Voluntary compliance

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.”
[Samuel Adams]

The income tax is VOLUNTARY as our politicians keep telling us.

  1. Former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and Congressman Beccera Both Admit that the Income Tax is Voluntary, SEDM Exhibit 05.051
    http://youtu.be/MG2mcjAuLo4
  2. Congressman Charley Rengal Admits that Income Tax is Voluntary-House Ways and Means Committee, Tax Collection Privatization, May 23, 2007
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?198256-1/tax-collection-privatization
  3. IRS Chief Admits Under Oath that The Income Tax is Voluntary, SEDM Exhibit #05.025
    https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Evidence/Congressional/DwightAvis-TaxVoluntary.pdf

The part they WON’T tell us is EXACTLY how we volunteer. After all, if we knew that, we would also know how to UNVOLUNTEER! The method of VOLUNTEERING, and conversely the method to UNVOLUNTEER is therefore a carefully guarded SECRET. Such secrets are called “Third Rail Issues” in political parlance.

Now deceased U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said of this subject:

“For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended. The tragedy of life today is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists.”

[Lous D. Brandeis; SOURCE: https://kidadl.com/facts/quotes/louis-brandeis-quotes-from-the-influential-supreme-court-justice]

Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand also said on this subject:

“There are two systems of taxation in our country: one for the informed and one for the uninformed. Both are legal.”

[Judge Billings Learned Hand, Federal Appellate Judge from 1924-1951, Chief Justice of the Second Circuit 1948-1951]

The U.S. Supreme Court also had something to say on the matter of “voluntary compliance”:

“The constitutional right against unjust taxation is given for the protection of private property, but it may be waived by those affected who consent to such action to their property as would otherwise be invalid [or even ILLEGAL or CRIMINAL].”

[Wight v. Davidson, 181 U.S. 371, 377 (1901);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1202751686859480675]

[A mistake on a tax form through legal ignorance is not CONSENT which creates an actual liability.  The amounts paid are recoverable when paid under protest per 28 U.S.C. §1346 when claimed within the statute of limitations.  See United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527 (1995)]

“Unjust taxation” as indicated above is taxation you did NOT consent to in some form. On this site, that consent is called an “election”. Thus, the taxation is only “unjust” as the court defines it above if you did NOT consent to it in some form. Why? Because then it would be INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. Slavery to pay off the national debt as a INVOLUNTARY “taxpayer” is an example of such involuntary servitude. The U.S. Supreme Court further clarified the meaning of “unjust taxation” in the case below:

“The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares — such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 ; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499 ; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358 . In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.“
[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 202-203 (1905); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14163786757633929654]

When they speak above about “no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxes”, they are referring to PROTECTION and BENEFIT that has been VOLUNTARILY REQUESTED and CONSENTED to as a CUSTOMER of government CIVIL PROTECTION. They do not mean the scenario where the government is the only customer and just unilaterally PRESUMES that whatever it provides is a “benefit” even if you as the only customer perceive it as an INJURY. That, by the way is EXACTLY what former President Taft and then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court tyrannically proclaimed in the following case:

“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, 56 (1924);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10657110310496192378]

Note the use of the phrase “his relation as citizen to the United States”, they are referring NOT to a POLITICAL status, but a CIVIL/DOMICILED status election made by filing a 1040 form, which is what Cook did in 1921, which was the tax year in question before the court. There is a lot more going on than meets the eye in the above case by reading only the ruling. The court was less than forthright. To learn THE REST of the story, you have to dig deep into the docket of the case, as is usually the case in most tax rulings. You can read a breakdown of the skulduggery below:

Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
https://ftsig.org/cook-v-tait-265-u-s-47-1924/

Lower courts say the same thing:

“Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.”

[Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d. 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)]

The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.

[Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3937531090329487955]