Are You Aiding and Abetting the IRS?Jamie Lee If you drive a car, Ill tax the street, The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax. Albert Einstein When asked, in an extremely unscientific poll I have been conducting over the years, Why do you continue to pay income taxes when you know these payments are being used to engage in illegal wars on countries that have never attacked us and to pay the banksters servicing costs on our massive debt that they created with the consent and full ownership of our amoral government leaders? This poll found that: I then asked a follow up to those who did not want to go to jail if they knew anyone personally who had gone to jail for not paying their taxes and their answer was a 100% No! I followed this up with a simple question to all: Do you know why, how or when the U.S federal income tax system was installed. That got another 100% response of No from all those polled. So to recap; Every April 15th we voluntarily assess our own wages and earnings into a system we have no idea how, when or why it was created. We work on average for 3 1/2 months just pay into our taxes and this money is used principally to fund war operations against others and pay just the service charges on our $16 Trillion dollar debt. All because we are ignorant or afraid to go to jail if we dont pay which directly involves our complicit act of self-policing ourselves while perpetuating and annually compounding the problems we most want to solve in this country of too much debt and war, which if eliminated by our refusal to voluntarily pay taxes would end both major problems we face. Did you know? 100 years ago our nation had no debt, had the wealthiest middle class in the world and only the top 10% paid income tax. Since that time here are just some of the taxes that have been added: This past November Californians voted to increase our sales tax, otherwise we were threatened that our public school systems would suffer drastic cuts, even though none of the tax increases would necessarily go to the schools but into the states General Fund. In addition to cuts being proposed to our social security system that we paid into and that allegedly the government has grossly mismanaged here are more taxes being proposed and already being enacted. U.S. Income Tax Has Its Roots in Marxism: In 1848, Karl Marx declared in his Communist Manifesto that a progressive tax on personal income was one of the 10 essential measures to ensure a Communist revolution in an advanced country in order to bring about his fabled classless society. Socialist and Communist ideas gained momentum in many parts of Europe, and it wasnt long before they reached America. Various attempts to impose a progressive federal income tax making the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor soon appeared in this country. The Revenue Act of 1861 was a federal income tax used to raise revenue to fund the Civil War. It was a flat tax of three percent on annual income above $800. The following year, this was replaced with a graduated (progressive) tax from three to five percent on income above $600 in the Revenue Act of 1862, which ended in 1866. Interestingly, the progressive income tax was originally backed strongly by the rich themselves. Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, for example, a man widely known to be John D. Rockefellers inside man in the Senate, was a principal proponent of a federal progressive income tax made legal by an amendment to the Constitution. This is not surprising, for although the progressives who championed the income tax claimed that it would be a tax on the rich and that it would help the little guy, in reality it was largely a tax on the middle class. This is mainly because the wealthy, through the use of trusts and tax-exempt foundations, are able to escape much of their tax burden yet still have great influence and power over business, banking, and government. There was a significant difference between the propaganda and the reality; the populism championed by the progressives and populists was not the share the wealth program they portrayed it to be, but a control-the-wealth program. Under the guise of helping the little guy, the elites worked hard to implement an income tax. In keeping with the ideology of its primary backers, the new income tax was to be a progressive tax one in which the tax rate increases as the taxable base income increases. While certainly not oppressive when compared to todays income-tax schedule, the new federal income tax represented a radical departure from the type of government Americans had lived under prior to the income tax. It gave the federal government access to potentially huge amounts of revenue that the government could then tap to finance various programs, very much including unconstitutional programs. Of course, even with increased funds available via the income tax, spending money on unconstitutional programs is still unconstitutional, but with the federal government now possessing the means to siphon vast streams of money out of the pockets of the American people into the coffers in Washington, the temptation to tap this resource to empower Washington was clearly too great to resist. The transfer of revenue and power to Washington not only strengthened Washington but also weakened the states, which themselves are republics (not provinces) in our federal system of government and possess powers not transferred to the national government by the U.S. Constitution. The very fact that the income tax now imposed on the American people is a progressive tax means the tax serves the purpose not only of providing the U.S. government with a powerful means of obtaining revenue, but also enables the government to redistribute the wealth. And with the creation of a de facto central bank (the Federal Reserve, no more Federal then Federal Express), also in 1913, the federal government has been essentially freed from budgetary restraints, since it can now simply print money to cover operating expenses if revenue is insufficient. By 1920, only 12 percent of the adult population paid an income tax. By 1940, that percentage had doubled. In 1942, the temporary measure of automatic withholding was instituted but never ended. Withholding gives the federal