Tag Archives: @IRSnews

Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews I.R.S.) IRS ʟIaRS vs. Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.)


======================================
The Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.) requires that the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.):
_________________________________________________
PUBLIC INFORMATION

Section 3 (a) RULES

Every AGENCY shall SEPARATELY STATE and CURRENTLY PUBLISH in the FEDERAL REGISTER
——————————————————————
(1) DESCRIPTIONS of its Central and Field ORGANIZATION
………………………………………………..
including
………………………………………………..
DELEGATIONS by the AGENCY of FINAL AUTHORITY
——————————————————————
and the
——————————————————————
ESTABLISHED PLACES at which and METHODS whereby the PUBLIC may secure INFORMATION or make SUBMITTALS or REQUESTS
_________________________________________________
(2) STATEMENTS of the GENERAL COURSE and METHOD by which its FUNCTIONS are CHANNELED and DETERMINED
………………………………………………..
including the
………………………………………………..
NATURE and REQUIREMENTS of all FORMAL or INFORMAL PROCEDURES available
——————————————————————
as well as
——————————————————————
FORMS and INSTRUCTIONS as to the SCOPE and CONTENTS of all PAPERS REPORTS or EXAMINATION
_________________________________________________
NO PERSON SHALL in any manner be REQUIRED to resort to ORGANIZATION or PROCEDURE NOT so PUBLISHED
_________________________________________________
Administrative Procedure Act APA Pub.L. 79–404 60 Stat. 237 5 U.S.C. ch. 5 subch. § 500 et seq.‎ Statutes at Large‎: ‎60 Stat. 237‎ June 11 1946 [CHAPTER 324—2D SESSION]. [S. 7]
_________________________________________________
Administrative Procedure Act
………………………………………………..
Lowell (Larry) H. Becraft, Huntsville, Alabama
——————————————————————
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/APAbrief.htm
——————————————————————
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/APAbrief.htm
_________________________________________________
1947 Attorney General Manual
………………………………………………..
Florida State University (F.S.U.)
——————————————————————
http://fall.fsulawrc.com/admin/1947ii.html
——————————————————————
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf
_________________________________________________
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II)
——————————————————————
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure
_________________________________________________
5 U.S. Code Chapter 5 – ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5
_________________________________________________
IRS ʟ I a R S Articles
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/P8Sbod-2
_________________________________________________
Fund Exposing Corrupt IRS ʟ I a R S (Internal Revenue Service @IRSNews I.R.S.) https://freestartr.com/profile/irsliars/
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/p8Sbod-ja
_________________________________________________

Advertisements

You are presumed to know the LAW – but the Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews I.R.S.) IRS ʟIaRS and Uncle Sam (the DO NOTHING CONGRESS) are NOT in the business of educating the American PUBLIC (Citizens of the united States)

1. If you were hired by an employer, did they advise you whether filling out a Federal Employee Withholding Exemption Certificate was VOLUNTARY or REQUIRED❓

2. If you were told it was REQUIRED, did you ask what LAW required it❓

3. If you were told it was REQUIRED, but you knew that was NOT the case, and were told that they would not employ you unless you filled out a Federal Employee Withholding Exemption Certificate, did you fill it out as EXEMPT❓

I was hired by a Corporate Law Firm which claimed that their tax attorney (tax partner) said the IRS required that I fill out a Federal Employee Withholding Exemption Certificate, or the firm could not have me as an employee

Because I knew this was a false statement and their tax attorney (tax partner) obviously did NOT know the LAW, I filled out the Certificate as EXEMPT

However, this means the employer is providing FALSE information to the IRS

What do you do❓

(a) Sue the employer and likely be fired❓

(b) Advise the IRS that your employer required you to fraudulently fill out a Certificate❓

(c) Allow Social Security taxes to be withheld from your pay, and expect that at some point in the future the IRS will contact you about alleged taxes they think you owe, at which time you can challenge them using the Taxpayer Bill of Rights❓

I would suggest recording and documenting any conversation you have with an employer about withholding

