What you need to realize in order to properly understand the true nature of today’s income tax laws, which has been implemented directly from the original legislation that was enacted and upheld when tested by the Supreme Court in 1916, is that, first: in 1916 the court determined the income tax legislation being tested was constitutional as an indirect tax, and rejected the argument that the tax was a direct tax without apportionment.


"...by the previous ruling (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th 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 US 103, 112-113 (1916)


The reason why they ruled that the income tax was an indirect tax is because they knew, from the Brushaber decision just handed down, that they were testing “the income tax provisions of the tariff act”:


“As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.”  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, 9 (1916)


And they also knew that a tariff is one kind of an impost under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:


"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, … but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"


Which establishes the power of the federal government to uniformly tax, indirectly, certain activities – exports (duties), imports (imposts), and excise taxable activities (excises).


Because it was laid as the income tax provisions of the tariff (act), the income tax was easily recognized by the court as belonging to the indirect category of imposts.  In addition, the court also recognized that the legislators, in writing this tariff legislation in 1913, had very carefully taken their “cues” from the Court itself in the Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. case, on how to write income tax legislation that would, in the future, stand the test of constitutionality that the legislation tested in  Pollock had failed.  


In the Pollock case in 1896, the Supreme Court had declared the legislation tested in that case unconstitutional because it was determined by the court to be an attempt to tax certain sources of earnings directly and without apportionment.  However, in discussing the character, nature and history of both direct and indirect taxation under the Constitution, the Pollock Court writes:


“Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes;”  Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895)   (emphasis added)


This, “shifting of the burden” is a very simple concept to understand, and very important.   It requires the involvement of a (federal) tax collector that actually pays the tax in place of the subject taxpayer.  For example, the sales tax in a State.  In States where there is a sales tax, it always works like this:  “the sales tax is imposed on transactions conducted by the customers of the store”.  It is not imposed on the store itself, who plays the role of the tax collector (and as such becomes the actual taxpayer), or even on the customers, who are given the role of the payors of the tax (but who are not the actual taxpayers because they have no personal contact with the government), but rather, it is imposed on the purchases of the store’s customers who buy the taxable goods sold by the store.   The customers must pay the tax at the cash register, in addition to the cost of the goods being purchased, and therein become the payors of the tax.  The store, while it is not “taxed” itself by the legislation directly, is always tasked by the enacting legislation with the legal duty (or burden) of acting as a tax collector for the (State) government, which has the legal effect of making the store the actual taxpayer of the tax (to the government) by making the stores the actual parties (persons) liable for the tax under the statutes. 


The Store must collect the tax at the cash register on all of the transactions of its customers, and the store then becomes the legal taxpayer when it sends the collected tax money to the State, it is not the actual payor of the tax because the funds the store turns over to the State as tax do not come out of the pocket of the store, but come only from the pockets of its customers.  So, the customer pays the sales tax to the tax collector - the store, and the store then, as a tax collector, turns the collected funds over to the State as the taxpayer.  It’s all indirect because the burden to pay the tax is shifted from the tax collector who actually pays the tax to the State as the taxpayer, to some other person (the underlying payor) from whom the tax was collected.


If one wants to avoid the legal compulsion to pay the sales tax, don’t’ go to the store, and you don’t have to pay the sales tax on goods you grow or make yourself, because there is no legal compulsion to do so, because the store cannot collect tax from everyone who has a loaf of bread, or from those who bake a loaf of bread, only from those who buy a loaf of bread at the store.  If you don’t want to be a tax collector, don’t open a store, and you don’t have to collect tax on your transactions.


And what happens if the tax collector – the store, fails to do his duty under the law?  The government does not go to the individual customers of the store to demand the past due tax, interest, penalties and additions to tax,  it goes to the tax collector, the store that failed in its duty to timely collect and turn over the required tax imposed on the transactions of its customers.  The government, you see, never deals AT ALL with the store’s customers directly.  It always deals, INDIRECTLY, only with its tax collectors.  It only deals with its army of tax collectors – the stores, and never has any direct contact at all with the citizens directly, the customers of the store.  And this complete and total lack of any an all direct contact between the government and the citizens, the actual customers or payors of the tax, is the classic hallmark and indication of an indirect tax as noted by the Supreme Court in the Pollock decision.   The sales tax is an indirect tax because there is a third party tax collector who is the only person liable to the government for the payment of the tax as the taxpayer, but who shifts the burden of the tax he pays to some other underlying party who is the actual payor of the tax (the customers), even though they are not the actual specific subject of the tax (their transactions at the store).


Now, as stated above, in addition to knowing a tariff is an indirect tax (as an impost under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution), the Supreme Court also recognized immediately that the legislators of the income tax legislation enacted in 1913 and being tested by the court in these cases in 1916, had done their homework regarding the writing of constitutional income tax legislation that legitimately imposes and INDIRECTLY collects an indirect (income) tax laid in a tariff act.  They recognized that:


“2. The act provides for collecting the tax at the source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax on interest due on bonds and mortgages unless the owner … gives a notice that he claims an exemption”    (emphasis added)  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 US 1, 21 (1916)


The Court immediately saw that the “duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the taxcould be immediately recognized (by everyone) as creating a tax collector in the law, in the form of the statutorily defined Withholding Agent, who was being tasked by the income tax legislation being tested with the duty to collect the income tax from transactions involving subject “persons”, through the “duty” to “retain and pay the sum of the tax”.   Today we call this court identified, statutorily defined duty, “withholding, and the reason why is because that is how this “duty” is clearly defined in the statutes, with no confusion, plainly and clearly at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(16):


§ 7701(a)…


(16).   Withholding Agent. - The term "Withholding Agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.”


