FORMS: 0.1b Notice of Default for Test for Federal Tax Professionals
RIGHT click here for the Word 97 version of this document

This affidavit is to be used in tandem with the Test for Federal Tax Professionals.  Whenever you send this Test to the IRS in any of your correspondence, for instance, with an Request for Refund Affidavit, you should give them the allotted amount of time to respond, usually 45 days, and then mail them the Notice of Default below to inform them that they have admitted fact under the Uniform Commercial Code.  It is a very effective tool and is based on UCC 1-205.  We escaped $1,000 in frivolous return penalties by sending out this notice and shut the IRS immediately from making inflated claims of liability!


<<YOUR NAME>>

Former SSN (no longer active:  <<SSN>>

<<ADDRESS>>

<<CITY>>, <<STATE>>  <<ZIP>>

Phone:  _________________

<<DATE>>

Internal Revenue Service

Legal Staff of District Director

<<ADDRESS>>

<<CITY>>, <<STATE>>  <<ZIP>>

 

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT

 

STATE OF ____________ )

                      )

COUNTY OF ___________ )

Affiant, having first hand knowledge concerning the facts contained herein, provides this Verified Affidavit of Default to ________________(agentname) of the Internal Revenue Service.  Affiant hereby deposes and states the facts as stated herein and attests that this Affidavit is true, correct, and complete.

1.    That the affiant, ____________________(name), did mail to the Internal Revenue Service Affidavit(s), entitled “Test for Federal Tax Professionals”, certified mail, dated ______________(date) at the above address, on ________________(date).  This affidavit included ___(number) enclosures and a claim of no tax liability.

2.    Said Affidavit(s) by Agency as evidenced by Certified mail receipt number  #_______________________________.

3.    No response by the Internal Revenue Service, or any other lawfully delegated representative of the said Agency and/or department has ever been received refuting the claims made in the aforesaid Affidavit.

4.    The Internal Revenue Service was granted 45 days in which to respond to the facts stated in the Affidavit(s) and did not refute them during that time period, thereby “defaulting” on __________________(date).

Default having occurred, whereas the Internal Revenue Service  employee(s) failed to respond to said Affidavit(s), the following facts are hereby established in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code, section 1-205:

1.    Divestiture, dispositive facts are established by the Internal Revenue Service, respecting facts stated in said Affidavit(s), wherein they had the opportunity and “failed to plead,” and thereby have extinguished the right to proceed against Claimant in this matter.

2.    The facts and claims are contained within the said Affidavit(s) are considered accurate, as they have not been rebutted, by counter-affidavit, by someone competent to know the law, within the forty five (45) days required.  All matters not denied are affirmed.

3.    Agency/Department failed to issue or maintain documents as required in response to said affidavit.

4.    Internal Revenue Service, by defaulting to the said Affidavit(s) has been deemed to have waived all rights allegedly claimed against _____________________(your name) respecting unlawful assessment or collection of alleged taxes or penalties owed for said tax years and agrees to refund all taxes paid and waive right of collection for any back taxes.

 The following is a by no means complete summary of the facts established by failure of the Internal Revenue Service to respond to all the issues and claims made in said Affidavit:

1.      Fiduciary Duty

1.1.               Employees of the Internal Revenue Service have a fiduciary relationship with the citizens that they serve and are agents of a public trust.

1.2.               This fiduciary relationship establishes an obligation to act in the best interests of the public at large, and for the general welfare of the citizens they serve and to put the interests of the public above their own private interests and the government agency that they work for..

1.3.               It is in the best interests of the citizens that they serve for them to be well-informed about the legal basis justifying their tax liability so that it can be fully and promptly satisfied.

1.4.               Said Affidavit fully and completely identified the responsibilities and liabilities of said citizen according to the years of research conducted by affiant and hundreds of other learned tax professionals, including CPA’s and at least three tax attorneys.

1.5.               An opportunity to satisfy the burden of proof imposed on the Internal Revenue Service as the moving party to demonstrate tax liability of affiant and the inaccuracies of his findings was afforded by said Affidavit to the IRS.

