

In the history of the United States, not a single judge has ever expressed an opinion suggesting that a tax on income from employment was a "direct tax" that must be apportioned. Not one. Never.

And even if a tax on wages might have once been considered to be a "direct tax" that must be apportioned, the 16th Amendment plainly states that Congress can tax incomes, and wages are a form of income.

[Return to Table of Contents]

Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.

It is difficult to understand how you can claim a property right in something you haven't done yet. If your labor were "property" like other property, you could sell it and then sit back and do nothing. However, if you "sell" your labor and are paid for it, you still have to work to earn it.

Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property, the conclusion is still wrong because the Internal Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).

If you go into your back yard and work for a week taking clay and making pots, there is no income and no tax. However, if you sell your pots, you have income because you have more money at the end of the week than you had at the beginning of the week. Similarly, if you "sell your labor" by agreeing to work in someone else's factory (or farm) for a week, you have sold your labor and the compensation you realize is taxable.

As a general proposition, it is correct that Congress cannot tax the value of property directly, but can only tax exchanges or transfers of property. For example, the federal estate tax is clearly a tax on the value of property, and yet it has been held to be constitutional as an excise tax on the transfer of the property at death. Knowlton v. Moore. Similarly, Congress cannot tax the value of real property, but can tax sales or transfers of real property. So the income tax is a tax on the receipt of income, and the sale of labor is a transaction that allows the constitutional imposition of a tax.

Of course, every court that has been forced to rule on this issue has ruled against the tax protester raising it.

"Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned." Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer).

"It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is constitutional." Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985).

[Return to Table of Contents]

Wages cannot be taxed because the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be taxed and the right to work is a fundamental right reserved to the citizens of the United States by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

This is wrong on every count, and has been expressly refuted by the Supreme Court:

"But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right." Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

[Return to Table of Contents]

Income cannot be taxed unless the source of the income is first determined.

This argument turns the 16th Amendment on its head, making the determination of sources of income a requirement instead of an irrelevancy, and also twists and distorts the meaning of "whatever source."

The 16th Amendment was proposed and ratified in order to eliminate the distinction between income from property and income from labor that had been created by the decisions in Pollock. As the Supreme Court noted in the Brushaber decision:

"[T]he command of the Amendment [is] that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived ...." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Demanding that the source of the income be identified before the income can be taxed is therefore contrary to the whole purpose of the 16th Amendment. And, although the issue before the court was statutory, and not constitutional, it is still noteworthy that the Supreme Court approved the imposition of the income tax on "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion," with no restriction as to "source," in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

The argument that the constitution requires that all taxable income have a "source" also ignores the word "whatever" in the phrase "from whatever source derived" which appears in both the 16th Amendment and section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. The word "whatever" has been defined as meaning "of any number or kind,quot; or "of any kind at all." If income can be taxed from "any kind of" source, then there is no need to identify the source before taxing the income.

Only a few court decisions have been found that mention this exact argument:

"According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. ... [T]he Sixteenth Amendment is broad enough to grant Congress the power to collect an income tax regardless of the source of the taxpayer's income." United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).

"[A]ppellant suggests that before an 'item' of income may be considered, the particular 'source' of the 'item' must be identified. ... He is wrong. By the terms of both the Sixteenth Amendment and section 61(a), 'source' is not to be a limitation on taxable income. Rather, income is to be taxed regardless of its source." Angstadt v. Internal Revenue Service, 84 AFTR2d ¸99-5455, 1999 WL 820866, at 2 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 1999).

It is also well established that the Internal Revenue Service can assess an income tax deficiency against a taxpayer on the basis of an increase in net worth, the increase in net worth being evidence of income received by the taxpayer. In many cases it may be impossible for the IRS to ascertain the source of the unreported income, but the determination of the source is not always necessary. When the IRS uses the net worth method to determine whether a taxpayer has underreported income, the IRS must either (1) establish a likely source of unreported taxable income or (2) conduct a reasonable investigation of leads negating possible sources of nontaxable income. United States v. Massei, 355 U.S. 595 (1958); Mazoli v. Commissioner, 904 F.2d 101 (1st Cir. 1990), aff'g T.C. Memo 1989-94 and T.C. Memo. 1988-299; DiLeo v. Commissioner, 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992), aff'g 96 T.C. 858 (1991); Goe v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 851 (3rd Cir. 1952), cert. den. 344 U.S. 897 (1952); Armes v. Commissioner, 448 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1971), aff'g in part and rev'g in part T.C. Memo. 1969-181; Smith v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1049 (1988) aff'd 926 F.2d 1470 (6th Cir. 1991); Kramer v. Commissioner, 389 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1968), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1966-234. It has therefore been held that deposits in a taxpayer's bank account are prima facie evidence of income, and the taxpayer bears the burden of showing that the deposits were not taxable income. See Calhoun v. United States, 591 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1978); and Welch v. Commissioner, 204 F.3d 1228, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2961, 2000-1 U.S. Tax Cas. Par. 50,258, 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-497 (9th Cir. 3/1/2000), aff'g T.C. Memo 1998-121.

