The "wages"
of an American citizen are NOT "gross income"
The IRS as a matter of defacto practice, improperly, erroneously and unconstitutionally includes the amounts of earnings that are reported on a Form W-2, as the wages of an American citizen, as the legal basis for an alleged deficiency for the payment of personal income tax.
This is not a proper application of the law and violates
your inherent and constitutional Right to Work.
This is true because I.RC. §
6211, controlling deficiencies, says a "deficiency"
is based on the "tax imposed in Subtitles A and B and Chapters
41,42,..."; i.e.:
§ 6211. Definition of a deficiency.
(a) In general. For purposes of this title in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44, the term "deficiency" means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44, exceeds the excess of -
(1) the sum of
(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon, plus
(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency, over -
(2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2), made.
This plainly and clearly says the statutory "deficiency" is based on the tax imposed under Subtitle A or B....
But, a Form W-2 reporting
your "wages" as a
citizen, is created under the Subtitle "C" employment tax laws, not the
Subtitle A income tax laws or the Subtitle B estate tax
laws. Everyone knows the
(Subtitle A) income tax laws were enacted in 1913, and that the employment tax
laws of Subtitle C were enacted 31 years later in 1945? They are entirely different bodies of
law! So how are earnings, in the form of "wages",
reported on a W-2 under the Subtitle C code provisions, legitimately used as
the legal basis of a deficiency in
Subtitle A under Section 6211 ??
So then, the critical question then appears to be: "Are your Subtitle C "wages" subject to the imposition of any Subtitle A income tax?"
First notice that in every
Chapter of Subtitle
C (Chapter 21 through 25 of Title 26 U.S.C.) the first code section of
every Chapter imposes a specified "excise tax" on a statutorily specified party (person).
Those section imposing the taxes occur as Section 3101 in
Subchapter A of Chapter 21, and Section 3111
in Subchapter B. And in Chapter 22 we have Section 3201 in
Subchapter A, Section 3211 in
Subchapter B, and Section
3221 in Subchapter C, all imposing the tax on a statutorily specified party (person).
In Chapter 23 where there are no Subchapters, we have Section 3301 imposing
the tax for the whole Chapter, and finally, in Chapter 25, there is no tax
imposed at all in the Chapter, because the Chapter authorizes the collection of
the taxes imposed in all the other Chapters (and Subchapters) of the Subtitle
("C") ( - the tax is collected an paid by the employer in all
cases)).
Every Chapter except Chapter 24 in this Subtitle (C) has as its first code section, as the tax imposed !
Why not Chapter 24??? In Chapter 24 the first code section is "3401-Definitions", where there is no tax imposed ! The second code section is Section "3402-Income tax collected at the source". Look:
Title 26 U.S. Code (I.R.C.)
Chapter
24 - Collection of income tax at source on
wages
§ 3402.
Income tax collected at source
§ 3404. Return and payment by governmental employer
§ 3405. Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other
deferred income
§ 3406. Backup withholding
[§§ 3451 to 3456. Repealed.]
See, there is NO "tax
imposed" in the entire Chapter (24) !
But wait a minute, don't we have to actually impose a tax by law before we authorize or require its collection by law? Well, it turns out, NO. We don't !
Especially, if the withholding is specifically voluntarily allowed by the employee him or herself (on a Form W-4 of course) !! Then we can collect it from anyone who authorizes its withholding on the Form, regardless of whether or not the tax is actually imposed on those earnings as matter of law, or an obvious misapplication of the law through ignorance !
There is no first section in Chapter 24 that imposes a tax, like in all the other Chapters of Subtitle C, because there is no tax imposed in Chapter 24 (of Subtitle C). That Chapter just allows the withholding of money as tax wherever an employee requests and Allows it on a W-2, under the erroneous presumption of a tax imposed somewhere else in the law (presumably under Subtitle A, maybe??) !
