The "trade or business" Scam

Web capture of this article-Right click and select "save As" to download an Adobe Acrobat copy of this important article

Memorandum of Law of this article -(OFFSITE LINK) Includes the entire content of this article PLUS tables of authorities and questions at the end.  Designed to attach to legal pleadings.  Right click and select "save As" to download an Adobe Acrobat copy of this important article

Table of contents:

  1. Scope

  2. Overview of the Income Taxation Process

  3. Proof IRC Subtitle A is primarily an excise tax on activities in connection with a "trade or business"

  4. Synonyms for "trade or business"

    4.1  "wages"

    4.2  "personal services"

    4.3  "United States"

  5. I.R.C. requirements for the exercise of a "trade or business"

  6. Willful IRS deception in connection with a "trade or business"

  7. Proving the government deception yourself

  8. How the "scheme" is perpetrated

  9. False IRS presumptions that must be rebutted

  10. Why I.R.C. Subtitle A income taxes are "indirect" and Constitutional

  11. Legal requirements for holding a "public office"

  12. How do ordinary government workers not holding public office become "taxpayers"

  13. Methods for Connecting You To the Franchise

    13.1  Information Returns

    13.2  Government Identifying Numbers:  SSN and TIN

    13.3  Domicile, Residence, and Resident Tax Returns such as IRS Form 1040

  14. How to prevent being involuntarily or fraudulently connected to the "trade or business" franchise

  15. Other important implications of the scam
  16. Why the IRS and the Courts WON'T Talk about what a "trade or business" or "public office" is and collude to Cover Up the Scam
  17. Conclusions and Summary
  18. Further Study

Related articles:

Remedies:

Related references:
SOURCE:  Great IRS Hoax, section 5.6.13

"The taxpayer-- that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
[President Ronald W. Reagan]

1.  Scope

As we explained earlier in section 5.3.2 and the preceding section, one must be engaged in a “trade or business”, which is defined as “the functions of a public office”, within the “United States”, which is defined as the District of Columbia, in order to earn “gross income”.  The only exception to this is nonresident aliens with income from the District of Columbia under  26 U.S.C. §871(a).  This is because:

1.   The income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is an indirect excise tax, as the Supreme Court pointed out repeatedly.  See section 5.1.3 earlier for details.  The “subject of” all indirect excise taxes are voluntary “taxable activities” that are privileged and in many cases licensed.  The tax may only be instituted by the agency or government entity that issues the license or bestows the privilege to the person who volunteers to be the “licensee”, and the tax is only enforceable within the legislative jurisdiction of the taxing entity.  The “privileged activity” in this case of the federal income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is that of holding “public office” in the U.S. Government.  A “public office” is therefore the only excise taxable activity that a biological person can involve themselves in that will make them the subject of the municipal donation program for the District of Columbia called the Internal Revenue Code.

2.   According to 4 U.S.C. §72, all "public offices" may be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, except as "expressly provided by law".  That is why the "United States" is defined in Subtitle A of the I.R.C. as the District of Columbia in 26 U.S.C.  §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).  There is also no provision of law which authorizes "public offices" outside the District of Columbia other than 48 U.S.C.  §1612, and therefore, the I.R.C. Subtitle A Income tax upon "public offices" can apply nowhere outside the District of Columbia other than the Virgin Islands.  This is also consistent with the definition of "U.S. sources" found in 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(3), which identifies all earnings originating from the "United States" as "effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business".

3.   “Income” has the meaning it was given in the Constitution, which is “gain and profit” in connection with an excise taxable activity.  Congress is forbidden to define the word “income” because the Constitution defines it.  This was pointed out by several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, including Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921).  Where there is no “taxable activity”, there can be no “taxable income”.  We covered this earlier in sections 5.6.5 if you want more detail.

4.    Because all "taxpayers" under Subtitle A of the I.R.C. are “public officers” and work for a federal corporation called the “United States” (see 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)), then they are acting as an “officer or employee of a federal corporation” and they:

4.1.      Are the proper subject of the penalty statutes, as defined under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b).   This is true even though the Constitution prohibits “Bills of Attainder” in Article 1, Section 10, because the penalty isn’t on the natural person, but upon the “office” or “agency” he volunteered to maintain in the process of declaring that he has “taxpable income”.

