PROOF OF FACTS: “United States” INCLUDES (not means) the government
1. EXAMPLE 1:
26 U.S.C. §871(b) uses the term “United States” in the context of government instead of geography:
26 U.S. Code §871 – Tax on nonresident alien individuals
(b)Income connected with United States business—graduated rate of tax
A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 1 or 55 on his taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.
(2)Determination of taxable income
In determining taxable income for purposes of paragraph (1), gross income includes only gross income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.
The term “United States business”:
- Is nongeographical and intangible. “BUSINESS” is not a physical thing
- Applies WORLDWIDE
- Is connected with a quasi-contract that assimilates the activity into the government
- Is synonymous with a public office, which is HALF of what government is: offices and property.
- Also is synonymous with government property, because offices are a creation of and property of their creator.
- In the case of NRAs, is used to DONATE private property to the government using the ECTI mechanism. ECTI is SYNONMOUS with donation for NRAs who are American nationals.
- Is a “task” or “activity” that is intangible subject to excise taxation , because that is what “business” is: Activity connected with a nonphysical, nongeographical, CIVIL legal “person” regardless of its locality exercised as an agent of the OWNER and CREATOR of the civil status.
2. EXAMPLE 2: IRS Website
Former Universal Companies executives convicted at trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States government
https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/former-universal-companies-executives-convicted-at-trial-of-conspiracy-to-defraud-the-united-states-government
The above article makes the following statements:
“were convicted today at trial of conspiring to defraud the United States.”
3. EXAMPLE 2: Publication 519
Publication 519 (2024), U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519#en_US_2024_publink1000222514
The above publication uses the following language:
Residents of Puerto Rico.
If you are a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico for the entire year, you can exclude from gross income all income from sources in Puerto Rico (other than amounts for services performed as an employee of the United States or any of its agencies).
4. Using “includes” and “including”
One *POSSIBLE* way to justify extending the meaning of “United States” to also embrace government would be through the terms “includes” & “including.” The geographical sense defines the jurisdiction of the government. The government itself could be embraced through a related enlargement, but ONLY IF you establish the general class to be ALL things government related.
We think that’s stretching it, but it could reasonably be argued. But domestic and United StatesG are attributes of government—not the government itself. You could ONLY extend the meaning to the government if you establish it not by using the word MEANS, but through “includes” and “including” and establishing the general class as all things government related.
But to say United States means ONLY the government would be shot down. It only works if you say United States “includes” the government because of the attributes that define it. We think it’s a risky and unnecessary conclusion to make. Using only the attributes and arguing the precise language and context is enough and eliminates the possibility of taking a position that is wrong. We think when done in that way, it can be asserted that United StatesGOV is a legitimate meaning through the mechanism of the terms “includes” and “including.”
Note that we are not arguing that “United States” is ALWAYS the government but that it INCLUDES ONLY government in some scenarios. 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9), which defines only ONE of the MANY contexts it is used, is an example where it is NOT the government. Confusion over contexts is the origin of much injustice, equivocation, and sophistry. That confusion is MANUFACTURED using INCOMPLETE definitions that do not describe all possible scenarios every time the term is used.
Constitution protects main PRIVATE property. Yes, the DEFAULT sense of the term “United States” is the POLITICAL context in the constitution, which is a POLITICAL document that protects mainly PRIVATE property per Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 721 (1868); SOURCE: https://ftsig.org/texas-v-white-74-u-s-700-1869/. Civil statutes protect and regulate PUBLIC property.
When you invoke a civil privilege/public right you surrender PRIVATE rights in exchange for PUBLIC privileges under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine and the Public Rights Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, political statuses are invoked in the PUBLIC civil law, but only to describe CANDIDATES for the election. Otherwise, POLITICAL status is irrelevant and certainly not the default. The only exception seems to be Title 8, which is a mixture of POLITICAL and CIVIL law.
5. Definition of “government”
Our definition of government is synonymous with “United States”:
What is “government”?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/special-language/what-is-government/
Here is is:
- “Government” =everything that is PUBLIC. It is synonymous with the legal fiction “United States”.