This is the legislatively defined “duty” in the law (today), that was identified by the Supreme Court in 1916 in the Brushaber decision, and was relied upon by the Courtto recognize the income tax legislation being tested in that case as an indirect tax that was collected indirectly, by “collecting the tax at the source”, by withholding money as tax under the “duty of the corporations, etc. to retain and pay the sum of the tax”, AS FEDERAL TAX COLLECTORS. 


With those referenced, defining code sections (from § 7701(a)(16) above) providing:


§ 1441.  Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens


§ 1442  Withholding of Tax on Foreign Corporations


§ 1443  Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations



The Withholding Agent is then made liable by statute for the payment of the tax that he has collected, in I.R. Code Section 1461.  Section 1461 is the only code section in existence in Subtitle A (income taxes) that makes anyone liable for the payment of the income tax.  It very clearly states:


§ 1461 Liability for withheld tax.


Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 



So, what you have to realize in order to recognize and properly understand the true character and nature of the income tax, is that under the actual provisions of the laws enacted, tested and upheld by the court in 1916 in the controlling case, it is the “corporations, etc.”, including domestic corporations and American citizens (we are the “etc.”, i.e.:  the other required “persons”), who are cast in the role of federal tax collectors as Withholding Agents, just as the store is made a tax collector in the state’s sales tax system.  And, it is the Withholding Agent who collects income tax from subject foreign persons, who pay the tax by virtue of its being withheld from their payments, and thus again become the payors.  But those foreign payors never actually deal with the U.S. government because the tax is collected indirectly and then paid by the third party tax collectors (as an indirect tax). 


The Withholding Agents are the actual taxpayers, but they are allowed to shift the burden of the tax they pay, to some other party, i.e.: the persons from whom tax is withheld.   In the States’ indirect sales tax system the burden is shifted from the store (the taxpayer) to the customer, by adding the cost of tax to the cost of the goods purchased, and then requiring the customer to pay that amount to the store, who then must turn over to the state the collected tax funds.  In the indirect federal personal income tax, the burden is shifted from the Withholding Agent to the foreign person by withholding money as tax from payments made to those subject foreign persons (under §§ 1441, 1442 and 1443).  There are no other withholding provisions requiring the withholding of federal income tax from any other “persons” anywhere in the Subtitle A tax code.  There is no other authority anywhere in the Subtitle A federal personal income tax laws that would expand the authority to collect tax to include a realm of authority over payments made to any American Citizen living and working anywhere in the United States.


And, if the Withholding Agent wishes to avoid the legal compulsion to pay, as noted earlier from the Pollock decision, where it stated:


“Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes;”   Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895)


then he can hire a citizen or resident alien to do the job instead of hiring a non-resident alien or foreign corporation (who are the actual statutory subjects of the tax under the provisions of Sections 1441, 1442, & 1443), and thereby avoid the withholding of income tax and the “duty(as identified in the legislation by the Supreme Court) “to retain and pay the sum of tax” as federal tax collectors.


What you have to understand, is that: As an indirect tax that is collected by Withholding Agents who shift the burden of the tax they pay to the subject foreign parties (“persons”), THERE IS NO DUTY IN THE LAW FOR A CITIZEN TO PAY INCOME TAX ON THEIR OWN EARNINGS, or to file a Form 1040 reporting their own earnings, because,




They are required by law to ACT AS TAX COLLECTORS in the form of “Withholding Agents” and withhold income tax from payments made to foreign, non-resident persons.  That’s all.  That is the complete authority and entire extent of the income tax law that was actually tested and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1916. And, just like the sales tax that is actually written in the law, the federal income tax is also ONLY collected and paid indirectly by federal tax collectors who are defined in law at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(16) as tax collectors in the form of  Withholding Agents” who are the “persons” made liable by statute for the payment of the tax in  Section 1461.   There is no direct taxation of the citizens own income written legitimately anywhere in the law. 


And if we enforced the tax as it is actually written instead of in the unlawful communistic manner that we do, we wouldn’t have the illegal immigrant labor problem in America that we do today.


Being compelled to pay income tax, as though it were a direct tax without apportionment on all the labor and fruits of the labor of the American people, that’s not the constitutional Republic, THAT’S THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, AND THAT’s REPUGNANT TO THE  CONSTITUTION !   I don’t know who converted it, but it is all illegal, because it is NOT in the law, and completely violates everything in the Constitution, and IMPLEMENTS EVERYTHING IN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO !


Thomas Jefferson said “A wise and frugal government shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned”. 


Income tax does exactly that.  FOR GOD’S SAKE, INCOME TAX IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT !!!


So, what you really have to understand is, that if you want your country back, if you want your freedom back, YOU HAVE TO STOP VOLUNTARILY PRACTICING COMMUNISM BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID OF YOUR GOVERNMENT  (the IRS) !


As long as Americans continue to allow our government to intimidate us through the IRS into practicing communism voluntarily or out of fear, thus ceding our true political and economic power to the government completely, we will never be free again as a people !


When the People fear their own government, you have only tyranny.

When the government fears the People, you have Liberty.


What’s your assessment of the situation today?  Honestly.