Opting out of SS

[ph363]

Last one leaving the asylum please lock the door.

Not sure if that was directed at me or at others in this thread. But before you start applying labels, perhaps you should research the status of title 26 as positive law. You will find that there are several citizenship types that the IRS code does not apply to.

 

[CarmelHP]

Not sure if that was directed at me or at others in this thread.

Wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

But before you start applying labels, perhaps you should research the status of title 26 as positive law. You will find that there are several citizenship types that the IRS code does not apply to.

Yes, yes, of course, several types of citizenship, no one has used that one before, you've opened my eyes. Learn something new every day.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Citizenship types?

What do you mean by this?

I have clients from nations such as Kuwait where there levels of citizenship (14 in Kuwait IIRC). What do you mean?

 

[CarmelHP]

Citizenship types?

What do you mean by this?

I have clients from nations such as Kuwait where there levels of citizenship (14 in Kuwait IIRC). What do you mean?

Don't be silly Kirk, just "research the status of title 26 as positive law." Didn't that answer it for you? Geez.
What kind of rinky-dink law school did you go to, anyway?




The income tax cannot apply to natural-born “sovereign state citizens” because they are not “citizens” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

There are actually a number of problems with the concept of “citizens” of the states of the United States who are not “citizens” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. If this tax protester claim were true, then:

1. The words “citizen of the United States” would have a meaning in the 14th Amendment that is different than the meaning given those same words in other parts of the Constitution.
2. The words “United States” would have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment that is different than the meaning given those words in other parts of the Constitution.
3. The word “jurisdiction” would have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment that is different than the meaning given that word in other parts of the Constitution.
4. The 14th Amendment would extend the power of Congress to legislate for “federal citizens” without regard to the limits on Congressional power found in other parts of the Constitution.
5. The 14th Amendment would have created a new kind of citizenship, and did not merely extend the existing definition of “citizen” to include former slaves as well as whites.
6. The 14th Amendment would not mean what it says, and would not apply to “all persons.”
7. The power of Congress to tax would limited by citizenship, and Congress would not be able to tax immigrants or foreigners who are within the United States but not citizens of the United States.

All of the above statements are wrong, but for the purpose of this FAQ the last fallacy is the most important, because there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the power of Congress to tax only citizens, however defined. The power to tax that is given to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, and by the 16th Amendment, is not limited to the taxation of citizens, whether “sovereign state citizens,” “14th Amendment citizens,” or any other type of citizen. The power to tax applies to all residents of the United States whether or not they are citizens, as well as to all income earned within the United States whether or not the income is earned by residents or non-residents. (The income tax also applies to citizens of the United States living in other countries, but that is another issue. Cf., Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).) Therefore, even if the claim of two types of citizenship were correct (which is a big “if”), the claim is still irrelevant to the federal income tax because Congress can tax noncitizens as well as citizens.
As explained above, tax protesters often have trouble with the concept of the concurrent sovereignty of the federal government with the states. For that reason, tax protesters often fail to understand that our Constitution recognizes state and federal citizenship as two different relationships, with the rights and obligations of state citizenship being separate from the rights and obligations of federal citizenship. However, the Supreme Court has clearly recognized the reality of concurrent citizenship, referring to “a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).
Before the 14th Amendment, it was not clear how citizenship was determined. This uncertainty culminated in the infamous Dred Scott decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), in which it was held that, because slaves (and even former slaves) were not considered citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they could never be considered citizens (or even persons) under the Constitution, regardless of any state law or federal statute to the contrary. Following the Civil War, this ruling was reversed by the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
This history was summarized by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

“The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship--not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

“To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

“‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.’

“The first observation we have to make of this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”​

The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873), (emphasis in original).
Following the plain words of the 14th Amendment and the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the federal courts have consistently ruled that all persons born within the United States are citizens of the United States, and state citizenship follows from federal citizenship.

