Prerequisites to understanding this essay:

Article 1, section 2 requires the proportion of congressmen and the proportion of direct taxes to be based on state populations determined by a census:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Article 1, section 8:

"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ..."

Article 1, section 8 also tells us the territory over which the U.S. Legislature can make laws:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Article 1, section 8 also tells us that only Congress has the power

"...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, ..."


Only Congress was given the authority to coin lawful money of the United States. The Federal Reserve Bank does not have this authority.

Only Congress has the duty to regulate the value of money (not the Federal Reserve). Yet today's value of a Federal Reserve dollar is only 2% of a U.S. dollar.

Hint #1: the IRS 1040 tax form line on which wages and salaries are to be entered has not had a dollar sign since 1964 when our coins stopped being silver.

Hint #2: It is your fault for using non-lawful money. The official policy on this is found in the 1933 Senate Document Number 43"Contracts Payable in Gold" after our gold was seized but you could still be paid in silver. "The fact that citizens, at a given time, may prefer specie to currency, or vice versa, can not prevent Congress from enacting those laws which it deems necessary to the maintenance of a proper monetary system.

Notice the word "Proper". They actually thought their pre-arranged conspiracy made it proper.

Article 1, section 9 provides for an import tax on slaves prior to 1808.

Article 1, section 9 also requires that:

Article 1, section 10

"No State shall ... emit bills of credit."

Comment: Your state has a big debt problem.

Fourteenth Amendment, section 2 requires the census to be reduced by those who are denied the right to vote for electors to the Electoral College. (thereby affecting the proportion of congressmen and direct taxes required by Article 1, section 2):

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and "Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twentyone years of age in such State."

Sixteenth Amendment is often called the Income Tax Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Note: Government employees have had their wages taxed since 1862, long before the 16th amendment. The comments here do not apply to government wages.

If state citizens' wages were not taxed before the 16th Amendment, then the 16th amendment did not confer a new power of taxation. The Constitution does not change. Those who swore an oath-of-office to uphold it cannot have any authority to change what they swore to uphold.


This amendment's words are very different from the original proposed amendment in Senate Joint Resolution 39 as published in Congressional Record June 11, 1909 page 3377."The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states according to population"

[italics added to help you spot the changes]

The Senate Finance Committee revised it as Senate Joint Resolution 40, to what we have today. (published on Page 3900 of the Congressional Record of June 28, 1909)

The word "direct" was removed from the original proposed amendment

The words "from whatever source derived" were added.

Nothing was changed by the 16th Amendment. There is no new taxing authority.

The amendment DID NOT eliminate apportionment, nor convert direct taxes into indirect taxes.

The tax is still on the income, not on the source.

Since the word direct was deleted, it can never be argued that it authorized a direct tax that is unapportioned among the states.

There is not now, nor can there ever be an unapportioned direct tax on incomes. (except for federal employees who are already subject to fed jurisdiction -- and who's wages were taxed since 1862 -- long before the 16th Amendment).

The Senators who swore oaths to uphold and perpetuate the Constitution did not circumvent it.

Since tax collectors could always seize assets without regard to their source, no new taxing authority was created.


The income tax was intended to be a tax on the profits earned from capital gains and savings accounts of the wealthy. When the States ratified the 16th Amendment, they did so only upon the assurance, over and over again, that salaries would not be taxed. Only profit from savings was to be taxed, and only then as an indirect tax. Not as a direct tax on people.

If you want to repeat the false narrative that wages are taxed, then you are part of the problem. Stockholm syndrome is a real mental disorder. Stop thinking like a slave.

The word income in the income tax amendment was meant only to include interest on savings accounts and capital gains. Here are proofs that the 16th Amendment was never intended to tax wages:

• New York Times August 3, 1909 front page. Excerpt. "The only interruption to his speech was a query by Representative Glover... - who wanted to know if the amendment would affect salaries." If you have the same question, then read the response.

• Congressional debates, Congressional Record, August 28 1913 Senator Lawrence Y. Sherman on page 3843 debating the income tax amendment, insisted that the word "income" referred only to earnings on savings accounts: "The savings from the income by professional effort or by any form of skilled labor or unskilled hand becomes property. At the end of any given period that saving is a principal, and any income derived from it is an income from property, not an income from the earning capacity or the personal ability of the taxpayer in question... Those investments that produce an income from a property I think are properly to be distinguished from those arising from the earning capacity of the individual."