The question is: What benefit(s) do businesses receive from the Federal government for NOT being upfront with you about a Federal Employee Withholding Certificate❓

I would suggest hiring a court reporter to document any meeting(s) with the IRS and / or recording any conversations, if you can afford it

I would suggest having a competent attorney who actually knows about the LAW and the IRS’s Statements of Organization and Functions published in the Federal Register and provided on the IRS ʟIaRS site, if you can afford it

I suggest lawyer Larry H. Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama

Do NOT trust the IRS

I went to a scheduled meeting; having to drive through melting ice and snow, with the IRS and they cancelled the meeting

I corresponded with them always using certified mail so there is documented proof of the IRS receiving the correspondence; which comes in handy if you end up going to court

The IRS lied in correspondence, that they had NOT received correspondence from me, although I had the U.S.P.S. certified mail receipt that proved their statement to be false

Do NOT trust that your U.S. Senators or representative will assist you

Do NOT expect an attorney to uphold your rights if you are NOT invested in upholding your rights

Do NOT assume that tax attorneys know the LAW

As Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify”

If you correspond with the IRS by mail or in a meeting, ask them which TAXPAYER you are

Citizen of the united States residing or doing business abroad❓

Ask the IRS when they last published their Statement of Organization and Functions in the Federal Register, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act

This is the ONLY site that provides copies of the IRS Statement of Organization and Functions from 1956-1974

This is the ONLY site which makes it impossible for SO-CALLED judges, attorneys, prosecutors, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, U.S. Congress, I.R.S., and private individuals, to get away with lying about the U.S. Federal Income Tax

If you saved or invested what you pay for Social Security, Medicaid, Obamacare, and whatever else taxes, instead of the Socialists forcing you to accept their scheme, do you think you could achieve a better return; because government does NOT think you are smart enough to think for yourself
_________________________________________________
IRS ʟ I a R S Articles
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/P8Sbod-2
_________________________________________________
Fund Exposing Corrupt IRS ʟ I a R S (Internal Revenue Service @IRSNews I.R.S.) https://freestartr.com/profile/irsliars/
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/p8Sbod-ja
_________________________________________________

Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews I.R.S.) Corrupt IRS ʟ I a R S Lie about the definition of the term “INCLUDES” in Withholding Section 3401(c) of 26 U.S.C.


_________________________________________________
4. Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government
——————————————————————
This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability

This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities on employers to withhold tax from “wages”

That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer

Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .”

This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation

Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined”

Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation

It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens

The IRS has warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument

Rev. Rul. 2006-18
2006-1 C.B. 743
_________________________________________________
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
——————————————————————
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c
_________________________________________________
The IRS ʟIaRS LIE is that at 26 U.S.C. Section 3401(c) in the definition of the word “employee,” that the term “includes” is a word of “ENLARGEMENT,” instead of a word of “LIMITATION”
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
26 U.S. Code § 3401 – Definitions
——————————————————————
(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing

The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3401
_________________________________________________
The first questions one should ask, is:

1. If “INCLUDES” is a word of ENLARGEMENT, and private sector citizens are automatically INCLUDED in the definition of the term “EMPLOYEE,” why is it that the term “EMPLOYEE” is INCLUDED after the word “INCLUDES” in the definition❓

2. If a private sector citizen is automatically INCLUDED in the definition of the term “EMPLOYEE” as the Internal Revenue Service claims, why would a public sector citizen NOT also be automatically INCLUDED in the definition❓

3. Why is it that NONE of the inferior United States Federal Court Judges in the cases listed by the I.R.S. as supportive of their position, cite the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the United States case regarding the term “INCLUDES”

Is it because they are all “SO-CALLED” Judges who do NOT believe in the Rule of Law
_________________________________________________
Words and Phrases

“includes” although sometimes synonymous with “means” is also used as equivalent of “comprehends” or “embraces”— Helvering v. Morgan’s Inc. 55 S.Ct. 60 293 U.S. 121 79 L.Ed. 232 (1934)