1.6.               The IRS failed to refute the claims of the affiant and failed to respond to said Affidavit and legal notice, and thereby established and determined the extent of the legal tax liabilities of the affiant, which are thereby established as “not liable and due a full refund” for the years in question.

2.      Jurisdiction

2.1.               Affiant is not a “person” in the context of the Internal Revenue Code.

2.2.               Affiant does not live in “the State of” or “this State” as defined in California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6017 and 17018 or Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(a)(10).  The definition of the “State” in which federal income taxes apply is that found in the Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. 110(d).

2.3.               Affiant does not live in the “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9).

2.4.               The Internal Revenue Service and the federal government have no jurisdiction under the Constitution to enforce or impose direct taxes on natural persons outside of federal enclaves and inside the sovereign 50 states.  This restriction is imposed by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution and these restrictions were NOT removed by passage of the Sixteenth Amendment.

2.5.               I.R.C> Subtitles A through C income taxes are considered indirect taxes according to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Indirect taxes are taxes on other than natural persons.

2.6.               Subtitles A through C income taxes are considered indirect taxes according to the Internal Revenue Service.  Indirect taxes are taxes on other than natural persons.

2.7.               The Internal Revenue Service has no authority to overrule the determinations of the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of Subtitles A through C income taxes as indirect excise taxes.

2.8.               The “United States” is defined in the Fourteenth Amendment as the territory over which the sovereignty of the “United States” extends, which includes only the District of Columbia, enclaves within the states, and other territories and possessions of the United States.

2.9.               The United States Treasury Secretary has no delegated authority to impose or enforce “direct taxes” upon citizens living in the 50 states.

2.10.            The Department of Justice has no delegated authority to defend IRS agents against criminal prosecution for wrongdoing in connection with the administration of the Internal Revenue Code.

2.11.            The Department of Justice has no delegated authority to civilly or criminally prosecute Americans Citizens living inside the 50 states for noncompliance with I.R.C. Subtitles A through C income taxes.

2.12.            “U.S. citizen” status, which is one of the prerequisites of income tax liability found in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, means 14th Amendment citizenship and birth or naturalization in the federal United States (areas over which the federal government is sovereign).

2.13.            The status of being a “U.S. national” rather than a “U.S. citizen” relieves persons from federal tax liability under “U.S. citizen” status.

2.14.            The word “includes” as used throughout the Internal Revenue Code is a word of limitation and not enlargement.  The purpose for using it is to restrict rather than enlarge the definition of a word to the terms it introduces.  Any other interpretation of the word constitutes a violation of due process of law, an illegal and unconstitutional enlargement of federal jurisdiction, and a satisfaction of the Supreme Court’s “void vagueness” doctrine in the context of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

2.15  The affiant is neither a “citizen” nor a “resident” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, because of his declared status as both a “U.S. national” and a “nonresident alien”.

3.      Income Tax Liability

3.1.               The Internal Revenue Code “imposes” a tax in section 1, but “imposing” the tax does not make a person liable or specify the situs under which a person is liable.

3.2.               There is no code section anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code that makes a natural person such as myself liable for the payment of Federal personal income taxes.

3.3.               “Gross income” means income derived from whatever source derived.

3.4.               The IRS have no constitutional authority to define income as other than corporate profits, and no authority to define “income” at all.  Only the U.S. Constitution can define income.

3.5.               “Income” as properly defined by the U.S. Supreme Court means “corporate profit”.

3.6.               Affiant is not a corporation and has no corporate profit.

3.7.               26 U.S.C. Section 863 provides a means of allocating gross income to specific sources that are taxable based on the location where they were derived.  There is no other authority for allocating items of gross income to specific taxable sources.

3.8.               26 CFR 1.863-1 identifies how to determine taxable income from specific sources within or without the United States.

3.9.               The legal authority for determining the taxability of a source of income (not an item of gross income, but a source or situs of income) is 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)

3.10.            26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) defines income that is not considered tax exempt.  This section does not list the income of most American Citizens.  Therefore, affiant is exempt from federal income tax.