• Also on page 3843 Senator Cummins :"I assume that every lawyer will agree with me that we cannot legislatively interpret the meaning of the word 'income'. That is purely a judicial matter. We cannot enlarge the meaning of the word 'income'. The word 'income' had a well-defined meaning before the amendment ... If we could call anything income that we pleased, we could obliterate all the distinction between income and principal.... Congress can not affect the meaning of the word 'income' by any legislation whatsoever.... obviously the people of this country did not intend to give to Congress the power to levy a direct tax upon all the property of this country without apportionment."

And the courts agree:

• U.S. v. Ballard 400 F2d 404:

"The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."

• Wilby v. Mississippi, 47 S 465:

"It certainly was not the intention of the legislature to levy a tax upon honest toil and labor."

• Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed 1:

"One does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them.... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute"

• US Supreme Court in Evens v. Gore, 253 US 245 concerning a tax on salary:

"After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question".

• US Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl 281 US 111:

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety... is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the Treasury Department... It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not 'salaries, wages or compensation for personal services' that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is 'gains, profits and income derived' from salaries... "

• US Supreme Court in M.E. Blatt Co. v. U.S. 59 SCt190: "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress."

• Oliver v. Halstead 86 SE 2d 859:

"Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law."

• Olk v. United States, Fed 18 (1975) (don't use this, it has been overturned):

"Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

• United States v. Snider, Fed 645 (1974):

"Listing three billion dependents on his W-4 was ruled as proper. His refusal to stand for judge was held legal by Fourth U.S. Court of Appeals. Original action and conviction was under 26 USC 7205."

• Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner (32 Tax Court page 681):

"that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income ..."

• Spring Valley Water Works v. Barber 33 P 735:

"A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money."

• Tennessee Supreme Court in Jack Cole v. Commissioner MacFarland 337 SW2d 453 (1960): "The right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed." [from:Taxation West Key 933]

In this 1960 case, the Tennessee Supreme Court also quoted prior decisions that defined the term `privilege' in contradistinction to a right:

"Legislature ... cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege." "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body"

• US Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316:

"If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a right, this would enable the state to destroy rights guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. ... The power to tax involves the power to destroy."

• U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City 111US746:

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. ... to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."

• In the 1959 Tax Court case Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner (32 Tax Court page 681): "The rule of Eisner v. Macomber has been reaffirmed on so many occasions that citation of the cases to this effect would be unnecessarily burdensome... Moreover, that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income...."

• Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 A 239, and 47 A.2d 277 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."

• US Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943): "A state may not... impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal constitution."

• U.S. Supreme Court in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton 292 US 40 "The power to tax the exercise of a [right] ... is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

• President Jefferson, concluding his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801:

"... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government... "

• Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 SCt 382 (1904):

"the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language".

• Oregon Supreme Court in Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, pg 819 (1930): "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state: but the individuals' right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

• Long v. Ramussen, 281 F 236, 238 (1922):"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The later are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, 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 law." Reaffirmed in Gerth v. US, 132 F Supp 894 (1955) and in Economy Heating Co. v. US, 470 F2d 585 (1972)

• Regal Drug Co v. Wardell, 260 US 386: "Congress may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the Constitution."

• US Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California 110 US 516:

"The state cannot diminish the rights of the people."

• Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973)

"... there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights"

• Miller v. US, 230 F2d 489

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."


The current income tax law has been amended over the years, but it all started with one sentence written by congress to implement the Income Tax Amendment. This is the first paragraph of the 1913 Income Tax law 38 Stat 166. This is the ONLY law that the government says applies to federal citizens. It is only one sentence. The rest of the 37 pages are for income tax of corporations.

As you study this sentence, remember that Congressmen cannot and do not impose direct taxation contrary to the Constitution Article 1, Section 9 -- which did not change with the 16th Amendment -- "...

And keep in mind that the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation" according to Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103 (1915).

Here is the first paragraph of the 1913 Income Tax law 38 Stat 166. This is the ONLY law that the government says applies to federal citizens:

"That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States , whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States , though not a citizen thereof , a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon such income, EXCEPT as herein after provided; and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere."


TwentyFourth Amendment:

"SECTION. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."



Supreme Court Justice Samuel Miller said:

"The power of taxation is the power to destroy. No man who is endowed with a modest sum of intelligence would advocate a transfer of this immense power to a private corporation for its gain. It would amount to the self-destruction of the nation. No sane man would advocate the delegation of this high attribute of sovereignty to a corporation for its individual gain and such transfer of power would inevitably result in frightful oppression."

The following quote should answer any doubt that you have regarding the legitimacy of the chains attached to receiving benefits. U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at page 140:

"The ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of a tax measure is -- has the state given something for which it can ask a return?"

Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)"

"In the states, there reposes the sovereignty to manage their own affairs except only as the requirements of the Constitution otherwise provide. Within these constitutional limits the power of the state over taxation is plenary."