4.2.      May have the code enforced against you without implementing regulations as required by  44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1) and 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)

4.3       Are the proper subject for the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which identify officers of corporations as the only "persons" within 26 U.S.C. §7343

5.        Earnings not connected with a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §871(b)  and 26 U.S.C. §864  and not originating from the District of Columbia, which is what “United States” is defined as:

5.1.    Are identified as part of a “foreign estate” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31).  A foreign estate is not includible in gross income either, based on the definition of “foreign estate”, BECAUSE it is not connected with a “trade or business”.

5.2.  Are not includable as “gross income” if paid by a nonresident alien.  See 26 U.S.C. §864(b)(1)(A).  Remember: We showed earlier in sections 5.2.13 and 5.6.12 that states of the union are "foreign countries" with respect to the Internal Revenue Code and all of their inhabitants are "nonresident aliens".

This means one must be engaged in a “public office” in the District of Columbia in order to earn “gross income” as a natural person.  “Gross income” that meets this criteria is described in the code simply as “income effectively connected with a trade or business from sources within the United States”.  This is confirmed by 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31), which says that an estate that is in no way connected with a "trade or business" and whose sources of income are outside the District of Columbia may not have its earnings identified as "gross income" and is a "foreign estate", which means it is not subject in any way to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

(a)(31) Foreign estate or trust

(A) Foreign estate

The term ''foreign estate'' means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States [under 26 U.S.C. §871(a)] which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States [under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 26 U.S.C. §864], is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

These critical facts are very carefully concealed by the IRS in their publications to hide the true nature of the income tax and instead to make it appear as an “unapportioned direct tax” upon persons living in states of the Union.  If the American people understood on a large scale:

  1. That the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax was an “excise tax” upon privileged "taxable activities" only.

  2. Exactly what activity was being taxed.

  3. That the IRS has no jurisdiction within states of the Union against anyone who does not sign a private agreement with the government by submitting a W-4 or a 1040 tax return.

. . .then they would exit the tax system en masse by simply avoiding the activity.  All excise taxes are "avoidable" by avoiding the taxed activity, and therefore they are completely "voluntary".  Therefore, the IRS and our public dis-servants have a vested interest in hiding and concealing the true nature of the income tax as an “excise tax” in order to maintain revenues from the income tax.  They sold the truth and your liberty to Satan for 20 pieces of silver.  Some things never change, do they?

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 
[1 Tim. 6:10, Bible, NKJV]

In this section, we will demonstrate all the evidence we can find that supports these conclusions, and also show you how the IRS has, with the implicit collusion and approval of the Congress and the Treasury Department, tried to do the following within their deceptive publications:

1.        Taken great pains to hide and obfuscate the fact that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is an indirect excise tax upon licensed, privileged activities.  They have done this by burying the sordid truth deep in regulations that they hope people will never read and which have been carefully obfuscated over the years to make them virtually unintelligible for the average American.

2.        Confuse the meaning of the term “trade or business” in their publications so that everyone thinks they meet this criteria.

3.        Create a false and unsupportable presumption that all people and all earnings within states of the Union are connected with a “trade or business in the United States".

4.        Create the illusion and deception that IRC Subtitle A describes a direct, unapportioned tax upon natural persons that cannot be avoided or shifted.  Once IRS can establish the false presumption Subtitle A as a direct unapportioned tax, then they:

4.1.      Can label those who choose not to volunteer as “frivolous” or worst yet, penalize them for filing an accurate return reflecting no “gross income” because not connected to a “trade or business”.

4.2.      Have a way to exploit the false presumption and ignorance of juries to claim that those who avoid paying or filing are lawbreakers, even though they broke no laws and exercised their constitutionally protected choice not to volunteer to connect their earnings to a “trade or business”.

4.3.      Have an excuse to ignore those who complain that private employers are forcing them to sign and submit W-4 withholding agreements under duress, or be denied employment.  Instead, they have a presumptuous and mistaken excuse to say that it isn’t voluntary and that everyone must submit the form, when in fact, the regulations at 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1 clearly show otherwise.