So, if there is NO federal personal income "tax imposed" in Subtitle C (in Chapter 24) with regards to the withholding of the tax from the wages of citizens that are earned and reported on a W-2 under the Subtitle C code provisions, is there then a "tax imposed" in Subtitle A with regards to the withholding of tax from the wages or salaries of citizens (as opposed to some other parties or persons) that are earned and reported under the Subtitle C code provisions (as opposed to Subtitle A) ?
Subtitle A of course, is only Chapters 1 - 6 of Title 26 United States Code (U.S.C.).
Title 26 U.S.C. (the I.R.C.) Section 1 is "Tax imposed", where the term "wages" is not specifically mentioned or identified; i.e.: the term "wages" is not present in the statute:
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and
surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as
defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse
under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as
defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
...
Next, I.R.C. Section 61 defines the term "gross income", which is the basis for a person's alleged "taxable income" (under Section 63), i.e.: income that is reportable on a Form 1040, and or a Form W-2 ??
(a) General Definition — Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income [income means income] from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services,
including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from
business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings
in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate
maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance
and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of
indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of
partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a
decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in
an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and
following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III
(sec. 101 and following).
Again, are the terms "wages" or "salaries"
listed here in this code section. NO,
they are not. Now, we will discuss
in a moment the difference and clear distinction made in the law between "wages"
and "salaries", which are employment based, and
"compensation for services" (number 1 above in the statute) ,
which is not necessarily employment based but which includes "fees,
commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items". But for now, just please notice that the specific
terms "wages" and "salaries" are not
actually present in this statute
(Section 61). Now to be comprehensive
in our analysis, it says in Subsection (b) of this Section (61) above that:
"For items specifically included in gross income, see Part
II (sec. 71
and following)"
So, to be thorough in our investigation and analysis, but also in order to not consume too much briefing space herein, I.R.C. Section 71 states in pertinent part as shown below (with links to verify the accuracy of the cite and arguments. We invite you to investigate the matter yourself !) :
§ 71 - Alimony and separate maintenance payments
(a) General rule.
Gross income includes
amounts received as alimony or separate maintenance payments.
(b) Alimony or separate maintenance payments
defined
(c) Payments to support children
(d) Spouse
(e) Exception for joint returns. This section and section 215 shall not apply
if the spouses make a joint return with each other.
(f) Recomputation where excess front-loading of
alimony payments
(g) Cross references
(1) For deduction of alimony or
separate maintenance payments, see section 215.
(2) For taxable status of income of an
estate or trust in the case of divorce, etc., see section 682.
The referenced statutes following Section 71 are listed as:
§ 72. Annuities; certain proceeds of endowment and life insurance
contracts
§ 73. Services of child
§ 74. Prizes and awards
§ 75. Dealers in tax-exempt securities
[§ 76. Repealed.]
§ 77. Commodity credit loans
§ 78. Dividends received from certain foreign corporations by
domestic
corporations choosing foreign
tax credit
§ 79. Group-term life insurance purchased for employees
§ 80. Restoration of value of certain securities
[§ 81. Repealed.]
§ 82. Reimbursement for expenses of moving
§ 83. Property transferred in connection with performance of services
§ 84. Transfer of appreciated property to political organization
§ 85. Unemployment compensation
§ 86. Social security and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits
§ 87. Alcohol and biodiesel fuels credits
§ 88. Certain amounts with respect to nuclear decommissioning costs
[§ 89. Repealed.]
§ 90. Illegal Federal irrigation subsidies
Do you see "wages" or "salaries" listed anywhere here in these statute titles ?? NO, you do not, just like in the referring, Section 61 defining "gross income" !
Now, while it is true that the code section titles are not actually the law, I assure you, in this instance, the titles you see shown above are accurately representative of the command of the law that is contained within each of the statutes listed, and none of these statues address, or use, the term "wages" or "salaries" in identifying "items" or "sources" of "gross income"; or in imposing the tax in Subtitle A of Title 26 (the I.R.C.).
So are "wages" or "salaries" plainly and clearly identified or specified in I.R.C. Section 61 as a "source" of the gross income that constitutes a person's reportable "taxable income", or not?
NO, - they are not.
