((( If you make income on land “of” the US they have a taxing claim. )))<\/p>\n
What is the Federal Income Tax?<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
\nCounselor at Law, Federal Witness
\nand Private Attorney General<\/p>\n
All Rights Reserved
\n(November 10, 1998)<\/p>\n
The federal “income” tax is an excise tax which is imposed
\nupon profit or gain derived from sources that are INSIDE the
\n“United States” [sic], or from a “United States” trade or
\nbusiness. In this context, the term “United States” means the
\nterritory (land) over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority
\nand where Congress is the local “State” government.<\/p>\n
“Private property<\/strong>” be it owned by a corporation, or by a individual man, or married couple, or group of people, such property is not “of” the US unless the US is evidenced as the owner. So the vast amour of income, employment, activity is not “of” the US on American soil, and therefore is not included as taxable income by law.<\/p>\n Mr. IRS man what fact evidence do you have that supports any claim that the income is included territorially in the US tax code.<\/p>\n “Income” and “source” are two entirely different terms. The inside\/outside distinction is crucial to a correct The several states of the Union are OUTSIDE the “United Moreover, 28 U.S.C. section 1746 makes this all-important Got it?<\/p>\n The term “United States” here is synonymous with “the http:\/\/supremelaw.org\/cc\/knudson\/judnot08.htm<\/p>\n for a thorough discussion of this key point.<\/p>\n Those two restrictions apply ONLY to taxes which Congress These findings are predicated upon the well established See also “Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion” in It makes no sense to render an excise “uniform” throughout The graduated income tax does not need to be uniform OR Think about it … Congress has the power to impose a Just because Congress intermixed alcohol, tobacco, and http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/26\/4612.html (a)(4)(A)<\/p>\n THERE is the crux of their fraud!!!<\/p>\n Confer at “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s In the Brushaber case, that tax was an excise imposed upon Congress CANNOT create a corporation for the entire nation, The state zone and the federal zone are perfectly disjoint, Now, federal citizens [sic] are associated with a political Congress cannot re-define the term “Citizen” as that term Although the Guarantee Clause appears to authorize unequal If the People were to obtain leave to intervene, they would Instead, you have seen the U.S. House of Representatives The writing is definitely on the wall.<\/p>\n I hope this helps.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.supremelaw.org\/authors\/mitchell\/taxsumm.htm See – site for links.<\/a><\/p>\n Sincerely yours, website: http:\/\/supremelaw.org<\/p>\n Click HERE<\/a> to view the list of foundational information created by Lawyer Paul John Hansen to aid in independence from the US System. Counsel time and a vast array of briefs, motions, case law, legal challenges, etc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ((( If you make income on land “of” the US they have a taxing claim. ))) What is the Federal Income Tax? by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law, Federal Witness and Private Attorney General All Rights Reserved … Continue reading
\nThe “source” is the situs of the income-producing activity. The
\nitems listed at IRC 61 are “sources”, NOT “income”, although the
\ngrammar of section 61 is certainly ambiguous.<\/p>\n
\napplication of the income tax.<\/p>\n
\nStates” [sic], and they are INSIDE the “United States of America”
\n[sic]. See the Guarantee Clause for constitutional authority,
\nand for correct use of terminology. See also the Preamble, where
\n“United States” and “United States of America” are both used;
\nthese two terms define two disjoint geographic jurisdictions.<\/p>\n
\ndistinction as well, e.g. “inside the United States” and “under
\nthe laws of the United States of America”! This statute governs
\nthe perjury jurat on Form 1040!! Form 1040 is signed INSIDE the
\n“United States” [sic], and OUTSIDE the “United States of America”
\n(read “several states of the Union”). We never notarize Form
\n1040; now you know why! Yea Team!!<\/p>\n
\nfederal zone,” i.e. the territory over which Congress has
\nexclusive legislative authority and jurisdiction. Pursuant to
\nthe Downes Doctrine, indirect taxes need NOT be “uniform” within
\nthe federal zone, and direct taxes need NOT be “apportioned”
\nwithin the federal zone. See the chapter entitled “16th
\nAmendment Post Mortem,” in the case of U.S.A. v. Knudson, in the
