Docket Number 06-141

Filed 07/26/06 denied 10/02/06

Rehearing denied 11/27/06

For those common law (not "in business") employees who are interested in tax justice, we would suggest you find something else to be interested in; because you will not find that which does not exist for the American laborer. What we have learned from our 10 years of experience with the Federal bureaucracy is this. Do not question Congresses assumed authority to tax your paycheck (wages); and then be thankful that government allows you to keep just enough of that paycheck to pay your yearly living expenses. For Congress, according to the Supreme Court, has the Constitutional authority to take your entire paycheck (wages). Their reasoning is not because the Sixteenth Amendment allows it, because it does not. It is because the Treasury Department said that as a laborer you have "no cost basis" in your own labor (property), therefore your wages are surplus (gains and profits). Read: http://www.taxhistory.com/crs/09.html and: Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp., 417 U.S. 369 (1974) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=417&page=369.

If you don’t like it, quit your paying job and apply for welfare; because apparently the Supreme Court considers that to be the American laborer’s inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Yes, the 16^th Amendment is Constitutional and if you don’t believe that, convince your State Legislatures that it was not properly ratified by them; and let them deal with it. In reality, it really doesn’t matter whether anyone ratified it or not. The income tax is an excise, impost or duty tax imposed under Article 1, Section 8, not Article 1, Section 9, clause 4 of the United States Constitution. The problem is not with the power to tax, but, to enforce the "income" tax as an excise tax, not as a "capitation" tax as it is now applied to the common laborer. (Brushaber, 240 U.S. 1, 16-19). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&page=1.

Our contention is this. If you are not "in business," what, in fact, is the excise, impost, or duty imposed upon? It certainly is not the property (source), whether that property is capital, labor, or money; as that would be a "capitation, or other direct, tax" requiring apportionment. United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351 (1988) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=485&page=355#355

The rest of our story is at www.taxhistory.com/denied.html

Disclaimer: Taxhistory.com does not provide legal advice, nor do we encourage tax protesting. Our sole purpose is to point the reader to historical information concerning the application of the federal income tax to the "wages" of the common law (labor only) employee. Our point is to raise the questions, and then provide the documentation supporting our conclusions. This is a free site, we offer nothing for sale, nor do we ask for contributions to support our effort.

Honest Mistakes
26 USC 6401 (C)

26 USC 6401 (C)

[26] Conference Report, H.R. 2570, "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943," page 48

Section 4 (d) of the Senate bill adds new subsection (c) to section 3770 of the code. Under this provision an amount paid as tax shall not be considered not to constitute an overpayment solely because there was no tax liability in respect of which that amount was paid.

The income-tax law requires the taxpayer to make a return of his tax and to pay the tax so returned. These requirements contemplate that in the discharge of these duties at the time, place, and manner prescribed, honest mistakes will occur—mistakes both as to the amount of the tax and as to the existence of any tax liability; and that such honest mistakes made incident to the bona fide orderly compliance with the actual or reasonably apparent duties of the taxpayer are to be corrected under the provisions of law governing overpayments. It is believed that existing law so provides. The language of certain court decisions (holding that certain payments, not made incident to a bona fide and orderly discharge of actual or reasonably apparent duties imposed by law, are not overpayments and accordingly that interest is not payable) has been read by some as meaning that no payment can result in an overpayment if no tax liability actually existed. It is not believed that such reading is in any way a statement of existing law. The provisions of the bill, however, emphasize the need for clarity in this regard.

Under the bill as passed by the Senate, two requirements became basic features of the income tax: (1) The declaration and payment of the estimated tax; and (2) the withholding and collection by the employer of tax from the wages of employees, and the return and payment as such of the amount by the employer to the Government. Honest mistakes incident to faithful and orderly compliance will, of course, occur, just as they have in the older procedures of the law.(More)