How to Beat the IRS in Court
Everyone knows that there is something plainly wrong with the way the IRS is enforcing the federal income tax laws in America today. There is an obvious fundamental inherent contradiction present in the "system", that contradicts almost everything we are taught when we are young, about how great America is, and why, i.e.: personal freedom, liberty, independence, privacy, private property, security, Rights, limited government, a Right to Work, legal due process, etc. Everything we are taught is directly contradicted by the operations of the IRS and the tax "system" that we allow to exist. Why ?
So, how did this happen, and what can we do about it ?
First, it is very important for everyone to understand that it is the enabling enforcement clauses of the Constitution and the Amendments that are the provisions of the Constitution that actually give Congress the authority and power to write statutes at law, in order to give the federal courts their ability to take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction (under a statute) over a civil action to enforce any claim for tax. That subject-matter jurisdiction can only be derived from a constitutionally authorized statute enacted by Congress, to enforce the federal powers granted under the Constitution and its Amendments for the federal government to legitimately and lawfully exercise ! i.e.: without an enforcement clause in the Constitution or an Amendment, for any specific given power allegedly granted thereunder, then there is no actual authority for Congress to write law created to enforce that power, and subsequently the courts are stripped of any legitimate ability to take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction over the civil actions initiated under that alleged authority, - like that of the 16th Amendment!
So, what enforcement clause in the Constitution gives Congress the power to write law as "appropriate legislation" to enforce the federal income tax ? That seems like a fair question, doesn't it, since it is the enforcement clauses that actually create the grant of enforceable power and the ability of the courts to take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction over an action to enforce the claims brought within it ? Ok, lets examine the answer.
First, previous to the adoption of the 16th Amendment of
course, the taxation of income had been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme
Court as a legitimate exercise of
the indirect taxing powers
given to Congress by the Constitution, i.e.: to tax by excise, impost, and duty
under the constitutional powers and authorities plainly granted by Article I,
Section 8, clause 1 ! see Springer v. U. S.,
102 U.S. 586 (1880); Pollock v.
Farmer's Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601, (1895); Pacific Ins. Co. v.
Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Spreckels
Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep.
376.; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911); Stratton's
Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, at 416-417 (1913), Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
Now, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution, of course, plainly and clearly provides the enforcement authority for these indirect Article I taxing powers:
Section 8, Clause 18
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"
This Article I clause of the
Constitution of course, is the enabling enforcement clause that
allows the federal government to enforce by written law, as appropriate
legislation, the indirect taxing
powers of the federal government that are granted in Article I, Section 8,
clause 1, i.e.: the power to tax indirectly by impost, duty or
However, if this is the empowering enforcement clause that serves as the enabling enforcement clause that gives the government (IRS) the enforcement authority to lawfully operate under to enforce the collection and payment of the federal personal income tax as an indirect tax, then, of course, and obviously, it then becomes absolutely necessary to identify how the IRS has determined that any specific individual person is subject to one of these indirect taxing forms, i.e.: an impost, duty, or excise.
The problem here of course is that American citizens are not normally subject to any impost, duty, or excise tax, simply as a result of exercising their Right to Work.
First, Imposts are taxes imposed on foreign goods being imported into the United States for sale here, and potentially, on any other foreign activity conducted in the United States by a foreign person. Citizens of course, cannot be made subject to any impost unless they are involved in foreign trade by importing goods. Most citizens are not.
Second, Duties are taxes on American goods being exported for sale in foreign markets; and that means that Citizens cannot be made subject to any duty unless they are involved in exporting American goods for sale in foreign markets. Most citizens of course, are not involved with exporting goods for sale in foreign markets.
That leaves only the third category of indirect taxation to examine, i.e.: the power to tax by excise !
Fortunately, that legal examination has
already been done for us. The Supreme
Court has definitively settled the legal issue of the constitutional scope of
the legal authority of the Congress to tax by excise. It
was specifically held in the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107
ruling, that excise taxes are:
"taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges ... the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. " Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680." Flint, supra, at 151
since most American citizens do not earn their living from "the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within
the country", nor from any "license to pursue [their] certain occupations", nor from the privilege of incorporation, it therefore appears that a citizen exercising
his simple Right to Work (in order to earn a living), is not subject to the imposition or payment any federal tax, income or otherwise, that is
indirect. Neither impost, duty, nor excise
Maybe this explains why the federal personal
income tax was not paid on work (generally) or
employment (specifically) by any American citizens
until after World War II.
So what happened after World War II to change
Well two things happened.
