PROOF OF FACTS: That earnings under 26 U.S.C. 871 are privileged gross receipts instead of profit and don’t pertain to a non-privileged American National protected by the constitution

By ftsig-admin | June 5, 2025

0. Introduction

The position described on this page is exactly the position taken in the following 1040-NR form attachment:

1040-NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

Important notes:

In making legal arguments about taxes, the language must be absolutely flawless or it is false, and therefore in danger of being deemed frivolous and added as another “trophy on the wall” of the IRS’s “Frivolous Filings Publication.” That would be a tragic result through the folly of imprecise presentation.
In the case of an American national, everything except Schedule NEC earnings that goes on the 1040-NR form is “effectively connected”.
“Effectively connecting” is VOLUNTARY in most but not all circumstances and should be AVOIDED . See:
3.1. USPI thru Changing the Status of Your PROPERTY to Domestic, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/uspi-thru-domestic-source/
3.2. The Truth About “Effectively Connecting”, Form #05.056
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EffectivelyConnected.pdf
Even the Schedule NEC and 26 U.S.C. §871(a) is privileged because IT TOO taxes gross receipts of those coming under the foreign affairs functions of Congress. The constitutional prohibition against direct taxes in Constitution Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 still apply to those standing on land protected by the constitution and who are NOT aliens, UNLESS they have waived the protections of the constitution through an election to be treated AS IF they are an alien by entering anything on the Schedule NEC that is NOT “effectively connected”.
Earnings on the main 1040-NR form DO fall within 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and are all taxes on GROSS RECEIPTS and not ONLY PROFIT. This is because, by effectively connecting, you donated the earnings to the public and getting any portion back from that donation is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
Congress DEFINITELY has the authority to tax GROSS receipts rather than only profit, but ONLY in the case of:
6.1. Aliens not standing on land protected by the constitution or abroad. This is a foreign affairs function that preempts the constitutional prohibitions on direct taxes.
6.2. Those who have made any kind of “election”, such as a “U.S. person” election in the filing of the 1040 form.
6.3. “U.S. nationals” in the territories and possessions, who are treated as “foreign countries” per 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2(b).
A 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) “citizen” who has not effectuated a domestic U.S. person election AND who is upon land protected by the Constitution DOES NOT fit in the groups listed in item 6 above, so for THEM “income” means PROFIT and not GROSS RECEIPTS, but they are not even ADDRESSED anywhere on the 1040NR or Schedule NEC WITHOUT a voluntary election of some kind. Even 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(8) is an election even though it appears involuntary.

Below is a table summarizing the above:

#	Status name	Described in	Priv- ileged?	Foreign affairs privilege?	Person Election	Property Election
1	Political citizen*	26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 (c)	N	N	N	N
2	Civil citizen**+D at home	26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 (a)/(b)	Y	Y	Y	Y File 1040
3	Civil citizen**+D abroad	26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 (a)/(b) 26 U.S.C. §911	Y	Y	Y	Y File 1040
4	Resident alien	26 U.S.C. §7701 (b)(1)(A)	Y	Y	N	N
5	Nonresident alien alien	26 U.S.C. §7701 (b)(1)(B) 26 U.S.C. §871	Y	Y	N	N
6	Nonresident alien national in a state of the Union	26 U.S.C. §871 26 U.S.C. §873	N	N	N	N
7	Nonresident alien national in a state of the Union	26 U.S.C. §871 26 U.S.C. §873	Y	N	N	Effectively Connect or Social Security
8	Nonresident alien national abroad with U.S. source income	26 U.S.C. §871 26 U.S.C. §873	Y	Y	N	Effectively Connect

The only parties actually “made liable” are found in 26 U.S.C. §1461, which is WITHHOLDING agents on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. It is ONLY the “withholding agent” and NOT the “employer” who is the liable party, and only in the case of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations as a foreign affairs function under the constitution. American Nationals DO NOT come under the foreign affairs function of the national government unless they are abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911 AND make the U.S. person election while abroad like Cook did in the famous case of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924). Otherwise, they are beyond the legislative reach of Congress unless consensually engaged in a voluntary privilege by making an election as documented herein.

