Opening Statement

This website will show you in the simplest possible terms how to lawfully opt out of the tax system as completely as possible using statutes, regulations, forms, and procedures recognized by the government. Our methods have been developed over decades of researching the tax subject to lawfully minimize our own tax obligations. While these methods are not a secret, they have been protected from wider implementation mainly by hiding them with words of art, cognitive dissonance, and exasperating complexity. These three approaches collectively ensure that few people will look at our methods because most people want an easy way out that is less dissonant with human nature.

In fulfilling the above object, we will NOT:

  1. Play victim and merely whine and complain but not offer evidence or procedures that lead to a solution.
  2. Antagonize people in government (poke the bear), who are just trying to do their job of delivering and paying for what they have evidence to believe you want and have asked for from them.
  3. Show you how to LITIGATE the issues presented. See SEDM (https://sedm.org) for that.
  4. Provide forms to implement the processes documented herein. See SEDM (https://sedm.org) for that.
  5. Provide social networking tools to meet like minded people interested in the subjects on this site. See SEDM (https://sedm.org) for that.

Ignorance or a misunderstanding about the subjects covered by this website can have serious consequences that touch every aspect of your life. We therefore take our job of educating the public very seriously on this subject. We will never approach this subject humorously or whimsically or with cartoons. We will provide authoritative court admissible evidence to you that you can verify for yourself and use in court so that you don’t have to trust us on anything. This is the same approach that any judge or government attorney would insist on to prove their case also. There is way too much of what we call “political diarrhea” on the subject of taxation that is little more than emotional ranting. We want to be COMPLETELY different and completely detached from that community and focus entirely and only on the law and the facts you can rely on with no financial bias or conflict of interest on our part in the process of delivering it to you.

This website proceeds from the premise that:

  1. The only thing government can civilly tax or regulate is property it has a proven ownership interest in, whether shared or absolute.
  2. The only way government can acquire an ownership interest in your property is through your consent in some form, which this site calls an “election”.
  3. Government has to make the process of consent invisible to the average American through equivocation and obfuscation to ensure that you aren’t informed how to opt out.
  4. Government has the burden of proving your consent to convert you or your property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC before they can have enforcement authority against either.
  5. Anything PRIVATELY owned is FOREIGN. By PRIVATE we mean absolutely owned by OTHER than government and protected by the constitution in the case of individuals.
  6. Anything PUBLICLY owned is DOMESTIC. By PUBLIC we mean owned by the government or collective and protected, regulated, and taxed exclusively by civil statutes.
  7. DOMESTIC property consists of only two types:
    7.1. Chattel, real, and intangible personal property.
    7.2. Civil statutory statuses, also sometimes called OFFICES or POSITIONS.
  8. Ownership and control are largely synonymous.
  9. The line of demarcation between FOREIGN and DOMESTIC is not geographical, but based on your own choice and consent mainly as the original owner of the property.
  10. The status of TINs, EINs and SSNs establishes whether the status of the property it attaches to is FOREIGN or DOMESTIC.
  11. The process of filing a tax return or requesting TINs are the main methods of making an election to treat property as either FOREIGN or DOMESTIC.
  12. The way to minimize tax obligations is to maximize the PRIVATE and FOREIGN and minimize the PUBLIC and DOMESTIC.

This website therefore will apply the laws of property to show how to lawfully minimize one’s tax obligations by simply AVOIDING all PUBLIC property and privileges and thus, retaining as much of your property in a PRIVATE status as possible.

In explaining our approach, you must realize that few Americans actually read or understand the tax laws. The result is that they are forced to rely on someone else for guidance on how to approach the tax subject. In most cases, that other person is a tax professional or worst yet, the IRS. The problem with this approach is that experts invariably have a financial conflict of interest to perpetuate their own livelihood. If you wouldn’t ask a barber whether you need a haircut, you shouldn’t ask a tax professional whether there is a way to avoid the need for their services by opting out of the tax system lawfully. Along these lines, we don’t portray ourselves as tax experts and don’t intend to make a profession out of making people into better tax slaves. Our approach instead relies on teaching you how to read the law for yourself and make your own informed decisions about what is best for you.

Einstein is famous for saying:

“The essence of genius is simplicity.”