- Government is a PUBLIC Membership Association (PMA) you have to CONSENT to join. That act of consent is called an election in the I.R.C. The W-4 form is effectively a “request” to participate in the withholding for federal programs.
- Those who have CIVILLY/LEGALLY joined through and EXPRESS ELECTION become:
3.1. Members and citizens of the United StatesP. but ALSO . . .
3.2. CIVIL OFFICERS and AGENTS of the collective body politic serving WITHIN the Executive Branch under the Secretary of the Treasury as a volunteer. - The act of JOINING causes:
4.1. A surrender of sovereignty and sovereign immunity under the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the Supreme Court and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). See:
Acquiring a Civil Status, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/
4.2. An exercise of your First Amendment rights that no government can lawfully interfere with.
4.3. An act of contracting, where the CIVIL statutory law is the contract or “social compact”. See:
The REAL Social Compact, Form #08030
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/TheRealSocialCompact.pdf
4.4. A waiver of some but not all formerly PRIVATE rights, as described in:
Membership in a Specific Class, Status, or Group As a Cause for Loss of Rights, SEDM
https://sedm.org/membership-in-a-specific-class-status-or-group-as-a-cause-for-loss-of-rights/ - Consenting members are called CIVIL “citizens” and “residents” but NEVER POLITICAL ONLY “citizens”. Those who are POLITICAL but not CIVIL “citizens” remain PRIVATE and never PUBLIC.
- “Government” can only tax or regulate PUBLIC property, which includes civil statuses such as “citizen” that it legislatively creates as well as any private property you donate to them by “effectively connecting” it.
- VOLUNTARY CIVIL STATUTORY franchises are the only lawful method of CIVILLY regulating or taxing you or your property. See:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf - You can lawfully avoid taxation by never CIVILLY associating through either a domicile or election of any kind. Those who do this are called “nonresident aliens”. Thus, they RETAIN their entirely PRIVATE and DEFAULT and legislatively but not constitutionally FOREIGN status under the constitution. This LACK of elections is recognized in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31).
- If you are not ALLOWED to CIVILLY or LEGALLY disassociate and claim “nonresident alien” status and not elect to convert your PRIVATE property through an Effectively Connected status, then:
9.1. You are DEPRIVED of the right of PRIVATE property in the Fifth Amendment and
9.2. You certainly do not and cannot “own” yourself.
You are therefore a slave of someone else. Property ownership, after all, includes the right to EXCLUDE any and all others from using or benefitting from your property. A slave is someone who either doesn’t own themself or can’t own private property. See:
What is a “Slave”?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/what-is-a-slave/
The above summary is fully recognized by the Declaration of Independence, which says that all JUST powers of government derive from the CONSENT of the governed. Where there is no consent, EVERYTHING government does to you is inherently UNJUST, with the exception of the criminal law itself, of course. THIS is fully consistent with why we say that ALL civil statutory law is law for government ONLY, meaning VOLUNTARY MEMBERS of the “public” only:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
6. Sixteenth Amendment Ratification
Because the term “United States” in this case is synonymous with PUBLIC and “government”, then the tax is ON the government, just as President Taft claimed when he introduced the Sixteenth Amendment for ratification in his address before congress.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE – JUNE 16, 1909
[From Pages 3344 – 3345]The Secretary read as follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
It is the constitutional duty of the President from time to time to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures, as he shall judge necessary and expedient. In my inaugural address, immediately preceding this present extraordinary session of Congress, I invited attention to the necessity for a revision of the tariff at this session, and stated the principles upon which I thought the revision should be affected. I referred to the then rapidly increasing deficit and pointed out the obligation on the part of the framers of the tariff bill to arrange the duty so as to secure an adequate income, and suggested that if it was not possible to do so by import duties, new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among them I recommended a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection.