3.11.            Affiant is not a “taxpayer” within the context of Subtitles A through C or the California Revenue and Taxation Code because no liability for the payment of such income taxes has been or can be demonstrated.

3.12.            The IRS has no authority to exercise levy or distraint against American Citizens in connection with payment of Subtitles A through C federal income taxes.  The enforcement codes found in Subtitle F do not have any implementing regulations that apply distraint for enforcement of Subtitles A through C income taxes.

3.13.            IRS has no authority to assess an American with a Subtitle A through C income tax liability.  Only the Citizen can assess himself with an income tax liability.  That is why the U.S. Supreme Court said in the case of Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145 that: “Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”  Voluntary assessment means self assessment in this case.

3.14.            The IRS does not have in their possession a valid assessment.  All self-assessments have already been invalidated, which means that all monies paid in taxes for the years in question must be returned to the affiant.

3.15.            26 USC 31.3121(e) is the only place in the Internal Revenue Code or 26 CFR where the term “citizen of the United States” or “U.S. citizen” is defined.

3.16.            The IRS has no lawful authority to violate the Constitutional rights of the affiant.

3.17.            The Internal Revenue Service has no evidence in their position that proves that the affiant is a “U.S. citizen” subject to the taxes “imposed” in I.R.C. Section 1.

3.18.            The revenue officer in receipt of the questions does not have an enforcement pocket commission and therefore has no lawful authority to institute distraint against the affiant.

3.19.            Income means “corporate profit” according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

3.20.            Affiant is not a federal corporation subject to the federal income tax.

3.21.            The federal income tax authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment is an indirect tax on federally chartered corporate privileges.

3.22.            IRS has no lawful authority to define the term “income” and only the U.S. Constitution can define it.

3.23.            To have “gross income”, one must have income from federally chartered corporate activities, which the affiant does not.

3.24.            The only definition of the term “individual” found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or 26 CFR appears in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).

3.25.            A person who fills out a 1040 form by law must either be an alien or a nonresident alien under 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).

3.26.            A person cannot be a “U.S. citizen” and an “individual” at the same time because they are mutually exclusive, based on the definition of “individual” found in 26 CFR 1.1441(c )(3).

3.27.            Only “aliens” as defined in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3) are required to fill out and submit IRS form 1040.  Nonresident aliens are supposed to use the IRS form 1040NR and not the 1040.

3.28.            U.S. citizens are not required by law to complete or file any income tax form, including the 1040 or the 1040NR.

4.      Penalties and criminal enforcement jurisdiction

4.1.               The only “persons” against whom penalties may be instituted under Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code are defined in 26 CFR 301.6671-1(b), which are defined as officers or employees of corporations or members or employees of partnerships.

4.2.               Affiant is not the “person” against whom penalties can be levied under Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code.

4.3.               There are no implementing regulations for the Internal Revenue Code Section 1 income tax that authorize the imposition of penalties against anyone for refusing to pay these taxes.

4.4.               The only authority to impose civil penalties by the IRS is through filing suit in federal court.  Liens and levies may not be used against American Citizens to collect penalties.

4.5.               Our tax system is voluntary.  Penalties can’t be applied for noncompliance because it is voluntary.

4.6.               All documents submitted with tax returns constitute compelled testimony.  Because the testimony is compelled and submitted under duress, it is not admissible as evidence in a court of law because it was illegally obtained as per the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).

4.7.               The imposition of penalties for refusing to communicate with the government on a tax return is a violation of the First Amendment right of free speech of the affiant.

4.8.               The IRS has no delegation of authority order authorizing them to compel the affiant to commit fraud on his tax return.

4.9.               The Fourth Amendment right of privacy is unlawfully infringed by the tax laws, in that maintaining one’s privacy by not declaring deductions results in an additional tax assessment.  Such an addition tax assessment amounts to a penalty for the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is unconstitutional.