1.) the American people were duped into allowing withholding
of tax that is not actually
required by law, but rather, is
simply allowed by a naive and misinformed, but
well-indoctrinated, American public; and,
2.) the lower federal district and circuit courts began enforcing the
federal personal income tax for the first time, as though it were authorized
under the 16th Amendment as a direct tax without apportionment
time, the lower federal tax, district, and circuit courts have wrongfully
entered into a rebellion (with the Executive branch) against the
Supreme Court and the constitutional limitations
on the federal taxing powers; and
have since the 1950's, improperly completely reversed the true Supreme
Court holdings on the legal issue of the federal income tax, repeatedly ruling,
without explanation or supporting cite of any text of any original opinion,
that the Supreme Court held in 1916 that the federal personal income tax was
authorized for the first time as new taxing power under the 16th
Amendment, as a direct tax without apportionment, which is absolutely
incorrect, erroneous, and a complete reversal of the true original
Court plainly held in 1916, in upholding the indirect nature
of income tax under the 16th Amendment, that:
". . . The provisions of the Sixteenth 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 . . ." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916),
results that the proposition [that the tax is direct,] and the
contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the
Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the
provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into
irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct
taxes be apportioned. ... This result …. would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional
system and multiply confusion” Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.,
240 U.S. 1,
Now however, the lower courts, instead of following these plain and clear controlling decisions of the high court, now instead cite inferior decisions of the Circuit Courts like United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990); Parker v. Comm'r, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984; Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984) which simply cites to Parker v. Comm’r. to make its conclusion). These inferior lower court rulings erroneously conclude that the Brushaber and Baltic Mining rulings cited above, acted to uphold the federal personal income tax as a "direct tax without apportionment", rather than to reject that argument, as was plainly and clearly done by the court.
The federal income taxing powers were upheld
of course for so many years previous to WWII (31 years) as indirect taxing powers enforced under the enabling Article I,
Section 8, clause 18 enforcement
clause of the Constitution, that it became presumptuously assumed across time by the
judges of the lower federal district and circuit courts (and Tax Court) that
the income taxing powers of the Constitution existed as constitutionally enforceable powers.
However, now that the lower courts are openly ruling in blatant rebellion (against the Supreme Court and the Constitution) that the income tax being enforced today is a direct tax without apportionment authorized for the first time under the 16th Amendment as a new taxing power, it seems reasonable to ask what enforcement powers exist in the Constitution to allow the enforcement of that new taxing power ?
This is fair question since NO enforcement clause exists in the 16th Amendment giving Congress the necessary constitutional authority to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of (or any new taxing powers under) the 16th Amendment. Therefore, NO new taxing power, allegedly created for the first time under the Amendment, may be legitimately enforced by the IRS, or the DOJ, or the federal courts, by appropriate legislation, because there is NO enforcement clause in the Constitution to authorize such use of the statutes for that taxing power.
The rebellious lower courts today of course, completely reject indirect taxation as the constitutional basis of the federal income tax, and seem to have completely forgotten the original applicability of the pre-existing constitutional enforcement authority for the indirect taxing powers that are granted under Article I, Section 8, clause 1, i.e.: to tax by impost, duty and excise, and that are enforced under the enabling enforcement clause provided by Article I, Section 8, cl. 18, that existed in the Constitution before the adoption of the 16th Amendment. The lower courts also appear to have forgotten that it is in fact, the enforcement clauses of the Constitution and the Amendments that actually empower the Congress to write law to enforce granted powers. They have forgotten that it is not the clause that grants the power, that actually allows it to be enforced with written law (as appropriate legislation), it is the associated enabling enforcement clause !
On the other hand, enforcement clauses plainly do
exist in Amendments XIII (13th),
XIV (14th), XV (15th), XVIII (18th), XIX (19th), XXIII (23rd), XXIV (24th), and
XXVI (26th). These Amendments to the
Constitution are dated both before and after the adoption of the
16th Amendment, plainly show the intent of the authors of the 16th Amendment to intentionally NOT empower
the Congress to enforce by legislation any direct income tax without
apportionment under the 16th Amendment, but instead, they clearly
intended to force the Congress to rely only on the pre-existing
power to enforce that is granted under Article I, Section 8,
clause 18; - to enforce the income tax as one of the indirect taxing powers that are granted under Article
I, Section 8, clause 1 (as impost, duty, or excise).
So, the question
now is, how can we use this knowledge and understanding to begin defeating the
IRS in court ? The answer of course is
to hoist them on their own petard, i.e.: to make them personally
experience the horrifying consequences of assuming the position !
Whenever an American citizen is in court with the IRS over an income tax dispute, that citizen should begin the process of challenging the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court by sumitting four motions: a Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Law in the Supreme Court Decision of Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co (1915), and of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co (1915), and of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), moving the court to take judicial notice of the indirect nature of the federal income taxing powers under the 16th Amendment, and of the limits of authority associated with those three indirect forms, as plainly and clearly held by the Supreme Court in 1915 in its controlling decisions, together with a fourth Motion to Determine the specific subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court.
The lower courts, in their rush to uphold the defacto collection operations of the IRS, and out of what has become extreme arrogance and absurd ignorance will deny the Motions and instead will accept and endorse the argument of the Department of Justice attorneys that the income tax is authorized under the 16th Amendment as a direct tax without apportionment.