[Return to Table of Contents]

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because it does not expressly repeal any provision of Article I of the Constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that an amendment must specifically repeal another provision of the Constitution. In fact, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution, and only one of the specifically repeals an earlier provision. (The 21st Amendment, when ended Prohibition, specifically repeals the 18th Amendment, which started Prohibition.)

If this argument were correct, then the losing presidential candidate would be the vice-president of the United States, because the 12th Amendment did not expressly repeal Article II, Section 1, clause 3 of the Constitution.

The claim that the 16th Amendment should have been worded differently, to redefine what was meant by "direct tax," was actually addressed by the Supreme Court in Brushaber, and the court concluded that the way the 16th Amendment was written was absolutely right.

[Return to Table of Contents]

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.

This statement is taken from language in the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions and, unlike most other tax protester nonsense, it is actually true. The problem is not that the statement is false, but that it doesn't mean what tax protesters think it means and it doesn't lead to the conclusion that tax protesters want to reach.

Tax protesters believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because, as explained above, it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations. By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax protesters can conclude that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous because it means that the 16th Amendment does not mean what it says. The amendment plainly states that "The Congress shall have the power to tax incomes" and tax protesters nevertheless try to claim that Congress does not have the power to tax incomes.

It is also ridiculous because it would mean that Congress proposed a constitutional amendment, and the states ratified a constitutional amendment, that changed nothing and has no meaning.

To understand the statement of the Supreme Court when it said that the 16th Amendment created "no new power," you have to understand the context in which it was made. One of the claims made by the taxpayer in the Brushaber case was that the 16th Amendment was "repugnant to the constitution" because it created a form of tax that was neither apportioned (as required for "direct" taxes by Article I, Section 9) nor uniform (as required for "excises" by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The court referred to the conclusion "that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes," as an "erroneous assumption."

"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation...."

Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the "previous complete and plenary power of income taxation," taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation "to which it inherently belonged."

(As noted above, some circuit courts refer to the income tax as a "direct non-apportioned tax" despite the explanations in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions. Regardless of the confusion in terminology, the courts are unanimous that the income tax is constitutional under the 16th Amendment.)

[Return to Table of Contents]

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.

Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn't say how we know when an amendment has been ratified. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous "Titles of Nobility" amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s), Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified.

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):

"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

"Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

"Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review."

It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox's report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the "error" and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)

Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment was flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922):

"The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state." 258 U.S. at 136-137.

Still another claim made by tax protesters is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by Ohio was invalid because Ohio did not become a state until 1953(!). This strange claim is based on a strange action that Congress took in 1953 to confirm that Ohio was indeed a state. Briefly:

• By an act of April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 173), section 1, Congress provided that "the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever." (This was consistent with the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, which provided that there should be formed from the territory at least three but not less than five states. )

• A convention met in Ohio on November 1, 1802, and adopted a constitution on November 29, 1802.

• On January 19, 1803, and special committee of Congress reported that "the said Constitution and government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the ordinance made on the 13th day of July 1787, for the Government of the said Territory: and that it is now necessary to establish a district court within the said Sate, to carry into complete effect the laws of the United States within the same." Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., p. 21.

• Congress then enacted legislation to declare that all of the laws of the United States shall be in force within the state of Ohio and to establish a federal district court in Ohio, stating in the preamble that "the said state has become one of the United States of America." Act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201).

• Ohio began sending Representatives and Senators to Congress, began voting in Presidential elections, and has been considered to be a state ever since.

So what's the problem? When Ohio was preparing for the 150th anniversary of its statehood, researchers discovered that they couldn't establish the exact date that Ohio became a state, and that there was some confusion on the issue. For example, the Senate Manual (S. Doc. 5, 82d Cong., p. 570) gave the date as March 3, 1803, while the Congressional Biographical Directory (H. Doc. 607, 81st Cong., p. 76, note 9) gave the date as November 29, 1802. Further research showed that Ohio was unique because Congress declared that Ohio would become a state upon fulfilling certain conditions but had never formally declared that the conditions had been met. In admitting other states, Congress either declared that the state would be admitted as of a certain date, or passed an enabling act and then later declared that the state was admitted. In the case of Ohio, Congress passed an enabling act but never formally declared that the conditions of the enabling act had been met, either due to an oversight or due to a belief that a formal declaration was not intended and not needed. In a 1953 report to Congress, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress stated that the lack of a formal resolution "may be considered unessential." (1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2126, 2128.) However, Ohio asked for a formal declaration, sending a new petition for statehood to Washington by horseback (yes, in 1953), and Congress complied (with a certain number of snide jokes), passing a joint resolution that declared Ohio to one of the United States of America as of March 1, 1803. P.L. 82-204, 67 Stat. 407. The Senate Report to the resolution states that the purpose was "to make formal, legal declaration of the de facto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States." Senate Report No. 720, 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2124.