\nSupreme Law Library at Internet URL:<\/p>\n
\nimposes inside the several states of the Union, which are
\n“outside” (“without”) the “United States” [sic], and “inside” the
\nUnited States of America” [sic].<\/p>\n
\nproof that the IRC is a municipal Code (“internal” means
\n“municipal”). See the book “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code
\nof Internal Revenue” for all pertinent authorities, e.g. Treasury
\nDecision 2313.<\/p>\n
\nthe Supreme Law Library supra, vis-a-vis IRC 3121(e). The
\nLegislative Counsel and Congressional Research Service both agree
\nwith the major thesis of “The Federal Zone” [the book which I
\nauthored].<\/p>\n
\nthe several states of the Union, if said excise tax is not even
\nimposed ANYWHERE within that territorial jurisdiction!<\/p>\n
\napportioned there, because those rules are entirely irrelevant
\nwithin that limited territorial jurisdiction (according to the
\nDownes Doctrine).<\/p>\n
\nlocal, municipal tax, and that is exactly what they did with the
\ntaxes imposed by Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.<\/p>\n
\npetroleum taxes in the same Code, does not change the nature of
\nthe “income tax” provisions of that Code. The definition of
\n“State”, in these other excise taxes, clearly mentions the “50
\nStates” [sic], but NOT at IRC 3121(e). See URL:<\/p>\n
\nLaw Dictionary, to wit: what was omitted, was INTENDED to be
\nomitted (from those various, DIFFERENT definitions of “State”).<\/p>\n
\nprofit generated by a “domestic” (read “federal zone”)
\ncorporation, because the Union Pacific Railroad Company was
\ncreated by an Act of Congress, to build a railroad through the
\nUtah Territory (BEFORE Utah joined the Union). Thus, Congress
\ncould tax the profits of that corporation BEFORE any of those
\nprofits were paid to stockholders, in the form of dividends.
\nTreasury Decision 2313 explains all of this in fine detail; this
\nTreasury Decision has never been repealed. The legal situs of
\nany corporation never changes from its original domicile.<\/p>\n
\nbecause to do so violates the Tenth Amendment, and invades the
\nprovince of the several states. See Daly v. The National Life
\nInsurance Company of the United States of America, Indiana Supreme
\nCourt (1878), for clear authority on this crucial point. Thus,
\nALL FEDERAL CORPORATIONS are domestic (read “federal zone”)
\ncorporations, by Law. “Domestic” in this context is synonymous
\nwith “federal zone”. “Domestic” does NOT have the same meaning
\nin this context as it does in the context of domestic and foreign
\nflights at international airports.<\/p>\n
\nin a geographic sense. The term “state zone” has now entered our
\nhousehold vocabulary; for proof, search for “state zone” with
\nthe Alta Vista search engine, particularly in documents which
\nalso use the term “federal zone”.<\/p>\n
\njurisdiction which is NOT protected by the Guarantee Clause, and
\nwhere the direct\/indirect rules simply do NOT apply. Federal
\ncitizenship is a municipal franchise, the exercise of which CAN
\nbe taxed by the Congress, pursuant to the Downes Doctrine,
\nbecause citizenship is a term of municipal law (a\/k\/a “private
\ninternational law” [sic]).<\/p>\n
\nused in the Qualifications Clauses, because Congress has no power
\nto amend the U.S. Constitution; only three-fourths of the Union
\nstates have that power. The term “Citizen” [sic] in the
\nQualifications Clauses, in 3:2:1, and in 4:2:1, each refers to
\nCitizens of ONE OF the States United. See Alla v. Kornfeld for
\nauthority (cited and discussed in the Supreme Law Forum at
\nhttp:\/\/supremelaw.org\/wwwboard): i.e. federal citizens, as such,
\nwere NOT even contemplated when the organic U.S. Constitution was
\nfirst written and ratified.<\/p>\n
\nprotection of the Law here, the Eighth Circuit dropped the ball
\ncompletely when this issue was put squarely before them, in
\nGilbertson’s OPENING BRIEF. That Court has now failed to rule on
\nan application by the People of the United States of America for
\nIntervention of Right, so we are presently in a Mexican Standoff,
\nas regards all of the far-reaching issues which arose in that
\nOPENING BRIEF.<\/p>\n
\nimmediately request Rehearing En Banc, on all of these issues,
\nand then go up to the U.S. Supreme Court “with all deliberate
\nspeed” (a term from Brown v. Board of Education).<\/p>\n
\nrepeal the IRC, effective July 4, 2002. I believe this was done
\nbecause the law as explained above has begun to permeate that
\nHouse of Representatives, one Representative at a time.<\/p>\n
\nPaul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
\nCounselor at Law, Federal Witness,
\nPrivate Attorney General, and Candidate
\nfor the U.S. House of Representatives<\/p>\n