If you read the IRS' Civil and Criminal Actions website at the address below, you will see that ALL of their propaganda in fact focuses on the above goals, as we predicted:

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/index.html

The IRS warned us it was going to try to deceive us by stating in its own Internal Revenue Manual that you can't rely upon any of its own publications.  The federal courts warned us that the IRS was going to do this by telling us that we can't rely upon the phone or oral advice of anyone in the IRS, even if they signed their recommendation under penalty of perjury!  Why didn’t we listen to any of these warnings?  See the surprising truth for yourself:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm

We must, however, remember what the Supreme Court said about false presumptions that come from deliberately deceptive IRS publications and phone advice:

"The power to create [false] presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions," 
[New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]

2   Overview of the Income Taxation Process

This section provides basic background on how the income tax described in Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A  functions.  This will help you fit the explanation contained in this memorandum into the overall taxation process.  Below is a summary of the taxation process:

1.        The purpose for establishing governments is mainly to protect private property.  The Declaration of Independence affirms this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -“
[Declaration of Independence, 1776]

2.        Government protects private rights by keeping “public [government] property” and “private property” separate and never allowing them to be joined together.  This is the heart of the separation of powers doctrine:  separation of what is private from what is public with the goal of protecting mainly what is private.  See:

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3.        In law, all rights are “property”.

Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man's courtesy.

The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal, everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments, and includes every invasion of one's property rights by actionable wrong. Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d 180, 332 P.2d 250, 252, 254.

Property embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership. or whether beneficial, or a private ownership. Davis v. Davis. TexCiv-App., 495 S.W.2d 607. 611. Term includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes. Hoffmann v. Kinealy, Mo., 389 S.W.2d 745, 752.

Property, within constitutional protection, denotes group of rights inhering in citizen's relation to physical thing, as right to possess, use and dispose of it. Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d 694, 697.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]

By protecting your constitutional rights, the government is protecting your PRIVATE property.  Your rights are private property because they came from God, not from the government.  Only what the government creates can become public property.  An example is corporations, which are a public franchise that makes officers of the corporation into public officers.

4.        The process of taxation is the process of converting “private property” into a “public use” and a “public purpose”.  Below is a definition of these terms for your enlightenment.

Public use.  Eminent domain.  The constitutional and statutory basis for taking property by eminent domain.  For condemnation purposes, "public use" is one which confers some benefit or advantage to the public; it is not confined to actual use by public.  It is measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities for which condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a "public advantage" or "public benefit" accrues sufficient to constitute a public use.  Montana Power Co. v. Bokma, Mont., 457 P.2d 769, 772, 773.

Public use, in constitutional provisions restricting the exercise of the right to take property in virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning the whole community distinguished from particular individuals.  But each and every member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or be personally and directly affected by it; if the object is to satisfy a great public want or exigency, that is sufficient. Ringe Co. v. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186.  The term may be said to mean public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit.  It may be limited to the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be in common, and not for a particular individual.  The use must be a needful one for the public, which cannot be surrendered without obvious general loss and inconvenience.  A "public use" for which land may be taken defies absolute definition for it changes with varying conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences, changing conceptions of scope and functions of government, and other differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population and new modes of communication and transportation.  Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn. 521, 245 A.2d 579, 586.

See also Condemnation; Eminent domain.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1232]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

“Public purpose.  In the law of taxation, eminent domain, etc., this is a term of classification to distinguish the objects for which, according to settled usage, the government is to provide, from those which, by the like usage, are left to private interest, inclination, or liberality.  The constitutional requirement that the purpose of any tax, police regulation, or particular exertion of the power of eminent domain shall be the convenience, safety, or welfare of the entire community and not the welfare of a specific individual or class of persons [such as, for instance, federal benefit recipients as individuals].  “Public purpose” that will justify expenditure of public money generally means such an activity as will serve as benefit to community as a body and which at same time is directly related function of government.  Pack v. Southwestern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 215 Tenn. 503, 387 S.W.2d 789, 794.