As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only factually deficient, but it is an argument that federal courts are reluctant to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a "political question" to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were "binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts." Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).

For other decisions upholding the validity of the 16th Amendment, see United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200 (1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).

"Despite plaintiff's and numerous other tax protesters' conention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's ratification and validity." Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . ." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

[Return to Table of Contents]

The 16th Amendment is ineffective because the word "income" is not defined.

It is true that "income" is not defined by the Constitution, but the Constitution defines very few words. "Freedom of speech," "due process" and "equal protection" are all undefined in the Constitution, and yet those provisions are enforced by the courts. Similarly, the courts determine what is meant by "income" within the 16th Amendment, and have held that "income" has its usual meaning.

"For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment...." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets." 252 U.S. at 207).

(As an aside, one of the hallmarks of tax protester arguments is that they are "ad hoc" arguments, selectively and inconsistently applied. A tax protester will argue that "incomes" is not defined by the 16th Amendment, which is therefore ineffective, but no tax protester has ever argued that "direct tax" is not defined, and so all taxes are constitutional whether or not they are apportioned.)

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (8) the term "income" as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

[Return to Table of Contents]

The income tax cannot apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia, the territories of the United States, and the forts and military bases of the United States, because the federal government has no jurisdiction outside of those "federal areas."

This represents a complete misunderstanding of the language of the Constitution, and also a complete misunderstanding of our entire federal system of government.

Paragraph 17 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution gives Congress "exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia and other places purchased with the consent of the state legislature for "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings." Tax protesters believe that this clause is not an additional power, but limits and restricts the powers given to Congress by the other 16 paragraphs of Section 8, which is ridiculous.

The framers of the Constitution created a "federal" system of government, in which the powers that needed to uniform throughout the nation were entrusted to Congress, while all other powers were retained by the states. The powers of Congress were therefore limited to certain "enumerated" powers, such as the power to establish a national currency and punish counterfeiters, establish post offices, maintain a national system for bankruptcies and naturalizations, regulate interstate commerce, create a national system for patents, copyrights, and trademarks, etc. To carry out these powers, Congress must of necessity have power over the citizens residing within states. For example, Congress can hardly punish counterfeiting if the federal government cannot act to arrest, try, and imprison counterfeiters who reside within the states. Similarly, Congress can hardly regulate interstate commerce if it has no power to enforce its regulations against the citizens and residents of states.

So the power of the federal government is not limited to the District of Columbia and other "federal areas," but extends into the states. As explained by the Supreme Court:

"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National. ..." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

On the subject of taxation, the authors of the Federalist Papers expressly recognized that the Congressional power to tax would be concurrent with the taxing powers of the states, and that both the federal government and the state governments might be taxing the same subjects:

"[The power of imposing taxes on all articles other than exports and imports], I contend, is manifestly a concurrent and coequal authority in the United States and in the individual States." (Emphasis added.)

And:

"As to a supposition of repugnancy between the power of taxation in the States and in the Union, it cannot be supported in that sense which would be requisite to work an exclusion of the States. It is, indeed, possible that a tax might be laid on a particular article by a State which might render it INEXPEDIENT that thus a further tax should be laid on the same article by the Union; but it would not imply a constitutional inability to impose a further tax." (Emphasis in original.)

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #32.

Which is why President Washington could send federal troops into Pennsylvania in 1794 to enforce the federal taxes on distilling during the "Whiskey Rebellion."

The one exception to the principle of concurrent power is the District of Columbia and forts and other areas described in clause 17 of Article I, section 8. In those areas, Congress can exercise "exclusive Legislation," meaning that the states are excluded from any legislative powers, and Congress can enact general civil and criminal laws of the type usually enacted only by the states.

And see what the courts have said about the claim that the federal government has no power to tax within a state:

"Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves," such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan's proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong." United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

"On the merits, defendant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is solely a resident of the state of Michigan and not a resident of any 'federal zone' and is therefore not subject to federal income tax laws. This argument is completely without merit and patently frivolous." United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).

"Dickstein's motion to dismiss advanced the hackneyed tax protester refrain that federal criminal jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, United States territorial possessions and ceded territories. Dickstein's memorandum blithely ignored 18 U.S.C. § 3231 which explicitly vests federal district courts with jurisdiction over 'all offenses against the laws of the United States.' Dickstein also conveniently ignored article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution which empowers Congress to create, define and punish crimes, irrespective of where they are committed. [Citations omitted.] Article I, section 8 and the sixteenth amendment also empowers Congress to create and provide for the administration of an income tax; the statute under which defendant was charged and convicted, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, plainly falls within that authority. Efforts to argue that federal jurisdiction does not encompass prosecutions for federal tax evasion have been rejected as either 'silly' or 'frivolous' by a myriad of courts throughout the nation. [Citations omitted.] In the face of this uniform authority, it defines credulity to argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the government's case against defendant." United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (2) the authority of the United States is confined to the District of Columbia ...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

"Caniff's claim that he is a non-resident alien is preposterous on its face. He acknowledges that he lives in Indiana. The tax power applies fully to each and every of the fifty United States, not just the District of Columbia." Caniff v. Commissioner, 52 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 1995), (unpublished opinion).