“By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.”​

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427, n. 3 (1935), quoting the opinion of Judge Woods in United States v. Hall, 26 Fed.Cas. No. 15,282, page 79, 81.
So the Supreme Court has held that a state cannot deny rights of state citizenship to a citizen of the United States who resides within that state. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970).
The principle was more recently expressed as follows:

“Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens ‘of the States wherein they reside.’ U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, section 1. The States, however, do not have any right to select their citizens.”​

Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), aff’g 134 F.3d 1400.
One Circuit Court of Appeals has put it this way:

“Relying on this Supreme Court authority, circuit and district courts have treated the question before us today as one long decided: ‘n order to be a citizen of a state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the United States.’” ​

Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090-1091 (9th Cir. 1983), (citations omitted).
Tax protesters (and white supremacists) argue that the phrase “all persons” does not mean all persons, but only refers to former slaves (i.e., blacks), because the purpose of the amendment was to grant rights of citizenship to blacks and whites were already citizens. Even assuming that it is possible to conclude that the amendment does not mean what it says, it cannot be concluded that the amendment only applies to blacks if the effect would be to treat blacks differently than whites. The purpose of the amendment was to give blacks the same rights of citizenship as whites. That purpose would be defeated if blacks were to enjoy a form of citizenship that is somehow different than the citizenship enjoyed by whites.
Tax protesters (and white supremacists) also argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes those born within the states of the United States because only those born in the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the federal government. This is completely wrong, on several grounds:

• The Supreme Court has plainly stated that “The phrase ’subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 678-688 (1898).
• The phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had previously been used in Supreme Court opinions to include the states of the United States (e.g., The Exchange,), and similar language had been included in naturalization acts of Congress that were clearly intended to operate within the states of the United States. The Supreme Court has therefore concluded that “It is impossible ... to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898).
• Those born within the states of the United States are within the “jurisdiction” of the United States as that word is used within other clauses of the Constitution, including the reach of the judicial power of the United States in Article III. As explained above, the laws of the United States enacted by Congress under the Constitution of the United States are the “Supreme Law of the Land” and so all of the residents of all of the states of the United States are within the “jurisdiction” of the United States.
• It has been uniformly held that the possessions (territories) of the United States are not within the meaning “United States” as used in the Constitution, and so persons born in territories of the United States are not citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment. So, the Ninth Circuit has held that “birth in the Philippines during the territorial period does not constitute birth ‘in the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus does not give rise to United States citizenship.” Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994). See also, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 250, 251 (“t can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States.”) (Notice that this is the exact opposite of what most tax protesters claim. They believe that “United States” in the 14th Amendment means the territories of the United States and not the states, but the courts have ruled the opposite, and denied U.S. citizenship to someone born in a territory of the United States.)
  [*]If the 14th Amendment did not apply to those born within the states, it would not apply to most former slaves (born in the Southern states), which would defeat the entire admitted purpose of the amendment.
  

So, what have the federal courts said about the claim that a person born in a state of the United States is not a “citizen of the United States” and is not subject to the federal income tax?

“Also basic to Mr. Sloan’ “freedom from income tax theory” is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a “master”--not “servant”--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. “All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages,” regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell [v. United States], 755 F.2d [517] at 519 [7th Cir. 1984]; cf. [United States v.] Studley, 783 F.2d [934] at 937 [9th Cir. 1986] (Studley’ argument that “she is not a ‘taxpayer’ because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a ‘person’ under the Internal Revenue Code.”). Moreover, the tax code imposes a “direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves,” such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan’ proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.”​

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

“And, finally, we reject appellants’ contention that they are not citizens of the United States, but rather “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” and, consequently, not subject to taxation. See United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir.1991) (rejecting similar argument as “absurd”).”​

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

“Appellant challenges the district court’ jurisdiction by contending that because he is a state citizen, the United States government lacks the constitutional authority both to subject him to federal tax laws and to prosecute him for failing to comply with those laws. Citing to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress. This argument is completely without merit. As this court has made clear in the past, claims that a particular person is ‘not a [federal] taxpayer because [he or] she is an absolute, free-born and natural individual’ constitutionally immune to federal laws is frivolous and, in civil cases, can serve as the basis for sanctions. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937, n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986).”​

United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 90 TNT 246-11, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 11/26/1990).