There is a grave distinction between being “imposed on” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 and “made liable” in 26 U.S.C. §1461. The phrase “liable TO” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 does not CREATE liability. Are you “liable to go to the bathroom today”? Those who make the U.S. person election are “imposed on” and “liable TO” but never “made liable”. One must be “made liable” in 26 U.S.C. §1461 before they can have a duty to file a return in 26 U.S.C. §6012. That duty to “return” the amount withheld originates in the common law duty to “return” property of another that is in your custody that you obtained by duress, fraud, or mistake and no STATUTE, including 26 U.S.C. §6012, is necessary to ENFORCE that duty. And that duty goes BOTH ways. If a withholding agent or employer withholds property you earned by mistake and sends it to the IRS, the IRS ALSO has that SAME duty as documented in:

Using the Laws of Property to Respond to a Federal or State Tax Collection Notice, Form #14.015
https://sedm.org/using-the-laws-of-property-to-respond-to-a-federal-or-state-tax-collection-notice/

The ONLY paper “return” a withholding agent can realistically file is an INFORMATION return for the amount withheld against “nonresident aliens” and “foreign corporations” in 26 U.S.C. §1441. But 26 U.S.C. §6012 refers to “making a RETURN of income”, not filing a physical piece of paper, so the real “return” is SENDING THE DAMN MONEY you illegally withheld to the government, you useful idiot slave! This is also consistent with what people like Dave Champion believe.

THUS, the underlying question is HOW DEEP do we go with the “nonresident alien individual” being made liable for the privilege of making money from the “United States”? AND in that context, the debate is about whether the United States means a specific geography, or the federal government. In order to answer that, we need to look at the “direct” and “indirect” taxation jurisdiction. The ANSWER is that the federal government HAS power to use either. Direct on the member union States, federal lands, and slaves ownership. Indirect over everything else granted via the Constitution. And that last question is dealt with HERE because it is DIRECTLY relevant to that scenario:

Proof of Facts: That earnings under 26 U.S.C. 871(a)(1) are profit from payments from the government, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-that-earnings-under-26-u-s-c-871a1-are-profit-from-payments-from-the-government/

Personally, we believe that since it is the position of the courts that GROSS RECEIPTS belong in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(1) and even 26 U.S.C. §61, even though 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(1) actually says ONLY PROFIT and GAINS, and the constitutional definition of “income” is profit and not gross receipts, then the only way that the constitutional definition of “income” as ONLY PROFIT can be waived to MAKE it a “gross receipts” tax is if the “taxpayer” is an alien not protected by the constitution or the constitution’s definition of “income”.

Additional information about this subject can be found at:

How American Nationals VOLUNTEER to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

1. Content of 26 U.S.C. 871(a)(1) in the case of Nonresident Aliens not engaged in the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise and all of whose earnings go on the Schedule NEC

26 U.S. Code § 871 – Tax on nonresident alien individuals

(a)Income not connected with United States business—30 percent tax

(1)Income other than capital gains

Except as provided in subsection (h), there is hereby imposed for each taxable year a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources within the United States [government, not geography, because consideration is mandatory] by a nonresident alien individual as—

(A) interest (other than original issue discount as defined in section 1273), dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, and other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income,

(B) gains described in subsection (b) or (c) of section 631,

(C)in the case of—

(i) a sale or exchange of an original issue discount obligation, the amount of the original issue discount accruing while such obligation was held by the nonresident alien individual (to the extent such discount was not theretofore taken into account under clause (ii)), and

(ii) a payment on an original issue discount obligation, an amount equal to the original issue discount accruing while such obligation was held by the nonresident alien individual (except that such original issue discount shall be taken into account under this clause only to the extent such discount was not theretofore taken into account under this clause and only to the extent that the tax thereon does not exceed the payment less the tax imposed by subparagraph (A) thereon), and

(D) gains from the sale or exchange after October 4, 1966, of patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trademarks, trade brands, franchises, and other like property, or of any interest in any such property, to the extent such gains are from payments which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property or interest sold or exchanged,

but only to the extent the amount so received is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

2. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the Sixteenth Amendment is a tax on PROFIT, not GROSS Receipts.