The term is synonymous with governmental purpose.  As employed to denote the objects for which taxes may be levied, it has no relation to the urgency of the public need or to the extent of the public benefit which is to follow; the essential requisite being that a public service or use shall affect the inhabitants as a community, and not merely as individuals.  A public purpose or public business has for its objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security, prosperity, and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents within a given political division, as, for example, a state, the sovereign powers of which are exercised to promote such public purpose or public business.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1231, Emphasis added]

5.        The federal government has no power of eminent domain within states of the Union.  This means that they cannot lawfully convert private property to a public use or a public purpose within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union:

“The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in cases where it is delegated, and the court denies the faculty of the Federal Government to add to its powers by treaty or compact.‘”
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 508-509 (1856)]

6.        The Fifth Amendment prohibits converting private property to a public use or a public purpose without just compensation if the owner does not consent, and this prohibition applies to the Federal government as well as states of the Union.  It was made applicable to states of the Union by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment]

If the conversion of private property to public property is done without the express consent of the party affected by the conversion and without compensation, then the following violations have occurred:

6.1.      Violation of the Fifth Amendment “takings clause” above.

6.2.       “Conversion” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §654.

6.3.      Theft.

7.        Because taxation involves converting private property to a public use, public purpose, and public office, then it involves eminent domain if the owner of the property did not expressly consent to the taking:

Eminent domain.  The power to take private property for public use by the state, municipalities, and private persons or corporations authorized to exercise functions of public character. Housing Authority of Cherokee National of Oklahoma v. Langley, Okl., 555 P.2d 1025, 1028. Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

In the United States, the power of eminent domain is founded in both the federal (Fifth Amend.) and state constitutions. However, the Constitution limits the power to taking for a public purpose and prohibits the exercise of the power of eminent domain without just compensation to the owners of the property which is taken. The process of exercising the power of eminent domain is commonly referred to as "condemnation", or, "expropriation".

The right of eminent domain is the right of the state, through its regular organization, to reassert, either temporarily or permanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the state on account of public exigency and for the public good. Thus, in time of war or insurrection, the proper authorities may possess and hold any part of the territory of the state for the common safety; and in time of peace the legislature may authorize the appropriation of the same to public purposes, such as the opening of roads, construction of defenses, or providing channels for trade or travel. Eminent domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity. It gives a right to resume the possession of the property in the manner directed by the constitution and the laws of the state, whenever the public interest requires it.

See also Adequate compensation; Condemnation; Constructive taking; Damages; Expropriation; Fair market value; Just compensation; Larger parcel; Public use; Take.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 470]

8.        The Fifth Amendment  requires that any taking of private property without the consent of the owner must involve compensation.  The Constitution must be consistent with itself.  The taxation clauses found in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3  cannot conflict with the Fifth Amendment.  The Fifth Amendment contains no exception to the requirement for just compensation upon conversion of private property to a public use, even in the case of taxation.  This is why all taxes must be indirect excise taxes against people who provide their consent by applying for a license to engage in the taxed activity:  The application for the license constitutes constructive consent to donate the fruits of the activity to a public use, public purpose, and public office.

9.        There is only ONE condition in which the conversion of private property to public property does NOT require compensation, which is when the owner donates the private property to a public use, public purpose, or public office.  To wit:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”]; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”
[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

The above rules are summarized below:

Table 1:  Rules for converting private property to a public use or a public office

#

Description

Requires consent of owner to be taken from owner?

1

The owner of property justly acquired enjoys full and exclusive use and control over the property.  This right includes the right to exclude government uses or ownership of said property.

Yes

2

He may not use the property to injure the equal rights of his neighbor.  For instance, when you murder someone, the government can take your liberty and labor from you by putting you in jail or your life from you by instituting the death penalty against you.  Both your life and your labor are “property”.  Therefore, the basis for the “taking” was violation of the equal rights of a fellow sovereign “neighbor”.

No

3

He cannot be compelled or required to use it to “benefit” his neighbor.  That means he cannot be compelled to donate the property to any franchise that would “benefit” his neighbor such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Yes

4

If he donates it to a public use, he gives the public the right to control that use.

Yes

5

Whenever the public needs require, the public may take it without his consent upon payment of due compensation.  E.g. “eminent domain”.

No

10.     You and ONLY you can authorize your private property to be donated to a public use, public purpose, and public office.  No third party can lawfully convert or donate your private property to a public use, public purpose, or public office without your knowledge and express consent.  If they do, they are guilty of theft and conversion, and especially if they are acting in a quasi-governmental capacity as a “withholding agent” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(16).