But again, please notice that "compensation for services" is listed separately and distinctly in Section 61, while the terms "wages" and "salaries" are not present !
Can "wages" or "salaries" be earned by corporations? (NO, they cannot)
On the other hand, can a corporation earn "compensation for services" ? (YES, it can)
So, are "wages" and "salaries" the same as "compensation for services" under the specific written law in Subtitle A ?
Now, one might normally be able to credibly and reasonably argue that the two are pretty much the same, which is why the government has erroneously gotten away with it so far to date; BUT, Congress has made a specific statutory distinction in the two terms in the Subtitle A income tax laws of Title 26 in I.R.C. Section 1441. So let's look at all of the pertinent specifically written law in Subtitle A addressing this topic ! And, if there is a statutory distinction in the two terms that has been made by Congress in the Subtitle A income tax laws, one can no longer credibly and reasonably argue that the two terms are one and the same under Section 61, can they!
That plain and clear statutory distinction between the terms, made in Subtitle A, has either been erroneously, or intentionally, overlooked by the Us Tax Courts, who have failed to recognize and apply that clear statutory distinction in interpreting the other statutes of the Subtitle ("A"), specifically, in interpreting and applying Section 61 erroneously to the wages and salaries of American citizens, as reported on a Form W-2 at the end of the year, based on the erroneous opinion that "wages", "salaries", and "compensation for services" are actually all the same, and therefore, the wages and "salaries" of a citizen (as opposed to some other specifically statutorily identified party) are taxable as income as "compensation for services", despite the fact that the law doesn't actually say that, and, despite the fact that the "wages" and "salaries" of a citizen are earned by constitutional Right, making them inherently immune to, and exempt from, any and all mandatory direct taxation of their "wages", where derived from or earned by the simple exercise of that inherent human constitutional Right.
WAKE UP AMERICA ! The
IRS is LYING TO YOU, in order to RULE you and seize control of the purchasing power
of your untouchable private property
!
The plain and clear statutory distinction made by Congress in Subtitle A, which I am going to show you now, has rarely been identified in statute for the U.S. courts in case arguments made by docile, uninformed and argument-compliant attorneys, nor has it ever been properly argued all the way to the Supreme Court under the proper circumstances.
Unknown to most attorneys in this country is the statutory fact that only certain and specific "wages" and "salaries", being earned by certain statutorily identified persons who are in fact clearly made subject to the imposition and collection of the federal personal income tax from their "wages" and "salaries" in the Subtitle A code provisions (as required under IRC 6211 for there to be a "deficiency").
But again, only where those
"wages" and "salaries" are earned by the
very specific and certain statutorily identified persons. So, who are these certain
identified persons, whose "wages" and "salaries"
are definitely and clearly reached, and touched, by the federal
income tax statutes in Subtitle A ?
Well let's see. In I.R.C. Section 1441(a), it says that the federal income tax will be withheld and collected from non-resident aliens at a rate of either 30 or 14 percent. Non-resident aliens are of course, FOREIGN non-resident persons (illegal aliens) (and no other) !
§ 1441. Withholding
of Tax on Nonresident Aliens
(a)
General rule. Except
as otherwise provided in subsection (c) all
persons, in whatever capacity acting having the control, receipt, custody, disposal or
payment of any of the items of
income specified in subsection (b) (to the extent that any of such items
constitutes gross income from sources within the
United States), of any nonresident alien individual [person], or
of any foreign partnership shall deduct and withhold from such items a tax equal to 30
percent thereof, except that in the
case of any items of income specified in the second sentence of subsection (b),
the tax shall be equal to 14 percent of such item.
And, in the next section of this code section, I.R.C. § 1441(b), the Congress lists all of "wages", "salaries", and "compensations" as separate and distinct items, i.e: distinct and separate sources of "gross income", in applying the imposition of the income tax to taxable sources, from which the tax should be collected by the tax-collectors!
BUT ONLY WHEN the wages, salaries, and compensations are earned by a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN person. (and not citizens)
§ 1441. Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens
...