“In order, therefore, that the [apportionment] clauses cited from article I [§2, cl. 3 and §9, cl. 4] of the Constitution may have proper force and effect …[I]t becomes essential to distinguish between what is an what is not ‘income,’…according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone, it derives its power to legislate, and within those limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised… [pg. 207]…After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Sup.Ct. 136, 140 [58 L.Ed. 285] and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Sup.Ct. 467, 469, 62 L.Ed. 1054…”

[Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 9 A.L.R. 1570 (1920)]

“This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation…Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 55 L.Ed. 389, 31 Sup.Ct.Rep. 342, Ann. Cas.”

[Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414, 58 L.Ed. 285, 34 Sup.Ct. 136 (1913)]

“…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.”

[Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. , 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918)]

“We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed.–), the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts—everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term “income’ has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is not difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.”

[Southern Pacific Co., v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S.Ct. 540 (1918)]

“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, “from [271 U.S. 174] whatever source derived,” without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be “direct taxes” within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. Art. 1, § 2, cl. 3, § 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601. The Amendment relieved from that requirement, and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes “from whatever source derived.” Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17. “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)]

“As repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Corporation Tax Law of 1909..imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense, a tax upon property or upon income merely as income. It was enacted in view of the decision of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & T. Co., 157 U.S. 429, 29 L. Ed. 759, 15 Sup. St. Rep. 673, 158 U.S. 601, 39 L. Ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, which held the income tax provisions of a previous law to be unconstitutional because amounting in effect to a direct tax upon property within the meaning of the Constitution, and because not apportioned in the manner required by that instrument.”

[U.S. v. Whiteridge, 231 U.S. 144, 34 S.Sup. Ct. 24 (1913)]

In other words, although the “Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact,” Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass’n v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110, 114, 46 S.Ct. 48, 70 L.Ed. 183 (1925), it can label a thing income and tax it, so long as it acts within its constitutional authority, which includes not only the Sixteenth Amendment but also Article I, Sections 8 and 9.”

[Murphy v. I.R.S, 493 F.3d. 170, 179 (D.C. Cir. 2007)]

“…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.”

[Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. , 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918)]

“There is consensus on certain basic principles, in addition to the rule that the United States notion of income taxes furnishes the controlling guide. All are agreed that an income tax is a direct tax on gain or profits, and that gain is a necessary ingredient of income. See Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1931); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920); Keasbey Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d. 894, 897 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 739, 64 S.Ct. 39, 88 L.Ed. 438 (1943). Income, including gross income, must be distinguished from gross receipts which can cover returns of capital. Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918); Allstate Ins. Co. v. United States, 419 F.2d. 409, 414, 190 Ct.Cl. 19, 27 (1969); 1 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 5.10 at 35-36 (1969). Only an “income tax”, not a tax which is truly on gross receipts, is creditable.”

[Bank of America Nat. T. S. Ass’n v. U.S., 459 F.2d. 513, 517-18 (Fed. Cir. 1972); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12199037144535776358]

More like these at:

Authorities on “income”, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/income.htm

3. Under rules of equity, the government must provide consideration of some kind before it can claim an obligation on your to reimburse then:

“As was said in Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 (1940), “[t]he simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.”

[Colonial Pipeline Co v Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 109 (1975)]

“A person is ordinarily not required to pay for benefits which were thrust upon him with no opportunity to refuse them. The fact that he is enriched is not enough, if he cannot avoid the enrichment.” Wade, Restitution for Benefits Conferred Without Request, 19 Vand. L. Rev. at 1198 (1966).

[Siskron v. Temel-Peck Enterprises, 26 N.C.App. 387, 390 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)]

If the government didn’t provide consideration to a specific transaction and both parties were acting in their private capacity, government would be interfering with their right to contract and stealing the consideration involved in the contract.