In our many years of researching the tax subject to lawfully minimize our own tax obligations, we have tried to boil down our knowledge to the simplest, the most accurate, and the easiest to defend approach that is understandable to the common man with little to no legal training so that it can easily be presented and explained to a jury. The bedrock of that simplicity is the laws of property underpinning absolutely everything from a legal perspective. These laws may be a metaphysical human abstraction, but even three year-olds understand them. They are instinctive and understandable to people on a jury with no legal training. These laws dictate and explain many things:

  1. The origin of human happiness itself, which is the right to absolutely own and control private property.
  2. How ownership is lawfully acquired and retained.
  3. The conditions under which conversions of ownership may lawfully occur.
  4. How civil obligations as property are created and transmitted.
  5. The distinctions between INDIVIDUALISM (private) and COLLECTIVISM (public).
  6. That nature of the government as nothing but a collection of property dedicated to protecting private property and private rights.
  7. The nature of the social compact as a private membership association (PMA).
  8. The nature of the welfare state as a method to recruit PMA members called “taxpayers” by bundling PRIVILEGES with OBLIGATIONS.
  9. The origin of the government’s authority to civilly legislate.
  10. How to challenge government civil jurisdiction as a taking of private property.
  11. How to maximize and protect your liberty and autonomy.
  12. The nature of the income tax essentially as rent on the use of PUBLIC property called “privileges”.
  13. The right to avoid accepting or using PUBLIC property as a way to reduce one’s tax obligations.

Because the laws of property are so closely related to human nature and so universally and intuitively understood, they are seldom discussed in statutes, regulations, and even courtrooms. The reason for this is that employing them in your own defense makes explaining and prosecuting government corruption so painfully obvious that they are a hazard to the occupational health and revenues of those serving in the government and the legal profession. Consequently, the laws of property are Third Rail Issues that government and legal profession are unlikely to ever discuss for the sake of shear self-preservation. In that sense, they are “secret”, but certainly not unknowable because they are invisibly ingrained in everything having to do with law.

The income tax itself is characterized as an indirect excise tax by the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, it is not a tax on property, but upon PROFIT connected with an ACTIVITY that may involve property.

“Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct:

(1) a capitation, U.S. CONST, art. I, § 9,

(2) a tax upon real property, and

(3) a tax upon personal property. See Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 352, 66 S.Ct. 178, 90 L.Ed. 116 (1945) (“Congress may tax real estate or chattels if the tax is apportioned”); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895) ( Pollock II).

Such direct taxes are laid upon one’s “general ownership of property,” Bromley, 280 U.S. at 136, 50 S.Ct. 46; see also Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 149, 31 S.Ct. 342, 55 L.Ed. 389 (1911), as contrasted with excise taxes laid “upon a particular use or enjoyment of property or the shifting from one to another of any power or privilege incidental to the ownership or enjoyment of property.” Fernandez, 326 U.S. at 352, 66 S.Ct. 178; see also Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363, 370, 24 S.Ct. 305, 48 L.Ed. 481 (1904) (excises cover “duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations and the like”).”

[Murphy v. I.R.S, 493 F.3d 170, 181 (D.C. Cir. 2007);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=606795644459520694]

To tax the ownership of PRIVATE property itself is to defeat the very purpose of establishing government, which is to secure property ownership and the pursuit of happiness manifesting itself as absolute ownership of private property. The main purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, in fact, was to expand and fix the definition of “property” to include not just real estate, but ALL personal property indicated in item 3 above, in the context of the definition of what a direct tax actually is:

“In 1895 [Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)] , we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 618, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 218–219, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920).”

[Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 571 (2012);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12815172896965834886]

Excise taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment are taxes upon PROFIT in connection with the use of PUBLIC property in association with specific, identified ACTIVITIES. The key to avoiding an indirect excise tax such as the income tax is to therefore to AVOID the activity and the STATUS that are the subject of the tax, and not to avoid the ownership of property used in connection with the activity. The initial inquiry then on how to lawfully avoid the income tax is:

  1. What specific ACTIVITY is the subject of the tax?
  2. What is the NAME given to the activity in the statutes?
  3. What PUBLIC property is used to ENGAGE in the activity? In other words, what specific “benefit” has to be pursued as evidence of consent to engage in the activity? A license? A permit? A franchise mark (SSN/TIN)? An application?
  4. How is consent manifested to acquire the PUBLIC property used in connection with the regulated activity? In other words, how are “elections” made?
  5. Do you have a legally enforceable PRIVATE right under the constitution to recover the consideration or PUBLIC property that gave rise to the civil obligations associated with the activity? If not, the contract or quasi-contract associated with the activity is UNENFORCEABLE as a matter of law. A valid contract or franchise ALWAYS requires consideration and mutual, informed, and EXPRESS consent in some form.
  6. What is the specific origin of the power to REGULATE the activity as PUBLIC property?
  7. What name is given to those who DO NOT consent to engage in the activity but nevertheless are a victim of false information return reporting designed to make them falsely appear to consent to engage in the activity? In the I.R.C. these people are called ” nonresident aliens”.