(b) Income items
The items of income referred to in subsection (a) are interest (other than
original issue discount as defined in section 1273), dividends, rent, salaries, wages, premiums,
annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or
determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, gains described
in section 631 (b) or (c), amounts subject to tax under section 871 (a)(1)(C),
gains subject to tax under section 871 (a)(1)(D), and gains on transfers
described in section 1235 made on or before October 4, 1966.
Why does I.R.C. § 1441
make this specific distinction here in this statute in subtitle
A, between the terms, "wages", "salaries",
and "compensations", by listing them all as separate and distinct
"source" "items", from which the collection
of the "tax imposed" in Subtitle A is specifically required,
if they are all
the same under I.R.C. Section 61 and its definition of "gross
income", as
allegedly interpreted by the U.S. Tax Courts (and erroneously argued by the I.R.S. and the U.S. D.O.J.) ??
It is of course, because, under
the statues, clearly, they are NOT the same. I.R.C. § 1441 commands the tax be imposed on
and collected from ONLY the "wages"
and "salaries" of the non-resident aliens
who are plainly and clearly identified in statute
in IRC § 1441(a) and (b), as being subject to the collection of the
federal personal income tax, specifically from their "wages"
and "salaries". But where
is any of this in the written law of Subtitle A with respect to the application
of the law to the "wages" and "salaries"
of the American
citizen?? Where is it ?? Anyone ???
It's NOT there !!
This is of course because the non-resident aliens in this country do not have a constitutional Right To Work, as the American citizens do. Aliens enjoy a federally granted privilege in being allowed to be present in, and work in, America, not a Right.
That privilege is actually
the subject of the tax imposed on, and collected from, their income
and "wages" and "salaries", because those of the non-resident aliens are not derived from the simple exercise of
any Right to Work, as is the case
with citizens.
However,
the "wages"
and "salaries" of the American citizens ARE earned by Right, thus the intentional
exclusion of the terms by
Congress from Section 61 defining "gross income" with regards
to the citizens (thus recognizing, honoring and upholding the constitutional Rights
to Work and to private property of the citizens), and the
intentional inclusion by
Congress of all of these terms under Section 1441(b) with regards to the collection of the tax from these
sources where belonging to a non-resident aliens (foreigners), as identified thereunder !
Thus the "wages" and "salaries" of the non-resident aliens are subject under IRC § 1441(a) and (b) to the collection of the Subtitle A tax imposed in Section 1, but, because the "wages" and "salaries" of the general population in America (the citizens) are not actually identified or specified in written law in Section 61 of Subtitle A, as an item or source of "gross income", or consequently "taxable income" under Section 63; then, those "wages" and "salaries" of the citizens cannot be legitimately assumed, presumed, construed, or credibly argued, to be the same as those "compensation for services" that are listed in Section 61 as a "source" of "gross" and "taxable" income without listing either "wages" or "salaries" therein (Sec. 61), because the Congress made this clear distinction in Subtitle A between "wages", "salaries" and "compensation for services", by separately listing the three as distinct and different terms, items, and sources in Section 1441(b), in Subtitle A - applying to a deficiency under IRC § 6211.
This plain and clear statutory
distinction made in the written law between "wages", "salaries",
and "compensations" is now intentionally or
erroneously lost or overlooked by the lower courts in applying Section 61
since the mid-1950's, in order to enable the I.R.S. to wrongfully forcibly
collect the tax from the citizens directly and communistically
from the proceeds of the simple exercise of the citizens of
their Right to Work, in blatant violation of the two constitutional
prohibitions on such taxation under Article I (Art I, Sec 2, cl 3, &
Art I, Sec 9, cl 4) !