"This is but another 'of the many suits, prosecuted by disgruntled taxpayers, that neither advances the law nor serves any purpose save to clog the court's dockets, waste judicial time and cause protracted delays to worthy litigation.' Cook v. Spillman, 806 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1986). Lovett's claim that he is not a taxpayer subject to the authority of the United States or the IRS is patently frivolous." Lovett v. Gillen, 39 F3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1995), (the court imposed a $1,000 sanction for filing a frivolous appeal).

"Much of Becraft's reply is also devoted to a discussion of the limitations of federal jurisdiction to United States territories and the District of Columbia and thus the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to a resident of one of the states...this claim also has no semblance of merit." In re Lowell H. Becraft (United States v. Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989), (Mr. Becraft, attorney for Mr. Nelson, was fined $2,500 for filing a petition that the court found to be so lacking in merit as to be "frivolous").

"Defendant's first motion is styled 'motion to dismiss for lack of exclusive legislative jurisdiction.' This motion is premised on Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, which provides: [The Congress shall have the power] [t]o exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. Defendants argue that Clause 17 limits the legislative power of Congress such that only the geographical areas over which Congress may legislate, or may exercise its power of taxation, are those areas described in Clause 17. This position is contrary to both the natural reading the Constitution and the case law. Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. '[T]he word "exclusive" was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.' District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)." United States v. Sato, 704 F.Supp. 816 (N.D.Ill. 1989).

"Along with his claim that he is not a United States citizen, plaintiff further claims that federal laws, including the I.R.C., do not apply to citizens of the state of Washington, a 'compact state.' Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to 'lay and collect Taxes.' U.S. Const., Art. I, section 8. ... The Sixteenth Amendment provides that 'Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.' ... Pursuant to the authority vested in Congress under the Sixteenth Amendment to impose a direct income tax on citizens and residents of the United States comprised of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Congress enacted Title 26 of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code." Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998)

A somewhat related claim that is sometimes made is that there are two different entities known as the "United States of America."

"Beresford insists that the United States is not a proper defendant and that attorneys from the Department of Justice and United States Attorney may not represent defendant. He also contends that there are two different legal entities named the United States of America.
"The United States is the only proper defendant in a suit to recover a tax refund. It is to be substituted for other named defendants. 26 U.S.C. section 7422(f). His contention about different legal entities and which attorneys may represent the defendant are frivolous." Steven M. Beresford v. IRS, et al., 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5200, No. 00-293-KI (U.S.D.C. Dist. Ore. 7/13/2000), aff'd 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3187 (9th Cir. 2/23/2001).

[Return to Table of Contents]

The income tax cannot apply to natural-born "sovereign state citizens" because they are not "citizens" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

There are actually a number of problems with the concept of "citizens" of the states of the United States who are not "citizens" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. If this tax protester claim were true, then:

1. The words "citizen of the United States" must have a meaning in the 14th Amendment which is different than the meaning given those same words in other parts of the Constitution.

2. The words "United States" must have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment which is different than the meaning given those words in other parts of the Constitution.

3. The word "jurisdiction" must have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment which is different than the meaning given that word in other parts of the Constitution.

4. The 14th Amendment must extend the power of Congress to legislate for "federal citizens" without regard to the limits on Congressional power found in other parts of the Constitution.

5. The 14th Amendment created a new kind of citizenship, and did not merely extend the existing definition of "citizen" to include former slaves as well as whites.

6. The 14th Amendment does not mean what it says, and does not apply to "all persons."

7. The power of Congress to tax is limited by citizenship, and Congress cannot tax immigrants or foreigners who are within the United States but not citizens of the United States.

All of the above statements are wrong, but for the purpose of this FAQ the last fallacy is the most important, because there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the power of Congress to tax only citizens, however defined. The power to tax which is given to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, and by the 16th Amendment, is not limited to the taxation of citizens, whether "sovereign state citizens," "14th Amendment citizens," or any other type of citizen. The power to tax applies to all residents of the United States whether or not they are citizens, as well as to all income earned within the United States whether or not the income is earned by residents or non-residents. (The income tax also applies to citizens of the United States living in other countries, but that is another issue.) Therefore, even if the claim of two types of citizenship were correct (which is a big "if"), the claim is still irrelevant to the federal income tax because Congress can tax noncitizens as well as citizens.

As explained above, tax protesters often have trouble with the concept of the concurrent sovereignty of the federal government with the states. For that reason, tax protesters often fail to understand that our Constitution recognizes state and federal citizenship as two different relationships, with the rights and obligations of state citizenship being separate from the rights and obligations of federal citizenship. However, the Supreme Court has clearly recognized the reality of concurrent citizenship.