As soon as the court issues that ruling as its conclusion to your Motions to take Judicial Notice of Law and to Determine the specific subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court, you immediately file a Motion for Summary Judgment (if you filed the legal action), or a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice for Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court (if the IRS filed the legal action) under FRCP Rule 12(b)(1)), by the irrefutable lack of constitutional authority to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions and alleged new taxing powers of the 16th Amendment exercised to manufacture the claim for tax pursued, on the grounds that if the income taxing powers of the federal government are deemed by the court to be a new power to tax directly for the first time without apportionment, because of the adoption of the Amendment; then as a new power created under the Amendment, that new power cannot be legitimately enforced by any branch of the federal government unless it can be shown that there is an enabling enforcement clause somewhere in the Constitution that can be applied to the new power to allow its enforcement by appropriate legislation that creates the properly and fully granted subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court that can be taken over the civil enforcement action.
This irrefutable lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court for irrefutable lack of any enabling enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment, together with the court's erroneous declaration that the income taxing power being enforced in your case represents the application of an allegedly new taxing power created for the first time under the 16th Amendment to tax directly and without apportionment, is a fatal combination of circumstances for the court's (and government's) declared position. Without an enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment, and without an ability to invoke the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution, nobody from the federal government, or any federal court, has the legal power or constitutional authority, or subject-matter jurisdiction, or legal standing, to cite or argue any statute at all, from any Title of the U.S.C., as an element of law by which the collection or payment of the direct, unapportioned, non-proportionally imposed income tax may be enforced !
Once declared as a new taxing power
under the 16th Amendment, to tax directly and without apportionment, it
is constitutionally impossible for anyone in the federal government to
establish any constitutional enforcement authority
to enforce that new taxing power, because of the irrefutable absence of an
enabling enforcement clause as part of the Amendment.
McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), the Supreme
Court held that the limits of federal power proscribed within the Constitution
must be honored and obeyed by the U.S. government in operation, and enforced by
the courts against it where necessary, and that the Necessary and Proper enforcement
powers of Article I should never be allowed by the federal courts to be
used by the Plaintiff United States to effect in practice the
enforcement of a constitutionally prohibited power, that is
practiced in operation outside of identifiable or demonstrable
constitutional or statutory authorities
(like IRC § 7608(a)).
admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited,
and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must
allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by
which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable
that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most
beneficial to the people. Let the end
be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution,
and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which
are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and
spirit of the constitution, are constitutional ..." McCulloch v.
State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
Of course it is erroneous to declare that the federal personal income tax is a direct tax without apportionment under the 16th Amendment, but the subsequent Motion to Dismiss for Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction makes that painfully clear and irrefutably obvious to the court, which will either then have to dismiss the case with prejudice as moved, or correct its erroneous ruling that the tax is direct, and declare that it is indirect (after all), or risk the appeals or Supreme courts correcting the error upon appellate review, upon which action the entire system falls, because the federal government cannot show any personal jurisdiction of the federal courts with constitutional applicability of the indirect taxing powers to the earnings or income of the common man, where they are derived from a simple exercise of the individual's Right to Work , rather than the excise taxable "privilege" as stated by Flint v. Stone Tracy in 1911. The American citizen's Rights, and the simple and lawful exercise of a Right, may NOT be taxed by any Act of Congress !
The federal courts cannot take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce direct unapportioned taxation under the 16th Amendment, and they cannot take a personal jurisdiction over the citizen (and the exercise of the Right to Work) under Article I.
The founding father's made damn sure that the government is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Weren't they smart.
So, once the court declares the tax is indirect, you can then immediately file a Motion to Dismiss (for Lack of Demonstrable Subjectivity to the Indirect Taxing Powers and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under FRCP Rule 12(b)(2)), based on the fact that the federal government has failed to establish in the case, and in fact cannot factually establish in the case, that you or your earnings or income, are properly subjected to the indirect federal taxing powers, i.e.: to tax by impost, duty, or excise, because as a citizen of America simply exercising his or her inherent God-given Right to Work in one of the fifty states of America, you are NOT subject by definition (as discussed and shown above) to any of the indirect income taxing powers of the Constitution that may be legitimately and lawfully enforced under Article I, Section 8, clause 18, and the 16th Amendment creates NO new enforceable taxing powers for the government to act on because of the irrefutable absence of any such enabling enforcement clause as part of the Amendment's adoption.
Therefore, since there is no enabling enforcement clause that was enacted as part of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, then there is no new federal power to enforce any income taxing powers that are deemed to be direct and without apportionment under (or because of) the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and the federal courts therefore lack entirely the ability to take a constitutionally granted subject-matter jurisdiction over the action to enforce the claims of the IRS manufactured thereunder.
End of arguments.
can help you win in court. If you do
not contact us, or argue or answer any fact or law, or anything other than this
identified lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the court, as explained, you will not win ! I have the Motions and the Briefs. No one else does.
is just that simple. If you are in
court with the IRS, contact me (Thomas Freed).
I will help you.
Civil and Criminal cases, it does not matter!)
very simple Motions referenced herein, necessary for any American
citizen to carry out this plan of action to begin defeating the IRS in court, without
the use of any attorney being necessary, may be obtained from:
 This decision, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) is now recognized as controlling Constitutional Law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by virtually every court in the nation as the authoritative definition of the legal scope of federal excise taxing powers.
 These Motions can be obtained today from IRSzoom.com
 Again these Motions can be obtained today from IRSzoom.com