10.1.   A withholding agent cannot file an information return connecting your earnings to a “trade or business” without you actually occupying a “public office” in the government BEFORE you filled out any tax form.

10.2.   A withholding agent cannot file IRS form W-2 against your earnings if you didn’t sign an  IRS Form W-4 contract and thereby consent to donate your private property to a public office in the U.S. government and therefore a “public use”.

10.3.   That donation process is accomplished by your own voluntary self-assessment and ONLY by that method. Before such a self-assessment, you are a "nontaxpayer" and a private person. After the assessment, you become a "taxpayer" and a public officer in the government engaged in the "trade or business" franchise. That donation process is described in 31 U.S.C. §321(d):

10.4.   In order to have an income tax liability, you must complete, sign, and “file” an income tax return and thereby assess yourself:

“Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not distraint.”
[Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960)]

By assessing yourself, you implicitly give your consent to allow the public the right to control that use of the formerly PRIVATE property donated to a public use.

10.5.   IRS Forms W-2 and W-4 are identified as Tax Class 5: Estate and Gift Taxes.  Payroll withholdings are GIFTS, not taxes.  

TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE I > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 321

§ 321. General authority of the Secretary

(d)

(1) The Secretary of the Treasury may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts and bequests of property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Department of the Treasury. Gifts and bequests of money and the proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts or bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate fund and shall be disbursed on order of the Secretary of the Treasury. Property accepted under this paragraph, and the proceeds thereof, shall be used as nearly as possible in accordance with the terms of the gift or bequest.

(2) For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

They don't become “taxes” and assessments until you attach the Form W-2 "gift statement" to an assessment called a  Form 1040 and create a liability with your own self-assessment signature.  IRS has no delegated authority to convert a “gift” into a “tax”.  That is why when you file the  IRS Form 1040, you must attach the W-2 gift statement.  See:

Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.007, Section 5.6.15

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

10.6.   The IRS cannot execute a lawful assessment without your knowledge and express consent because if they didn't have your consent, then it would be criminal conversion and theft.  That is why every time they do an assessment, they have to call you into their office and present it to you to procure your consent in what is called an "examination".  If you make it clear that you don’t consent and hand them the following, they have to delete the assessment because it's only a proposal. See:

Why the Government Can't Lawfully Assess Natural Persons With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent, Form #05.011

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

There is no way other than the above to lawfully create an income tax liability without violating the Fifth Amendment  takings clause.  If you assess yourself, you consent to become a “public officer” and thereby donate the fruits of your labor as such officer to a public use and a public purpose.  

11.     The IRS won't admit this, but this in fact is how the de facto unlawful system currently functions:

11.1.   You can’t unilaterally “elect” yourself into a “public office”, even if you do consent.

11.2.   No IRS form nor any provision in the Internal Revenue Code CREATES any new public offices in the government.

11.3.   The I.R.C. only taxes EXISTING public offices lawfully exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and in all places expressly authorized pursuant to 4 U.S.C. §72.

12.     Information returns are being abused in effect as “federal election” forms.

12.1.   Third parties in effect are nominating private persons into public offices in the government without their knowledge, without their consent, and without compensation.  Thus, information returns are being used to impose the obligations of a public office upon people without compensation and thereby impose slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

12.2.   Anyone who files a false information return connecting a person to the "trade or business"/"public office" franchise who in fact does not ALREADY lawfully occupy a public office in the U.S. government is guilty of impersonating a public officer in criminal violation of  18 U.S.C. §912.

13.     The IRS Form W-4 cannot and does not create an office in the U.S. government, but allows EXISTING public officers to elect to connect their private earnings to a public use, a public office, and a public purpose. The IRS abuses this form to unlawfully create public offices, and this abuse of the I.R.C. is the heart of the tax fraud: They are making a system that only applies to EXISTING public offices lawfully exercised in order to:

13.1.   Unlawfully create new public offices in places where they are not authorized to exist.

13.2.   Destroy the separation of powers between what is public and what is private.

13.3.   Institute eminent domain over private labor using false third party reports. Omission in preventing such fraud accomplishes involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §1994, and 18 U.S.C. §1581.

13.4.   Destroy the separation of powers between the federal and state governments. Any state employee who participates in the federal income tax is serving in TWO offices, which is a violation of most state constitutions.