Helvering v. Morgan’s Inc.
293 U.S. 121
55 S.Ct. 60
79 L.Ed. 232
(1934)
_________________________________________________
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/293/121/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/293/121/case.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/293/121.html
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/293/121
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions
——————————————————————
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(c) Includes and including

The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701
_________________________________________________

Fund Exposing Corrupt IRS ʟ I a R S (Internal Revenue Service @IRSNews I.R.S.) https://freestartr.com/profile/irsliars/

IRS ʟIaRS

https://freestartr.com/profile/irsliars/

https://irsliars.wordpress.com/

How to Win against the Corrupt Internal Revenue Service (@IRSNews I.R.S.) IRS ʟ I a R S


——————————————————————
1. Know your Rights
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: TAXPAYER BILL of RIGHTS
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p8Sbod-9M
_________________________________________________
2. The Administrative Procedure Act (A.P.A.) requires that the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.):
_________________________________________________
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Section 3 (a) RULES
——————————————————————
Every AGENCY shall SEPARATELY STATE and CURRENTLY PUBLISH in the FEDERAL REGISTER
——————————————————————
(1) DESCRIPTIONS of its Central and Field ORGANIZATION
………………………………………………..
including
………………………………………………..
DELEGATIONS by the AGENCY of FINAL AUTHORITY
——————————————————————
and the
——————————————————————
ESTABLISHED PLACES at which and METHODS whereby the PUBLIC may secure INFORMATION or make SUBMITTALS or REQUESTS
——————————————————————
(2) STATEMENTS of the GENERAL COURSE and METHOD by which its FUNCTIONS are CHANNELED and DETERMINED
………………………………………………..
including the
………………………………………………..
NATURE and REQUIREMENTS of all FORMAL or INFORMAL PROCEDURES available
——————————————————————
as well as
——————————————————————
FORMS and INSTRUCTIONS as to the SCOPE and CONTENTS of all PAPERS REPORTS or EXAMINATION
_________________________________________________
NO PERSON SHALL IN ANY MANNER BE REQUIRED to resort to ORGANIZATION or PROCEDURES NOT so PUBLISHED
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
PUBLIC INFORMATION

Section 3.

(a) RULES.—Every agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register

(1) descriptions of its central and field organization including delegations by the agency of final authority and the established places at which, and methods whereby, the public may secure information or make submittals or requests;

(2) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal or informal procedures available as well as forms and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations

No person shall in any manner be required to resort to organization or procedure not so published
………………………………………………..
NO PERSON SHALL IN ANY MANNER BE REQUIRED TO RESORT TO ORGANIZATION OR PROCEDURE NOT SO PUBLISHED
======================================
Administrative Procedure Act

APA

Pub.L. 79–404

60 Stat. 237

5 U.S.C. ch. 5, subch. I § 500 et seq.‎

Statutes at Large‎: ‎60 Stat. 237‎
June 11, 1946

[CHAPTER 324—2D SESSION]. [S. 7]
………………………………………………..
Administrative Procedure Act

Attorney
Lowell (Larry) Becraft, Huntsville, Alabama
………………………………………………..
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/APAbrief.htm
——————————————————————
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/APAbrief.htm
——————————————————————
1947 Attorney General Manual

Florida State University (FSU)
——————————————————————
http://fall.fsulawrc.com/admin/1947ii.html
——————————————————————
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf
………………………………………………..
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II)
——————————————————————
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure
………………………………………………..
5 U.S. Code Chapter 5 – ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
——————————————————————
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-In /chapter-5
_________________________________________________
The I.R.S. published its Statement of Organization and Functions in the Federal Register as required by the A.P.A., from 1956-1974

However, the IRS has NOT published a Statement of Organization and Functions in the Federal Register as required by the APA, since 1975

The IRS can claim that their current Statement of Organization and Functions is available for inspection at their offices, but that is NOT what the Administrative Procedure Act requires

The Corrupt IRS is NOT above the LAW even though they act like they are

If the IRS proceeds against you, a Motion can be filed with the local United States Federal Court