"It is a natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

Before the 14th Amendment, it was not clear how citizenship was determined. This culminated in the infamous Dred Scott decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), in which it was held that a slave (or former slave) who was not a citizen (or even a person) under state law could not be a citizen (or even a person) under federal law. Following the Civil War, this was reversed by the adoption of the 14th Amendment. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship--not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States.

"'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.'

"The first observation we have to make of this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular States, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States." The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873), (emphasis in original).

Following the plain words of the 14th Amendment, and the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the federal courts have consistently ruled that all persons born within the United States are citizens of the United States, and state citizenship follows from federal citizenship. For example, the Supreme Court has held that a state cannot deny rights of state citizenship to a citizen of the United States who resides within that state. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970).

This was more recently confirmed in Saenz v. Doe, ___ U.S. ___ (5/17/99), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZS.html, aff'g 134 F.3d 1400.

"Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens 'of the States wherein they reside.' U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, section 1. The States, however, do not have any right to select their citizens." Id.

One Circuit Court of Appeals has put it this way:

"Relying on this Supreme Court authority, circuit and district courts have treated the question before us today as one long decided: '[I]n order to be a citizen of a state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the United States.'" Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090-1091 (9th Cir. 1983), (citations omitted).

Tax protesters (and white supremecists) argue that the phrase "all persons" does not mean all persons, but only refers to former slaves (i.e., blacks), because the purpose of the amendment was to grant rights of citizenship to blacks and whites were already citizens. Even assuming that it is possible to conclude that the amendment does not mean what it says, it cannot be concluded that the amendment only applies to blacks if the effect would be to treat blacks differently than whites. The purpose of the amendment was to give blacks the same rights of citizenship as whites. That purpose would be defeated if blacks were to enjoy a form of citizenship that is somehow different than the citizenship enjoyed by whites.

Tax protesters (and white supremecists) also argue that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes those born within the states of the United States because only those born in the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. This is completely wrong, on several grounds:

• The Supreme Court has plainly stated that "The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873).

• Those born within the states of the United States are within the "jurisdiction" of the United States as that word is used within other clauses of the Constitution, including the reach of the judicial power of the United States in Article III. As explained above, the laws of the United States enacted by Congress under the Constitution of the United States are the "Supreme Law of the Land" and so all of the residents of all of the states of the United States are within the "jurisdiction" of the United States.

• If the 14th Amendment did not apply to those born within the states, it would not apply to most former slaves (born in the Southern states), which would defeat the entire admitted purpose of the amendment.

So What have the federal courts said about the claim that a person born in a state of the United States is not a "citizen of the United States" and is not subject to the federal income tax?

"Also basic to Mr. Sloan's "freedom from income tax theory" is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a & "master"--not "servant"--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. "All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages," regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell [v. United States], 755 F.2d [517] at 519 [7th Cir. 1984]; cf. [United States v.] Studley, 783 F.2d [934] at 937 [9th Cir. 1986] (Studley's argument that "she is not a 'taxpayer' because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a 'person' under the Internal Revenue Code."). Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves," such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan's proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong." United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

"And, finally, we reject appellants' contention that they are not citizens of the United States, but rather "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota" and, consequently, not subject to taxation. See United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir.1991) (rejecting similar argument as "absurd")." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).

"Appellant challenges the district court's jurisdiction by contending that because he is a state citizen, the United States government lacks the constitutional authority both to subject him to federal tax laws and to prosecute him for failing to comply with those laws. Citing to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress. This argument is completely without merit. As this court has made clear in the past, claims that a particular person is 'not a [federal] taxpayer because [he or] she is an absolute, free-born and natural individual' constitutionally immune to federal laws is frivolous and, in civil cases, can serve as the basis for sanctions. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937, n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986)." United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1990).

To the extent the Monforton's contend that as 'Sovereign State Citizens of Washington States' they are not subject to federal income tax, this contention is frivolous." Monforton v. United States, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, KTC 1995-354, n. 2, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished).

United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1989).

"The Epperlys next argue that since they are 'American Inhabitants' who possess sovereign powers and immunities, they are properly classified under the tax code as 'nonresident aliens' and are not subject to taxation by the federal government. Such an argument is frivolous." Epperly v. United States, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32286 (9th Cir. 1992), (unpublished).

United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals ("free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law `de jure' citizens of a state, etc.") are not "persons" subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue code; .. .." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

"Plaintiff claims that he is a nonresident alien or 'foreign individual of America'in relation to the United States, and that his residence and citizenship rest solely with the States of Washington, 'a free, independent, sovereign, territory' with 'coequal authority with the other compact states of America.' ... Despite plaintiff's creative argument, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the state of Washington is one of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America, entering the Union in 1889 as the forty-second state. [Citations omitted.] The Fourteenth Amendment states that '[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, section 1. Plaintiff, therefore, along with being a citizen of the state of Washington, is a United States citizen because he was born in Washington State to parents who were United States citizens. ... As a United States citizen, plaintiff is required to pay federal income tax." Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)

See also, United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).