13.5.   Enslave innocent people to go to work for them without compensation, without recourse, and in violation of the thirteenth amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. That prohibition, incidentally, applies EVERYWHERE, including on federal territory.

14.     The right to control the use of private property donated to a public use to procure the benefits of a franchise is enforced through the Internal Revenue Code, which is the equivalent of the employment agreement for franchisees called “taxpayers”.

The above criteria explains why:

1.        You cannot be subject to either employment tax withholding or employment tax reporting without voluntarily signing an IRS Form W-4 .

Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 31—EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
Subpart E—Collection of Income Tax at Source
 Sec. 31.3402(p)-1  Voluntary withholding agreements.

(a) In general.

An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of §31.3401(a)–3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See §31.3405(c)–1, Q&A–3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.

(b) Form and duration of agreement

(2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. Unless the employer and employee agree to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the agreement is in effect which is made on or after the first "status determination date" (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an agreement under section 3402 (p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.

______________________________________________________________________________________

26 CFR §31.3401(a)-3 Amounts deemed wages under voluntary withholding agreements

(a) In general.

Notwithstanding the exceptions to the definition of wages specified in section 3401(a) and the regulations thereunder, the term “wages” includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to which there is a voluntary withholding agreement in effect under section 3402(p). References in this chapter to the definition of wages contained in section 3401(a) shall be deemed to refer also to this section (§31.3401(a)–3).

(b) Remuneration for services.

(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the amounts referred to in paragraph (a) of this section include any remuneration for services performed by an employee for an employer which, without regard to this section, does not constitute wages under section 3401(a). For example, remuneration for services performed by an agricultural worker or a domestic worker in a private home (amounts which are specifically excluded from the definition of wages by section 3401(a) (2) and (3), respectively) are amounts with respect to which a voluntary withholding agreement may be entered into under section 3402(p). See §§31.3401(c)–1 and 31.3401(d)–1 for the definitions of “employee” and “employer”.

2.        The courts have no authority under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201(a)  to declare you a franchisee called a “taxpayer”.  You own yourself.

Specifically, Rowen seeks a declaratory judgment against the United States of America with respect to "whether or not the plaintiff is a taxpayer pursuant to, and/or under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14)." (See Compl. at 2.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment "with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986," a code section that is not at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under § 2201 where claim concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.
[Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)]

3.        The revenue laws may not be cited or enforced against a person who is not a “taxpayer”:

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, instrumentalities, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government and who did not volunteer to participate in the federal “trade or business” franchise].  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.  With them[non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.” 
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]

"And by statutory definition, 'taxpayer' includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act.  ...Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."
[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d 18 (1939)]

All of the above requirements have in common that violating them would result in the equivalent of exercising eminent domain over the private property of the private person without their consent and without just compensation, which the U.S. Supreme Court said violates the Fifth Amendment takings clause:

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in  Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’  See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

As a consequence of the above considerations, any government officer or employee who does any of the following is unlawfully converting private property to a public use without the consent of the owner and without consideration:

1.        Assuming or “presuming” you are a “taxpayer” without producing evidence that you consented to become one.  In our system of jurisprudence, a person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty with court admissible evidence.  Presumptions are NOT evidence.  That means they must be presumed to be a “nontaxpayer” until they are proven with admissible evidence to be a “taxpayer”.  See:

Presumption:  Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

2.        Performing a tax assessment or re-assessment if you haven’t first voluntarily assessed yourself by filing a tax return.  See:

Why the Government Can't Lawfully Assess Natural Persons With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent, Form #05.011

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3.        Citing provisions of the franchise agreement against those who never consented to participate.  This is an abuse of law for political purposes and an attempt to exploit the innocent and the ignorant.  The legislature cannot delegate authority to the Executive Branch to convert innocent persons called “nontaxpayers” into franchisees called “taxpayers” without producing evidence of consent to become “taxpayers”.