In the case of the income tax, that ACTIVITY is called a “trade or business” and participating in it is entirely voluntary. See:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf

Any attempt to expand the scope of the income tax beyond tax ONLY PROFIT (increase in value) must derive directly and only from your consent manifested in some form. This includes:

  1. Taxing or regulating (controlling) the exercise of ownership of property directly by instituting a “gross receipts” tax, which essentially takes the underlying property that produced the profit. This violates:
    1.1. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
    1.2. The prohibition against Direct Taxes without apportionment.
  2. Directly controlling you personally as the owner. This violates:
    2.1. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude and
    2.1. The “right to exclude” aspect of ownership itself.

Either of the above efforts are an interference with the use or enjoyment of PRIVATE property forbidden by the constitution unless they originate with your consent in some form or are administered by a state of the Union as a DIRECT tax instead of an indirect excise tax.

“’Life,’ said Mr. Justice Swayne in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 127, 21 L.Ed. 425, ‘is the gift of God, and the right to preserve it is the most sacred of the rights of man. Liberty is freedom from all restraints but such as are justly imposed by law. Beyond that line lies the domain of usurpation and tyranny. Property is everything which has an exchangeable value, and the right of property includes the power to dispose of it according to the will of the owner. Labor is property, and, as such, merits protection. The right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty. It lies, to a large extent, at the foundation of most other forms of property. ‘ ”
[In re Marshall, 102 F. 323, 324 (9th Cir. 1900)]

“[It is an] essential, unalterable right in nature, engrafted into the British constitution as a fundamental law, and ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects within the realm, that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent.”
[Samuel Adams, The Massachusetts Circular Letter, February 11, 1768;
SOURCE: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-7094]

“Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor [as absolutely owned PRIVATE property], is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…” 
[The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 120, 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed.  268 (1825);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16310204168891487690]

“. . .the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this purpose contemplated by the Constitution. ( 157 U.S. 581.)”
[Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R, 240 U.S. 1, 16 (1916);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5893140094506516673]

“The very essence of taxable income, as that concept is used in Section 22(a), is the accrual of some gain, profit or benefit to the taxpayer. This requirement of gain, of course, must be read in its statutory context. Not every benefit received by a taxpayer from his labor or investment necessarily renders him taxable. Nor is mere dominion over money or property decisive in all cases. In fact, no single conclusive criterion has yet been found to determine in all situations what is a sufficient gain to support the imposition of an income tax. No more can be said in general than that all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered. See Magill, Taxable Income (1945). ”
[Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404, 407 (1946);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12091298825335103420]

“The United States, we have held, cannot, as against the claim of an innocent party, hold his money which has gone into its treasury by means of the fraud of its agent. While here the money was taken through mistake without element of fraud, the unjust retention is immoral and amounts in law to a fraud of the taxpayer’s rights. What was said in the State Bank Case applies with equal force to this situation. ‘An action will lie whenever the defendant has received money which is the property of the plaintiff, and which the defendant is obligated by natural justice and equity to refund. The form of the indebtedness or the mode in which it was incurred is immaterial.“
[Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 261, 55 S.Ct. 695, 700, 79 L.Ed. 1421 (1935);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16468645332325230169]

Federal and state Income tax liability in the United States is incurred via one’s acceptance of a certain benefit or privilege. So there is consideration and a contract is formed. One cannot evade the resulting obligation by claiming “there was no meeting of the minds”, since you are presumed to know what you are doing, and equitably, to avoid unjust enrichment. The obligation resulting from acceptance of the benefit as consideration may be enforced, no matter how ignorant you are or claim to be as to how you incurred your liability. Here is proof of that:

“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation… The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission;”.

[McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U. S. 316, 209-210 (1819); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9272959520166823796

EDITORIAL: You need PERMISSION from the state to use or benefit from PUBLIC property]

______________________________________________________________

“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); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16559630216409245512]

The most common examples for United States person individuals are:

  1. The privilege of graduated income tax rates on all taxable income.
  2. The privilege of taking a standard deduction or itemizing certain personal deductions.
  3. The privilege of tax credits.

Nonresident aliens are not entitled to such privileges. These privileges are avoided by rejecting the U.S. person position by filing the 1040-NR return. Doing this is an exercise of the following:

“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)]

Another common example of privilege that even a nonresident alien may accept is the privilege of participating in federal insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. That creates nexus only to that income from which one contributed to SS and Medicare, it does not extend any nexus to other income. Nonresident aliens also accept the privilege of graduated tax rates on any income “effectively connected” on the 1040-NR return.

The fact that income tax obligations are voluntarily acquired by pursing and accepting privileges is why we say on this website the following:

People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment.  All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED.  The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact.  Nothing in life is truly “free”.  Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power.  If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free.  If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C.    If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over.  There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property.  Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights.  Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility.  For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22.  For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them.  Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.

[FTSIG]