To the extent the Monfortons contend that as ‘Sovereign State Citizens of Washington States’ they are not subject to federal income tax, this contention is frivolous.”​

Monforton v. United States, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, KTC 1995-354, n. 2, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished).

“The Epperlys next argue that since they are ‘American Inhabitants’ who possess sovereign powers and immunities, they are properly classified under the tax code as ‘nonresident aliens’ and are not subject to taxation by the federal government. Such an argument is frivolous.”​

Epperly v. United States, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32286 (9th Cir. 1992), (unpublished).

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals (“free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law `de jure’ citizens of a state, etc.”) are not “persons” subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue code; ....”​

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

“Plaintiff claims that he is a nonresident alien or ‘foreign individual of America’ in relation to the United States, and that his residence and citizenship rest solely with the States of Washington, ‘a free, independent, sovereign, territory’ with ‘coequal authority with the other compact states of America.’ ... Despite plaintiff’ creative argument, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the state of Washington is one of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America, entering the Union in 1889 as the forty-second state. [Citations omitted.] The Fourteenth Amendment states that ‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, section 1. Plaintiff, therefore, along with being a citizen of the state of Washington, is a United States citizen because he was born in Washington State to parents who were United States citizens. ... As a United States citizen, plaintiff is required to pay federal income tax.”​

Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)
See also, United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).
The claim that “[a] taxpayer’s income is excluded from taxation when the taxpayer rejects or renounces United States citizenship because the taxpayer is a citizen exclusively of a State (sometimes characterized as a “natural-born citizen” of a “sovereign state”), that is claimed to be a separate country or otherwise not subject to the laws of the United States” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
In the same notice, the claim that “ndividuals may not be taxed unless they are “citizens” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment” was also identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.
Tax Protester “Evidence”

Where did tax protesters get the idea that the 14th Amendment created some different kind of citizenship, or that there is a difference between citizenship under the 14th Amendment and “citizenship” as it existed before (or even after?) the 14th Amendment? From a collection of obscure, discredited, and misunderstood decisions.

“No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction ... or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment .. was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled with the limits of the United States who could not be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country...”​

Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872).
The Van Valkenburg decision is frequently quoted for the proposition that white citizens do not owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment. However, the decision was a state court decision, not a federal decision, and it is inconsistent with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (which was decided the following year, in 1873). (See the quotation above from the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the court emphasized that, under the 14th Amendment, all persons born in the United States are citizens.)
The other problem with the Van Valkenburg decision is that, although the California court stated that there was a difference between how the plaintiff (a white woman) became a citizen, the court nevertheless concluded that she was a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

“y whatever means the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States, her privileges and immunities cannot be abridged by State laws; and this is true. The purpose and effect of the amendment, in this respect, is to place the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States beyond the operation of States legislation.”​

Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872).
So although an old, discredited decision from California may distinguish between white citizens and black citizens, it is a distinction without a difference.
Another decision often quoted by tax protesters is also from the California Supreme Court:

“By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is total foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, but the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.”​

Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855).
Notice the date? This decision was rendered 13 years before the 14th Amendment was ratified. Even if this opinion of the California Supreme Court (not a federal court) was correct in 1855, it was not correct once the 14th Amendment was ratified. See Levin v. United States, 128 F. 826, 282 (8th Cir. 1904); Harris v. Sacramento County, 196 P. 895, 897 (Calif. Dist. App. Ct. 1921).
Next up is a federal court decision:

“The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by becoming a citizen of some state.”​

United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. 829, 830 (N.D.N.Y. 1873).
The major problem with this quotation is that it is incomplete, and misleading when taken out of context. See what the court said next:

“No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. This question is now at rest. The fourteenth amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States, to wit, ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The latter qualification was intended to exclude the children of foreign representatives and the like. With this qualification, every person born in the United States or naturalized is declared to be a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein he resides.”​

United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed.Cas. at 830.
Reading the whole quotation, it is clear that the court was saying what every other court had said, which is that there was some question before the adoption of the 14th Amendment about what “citizen of the United States” meant and how one became a citizen, but the 14th Amendment settled the question by declaring that every person born within the United States was a citizen of the United States.
Tax protesters will sometimes quote a Supreme Court decision, but the quotation is (once again) taken out of context:

“... the 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restriction upon citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687-688 (1898), (emphasis added).​

Why tax protesters cite the Wong Kim Ark decision is a bit of a mystery, because in that case the U.S. Supreme Court held that a person born to Chinese nationals living in California was a citizen of the United States and could not be prevented from re-entering the United States after a visit to China. The court’ ruling was not limited to blacks, Chinese, or any other race or nationality, the court declaring:

“The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth.... The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” 169 U.S. at 693 (emphasis added).​

Because the person in question was born in California, a state of the United States, and not the District of Columbia or other “federal area,” an implicit and explicit holding in the case is that California is “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court stating, “It is impossible ... to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” 169 U.S. at 687.
The opinion in Wong Kim Ark also contradicts the claim that the 14th Amendment created a “new” or “second class” of citizenship. After reviewing common law decisions on citizenship, both in England before 1776 and in the United States before the 14th Amendment, the court concluded that the 14th Amendment “is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law.” 169 U.S. at 688.
Another decision that tax protesters like to cite in favor of their claim that “within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means within the District of Columbia, a U.S. possession, or some other “federal zone” is the decision of the Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, in which the court said:

“The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”​

Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 671-2 (1945).
Tax protesters believe that the second meaning (“the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends”) does not include the states of the United States, but is limited to the District of Columbia, the possessions of the United States, and other “federal zones” over which Congress has “exclusive jurisdiction.” Needless to say, there are several problems with this bizarre reading of the court’s opinion:

1. The Supreme Court never said that the sovereignty of the United States does not extend to the states of the United States. As explained above, the courts have consistently held that “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National....” and that the citizenship of the United States “owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).
2. The Supreme Court opinion in Hooven & Allison has a footnote citation to a Harvard Law Review article in support of the statement that there are three meanings for “United States.” In that article, the author was very clear in stating that the sovereignty of the United States should be used to designate both the territories of the United States and the states, “sovereignty being the only thing that can be predicated alike of States and territories.” Langdell, ‘The Status of our New Territories’, 12 Harv.L.Rev. 365, 371 (1899); cited in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. at 672, note 6.
3. It has been uniformly held that the possessions (territories) of the United States are not within the meaning “United States” as used in the Constitution. This is expressly stated in the Langdell article cited above. “It is very important, however, to understand that the use of the term ‘United States’ to designate all territory over which the United States is sovereign, is, like the similar use of the word ‘empire’ in England and other European countries, purely conventional; and that it has, therefore, no legal or constitutional significance. Indeed, this use of the term has no connection whatever with the Constitution of the United States....” In the Hooven & Allison decision itself, the Supreme Court held that the Philippines (then a territory of the United States) were not within the “United States” for purposes of Article I, Section 10 (prohibiting states from imposing any tax on imports or exports). Accord, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 250, 251 (“t can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States.”)
   [*]There is simply no statute or court decision in the history of the United States in which the phrase “United States” has ever been interpreted to refer to the possessions of the United States to the exclusion of the states. Tax protesters desperately want to find such a statute or decision, but it doesn’t exist.
   

So, the Supreme Court described three possible meanings of “United States” in the in Hooven & Allison decision: (a) the government of the United States, (b) the states and territories of the United States, and (c) the states of the United States without the territories. Both of the geographical definitions of “United States” include the states of the United States.
To summarize:
Despite the clear language of the 14th Amendment, and the clear court decisions declaring that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, many tax protesters continue to claim that there are two types of citizenship, one for whites and one for blacks. This racist argument is more than a little disturbing. Nevertheless, although tax protesters squirm and twist and hem and haw, the fact remains that (a) no court in the history of the United States has ever stated that there were two different types of U.S. citizenship, with different rights or obligations, (b) no court since the adoption of the 14th Amendment has ever held that a person born in a state of the United States is not a citizen of the United States, and (c) no court in the history of the United States has ever held that any resident of the United States can be exempt from federal income tax by reason of a different kind of citizenship.