4. How the information in this article is invoked in a tax filing

SOURCE: 1040-NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

1. I hereby reject any and all offers of government/PUBLIC property or services, also called “privileges”, available from you the recipient, including but not limited to the following:

1.1. Privileged “U.S. person” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)) and POLITICAL citizen* who is “of the United States**** (federal corporation) status under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and working for the Secretary of the Treasury as required by under 5 U.S.C. §301, which says the Secretary can ONLY write regulations to command people and property in his own DEPARTMENT and NOT in other departments and certainly not among PRIVATE non-consenting people protected by the constitution. Nor can the Secretary lawfully CREATE a liability in the regulation at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 that does not EXPRESSLY appear in the statute it implements in 26 U.S.C. §1 unless he is commanding ONLY officers in his own department who work for him VOLUNTARILY.

1.2. Any and all benefits and privileges associated with the “U.S. person” franchise civil status such as stimulus payments (26 U.S.C. §6428 to 26 U.S.C. §6428B), Affordable Care Act benefits, etc.

1.3. Alien status.

1.4. “Effectively connected” status under 26 U.S.C. §864(c) and the privileged deductions it produces under 26 U.S.C. §162. I don’t need deductions since all my earnings are PRIVATE and EXCLUDED anyway and are associated with no “profit” as required by the 16^th Amendment.

1.5. The use of STATUTORY identifying numbers issued under the authority of any statute including 26 U.S.C. §6109 or 22 C.F.R. §404.103. 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b) indicates that no number is required since I am not engaged in a “trade or business”. But I.R.M. 25.25.10.8.5 says a return submitted without an identifying number is a “confused filing” that will be REJECTED, even if the regulations say I don’t have to provide it. 42 U.S.C. §408(a)(8) also makes it a misdemeanor to compel the use of an SSN, which is exactly what you are doing by rejecting a return without an identifying number when I don’t need one. Thus, any identifying numbers I might give you are not PUBLIC/statutory SSN or TIN but PRIVATE property and a license to you under the above bailment agreement, Form #06.027. That license is necessary so that you don’t use my identity for a commercial purpose that benefits anyone but me. Any other approach would be criminal identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912 and 42 U.S.C. §408(a)(8).

1.6. All civil statutory statuses as privileges, including but not limited to “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc. Any connection to such statuses by you is hereby agreed by all parties concerned as criminal identity theft (18 U.S.C. §912), private business activity, a satisfaction of the Minimum Contact Doctrine by you, a waiver of official, judicial, and sovereign immunity, and consent to the above bailment agreement, Form #06.027. I consent ONLY to a CONSTITUTIONAL “person” status under the Bill of Rights and not to STATUTORY “person” status in relation to you.

If the I.R.C. Subtitles A and C really created an express CIVIL LIABILITY in my case and were actually positive law, you wouldn’t need ANY of the above DEVIOUS “fund raising” methods to in effect BRIBE me with my own money to exchange my PRIVATE constitutional rights for PUBLIC/DOMESTIC statutory privileges just like when Essau sold his birthright to the Biblical Jacob for a bowl of pottage. Gen. 25:29-34. “For thus says the Lord: ‘You have sold yourselves for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money.’” [Isaiah 52:3, Bible, NKJV].

2. Under principles of equity, my voluntary execution of the previous step 10 is conditioned on your EQUAL acceptance, obligation, and performance in reimbursing ME for any and all money or OTHER PRIVATE property in your TEMPORARY possession as my IMPLIED involuntary TRUSTEE:

2.1. BELONGING to me but sent to you by third parties without my consent in the form of usually involuntary or illegal withholding over the time period covered by this tax filing. Foreign person withholding under 26 U.S.C. §1441 and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 does NOT apply to American nationals and only applies to ALIENS which I am not. I consent to be “foreign”, private, and a “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31), but not a “foreign person” or “person” under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) or 26 U.S.C. §7343. You can only penalize me if a privilege is involved, and it ISN’T.