(See APA brief by lawyer Larry H. Becraft, Jr., above)

Americans cannot know what functions are authorized to be handled by what section(s) of the I.R.S. without a current Statement of Organization and Functions

If anyone knows where the I. R. S. has published its Statement of Organization and Functions in the Federal Register, since 1975, please leave a message with that information, on this blog article
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1956 (Friday, December 28) 21 F.R. 10418-10432 (14 pages) Volume 21 Number 250
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1956-friday-december-28-21-f-r-10418-10432-14-pages-volume-21-number-250
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1961 (Saturday, July 15) 26 F.R. 6372-6395 (23 pages) Volume 26 Number 135
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1961-saturday-july-15-26-f-r-6372-6395-23-pages-volume-26-number-135
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1965 (Wednesday, July 28) 30 F.R. 9368-9402 (34 pages) Volume 30 Number 144
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1965-wednesday-july-28-30-f-r-9368-9402-34-pages-volume-30-number-144
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1967 (Saturday, January 21) 32 F.R. 727-762 (23 pages) Volume 32 Number 14
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1967-saturday-january-21-32-f-r-727-762-23-pages-volume-32-number-14
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1969 (Tuesday, February 4) 34 F.R. 1657-1695 (38 pages) Volume 34 Number 23
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1969-tuesday-february-4-34-f-r-1657-1695-38-pages-volume-34-number-23
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1970 (Tuesday, February 3) 35 F.R. 2417-2456 (39 pages) Volume 35 Number 23
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1970-tuesday-february-3-35-f-r-2417-2456-39-pages-volume-35-number-23
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1971 (Tuesday, January 19) 36 F.R. 849-890 (41 pages) Volume 36 Number 12
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1971-tuesday-january-19-36-f-r-849-890-41-pages-volume-36-number-12
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1972 (Thursday, October 5) 37 F.R. 20960-20990 (30 pages) Volume 37 Number 194
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1972-thursday-october-5-37-f-r-20960-20990-30-pages-volume-37-number-194
——————————————————————
Internal Revenue Service: ORGANIZATION and FUNCTIONS – 1974 (Friday, March 29) 39 F.R. 11572-11610 (38 pages) Volume 39 Number 62
——————————————————————
https://irsliars.wordpress.com/internal-revenue-service-organization-and-functions-1974-friday-march-29-39-f-r-11572-11610-38-pages-volume-39-number-62
——————————————————————

IRS ʟ I a R S Lie 2 America (Internal Revenue Service @IRSnews I.R.S. #IRS)

image
Why is the Internal Revenue Service Corrupt❓ The #IRS is Corrupt because instead of citing the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment United States Federal Income Tax cases, it cites Inferior United States Federal Appellate Courts, or Inferior United States Federal District Courts, or the Inferior United States Federal Tax Court, allegedly citing the U.S. Supreme Court
image
image
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

pg. 18

image
_________________________________________________
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the 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

(ratified February 3, 1913)
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 10]

We are of opinion, however

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
——————————————————————
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

12 – 19

36 S.Ct. 236

239-42

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
======================================
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________
image
image
image
image
_________________________________________________
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

240 U.S. 103

(1916)

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

No. 359

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

[240 U.S. 103, 107]

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .

[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]
But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]
in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

(1916)
======================================
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
………………………………………………..
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/

======================================
image
image
image
image
image
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

pg. 28

IRS I.R.S. Internal Revenue Service Liars
_________________________________________________
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the 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

(ratified February 3, 1913)
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

… the contention that the

AMENDMENT

treats a TAX on INCOME

as a

DIRECT TAX

although it is

RELIEVED from APPORTIONMENT

and is necessarily therefore

NOT SUBJECT

to the

RULE of UNIFORMITY

as such RULE

only applies to

TAXES which are NOT DIRECT,

thus destroying the

two great classifications

which have been

recognized

and

enforced

from the beginning,

IS also WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived

[240 U.S. 1, 19]

forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 16]