[SIZE=+3]Income Tax Myths[/SIZE]​

"Nothing bad ever happens to tax protestors."​

Some tax protestors parade around the Internet saying "I haven't paid taxes in years, and look, I'm not in jail! There must be no duty to pay!" (See, for example, this film starting at 10:13 and again at 14:49.)
The law’s mill grinds slowly, but exceedingly fine. It may take the IRS a while to catch up with tax protestors, but a check of the law reports shows that there are many, many cases in which the IRS does catch up with and nail them. Some notorious tax protestors have received substantial jail sentences:
​

• Ed and Elaine Brown, who proclaimed that the federal court trying them was a "fiction," and who were finally arrested after a bizarre, months-long standoff in their home, got over five years for not paying their taxes.
• John Cheek, who got the Supreme Court to reverse his first conviciton, was convicted again on retrial and sentenced to a year and a day and fined $62,000. This conviction was upheld and the Supreme Court declined to get involved a second time. U.S. v. Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1112 (1994).
• Arthur Farnsworth, another tax protestor with an Internet site explaining his kooky theories, was sentenced on April 3, 2007 to over two years in prison for tax evasion (this judgment was affirmed in December 2008).
• Sherry Peel Jackson, former IRS agent, Certified Public Accountant, and Certified Fraud Examiner, who gave seminars on absurd tax protestor theories (and who appears in the film linked above, boasting about not paying taxes), was sentenced in 2008 to four years imprisonment after being convicted of federal tax crimes.
• Karl Kleinpaste, who used to have an Internet site about his eccentric tax theories, got two and a half years in prison for not paying his taxes.
• Larken Rose (a proponent of the "861 argument") got 15 months. Quite a price to pay for a crazy theory.
• Irwin Schiff, perhaps the granddaddy of all tax protestors, was convicted three times of tax offenses and on this third conviction was sentenced to over twelve years in prison.

Those are just some well-known protestors. You can see the bulk statistics from the IRS here. As you can see, the IRS brings hundreds of criminal prosecutions every year against those who don't file their tax returns. According to the statistics, the average sentence has varied in recent years from 34 months to 40 months -- that's over three years in prison.
And those are just the criminal cases. The IRS can also just go after people civilly, that is, just going after the money, without trying to put them in jail. The result is that not only does the IRS charge tax protestors for the tax they owe, it increases their tax by the applicable statutory penalties for failing to file or for filing a frivolous return. These penalties can easily increase your tax bill by 25% and in some cases by 75%.
Moreover, the courts regard tax protestors as a thorn in their side. The courts have become completely fed up with tax protestors and won’t give them the time of day. Not only do courts routinely rule against tax protestors (often, these days, without even bothering to address the protestors’ arguments), but many courts have started a practice of issuing a “sanction” against tax protestors for wasting the courts’ time with frivolous arguments. Some courts of appeals, for example, routinely charge tax protestors an extra $2000 or more as a sanction for their frivolous appeal. So do not imagine that, once you run the gauntlet of all the preliminary IRS proceedings, your “day in court” will finally be the day that you are vindicated. In fact, your day in court will more likely be the day that you are slammed with an extra monetary penalty for wasting the court’s time.
Moreover, the above increases, penalties, and sanctions are just the civil penalties that tax protestors are made to pay. If the government chooses to go after you criminally, you can wind up in prison.
I can’t promise that you will be caught if you don’t pay your taxes. But I can tell you that a lot of tax protestors are caught and that it ends up costing them a lot of extra money and, in some cases, jail time. It is cheaper just to pay the taxes that you owe. It would certainly make your life a lot simpler.


P.S.: Some of you may remember Karl Kleinpaste mentioned above from a gun-related e-mail list a decade or so ago. Karl used to make the same boasts about not paying taxes and revoking his Social Security number as you see here. No one could reason with Karl either.

​

 

[SKSnut]

does the gov't really give you the choice???

 

[jeremy]

Yes they do...

Pay or or lose everything... Your choice.