The House of Representatives has adopted the suggestion, and has provided in the bill it passed for the collection of such a tax. In the Senate the action of its Finance Committee and the course of the debate indicate that it may not agree to this provision, and it is now proposed to make up the deficit by the imposition of a general income tax, in form and substance of almost exactly the same character as, that which in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population. [Emphasis added] This new proposal, which I did not discuss in my inaugural address or in my message at the opening of the present session, makes it appropriate for me to submit to the Congress certain additional recommendations.
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency. The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have. It might be indispensable to the Nation’s life in great crises. Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent.
I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.
This course is much to be preferred to the one proposed of reenacting a law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional. For the Congress to assume that the court will reverse itself, and to enact legislation on such an assumption, will not strengthen popular confidence in the stability of judicial construction of the Constitution. It is much wiser policy to accept the decision and remedy the defect by amendment in due and regular course.
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency, but by putting on the statute book a law already there and never repealed will simply be suggesting to the executive officers of the Government their possible duty to invoke litigation.
If the court should maintain its former view, no tax would be collected at all. If it should ultimately reverse itself, still no taxes would have been collected until after protracted delay.
It is said the difficulty and delay in securing the approval of three-fourths of the States will destroy all chance of adopting the amendment. Of course, no one can speak with certainty upon this point, but I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of investing the National Government with power to levy an income tax, and that they will secure the adoption of the amendment in the States, if proposed to them.
Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to the proposed income tax measure.
I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.
Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.
I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and collect an income tax without apportionment among the several States according to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2 percent of their net income.
Wm. H. Taft
Some people have asserted that it is deceptive to claim that the phrase above “shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government” implies it is a tax upon the government. In retort, the following proves we are not only correct, but that the only real DECEPTIVE one was Taft Himself:
- Taft could have said “shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring upon the national government the power to levy an income tax” but DID NOT state it more correctly this way.
- The legislative implementation of what he proposed he described as an excise and a privilege tax ONLY upon corporations, which even after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, is EXACTLY and ONLY what the Sixteenth Amendment currently authorizes. These corporations are NATIONAL corporations, not STATE corporations, by the way.
“Income” has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335; Merchants’ L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 219. After full consideration, this Court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants’ L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra; 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252-253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633. In determining what constitutes income, substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206. [271 U.S. 175]”
[Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174, (1926)] - The U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell agreed that the income tax extends wherever the GOVERNMENT extends, rather than where the GEOGRAPHY extends. Notice it says “without limitation as to place” and “places over which the GOVERNMENT extends”.
“Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L.Ed. 98, was an action of trespass (or, as appears by the original record, replevin) brought in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. 216, c. 60, Fed. 17, 1815. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in [****32] one as legislating [*260] for the States; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under Art. I, sec. 8, giving to Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, imposts and excises,” which “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States. The fact that Art. I, sec. 20 , declares that “representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective numbers,” furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned; but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation. “The words used do not mean, that direct taxes shall be imposed on States only which are [****33] represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to States, shall be apportioned to numbers.” That Art. I, sec. 9, P4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District of Columbia, “and will enable Congress to apportion on it its just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as on the respective States. If the tax be laid in this proportion, it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.” It was further held that the words of the ninth section did not “in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the second section require that it shall be extended to all the [**777] States. They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give a rule when the territories shall be taxed without imposing the necessity of taxing them.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)] - The fact that when former President and then Chief Justice Taft heard the FIRST case in the Supreme court after ratification, he stated that the liability for an income tax had NOTHING TO DO with one’s nationality or domicile! Cook, American national abroad in Mexico and domiciled there was outside the statutory geographical “United States”. Recall that the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932) held that domicile was the SOLE basis for income tax so Cook technically could NOT owe an income tax. But his litigation related to a 1040 return he previously filed in which he INCORRECTLY declared his status as that of a “U.S individual”. Thus, he made an ELECTION (consent) to be treated as a statutory “U.S. person” and thus ELECTED himself into a voluntary “taxpayer” office to procure protection of the national government while abroad. Notice he calls “protection” a BENEFIT, and thus a VOLUNTARY EXCISE TAXABLE FRANCHISE! Notice he says the SOLE BASIS in this case was the STATUTORY STATUS under the Internal Revenue Code of “citizen”, and not “domicile”. That civil statutory status and NOT Constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment status, we prove in How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024, is an OFFICE within the Department of Treasury who works for the Secretary of the Treasury.”The contention was rejected that a citizen’s property without the limits of the United States derives no benefit from the United States. The contention, it was said, came from the confusion of thought in “mistaking the scope and extent of the sovereign power of the United States as a nation and its relations to its citizens and their relations to it.