That's right. The federal government (or any other foreign authority) cannot tax state citizens, unless they voluntarily subject themselves to federal tax. Therefore State citizens pay gift tax, not income tax -- only aliens pay income tax Source. Consistent with Matthew 17:25.

And, of course, the federal government's definition of employee includes only federal employees. See Title 5 U.S. Code 2105. The definition of "employee" in Title 26 U.S. Code section 3401(c), which is the withholding laws, say that employees includes only "an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof..." And the definition of "employee" in the Internal Revenue Code 7701(a)(20) make it sound as if insurance salesmen are the only employees.

And the tax code definition of employer 26 U.S. Code 3401(d) uses confusing language to define that employers are those who pay wages, with exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. If you want to try to figure it out keep in mind that the a trade or business includes only "the performance of the functions of a public office" according to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)

U.S. Supreme Court in Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 S.Ct 382 (1904): "the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language".

In 1933, A national emergency was declared. Ever since then, Americans have not had a right to own anything. You were declared to be an enemy of the United States. The authority invoked by Trading With The Enemy Act of October 6th, 1917 "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes" was amended March 9, 1933 to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof"


The Constitution Article 1, section 10 requires States to use gold and silver coin as the only lawful tender. All of our gold was taken away in 1933 and given to the private Federal Reserve Bank as collateral for the debt that we didn't pay.


You do not own the rights to your labor. And because you are a slave who cannot own anything, your masters expect you to account for their annual gifts to you and pay a "gift and estate tax". Your take home pay is just a slave's living allowance.


The Constitution gives each State full and exclusive control over taxation within its borders. Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940) "In the states, there reposes the sovereignty to manage their own affairs except only as the requirements of the Constitution otherwise provide. Within these constitutional limits the power of the state over taxation is plenary."

And indeed, the long arm of the federal law does not reach in to tax state citizens unless a federal taxable activity was involved.

That's right. The federal government (or any other foreign authority) cannot tax state citizens, unless they voluntarily subject themselves to federal tax. Therefore State citizens pay gift tax, not income tax -- only aliens pay income tax Source.

If you pay income tax, then you are an alien to those who overthrew your prior government.

Texas Supreme Court in Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 SW 944:

"The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, ... or even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."


If you have voluntarily surrendered your rights to the agencies of government, then you must claim so on government forms. Conversely, If your birth did not voluntarily surrender your rights to government, then don't claim so on government forms.

Most Americans have already waived their right to earn income; They no longer have a right to earn income. All their income is property of the government. They are only allowed to keep a slave living allowance.

US Supreme Court in Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 SCt 382 (1904): "the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language."


Since the federal government cannot reach into states to enforce tax laws, thereby violating the State's plenary taxation powers, they can only collect a voluntary tax on gifts. Your so-called "wages" are a gift (living allowance).

Income Tax laws are codified in Title 26 United States Code, Subtitile A. There are six chapters in this Income Tax Subtitle. NOWHERE in the six chapters is there any hint of withholding of income tax from an American Citizen.

IRS Publication 515 once told employers "If an individual gives you a written statement, in duplicate, stating that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you may accept this statement and are relieved from the duty of withholding the tax..."

There are ten tax classes in the Internal Revenue Laws.

Gift tax is IRS tax class 5.

Income tax is IRS tax class 2.

The W-4 form that you gave to your employer is for gift tax, not income tax. Source

There was once a regulation that aliens who become citizens were not subject to withholding.

In Genesis 47:23-26 the SLAVES OWNED BY PHARAOH HAD A 20% INCOME TAX and were allowed to keep 80%. This was during a time of national emergency when they were recovering from a famine. If you pay more than 20% tax, even in times of economic disaster, then you are worse off than a slave. It was called slavery, even God considered it to be slavery.

Why do you call it freedom?

In the medieval dark ages, a serf only had to work 14 weeks out of the year (source), which is 26% of the year, to provide for himself, his family, his landlord and King. It was called bondage. Why do you call it freedom? In their spare time they built magnificent cathedrals and opera houses.

Everyone's search for the truth is different. In the late 1980s I had already given up on expecting answers from the IRS, or tax attorneys, or my congressman1. I was seeking answers by writing letters to people who had defeated the IRS in court.

If you want a good DVD that documents a search for the truth, I recommend Aaron Russo's

1 This was long before Homeland Security existed. I found out much later that the IRS classified me as a tax-protester just for asking my congressman to show me a law. The IRS is afraid of tax-protesters, they must have assumed I was armed and dangerous -- their files have a code that has me classified as a dangerous drug dealer.