 

[dross]

I'd like to request that all the lawyers, judges, and other ocean-dwelling predators on this site please stop clouding the issues with education, legal degrees, law books, latin phrases, cites, and all the other fake crap you guys keep coming up with. If you don't have an inbred relative your can refer to, I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list.

 

[Ashkelon]

Yes they do...

Pay or or lose everything... Your choice.

Exactly....that simple enough Dross?

 

[CarmelHP]

I'd like to request that all the lawyers, judges, and other ocean-dwelling predators on this site please stop clouding the issues with education, legal degrees, law books, latin phrases, cites, and all the other fake crap you guys keep coming up with. If you don't have an inbred relative your can refer to, I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list.

OK, you got me, I'll find a crazy uncle or 3rd cousin twice removed to back me up. Is it OK if they have more than 10 toes?

 

[dross]

OK, you got me, I'll find a crazy uncle or 3rd cousin twice removed to back me up. Is it OK if they have more than 10 toes?

OK? It's preferred.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oh, no, not the sovereign state citizenship silliness again! I thought Southerners only believed in that stuff.

Next we'll be talking about fringe on the flag.

 

[jeremy]

Oh, no, not the sovereign state citizenship silliness again! I thought Southerners only believed in that stuff.

Next we'll be talking about fringe on the flag.

There is a valid reason for fringe on the Flag though...

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

Can we stay on topic!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: HowStuffWorks "The First Social Security Number"

Who was the first to receive Social Security benefits?
During the Social Security program's start-up period between January 1937 and December 1939, the SSA only made one-time, lump-sum payments. According to SSA historians, Ernest Ackerman was the first recipient of Social Security benefits -- 17 cents, paid to him in January 1937. The first person to receive monthly benefits was Ida May Fuller from Vermont, who retired in November 1939 and started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65. In the three years that Fuller worked under the program, she contributed a total of $24.75. Her first benefit check was for $22.54 and she went on collecting benefits for 35 years, until 1975, when she died at age 100. In this time she collected a total of $22,888.92.

So lets see, I give you $24.75 and you give me $22,888.92 over the next 35 years MAKES SINCE TO ME

That is $54.49 a month DAMN TALK ABOUT RETURN ON YOUR INVESTMENT!!!!!!!!!!

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO ME

 

[CarmelHP]

Can we stay on topic!!!!!!!!!!!

Source: HowStuffWorks "The First Social Security Number"

Who was the first to receive Social Security benefits?
During the Social Security program's start-up period between January 1937 and December 1939, the SSA only made one-time, lump-sum payments. According to SSA historians, Ernest Ackerman was the first recipient of Social Security benefits -- 17 cents, paid to him in January 1937. The first person to receive monthly benefits was Ida May Fuller from Vermont, who retired in November 1939 and started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65. In the three years that Fuller worked under the program, she contributed a total of $24.75. Her first benefit check was for $22.54 and she went on collecting benefits for 35 years, until 1975, when she died at age 100. In this time she collected a total of $22,888.92.

So lets see, I give you $24.75 and you give me $22,888.92 over the next 35 years MAKES SINCE TO ME

That is $54.49 a month DAMN TALK ABOUT RETURN ON YOUR INVESTMENT!!!!!!!!!!

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO ME

You better look at your first post. You're off topic. We're on topic.

 

[jeremy]

There are only 2 ways out of Social Security.

Way #1
Die.
or
Way #2
Renounce your citizenship and move the h*ll out of this Country.

Is that in plain enough of a language that you can follow...

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

You better look at your first post. You're off topic. We're on topic.

on topic about talking about a flag ??????????????????????

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Dross did you mean post #38 to be in purple? Not sure if you are serious or not.

He doesn't have to use or pay for purple font because it is not in the constitution.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

One can voluntarily cease to participate in Social Security - however, you will be looked at oddly by the Statists.

 

[CarmelHP]

on topic about talking about a flag ??????????????????????

Yes, crazy reasons for believing you can refuse to pay taxes. That was the topic, wasn't it?

 

[dross]

Can we stay on topic!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps I misunderstood. Wasn't this thread always about crazy half-baked theories that aren't supported by any reliable evidence and are met with hostility and bouquets of logical fallacies when politely disputed?