2.2. That you obtained through administrative tax collection in the form of liens, levies, etc. at any time in the past, present, or future. Tax collection activity is UNLAWFUL against anything but instrumentalities of the national government which I am NOT and never have been in the context of taxation.

In the absence of an IMMEDIATE refund of all the above absolutely owned PRIVATE PROPERTY in your possession or under your control, you are not eligible for or deserving of my voluntary compliance in being reimbursed, are proceeding with “unclean hands”, and are in a PRIVILEGED state by virtue of possessing property that does not belong to you and must be “returned” under principles of equity, with or without a statute requiring you to do that. The EXERCISE of that privilege is controlled by the above bailment agreement and franchise, Form #06.027.

3. It is my right under principles of equity to reject any and all privileges and benefits in order to preserve my liberty and autonomy.

3.1. An offer of privileges I am legally unable to refuse or a prior acceptance I can’t revoke is little more than a criminal mafia enterprise and slavery disguised as government benevolence. Alex De Tocqueville called this “soft tyranny”. Remember the Godfather movie?: “An offer you can’t refuse.”

3.2. “A person is ordinarily not required to pay for benefits which were thrust upon him with no opportunity to refuse them. The fact that he is enriched is not enough, if he cannot avoid the enrichment.” Wade, Restitution for Benefits Conferred Without Request, 19 Vand. L. Rev. at 1198 (1966). [Siskron v. Temel-Peck Enterprises, 26 N.C.App. 387, 390 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)]

3.3. “Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto. Any one may renounce a law [including a CIVIL FRANCHISE statute] introduced for his own benefit.” [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]

3.4. Rules of equity definitely apply to our interactions because:

3.4.1. Lawful money is no longer in circulation, and it has been replaced with fiat currency.

3.4.2. Equity only applies where lawful money is not involved.

3.4.3. Principles of equity and unjust enrichment are frequently used in the enforcement of the tax franchise “codes”, and especially when presenting to juries.

3.4.4. If I can’t approach the government as a co-equal, then there is no real law and no legitimate government, because real law is BASED on equality of treatment. Excise taxable franchises such as the I.R.C. Subtitle A create and enforce inequality between the governed and the governors but they do so ONLY by consent of all parties concerned and I do not consent expressly nor do so impliedly by knowingly asking for and receiving any privilege.

4. Because I accept or consent to no privileges from you in the context of this transaction, and because I insist on returning the value of any privileges you can prove with evidence that I BOTH asked for and received in the context of this communication:

4.1. You have the burden of proof to show you delivered property I both ASKED for and RECEIVED that cost you money to deliver: “As was said in Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 (1940), “[t]he simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.” [Colonial Pipeline Co v Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 109 (1975)]

4.2. In the absence of satisfying that burden of proof, I have NO obligation to pay you anything: “It is only where some right or privilege [which are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY] is conferred by the government or municipality upon the owner, which he can use in connection with his property, or by means of which the use of his property is rendered more valuable to him, or he thereby enjoys an advantage over others, that the compensation to be received by him becomes a legitimate matter of regulation [AND by implication taxation]. Submission to the regulation of compensation in such cases is an implied condition of the grant, and the State, in exercising its power of prescribing the compensation, only determines the conditions upon which its concession shall be enjoyed. When the privilege ends, the power of regulation [and taxation] ceases.” [Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

4.3. Justice itself DEMANDS that you leave me alone and not disturb, regulate, or tax me. Justice, after all, is nothing more than the right to be LEFT ALONE, and ESPECIALLY by YOU. Would you hire a security guard with “taxes” who insists on stealing your property or converting it from PRIVATE to PUBLIC without your consent?

4.4. Any and every attempt to assert a tax obligation on your part devolves into an EXTORTION and not a “tax” in any sense of the word per Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905) . According to this case, the “taxpayer” fiction cannot be employed to work an injustice, and it would do exactly that if you forced me to pay for privileges I never asked for, never received, and don’t want.

Posted in Proof of Facts