… THIS CONCLUSION

but

ENFORCED A REGULATION

AS TO THE

MODE

OF

EXERCISING POWER

under particular circumstances,

IT DID NOT

in any way

DISPUTE

THE

ALL-EMBRACING TAXING AUTHORITY

POSSESSED BY CONGRESS,

INCLUDING necessarily therein the

POWER TO IMPOSE INCOME TAXES

IF only THEY CONFORMED

TO the

CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS

which were

APPLICABLE TO THEM
………………………………………………..
… THE CONCLUSION reached

in the Pollock Case

DID NOT

in any degree

INVOLVE HOLDING THAT

INCOME TAXES

generically and necessarily

CAME WITHIN THE CLASS

[240 U.S. 1, 17]

OF

DIRECT TAXES

on property,

BUT,

ON THE CONTRARY,

RECOGNIZED the fact

THAT

TAXATION

ON

INCOME

WAS in its nature

AN

EXCISE

entitled to be enforced as such
………………………………………………..
NOTHING COULD

serve to

MAKE THIS CLEARER

than to recall that in the Pollock Case,

IN SO FAR AS THE LAW TAXED

INCOMES

( 158 U.S. 637 ),

ITS VALIDITY WAS RECOGNIZED;

indeed,

IT WAS expressly

DECLARED that

NO DISPUTE

WAS MADE UPON THAT SUBJECT,

AND

ATTENTION WAS CALLED

TO THE FACT THAT

TAXES

ON such

INCOME

HAD BEEN SUSTAINED AS

EXCISE TAXES

IN THE PAST

Id. p. 635
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 16]

Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent

As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class

[240 U.S. 1, 17]

of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it

Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from ‘professions, trades, employments, or vocations’

( 158 U.S. 637 ),

its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past

Id. p. 635
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

This must be

UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT

although

THE

CONSTITUTION,

AS A RESULT OF THE

AMENDMENT,

in express terms

EXCLUDES THE CRITERION of

source of income,

THAT CRITERION yet REMAINS

FOR THE PURPOSE OF

DESTROYING

THE

CLASSIFICATIONS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION

BY TAKING AN

EXCISE

OUT OF THE

CLASS

TO WHICH IT BELONGS

AND

TRANSFERRING IT

TO A

CLASS

IN WHICH IT

CANNOT BE PLACED

consistently

WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

Indeed, from another point of view,

THE

AMENDMENT

DEMONSTRATES

that no such purpose was intended,

and on the contrary shows that

IT WAS

DRAWN

WITH THE

OBJECT

OF

MAINTAINING

THE

LIMITATIONS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION

AND

HARMONIZING THEIR OPERATION
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

… THE

AMENDMENT

CONTAINS NOTHING

REPUDIATING

OR

CHALLENGING

THE

RULING

in the

Pollock Case

THAT THE WORD

‘DIRECT’

HAD A BROADER SIGNIFICANCE,

since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership,

AND THEREFORE THE

AMENDMENT

at least

IMPLIEDLY

MAKES SUCH WIDER SIGNIFICANCE

a PART OF THE

CONSTITUTION,-a condition

WHICH clearly DEMONSTRATES

that

THE PURPOSE

WAS NOT TO CHANGE

THE EXISTING INTERPRETATION

except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself,

AND THEREBY to TAKE AN

INCOME TAX

OUT OF THE

CLASS

OF

EXCISES,

DUTIES,

AND

IMPOSTS,

AND PLACE IT IN THE

CLASS

OF

DIRECT TAXES
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution

Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word ‘direct’ had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition …

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

… of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment … would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; … they would result in bringing the provisions … into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
ALL DIRECT TAXES BE APPORTIONED
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, … the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result, instead of simplifying … and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system …
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

8 of article 1

‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

That the authority conferred upon Congress by

8 of article 1

‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises’

is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

lay and collect income taxes
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