So where do tax protesters get the idea that the 14th Amendment created some different kind of citizenship, or that there is a difference between citizenship under the 14th Amendment and "citizenship" as it existed before (or even after?) the 14th Amendment? From a collection of obscure, discredited, and misunderstood decisions.

"No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction ... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment .. was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled with the limits of the United States who could not be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..." Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872).

The Van Valkenburg decision is frequently quoted for the proposition that white citizens do not owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment. However, the decision was a state court decision, not a federal decision, and it is inconsistent with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases, decided the following year, in 1873. (See the quotation above from the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the court emphasized that, under the 14th Amendment, all persons born in the United States are citizens.)

The other problem with the Van Valkenburg decision is that, although the California court stated that there was a difference between how the plaintiff (a white woman) became a citizen, the court nevertheless concluded that she was a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

"[B]y whatever means the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States, her privileges and immunities cannot be abridged by State laws; and this is true. The purpose and effect of the amendment, in this respect, is to place the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States beyond the operation of States legislation." Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872).

So although an old, discredited decision from California may distinguish between white citizens and black citizens, it is a distinction without a difference.

"By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is total foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, but the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states." Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855).

Notice the date? This decision was rendered 13 years before the 14th Amendment was ratified. Even if this opinion of the California Supreme Court (not a federal court) was correct in 1855, it was not correct once the 14th Amendment was ratified. See Levin v. United States, 128 F. 826, 282 (8th Cir. 1904); Harris v. Sacramento County, 196 P. 895, 897 (Calif. Dist. App. Ct. 1921).

"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by becoming a citizen of some state." United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. 829, 830 (N.D.N.Y. 1873).

The major problem with this quotation is that it is incomplete, and misleading when taken out of context. See what the court said next:

"No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. This question is now at rest. The fourteenth amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States, to wit, 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The latter qualification was intended to exclude the children of foreign representatives and the like. With this qualification, every person born in the United States or naturalized is declared to be a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein he resides." United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. at 830.

Reading the whole quotation, it is clear that the court was saying what every other court had said, which is that there was some question before the adoption of the 14th Amendment about what "citizen of the United States" meant and how one became a citizen, but the 14th Amendment settled the question by declaring that every person born within the United States was a citizen of the United States.

"... the 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restriction upon citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687-688, (emphasis added).

Why tax protesters cite the Wong Kim Ark decision is a bit of a mystery, because in that case the U.S. Supreme Court held that a child born to Chinese nationals living in California was a citizen of the United States and could not be deported. The court's ruling was not limited to blacks, Chinese, or any other race or nationality, the court declaring:

"The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth.... The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687-688, (emphasis added).

Because the child in question was born in California, and state of the United States, and not the District of Columbia or other "federal area," a necessary implication of the holding in the case is that California is "in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Despite the clear language of the 14th Amendment, and the clear court decisions declaring that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, many tax protesters continue to claim that there are two types of citizenship, one for whites and one for blacks. This racist argument is more than a little disturbing. Nevertheless, although tax protesters squirm and twist and hem and haw, the fact remains that no court in the history of the United States has ever stated that there were two different types of U.S. citizenship, with different rights or obligations, and no court in the history of the United States has ever held that any resident of the United States can be exempt from federal income tax by reason of a different kind of citizenship.

[Return to Table of Contents]

The federal income tax cannot apply to wages, because forcing people to share the fruits of their labors would be the same as slavery or "involuntary servitude" prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.

The Thirteen Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified after the Civil War, states in Section 1:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

It is an insult to every person of African descent to compare the income tax, paid by citizens who are free to work (or not work) for whomever they please and for whatever compensation they are able to negotiate, to the slavery that was imposed on the Africans that were kidnapped and brought to this country in chains, and who (and whose descendants, for more than 100 years) were bought and sold, forced to work back-breaking labor, whipped or beaten, and occasionally murdered.

And the courts have recognized that taxation is not the same as slavery.

"If the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment." Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10th Cir. 1954).

See also, Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836 841 (5th Cir. 1953, cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954); Peeples v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-584, aff'd 829 F.2d 1120 (4th Cir. 1987); Beltran v. Cohen, 303 F.Supp. 889, 893 (N.D.Calif. 1969).

A taxpayer who fails to comply with the tax laws claiming that the Internal Revenue Code violates the Thirteenth Amendment may be assessed a 20 percent penalty under section 6662 for "negligence or disregard of rules or regulations." David Anthony Avery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-418 (1999).

[Return to Table of Contents]

The federal income tax amounts to a deprivation of property without due process and without just compensation, which is contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.

This is just plain silly. Taxes are expressly authorized by the Constitution, and all taxes are a taking of property. As the Supreme Court explained in 1916:

"So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon, it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause. Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264, 45 L. Ed. 853, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 46 L. ed. 713, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 61, 49 L. ed. 78, 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 158, 55 L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 282, 58 L. Ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916).