government the first crack at everyones income. The government now takes what it wants and needs for its many projects, most of them unconstitutional, and leaves the income earner the rest. By 1960, more than two-thirds of American adults were paying the income tax, with most of it withheld from every paycheck. By the 1980s, estimates were that 75 to 80 percent of the nations adults were paying the tax and that taxes on incomes amounted to 25 percent of all earnings, with taxes from all sources federal, state, and local moving above the one-third mark. (Source) Now for the really fun part. The Internal Revenue Service is listed under the Department of Treasury yet there is no mention of the IRS in its Title 31 U.S. code. The income tax was first established within an Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, An Act to provide increased revenue from imports to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes. As stated above, internal revenue is a specific part of customs. Customs concerns foreign commerce. Since internal revenue is within the customs, the U.S. possessions are defined as foreign countries within the Internal Revenue Code, for example; 26 USC Sec. 865(i)(3), Sec. 872(b)(7), and Sec. 2014(g). This is necessary to consider internal revenue as foreign commerce. The federal government owns the U.S. possessions and may designate them in any fashion that suits it. However, as will be evidenced within this page and the link to the court document herein, the reason that U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries is to foment the personal income tax dispute while ignoring the cause Social Security. It is, therefore, necessary for an American to be both a taxpayer and a U.S. citizen to be eligible to apply for a Social Security number. By applying for a Social Security number, an American has given the federal government prima facie evidence that that person is a U.S. citizen and a taxpayer. After all, it is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The combination of the terms U.S. citizen and taxpayer is known as a U.S. resident. This is defined at title 26 USC Sec. 865(g). A U.S. citizen, in other words, a person born in one of the sovereign states who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and further acquires U.S. possession citizenship, who now resides in the United States would be a foreigner since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries. The definition of the term taxpayer proves that a taxpayer is a federal employee, specifically within the Merchant Marine. Federal employment taxes only apply to federal employees. Did you know the definition of taxpayer? You must understand that when the government defines a term it no longer has anything to do with the original definition of the word as found in a dictionary. Part of the definition of taxpayer concerns section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. Within section 511 is the definition of a controlled foreign corporation. This matches with the scenario of an American employer that consists of a domestic corporation that has a foreign subsidiary. The only definitions of taxpayer within chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are at 26 USC Sec. 1313(b) and 26 USC Sec. 7701(a)(14). Both of these definitions vaguely define a taxpayer as someone subject to an internal revenue tax, but what internal revenue itself is remains unsaid. The definition of taxpayer also states that it may include a partnership. A Social Security number is a persons membership number in the partnership that is the taxpayer. Then what exactly is internal revenue? Internal revenue is a specific part of the customs. Customs derives revenue from the collection of duties on importing (and tonnage, the impact of a vessel on the harbor and wharves) from foreign countries. Therefore, by applying for a Social Security number one has become a U.S resident, a term within the Internal Revenue Code that includes the definitions of the terms taxpayer and U.S. citizen. A free sovereign American that applies for a Social Security number has unwittingly applied to become an employee of a foreign affiliate of an American employer that itself is the taxpayer and that holds an undistributed dividend for each of its partners, said dividend being derived from income taxes paid by its foreign subsidiary. This is, therefore, self-employment income attributed to the individual partner who applied for a Social Security number and now, since the dividend is derived from revenue from importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws, subject to the income tax. In other words, the U.S. Resident is a federal tax collector of revenue from importing duties within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws. Why doesnt the individual have to list the income from this undistributed dividend? Well, the IRS Form 1040 is actually a foreign tax credit form. The income from the undistributed dividend is offset by a foreign tax credit FICA. Since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries, FICA is a foreign tax. The government has slowly brainwashed Americans over many generations to believe that an Americans earnings are somehow a federally taxable item. But the income tax only applies to collectors and assessors of internal revenue taxes. It is obvious that the government never intended that Social Security should be a benevolent insurance program. By hiding the definitions of taxpayer, U.S. citizen, and U.S. resident the government is able to use common, ordinary words to hide their true intentions. When an American hears the word taxpayer the meaning is a payer of taxes, while the government means a federal employee in the Merchant Marine. Then to use an undistributed dividend to export the necessary income to all the partners within the partnership (the American employer that is the true taxpayer) in order to make it legal from the governments viewpoint to enforce the income tax laws upon all Social Security applicants is truly beyond the scope of any kind of honest credibility. The governments machinations behind the Social Security scheme are truly malicious and hateful. Sources: To read more from Jamie Lee, please visit his site TABU, where this article first appeared. 