Since there is a distinction made between the terms in Subtitle A under Section 1441(b) with regards to foreigners, who are taxable, then, in order for the tax to be constitutional and uniform in application under the statutes, Section 61 must be interpreted and applied by the government and the courts as recognizing and upholding that distinction made between the terms in Section 1441(b) when applying the other code sections in that Subtitle A; and not by wrongfully ignoring the specific statutory distinction made by Congress in the Subtitle, and the intentional separation and listing by Congress of the terms in Section 1441(b), and simply inferring that the three terms ("wages", "salaries", and "compensation for services") are one and the same under Section 61, and thus taxable to all parties earning wages, and not just the non-resident aliens actually identified in the written law in Subtitle A as being made specifically subject to the collection of the tax from their "wages" and "salaries" in Subtitle A in Section 1441; -thus recognizing and preserving the American people's inherent constitutional Right to Work, (at least until the Subtitle C employment tax laws were enacted in 1945 after WWII !)
Remember, this citizens' Right to Work, which is recognized in Subtitle A through this statutory distinction made between "wages", "salaries", and "compensations", is also very carefully recognized and preserved in the Subtitle C code provisions as well through the complete absence of any "tax imposed" on any "wages" or "salaries" at all under that Subtitle with regards to the withholding and collection of the federal personal income tax in Subtitle A.
So how is any legitimately alleged deficiency under IRC § 6211 derived from "wages" or "salaries" of a citizen that are reported under the Subtitle C code provisions of Chapter 24 (employment tax law, not income), when there is no "tax imposed" on those sources in either of the Subtitles, A and C !
Where is the required "tax imposed under Subtitles A or B or ...", as required under IRC § 6211 defining the factual circumstances under which a statutory deficiency might allege to exist in the name of a specific person or taxpayer!
And, why are the citizens' "wages" and "salaries" alleged, allowed, and held to be "taxable" "sources" of "gross income" of the citizens under I.R. Sections 61 and 63, when the terms "wages" and "salaries" are not specifically mentioned therein? And Section 1441(b), in Subtitle A, does identify the specific "wages" and "salaries" that are actually made subject by the written statutes to the imposition and collection of the federal personal income tax that is imposed in Subtitle A, as plainly and clearly being ONLY imposed on those "wages" (and "salaries") that are earned by FOREIGN non-resident "persons" in the United States, not citizens, as plainly and clearly specified in I.R.C. § 1441(a) and (b) ??
This is all easily confirmed by independently investigating the statutory authority of the Subtitle A tax collectors, who are defined in law as "Withholding Agents" (as opposed to the "employers", who are the statutorily defined tax collectors in the Subtitle C employment tax laws). The code section that defines the "Withholding Agents", and gives those federal Subtitle A tax-collectors their complete legal authority to act in collecting the federal personal income tax as it is factually imposed under the Subtitle A code provisions (i.e.: not on citizens) is I.R.C. Section 7701(a)(16) .
That code section only references four code section: IRC Sections 1441, 1442 and 1443, all of which have to do with establishing a requirement to collect the tax from the "wages" and "salaries" and other sources of the foreign non-resident aliens, and no other parties or persons, and IRC Section 1461, which states that it is the tax collectors, in the form of the statutorily defined Withholding Agents, who are actually made liable in the law by written statute for the payment of the tax that they have collected, much the same way that a "store" is made liable by State law for the payment of the sales tax that it has collected by "taxing" the store's sales that are made to its customers who are the general population. But, it is NOT the general population that is made liable by the law for the payment of the tax, under any circumstances. So too, is the federal personal income tax of Subtitle A imposed with only the limited statutory liability of the tax-collectors to turn over to the Treasury the income tax that they have collected from the statutorily identified, subject foreign, non-resident persons.
Thus the "wages" and "salaries" of a citizen that are reported on the a Form W-2 are properly classified as being removed from the category of "gross income" that constitutes "taxable income", and are not included as taxable gross income when earned by a citizen by Right, and thus should NOT be erroneously reported as such (taxable income) on the disputed Form W-2!
But of course, once the presumption of tax is established through the "Allowance" of withholding, the government refuses to recognize any controlling statutory authority, other than that erroneous presumption !
The
wages and salaries of the citizens are earned
through the simple exercise of the citizens' Right to Work,
which constitutional Right, and the exercise
thereof, cannot be made the subject of any constitutional tax, income
or otherwise, irregardless of the addition of the 16th Amendment.