And it has also never

[240 U.S. 1, 13]

been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art. 1, 8, cl. 1,

‘all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of

art. 1, 8, cl. 1,

that

‘all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art I., 2, cl. 3,

‘direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

and to the limitations of

art I., 2, cl. 3,

that

‘direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art 1, 9, cl. 4,

‘no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

and of

art 1, 9, cl. 4,

that

‘no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken’
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

… the

TWO GREAT SUBDIVISIONS

EMBRACING the

COMPLETE

and

PERFECT

DELEGATION of the POWER to TAX

and the

TWO CORRELATED LIMITATIONS

as to such POWER …

‘IN the MATTER of TAXATION,

the

CONSTITUTION

recognizes the

TWO GREAT CLASSES

of

DIRECT

and

INDIRECT TAXES,

and lays down

TWO RULES

by which their IMPOSITION

MUST be GOVERNED, namely:

The

RULE of APPORTIONMENT

as to

DIRECT TAXES,

and the

RULE of UNIFORMITY

as to

DUTIES,

IMPOSTS,

and

EXCISES’
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & T. Co.

157 U. S. supra, at page 557:

‘In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises’
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

… the REQUIREMENTS of

APPORTIONMENT as to one of the great classes

and of

UNIFORMITY as to the other class

were not so much a LIMITATION upon the

COMPLETE

and

ALL-EMBRACING

AUTHORITY to TAX,

but in their essence were simply

REGULATIONS

concerning the MODE

in which the

PLENARY POWER was to be exerted

In the WHOLE HISTORY of the GOVERNMENT

down to the time of the adoption of the

16th AMENDMENT,

[240 U.S. 1, 14]

… NO QUESTION

HAS BEEN ANYWHERE MADE

AS TO THE

CORRECTNESS OF THESE PROPOSITIONS
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in

Veazie Bank v. Fenno,

8 Wall. 533, 541,

19 L. ed. 482, 485,

that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted

In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced

[240 U.S. 1, 14]

by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the 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 censusor enumeration’
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned,

[240 U.S. 1, 18]

-or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived
_________________________________________________
Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943. pg 2580

“So the amendment

(16th)

made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax

It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such

It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce

The income is not the subject of the tax:

it is the basis for determining the amount of tax”
Congressional Record 1943Congressional Record 1943imageCongressional Record 1943
report by The Congressional Research Service

Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275

Report No. 84-168 A 784/275

titled

“Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”

dated May 25, 1979

updated Sept. 26, 1984

Updated September 26, 1984

HJ 4625 U.S.A.

American Law Division

by Howard Zaritsky ; updated by John R. Luckey

Published 1984 by Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress in [Washington, D.C.]

“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above

Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity

Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property”

(pg 5)
——————————————————————
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
The Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States
——————————————————————
Chief Justice Edward D. White

Associate Justice Joseph McKenna

Associate Justice Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.

Associate Justice William R. Day

Associate Justice Charles E. Hughes

Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter

Associate Justice Mahlon Pitney
_________________________________________________
======================================
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Debunks-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-2014
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
Introduction
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
Section I (A to C)
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-A-to-C
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
Section I (D to E)
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
Section II
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-II
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
Section III
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-III
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
Section IV
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Anti-Tax-Law-Evasion-Schemes-Law-and-Arguments-Section-IV
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
_________________________________________________
Brief History of IRS
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Brief-History-of-IRS
_________________________________________________
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Case l:12-cv-02635-MJG) Filed 09/04/12 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND by Michael C. Worsham re U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) / Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)
——————————————————————
https://archive.org/stream/423227-md-1-2012cv02635-complaint/423227-md-1-2012cv02635-complaint_djvu.txt
_________________________________________________
United States Constitution

First Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

peaceably to assemble,

and

TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT

FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
——————————————————————
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
………………………………………………..
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
======================================
_________________________________________________
IRS ʟ I a R S Articles
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/P8Sbod-2
_________________________________________________
Fund Exposing Corrupt IRS ʟ I a R S (Internal Revenue Service @IRSNews I.R.S.) https://freestartr.com/profile/irsliars/
——————————————————————
https://wp.me/p8Sbod-ja
_________________________________________________