” And that power in its scope and extent, it was decided, is based on the presumption that government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and that opposition to it holds on to citizenship while it “belittles and destroys its advantages and blessings by denying the possession by government of an essential power required to make citizenship completely beneficial.” In other words, the principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found and, therefore, has the power to make the benefit complete. Or to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, and was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal — the government having power to impose the tax.”[Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)] - The definition of “person” in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343 for the purposes of penalty and criminal enforcement purposes limits itself to government employees and instrumentalities of the government. The rules of statutory construction and interpretation forbid adding anything to these definitions not expressly provided, such as PRIVATE constitutionally protected men and women. Thus, anyone who doesn’t fall within the ambit of these definitions is, by definition, a VOLUNTEER because not a proper target of enforcement.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F>CHAPTER 68>Subchapter B>PART I>Sec. 6671
Sec. 6671. – Rules for application of assessable penalties
(b)Person defined
The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
TITLE 26>Subtitle F>CHAPTER 75>Subchapter D> Sec. 7343.
Sec. 7343. – Definition of term ”person”
The term ”person” as used in this chapter [Chapter 75] includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs - The following memorandum of law proves that the only proper target of IRS enforcement are public officers WITHIN the government.
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf - The fact that “United States” is geographically defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the District of Columbia and the CONSTITUTIONAL states of the Union are never mentioned. That place is synonymous with the GOVERNMENT in 4 U.S.C. §72 and not any geography.
- The fact that the ACTIVITY that is subject to excise taxation within the Internal Revenue Code is legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”, meaning an office WITHIN the national and not state government. For exhaustive details on this subject, see:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf - The fact that the Federal Register Act and the Administrative Procedures Act both limit the TARGET of direct STATUTORY enforcement to the following groups, none of which include most people in states of the Union and which primarily consist of government employees only:
- A military or foreign affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) .A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2).Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof. 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf - The fact that they can only tax legislatively created offices who work for them. See:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm - The idea that governments are created to PROTECT private property, not steal it, and that taxation involves the institutionalized process of converting PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property without the express consent of the owner. Thus, the process of PAYING for government protection involves the OPPOSITE purpose for which governments are created—converting PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property, often without the consent of the owner, for the purposes of delivering the OPPOSITE, which is PREVENTING PRIVATE property from being converted to PUBLIC property! The Declaration of Independence declares that all just powers derive from the consent of the governed, and yet we make an EXCEPTION to that requirement when it comes to taxation? Absurd. So they HAVE to procure your consent to occupy a civil statutory office BEFORE they can enforce against you or else they are violating the Thirteenth Amendment and engaging in criminal human trafficking. For a description of just how absurd it is to NOT require consent to this office and to convert (STEAL) private property without the consent of the owner, see:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf - A query of the ChatGPT-4 AI Chatbot confirms our analysis is correct:
So what the President proposed was an excise tax on the government itself, and nothing more. This is important. More on the history of the Sixteenth Amendment at:
- Taxation Page, Section 13: 16th Amendment, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm - Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Sections 3.8.11 and 3.8.12
https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm - Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 6.7.1: 1925: William H. Taft’s Certiori Act of 1925. President Taft’s SCAM to make the income tax INTERNATIONAL in scope by DENYING all appeals relating to it so the Supreme Court wouldn’t have to rule on the illegal enforcement of the income tax.
https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm - The Law that Never Was, William Benson. Book about the FRAUDULENT ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.
- Congressional Debates on the Sixteenth Amendment, Family Guardian Fellowship
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/History/Congress/1909-16thAmendCongrRecord.pdf