This is why "wages" and "salaries" are not listed as "sources" of "taxable" "gross income", other than the those belonging to the non-resident aliens identified in Subtitle A in Section 1441, but "wages" and "salaries" are listed in Section 1441(b) regarding the earnings of the non-resident aliens identified and specified in Section 1441(a) !
There is a clear distinction made in the written law (in the two different statutes) in the different lists of taxable source items to apply, depending upon who earns the income, a citizen, or a non-resident alien !
The reason why the tax is withheld and collected in Subtitle A, only from the "wages" and "salaries" of foreigners (non-resident aliens), is because the name of the legislation that enacted the federal personal income tax in 1913, was the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct 3., 1913. (Please notice that in this Tariff Act there is some very deceptive language. Because, while the federal personal income tax appears to be imposed on U.S. citizens in Section II.A of the Treaty statutes, it is critically important to note that there is a statutory redefinition of the term "United States" the occurs in Section H of this legislation (scroll down in the above link). That redefinition excludes the 50 States from the Tariff's statutory definition of the "United States" ! So, the citizens in the fifty states are exempted from the imposition and collection of the federal personal income tax by the territorial jurisdictional definition to be used in applying and enforcing the tax to individuals, as opposed to the excise authority that is invoked to apply the tax to the corporations. see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.
So,
Q: What is a "Tariff" ??
A: A tax imposed on foreign activity ! (A tariff is usually imposed on imported foreign
made goods, but also can apply to other foreign activity occurring under the jurisdiction
of the federal government (i.e.:
in the United States or territories )!!
Q: Who does that tax (in the form of a tariff) apply to ?
A: FOREIGNERS !
Q: Under the written law of the I.R.C. (Title 26
U.S.C.) in Subtitle A, who are the tax-collectors (in the form of the "Withholding
Agents") allowed to collect the tax from ?
A: Non-resident
aliens (foreigners) (see I.R.C. §§ 7701(a)(16), 1441, 1442, 1443)
Q: Under the written law in Subtitle A, who are the
"Withholding Agents"
(the tax-collectors) required
by law to collect the tax from?
A: Non-resident aliens (foreigners)
Is that the reason (its a tariff) why the Subtitle A laws only require the collection of the federal personal income tax from the "wages" and "salaries" of the non-resident aliens (under IRC § 1441(b)), AND NO ONE ELSE !
Since we have shown
that there is additionally no tax imposed on "wages" (or
"salaries") in Subtitle C (in Chapter 24), why then do you (as an American citizen)
owe any tax on your wages
or salaries, and how are "wages" or "salaries"
legitimately argued as the basis for any alleged lawful deficiency in Subtitle
A under IRC § 6211?? Other than because
you allowed
them to withhold the tax, ( - because you did not understand
the law, - because you were,
intentionally NEVER TAUGHT THE LAW, so that you would remain ignorant
about it, where your ignorance could then be taken advantage of by the
government; and you could thereby be controlled by habit and custom
for the rest of your life, without the use of any of the physical force
that would normally be necessary to deprive you of your constitutional, and
life's, Rights and private property ??? )
But the government is refusing to enforce the explicit and irrefutable letter and instruction of the actual written law, in order to enforce imaginary provisions that do not actually exist in the written law to enforce, but rather, are only based in a liberal, progressive, political, philosophy that is not actually in the written law, and which cannot lawfully exist in reality in America under the U.S. Constitution (as it exists in its current form of practice)!
Any questions? Keep reading !
Here's the link to Subtitle A and all the code sections referenced therein: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A (Chapter 1 contains Sections 1, 61, and 63. Chapter 3 contains Section 1441.)
And here's the link to review the Subtitle C code sections I reference in Chapter 24 (and the first section of the other chapters - "tax imposed") : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-C
And of course, we have the oft-repeated command of all of the U.S. courts to honor the statutory construction used in the statutes by Congress in authoring them, as written, in applying and enforcing the law. Case closed.