[Return to Table of Contents]

Withholding of income tax from wages, and the assessment and collection of income taxes without any court order, is a deprivation of property without due process contrary to the 5th Amendment to the constitution.

"It is well-settled that withholding income tax from wages does not violate the constitution. See Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F.2d 1276 (7th Cir. 1984); Robinson v. A & M Electric, Inc., 713 F.2d 608 (10th Cir. 1983); Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. den. 454 U.S. 1145 (1982)." Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986).

[Return to Table of Contents]

You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

The 5th Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not civil proceedings, and collecting taxes is a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. You cannot refuse to file an income tax return because of the 5th Amendment.

The 5th Amendment states (in part) that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...." However, you can be compelled to testify against yourself in a civil case. For example, O.J. Simpson could not be compelled to testify in a criminal case, so he never took the witness stand during his murder trial. But in the civil action brought against him by the Goldman family for the same murders, he was called to the stand by the Goldman family, required to testify, and found financially liable for the killings.

Because the 5th Amendment does not apply to civil liabilities, the courts have consistently ruled that you cannot refuse to file an income tax return by reason of the 5th Amendment.

In Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), rev'g 15 F.2d 809, the defendant had earned illegal profits from the sale of alcohol (during Prohibition), failed to file an income tax return reporting the illegal profits, and was convicted of willfully failing to file an income tax return. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that to require a return on illegally earned income would be a violation of the 5th Amendment, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that illegally earned income is still taxable, and that:

"As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. [Citation omitted.] In the decision [by the lower court] that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law." 274 U.S. at 263-264.

Federal courts have since followed the Sullivan decision in holding that the 5th Amendment does not allow a taxpayer to refuse to file a return:

"The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a taxpayer's right against self-incrimination." United States v. MacLeod, 436 F.2d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 402 U.S. 907 (1971).

"Plaintiff next argues the filing of a return violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. [Footnote omitted.] He relies on Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 649 (1976). There, the Court held one may invoke the Fifth Amendment as to tax returns that would incriminate one for specific non-tax crimes, provided the privilege was claimed on the return. It does not stand for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment provides general protection against filing tax returns. Indeed, the Court reiterated the long-standing principle that the Fifth Amendment is not a defense to filing a return at all. Id. at 650, citing, United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927). In Brennan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 752 F.2d 187, 189 (6th Cir. 1985), the Sixth Circuit held the blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege as to tax returns is a "frivolous position"" Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d Par. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

"Plaintiffs provided no information on the numbered lines of their 1982 Form 1040 and provided wage and tax statements for 1980 instead of those for 1982. They claim that the government compelling them to provide the information requested on the form violates their right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the fifth amendment. This claim likewise is without merit. ... "The Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination can be invoked only where an individual 'is confronted by substantial and "real," and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.' Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53, 88 S. Ct. 697, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). See also United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128, 63 L. Ed. 2d 250, 100 S. Ct. 948 (1980). The Eighth Circuit has also specifically held that the privilege does not excuse a taxpayer's blanket refusal to answer any questions on his tax return relating to income without some reasonable showing as to how such disclosure could possibly incriminate him. United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064, 38 L. Ed. 2d 469, 94 S. Ct. 571 (1973). Plaintiffs' purely hypothetical claim does not meet this standard and thus has no basis in law. As such, it is not a valid fifth amendment claim at all and is among those positions taken by tax protestors that have long been labeled 'frivolous' by the courts." House v. United States, 593 F. Supp. 139, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24565, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. Par. 9745, 54 AFTR2d 5903 (D.C. W.D.Mich. 1984).

See also, United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. den. 447 U.S. 925; Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 164 (1973); Ueckert v. Commissioner, 721 F.2d 248, 250 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Porth, 426 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 824; Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1985); Boomer v. United States, 755 R2d 696, 697 (8th Cir. 1985).

In enacting a new assessable penalty for "frivolous income tax returns," I.R.C. section 6702, Congress specifically identified 5th Amendment arguments as "frivolous" arguments, and courts have upheld fines against tax protesters who have failed to file income tax returns on 5th Amendment grounds.

Having said all that, there are at least two ways in which the 5th Amendment can be relevant to tax returns.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Sullivan, you cannot be compelled to disclose criminal activity on a tax return. For example, if you are sell heroin or cocaine, you are required to report your income from your illegal sales, but you are not required to describe your illegal activities, or provide any other information that might incriminate you. (You could describe your income simply as "income from sales" without describing what you are selling.) If you choose to identify your occupation or the nature of your sales, that information can be used against you. (In Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976), the defendant identified himself as a "gambler" on his tax return, and that information was ruled to be admissible against him in a criminal trial for illegal gambling activities.)