"In Calder v. Bull, which was here in 1798, Mr. Justice Chase said, that there were acts which the Federal and State legislatures could not do without exceeding their authority, and among them he mentioned a law which punished a citizen for an innocent act; a law that destroyed or impaired the lawful private [labor] contracts [and labor compensation, e.g. earnings from employment through compelled W-4 withholding] of citizens; a law that made a man judge in his own case; and a law that took the property from A [the worker]. and gave it to B [the government or another citizen, such as through social welfare programs]. 'It is against all reason and justice,' he added, 'for a people to intrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that they have done it. They may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt, or punish innocence as a crime, or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private [employment] contract [by compelling W-4 withholding, for instance], or the right of private property. To maintain that a Federal or State legislature possesses such powers [of THEFT!] if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in all free republican governments.' 3 Dall. 388."
[Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878)]

4.        Relying on third party information returns that are unsigned as evidence supporting the conclusion that you are a “taxpayer”.  These forms include IRS Forms W-2, 1042s, 1098, and 1099  and they are NOT signed and are inadmissible as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 802  because not signed under penalty of perjury.  Furthermore, the submitters of these forms seldom have personal knowledge that you are in fact and in deed engaged in a “trade or business” as required by  26 U.S.C. §6041(a).  Most people don’t know, for instance, that a “trade or business” includes ONLY “the functions of a public office”.

3.  Proof IRC Subtitle A is primarily an excise tax on activities in connection with a "trade or business"

We’ll start off with a definition of “trade or business":

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)  

"The term 'trade or business' includes [is limited to] the performance of the functions of a public office."

We know that the IRS likes to point to the word “includes” in the above definition and state that it is an “expansive” definition that does not exclude the common meaning of the term.  We must remember, however, that there is an important principle of statutory construction which states that anything not mentioned in a  law, statute, code, or regulation is “excluded by implication”, which means that all things not connected to a “public office” are excluded from the definition of “trade or business” by implication:

“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.  A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.  Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.  Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.  When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.  Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]

Therefore, the definition of the term “trade or business”, says what it means and means what it says.  The Supreme Court has said many times that words used in a law or statute are to be given their ordinary and plain meaning and are to be restricted to the clear language found in the code itself.  If you would like an exhaustive analysis of the meaning of the word "includes" within the Internal Revenue Code, please refer to our free pamphlet available on the internet below:

Meaning of the words "includes" and "including"

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/Includess.pdf

The only time in the I.R.C. where the term “trade or business” can mean anything other than what it is defined above to mean is in places where there a regional definition that overrides the general or default definition found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) above.  Below is the only example of that within the I.R.C., which is intended to be used only in the context of “self employment”:

26 U.S.C. §1402 Definitions

(c) Trade or business

The term ''trade or business'', when used with reference to self-employment income or net earnings from self-employment, shall have the same meaning as when used in section 162 (relating to trade or business expenses), except that such term shall not include -

(1) the performance of the functions of a public office, other than the functions of a public office of a State or a political subdivision thereof with respect to fees received in any period in which the functions are performed in a position compensated solely on a fee basis and in which such functions are not covered under an agreement entered into by such State and the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security Act;

(2) the performance of service by an individual as an employee, other than -

(A) service described in section 3121(b)(14)(B) performed by an individual who has attained the age of 18,

(B) service described in section 3121(b)(16),

(C) service described in section 3121(b)(11), (12), or (15) performed in the United States (as defined in section 3121(e)(2)) by a citizen of the United States, except service which constitutes ''employment'' under section 3121(y),

(D) service described in paragraph (4) of this subsection,

(E) service performed by an individual as an employee of a State or a political subdivision thereof in a position compensated solely on a fee basis with respect to fees received in any period in which such service is not covered under an agreement entered into by such State and the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section 218 of the Social Security Act,

(F) service described in section 3121(b) (20), and

(G) service described in section 3121(b)(8)(B);

(3) the performance of service by an individual as an employee or employee representative as defined in section 3231;

(4) the performance of service by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order;

(5) the performance of service by an individual in the exercise of his profession as a Christian Science practitioner; or

(6) the performance of service by an individual during the period for which an exemption under subsection (g) is effective with respect to him. The provisions of paragraph (4) or (5) shall not apply to service (other than service performed by a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty as a member of such order) performed by an individual unless an exemption under subsection (e) is effective with respect to him.