4.10.               A “tax shelter” is defined an investment which reduces the existing tax liability of a “taxpayer” and which is registered as an investment security with appropriate Federal and State authorities.

4.11.               A “tax shelter” is an “abusive tax shelter” only if it is sold or marketed or promoted to a “taxpayer”.

4.12.    The affiant does not sell or promote “tax shelters” as they are defined in 26 U.S.C. 6111 and 26 U.S.C. 6112.  The government is not in possession of any evidence that would suggest otherwise, because they were asked for such evidence and did not provide any.

4.13.    Even if a “person” were selling, promoting, or marketing an investment that could be legally described as a “tax shelter”, that investment could not be legally described as an “abusive tax shelter” if it were sold only to persons who claimed that they were “nontaxpayers” and not liable for the tax in question.

 

5.      Collections

5.1.               Only elected or appointed officials of the United States government are the proper subject of an IRS levy.

5.2.               Affiant is not a proper or lawful object of an IRS levy.

5.3.               Seizure of property to satisfy tax debts can only lawfully occur if it is ordered by a neutral and disinterested magistrate.

5.4.               The IRS issues Notices of Levy without proper orders from a magistrate.  Therefore, such notices cannot be a legal or lawful means of seizing or obtaining property in satisfaction of alleged tax debts.  Only a court order provides legitimate authority to seize property under the Fourth Amendment.  Use of such notices constitutes extortion under the color of office, fraud, and subjects the issuing person to personal criminal liability.

5.5.               In the context of a Notice of Deficiency, there is not legal basis or delegated authority to establish a tax liability absent a valid self-assessment by the affected Citizen.

5.6.               IRS has no lawful authority to send out a Notice of Deficiency absent a valid self-assessment.

5.7.               IRS has no legal authority to call affiant a “taxpayer” because they have not demonstrated tax liability.

5.8.               26 CFR 301.6303-1 is not a legislative regulation, but a procedural regulation, and therefore may not be used to institute collection actions or distraint against American Citizens.

6.      Employment Tax Withholding

6.1.               The affiant does not meet the definition of “employee” to which IRC Subtitle C employment taxes may be applied.

6.2.               All employment taxes deducted from one’s pay are treated legally as gifts to the U.S. government and fall into tax class 5.  The reason is for this is that a valid assessment is not done until the Citizen voluntarily assesses himself by filing a tax return.

6.3.               IRS has no legal or Constitutional authority to tell private employers to withhold at the single zero rate absent consent from the Citizen and is committing fraud and extortion under the color of office in doing so.

6.4.               The affiant does not earn “wages” as they are defined in 26 U.S.C. 3401(a) because he is not an “employee” as that term is defined in 26 CFR 31.3401(c ).

7.      Social Security

7.1.               The term “United States” in the context of Social Security means the federal government only, which consists of the District of Columbia, the federal enclaves inside the 50 states, and other portions of the “federal zone” subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government under Article 1, section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.

7.2.               The term “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means the exclusive sovereign jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.

7.3.               The federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction or sovereignty over the 50 states of the union but it does have such jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. and U.S. territories.

7.4.               Persons “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth” as defined in the Fourteenth Amendment means that they do not have full constitutional protections and the Bill Of Rights that private citizens in the 50 states who are not U.S. citizens have.

7.5.               The SS-5 does not provide a wide range of citizenship choices.  Only “U.S. citizen” (e.g. 14th Amendment citizen).

7.6.               The SS-5 form does not define the term “U.S. citizen”.

7.7.               Declaring one’s self to be a “U.S. citizen” on an SS-5 form subjects a person to the exclusive sovereign jurisdiction of the U.S. government no matter where they live.

7.8.               SS-5 form does not warn natural persons completing it that they are surrendering their constitutional rights and therefore constitutes fraud.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), I do hereby attest and affirm, under the penalties of perjury from without the “United States”, under the laws of the United States of America that to the best of my/our knowledge and belief, the above Affidavit is true, correct, and complete.

Signed,

 

 

<<YOUR NAME, with signature above>>

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207