If you fail to file a return, or file a fraudulent return, the government cannot compel you to testify or provide information that could be used against you in the criminal tax case arising out of the failure to file or the fraudulent return. In other words, the 5th Amendment does not prevent the government from requiring you to file a return or from prosecuting you if you fail to file, but it does prevent the government from compelling you to provide information to help with your own conviction after you have failed to file.

The government can compel you to provide tax records (or testimony) that may be needed to determine your correct tax liability. In order properly to assert a 5th Amendment privilege when asked for tax records or tax information, a taxpayer must show that the requested testimony would "support a conviction under a federal criminal statute" or "furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." United States v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 555 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Indeed, it is enough if the responses would merely "provide a lead or clue" to evidence having a tendency to incriminate. United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.)(quoting Hashagen v. United States, 283 F.2d 345, 348 (9th Cir. 1960)), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980). However, the privilege is validly invoked only where there are "substantial hazards of self-incrimination" that are "real and appreciable," not merely "imaginary and unsubstantial." United States v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 555 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.). See United States v. Troescher, KTC 1996-523 (9th Cir. 1996), for an example of acourt applying these principles to a refusal to respond to an IRS summmons.

The rule in a criminal case is that, if a defendant asserts the 5th Amendment and refuses to testify, that refusal cannot be used against the defendant. The same rule does not apply in tax cases or other civil litigation. If you challenge a tax assessment by the Internal Revenue Service and then refuse to testify on 5th Amendment grounds, the court may assume that your testimony would have been adverse to your position and may make inferences from your refusal to testify, provided that there is some independent evidence in addition to the mere invocation of the privilege upon which to base the negative inference. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976).

[Return to Table of Contents]

The IRS cannot require anyone to file an income tax return because that would be a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that search warrants be supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court has held that the requirement for filing ordinary and reasonable returns does not violate a taxpayer's protection against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

"It is urged in a number of the cases that in a certain feature of the statute there is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. ... Certainly the amendment was not intended to prevent the ordinary procedure in use in many, perhaps most, of the states, of requiring tax returns to be made, often under oath." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 175 (1911).

And the lower courts have followed the Supreme Court:

"Boozer says that he was not required to file a tax return until the Government obtained a court order requiring him to file. This argument hinges on the assumption that 26 U.S.C. section 6012's directive to 'make' a tax return is not a requirement to 'file' a tax return. Boozer maintains that the Tax Court's rejection of this assumption and holding that he was required to file a tax return despite the absence of a court order directing him to file contravened the Fourth Amendment.
"Boozer's argument lacks merit. We have construed section 6012's requirement to 'make' a tax return as a requirement to 'file' a tax return. See Moore v. CIR, 722 F.2d 193, 196 (5th Cir. 1984) (observing that the taxpayer has an 'obligation to file established by 26 U.S.C. section 6012'); Steinbrecher v. CIR, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) ('Section 6012(a) . . . provides that individuals meeting certain requirements shall file income tax returns.' (emphasis deleted)); see also In re Ripley, 991 F.2d 440, 444 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1991) (indicating that section 6651(a) is a sanction for failing to comply with section 6012(a)). Additionally, we have rejected as 'without merit' the contention that requiring the filing of a tax return violates the Fourth Amendment. Hallowell v. CIR, 744 F.2d. 406,408 (5th Cir. 1984). '[T]he amendment was not intended to prevent the ordinary procedure . . . of requiring tax returns to be made, often under oath.' Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 175, 31 S. Ct. 342, 358, 55 L. Ed. 389, ____ (1911); see also White v. CIR, 72 T.C. 1126, 1130 (1979) ('It is further established that the requirement for filing ordinary and reasonable returns and respondent's inspection thereof, does not violate a taxpayer's protection against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.')." Boozer v. Commissioner, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22301, 99-2 U.S. Tax Cas. Par. 50,836, 84 A.F.T.R.2d 6008, KTC 1999-546 (5th Cir. 1999), (imposition of additions to tax for failing to file tax returns affirmed).

[Return to Table of Contents]

Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not "income" because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money ("coins in gold or silver") within the meaning of the constitution.

Although tax protesters and other critics of modern banking like to claim only gold and silver can be "money," there is no such limitation in the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...," but Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 states that Congress shall have the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin," with no mention of any restriction to gold or silver. This difference has been clearly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The constitutional authority of Congress to provide a currency for the whole countryis now firmly established ... By the constitution of the United States, the several states are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold or silver a tender of payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from these to deny to Congress either of these powers.... Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its powers to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to established a national currency, either in coin or in paper and to make the currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals." Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884).

How do courts respond when taxpayers claim that the receipt of federal reserve notes is not "income"?

"Plaintiffs further seek an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') to prevent tax collection activities on federal reserve notes, contending that federal reserve notes are not lawful money of the United States 'as defined and intended by the spirit of the Constitution' and that Congress has violated the separation of powers doctrine by issuing federal reserve notes which are not redeemable in coin, thereby rendering federal reserve notes 'counterfeit securities.' ... Plaintiffs are incorrect.
"The contention that paper money is illegal has been consistently rejected. [Citations