So we look up the definition in 26 U.S.C. §162 and here is what it says:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B

Part VI-Itemized deductions for Individuals and Corporations

Sec. 162. - Trade or business expenses

(a) In general

There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including –

(1) a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered;

So in other words, in the context of self employment ONLY, the term “trade or business” excludes public offices in the District of Columbia and only includes those of federal territories and possessions, which are called “States” within the I.R.C.  This is because the default definition in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)  includes ALL public offices everywhere within federal jurisdiction, whereas those public offices in the District of Columbia are specifically not mentioned by the above definition.  When the authors of the U.S. Code in the Office of Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives wants to confuse and mislead the American people, they will write the code in such as way as to use a double-negative, whereby they define what the new definition of “trade or business” excludes, and then don’t include public offices in the District of Columbia but include all other types of political offices under federal jurisdiction.  Therefore, for self employment context ONLY, “trade or business” has a different meaning than the default definition in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) and has been overridden to exclude public offices in the District of Columbia but include all other types of public offices otherwise within federal jurisdiction.

4.  Synonyms for "trade or business"

Another important concept we need to be very aware of is that there are also synonyms for "trade or business" used within the Internal Revenue Code. 

4.1  "wages"

The term "wages" is synonymous with a "trade or business".  Below is the proof from 26 U.S.C. §3401, where it says that earnings not in the course of an employers "trade or business" are exempted from "wages".

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3401

§ 3401. Definitions

(a) Wages

 For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

[. . .]

(4) for service not in the course of the employer’s trade or business performed in any calendar quarter by an employee, unless the cash remuneration paid for such service is $50 or more and such service is performed by an individual who is regularly employed by such employer to perform such service. For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be deemed to be regularly employed by an employer during a calendar quarter only if—

(A) on each of some 24 days during such quarter such individual performs for such employer for some portion of the day service not in the course of the employer’s trade or business; or

(B) such individual was regularly employed (as determined under subparagraph (A)) by such employer in the performance of such service during the preceding calendar quarter; or

(11) for services not in the course of the employer’s trade or business, to the extent paid in any medium other than cash; or

The above is also completely consistent with the IRS form W-2 itself, which is an information return that 26 U.S.C.  §6041 says may ONLY be filed to document earnings in excess of $600 in the course of a "trade or business".

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART III > Subpart B > § 6041

§ 6041. Information at source

(a) Payments of $600 or more

All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income (other than payments to which section 6042 (a)(1), 6044 (a)(1), 6047 (e), 6049 (a), or 6050N (a) applies, and other than payments with respect to which a statement is required under the authority of section 6042 (a)(2), 6044 (a)(2), or 6045), of $600 or more in any taxable year, or, in the case of such payments made by the United States, the officers or employees of the United States having information as to such payments and required to make returns in regard thereto by the regulations hereinafter provided for, shall render a true and accurate return to the Secretary, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the amount of such gains, profits, and income, and the name and address of the recipient of such payment.

So if you aren't engaged in a "trade or business", then your private employer cannot lawfully or truthfully report "wages" on an IRS form W-2 in connection with you.  If they do, they are in criminal violation of 26 U.S.C. §7207, which provides for a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for up to one year for filing a false information return such as a W-2.

Those who do not serve in a "public office" therefore can only earn "wages" if they sign an agreement and stipulate to call their PRIVATE earnings wages.  In the absence of such an agreement, it is false and fraudulent and a criminal offense to report any amount other than ZERO on an IRS form W-2 in connection with a person who is not engaged in a "trade or business".  These conclusions are confirmed by 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1:

Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 31—EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
Subpart E—Collection of Income Tax at Source

Sec. 31.3402(p)-1  Voluntary withholding agreements.

(a) In general.

An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of §31.3401(a)–3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See §31.3405(c)–1, Q&A–3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.

(b) Form and duration of agreement

(2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. Unless the employer and employee agree to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the agreement is in effect which is made on or after the first "status determination date" (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an agreement under section 3402 (p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.

The above is also reiterated again in the Treasury Regulations below:

26 CFR §31.3401(a)-3 Amounts deemed wages under voluntary withholding agreements

 

(a) In general.

 

Notwithstanding the exceptions to the definition of wages specified in section 3401(a) and the regulations thereunder, the term “wages” includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to which there is a voluntary withholding agreement in effect under section 3402(p). References in this chapter to the definition of wages contained in section 3401(a) shall be deemed to refer also to this section (§31.3401(a)–3).

 

(b) Remuneration for services.