Main menu

Complying With The Law (Part 8)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 02/17/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

So now you've had a crash course (or crash
rehash) of the 861 evidence. While the conclusion (that most of us
never owed a penny in federal income taxes) is obviously difficult
at first to accept, the path leading to that conclusion consists
entirely of solid steps.

1) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense,"
"without merit," or "stupid" to think that there are some kinds of
income which, though not exempted by any particular section of the
tax code, are nonetheless NOT subject to the federal income tax
because they are, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the
federal government"? Since, as we've now seen, that's exactly what
many decades of official income tax regulations SAY, how could any
honest person call it "frivolous"?

2) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from
international trade MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes
must be paid on such income? Since the current regulations, and 80+
years of older regs, have said exactly that (while NOT mentioning
purely domestic income), how could any honest person call it
"frivolous"?

3) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or
"stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points out things
to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT apply to
anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme Court has
said exactly that over and over again (and the principle of law,
"inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any honest person
call it "frivolous"?

4) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without
merit," or "stupid" to think that we should all use Section 861 of
the tax code, and the related regulations, to determine how much
(if any) taxable DOMESTIC income we have? Since a pile of citations
straight from the government's own lawbooks say exactly that, how
could any honest person call it "frivolous"?

5) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from
inside the U.S. is taxable for nonresident foreigners, and for
certain people who also receive income from federal possessions
(e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico)? Since over 80 YEARS of statutes and
regulations which "evolved" into the current 861 and its
regulations say that as plain as the nose on your face, how could
any honest person call it "frivolous"?

6) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to wonder why the sections
of law about "income from sources within the United States have
NEVER said that such income is taxable for any U.S. citizen who
does NOT do business in federal possessions? Since that has been
true for over 80 years, how could any honest person call it
"frivolous"?

7) Again, is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without
merit," or "stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points
out things to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT
apply to anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme
Court has said exactly that over and over again (and the principle
of law, "inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any
honest person call it "frivolous"?

So let's put all the non-
frivolous, perfectly reasonable (if not downright undeniable) steps
together, and see what we get:

There are some kinds of income, not
exempted by any statute, that are nonetheless tax-free because of
the Constitution itself. Income from international trade, however,
MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes must be paid on such
income. There are particular sections of law to be used to
determine when income from INSIDE the U.S. is taxable, and for over
80 years those sections said that such income is taxable for
foreigners, and for Americans with possessions income, but did NOT
say that U.S.-source income was taxable for all Americans. It is
well established that one should NOT assume that tax laws apply to
any matters which are not specifically pointed out.

Not to beat a
dead horse, but notice again that all of this is about how to
properly determine one's taxable income--in other words, how to
correctly COMPLY with the law. It's not about a loophole, a trick,
a protest, or anything of the sort--it's about DETERMINING WHAT WE
OWE, and that's all. So why are the feds so fond of calling people
"tax cheats" and "tax protestors" for talking about this stuff? Why
do they paint this conclusion as a "fraudulent tax scheme"? Why do
they vilify, demonize, threaten, and prosecute people for believing
what THE LAW says, or even for just asking QUESTIONS about the law?

Name-calling is one thing, but how despicable is it for the feds
to throw people in PRISON for believing what you see above, having
NEVER cited ANYTHING in the law refuting any of it? Is it okay when
they refuse to answer simple questions, and instead publicly
slander people, characterizing them as criminals and tax cheats,
execute armed invasions of their homes, subject them to a mock
trials at which all relevant evidence is suppressed, and finally
throw them in prison?

The term "terrorism" is often defined as
the use of force to achieve a political end. Doesn't that describe
what the IRS and DOJ have been doing? Whatever you believe the
truth to be, or whatever you think of my conclusions, is it okay
with you that your government uses violence to deal with the issue,
instead of using the law, or reason, or evidence, or logic?

In my
next message, you'll hear a bit about what our lovely "public
servants" have done to one person in particular, and you can decide
for yourself who is on the side of justice.

Sincerely,

Larken
Rose
www.larkenrose.com