Why do you presume you should pay taxes to the ‘government’?
The first thing you need to determine is whether you’re even liable for an internal revenue tax in the first place. If you’re not exercising federal privilege, then you do not lawfully have to pay the indirect tax called the federal income tax.
Visit the educational website, https://www.auditax.com.au/, for more information on the Rule of Law and how to live a life with more Liberty and Freedom!
Per US Constitutional law, all taxation falls within one of two classes. Direct or indirect. Direct taxes must be apportioned among the several States (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3) being given regard to a Census or Enumeration (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4). Indirect taxes, or excises, imposts and duties, must be uniform throughout the US (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1).
The 16th Amendment did not repeal or revoke the Article 1 tax clauses. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the 16th Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment (Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 report No. 80–19A).
The Law of Taxation. §108, pg 247, by Thomas M. Cooley LL.D., 1924: "The 1909 federal law known as "The Corporation Tax Law," so far as it imposed a "special excise" tax of one per cent of the net income of business corporations, is a tax upon the doing of business in a corporate capacity, so as to be an indirect rather than a direct tax..."
Excerpt from the Corporate Income Tax Act of 1909 - That every corporation, joint stock company or association, organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares ... now or hereafter organized under the laws of the United State or of any State ... shall be subject to pay annually a special excise tax with respect to carrying on or doing business by such corporation ... equivalent to one per centum on the entire net income over and above five thousand dollars received by it from all sources during such year....
Bowers V. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174, (1926). "...Income' has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 112) in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed."
Merchants Loan and Trust Company, v. Smietanka. 255 U.S. 509, 519, 41 S. Ct. 386, 15 A. L. R. 1305. (1921). "...the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909'...The word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court...In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467; Eisner v. Macomber. 252 U.S. 189, 206, 207
“Whether the income tax is to be classified as an excise is in truth not of critical importance for this analysis. If not that, it is an impost, or a duty. A capitation or other direct tax it certainly is not.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 US 548 (1937))
The Supreme Court has also officially rejected the broad contention that all receipts are “income” (So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 US 330, (1918)).
—————
Brigham v. United States, 160 F.3d 759 (1st Cir. 1998). – “The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ . . . shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. – 26 USC Section 7701(c). In light of this we apply the principle that a list of enumerated examples should be construed to include by implication those additional items of like kind and class as the expressly included items. *fn2 This follows from the canon noscitur a sociis, ‘a word is known by the company it keeps’ Neal v. Clark, 95 US 704, 708-09 (1878)”
The term ‘trade or business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office - 26 USC Section 7701(a)(26)
Russello v. United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) (Quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA 1972)) – “Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another …, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”
The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title . - 26 USC Section - 7701(a)(10)
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. - 7701(a)(9)
Just as an interesting send-off. If you read Title 26, Section 1 (the Internal Revenue Code), you’ll note the tax on “taxable income” is not directly taxed or capitated, but rather it is ‘imposed’ (impost).
