There's no Income Tax law - why pay?

I haven't paid my taxes yet and the IRS still haven't sent me anything..  guess nobody has to pay taxes and can get away with it, woohoo!

In 1909, Congress passed the proposed 16th Amendment. It was sent to the states for
ratification by the state legislatures. There were 48 states. Three-fourths, or 36, of them were
required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified.
Knox declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before
leaving office. He counted 38 states as having approved it.
• Kentucky: The Kentucky legislature REJECTED the amendment 22-9, but Knox counted
it as having PASSED 22-9.
• Oklahoma: Oklahoma voted FOR the amendment but changed the wording to mean the
OPPOSITE of the proposed amendment – even though a memo from chief legal counsel
Reuben Clark warned that states were NOT allowed to change the proposed amendment.
• Tennessee: Tennessee violated its own state constitution when they failed to delay the amend-
ment vote until a new state legislature was elected. The obvious reason for this state constitu-
tional clause was to insure that the People of Tennessee would have direct political input on the
federal constitutional amendment process. Tennessee also violated their own state constitution
by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18.
These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void.
• Texas and Louisiana: Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions
prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional
taxing authority.
Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states violated provisions in their State Constitutions, bringing the num-
ber down to 21.
Further evidence in Mr. Benson’s research report make the list dwindle down much more,
but with the number down to 21, fifteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest
for the purposes of this article.
For a more detailed state-by-state account, go to: “How Some States Failed To Ratify
The Sixteenth Amendment,” which is located on our web site. Special thanks to Bill Ben-
son, upon whose research our article is based.
THE CONGRESS AND THE COURTS HAVE PLAYED “GOVERNMENTAL PING-PONG”
WITH MR. BENSON’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE 16TH AMENDMENT.
In 1985, Mr. Benson asked a federal court to declare the 16th Amendment to be null
and void because it was fraudulently ratified. The court, instead, ruled the question to be a
political question for the Congress to decide. It said, “[Defendant] Stahl’s claim that ratifi-
cation of the 16th Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question
because we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue without expressing lack
of respect due coordinate branches of government....” See U.S. v Stahl (1986), 792 F2nd 1438.
Mr. Benson then personally delivered a copy of his voluminous research report to each
and every member of Congress. In response, the Congressional Research Service immedi-
ately issued a report, which declared that the CRS was not going to address the factual alle-
gations of Mr. Benson’s report and that the question of the fraudulent adoption of the 16th
Amendment was a question for the Courts. For a copy of the CRS report, which was writ-
ten by a CRS attorney (Ripy), go to our web site.
Mr. Benson has concluded that the 16th Amendment can be ignored, that Congress’s
power to lay a DIRECT (income) tax on the People is, therefore, limited by the original Con-
stitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 4), and that because the income tax has not been laid
in proportion to the states, he has a fundamental right to ignore the income tax laws. He
has not filed an income tax return or paid income tax since 1986.
REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES OF THE CURRENT INCOME
TAX LAW, THE TAX LAW AS WRITTEN DOES NOT APPLY TO MOST AMERICANS LIV-
ING AND WORKING IN THE UNITED STATES.
Some Evidence:
1. Sections 1461 and 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”) establish that the only
person made liable to withhold and pay the income tax is a withholding agent, who is any
person required to withhold under sections 1441-1443, which pertain ONLY to nonresident
aliens and foreign entities.
2. Look in the IRC index under “income tax” to cross-reference with “citizen” or “citizen-
ship.” There are only two entries: one for citizens departing the U.S. and the other for citi-
zens living abroad. But if one cross-references “income tax” with “aliens,” there are several
PAGES of entries, most of them under subcategory “nonresident alien” where we find all
the familiar terms, such as “deductions,” “exemptions,” “gross income,” and “withholding.”
Careless indexing? Ask your tax professional.
3. Form 1040 has never been authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”)
to be used under Section 1 of the IRC. The only form ever approved for use under Section
1 is Form 2555, titled “Foreign Earned Income.”
4. A statement of citizenship, in duplicate, from a worker has always served to relieve an
employer of duty to withhold income taxes from ANY worker’s pay, under Section 1.1441-
5 and Publication #515 (wording was altered in 1999 to disguise the provision).
5. The Internal Revenue Manual instructs the employees of the IRS that the Criminal Inves-
tigation Division is under the direction of the international branch of the IRS and is only
authorized to enforce criminal statutes applicable to taxes for U.S. citizens residing in for-
eign countries and nonresident aliens required to file federal income tax.
6. IRS revenue officers are authorized by law to conduct only civil enforcement under subti-
tle E (alcohol, tobacco, and firearms), not under subtitle A (income taxes). Among assertions
by former IRS agents is that virtually everything a revenue officer does is outside the law.
7. Code section 6020(b), invoked by the IRS when it assesses income tax on individuals who
have not filed a 1040, does not authorize them to assess income tax on individuals. Delega-
tion Orders from the Commissioner to IRS employees authorizing them to execute returns
for persons required to file, but who didn’t, do not include Forms 1040 or 2555 on the list
of authorized returns.
8. Regulations implementing the statutes governing tax liens and levies are under the juris-
diction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, not the IRS.
9.  Social Security officials have confirmed that there is no law that requires a citizen to get
a social security number, for an employer to get an employer identification number, or for
either of them to participate in social security and pay employment taxes under subtitle C,
unless they want to participate in the social security program. No law requires an employ-
er to insist on getting a W-4 from a worker, nor for a worker to fill it out. Without a social
security number, a worker can have no taxable income, according to the Social Security
Administration. On 2/20/01, in an EEOC case in the Norfolk area, a worker prevailed in a
Title VII Civil Rights action after being fired for not providing a social security number, when
the employer only needed to notify the IRS that it had requested one. You can see a copy of
the letter from the SSA on our web site.
10. IRC Section 3402 imposes withholding only upon “wages” as defined exclusively at Sec-
tions 3401(a) and 3401(a)(8)(A), which reveals that remuneration paid to U.S. citizens liv-
ing and working in the U.S. is excepted from the definition of “wages” that are subject to
withholding under Section 3402. The only way it can be “wages” is under IRC Section 911,
i.e., remuneration in U.S. possessions.
11. IRC Section 3403 indemnifies and protects employers from liability for the withheld remu-
neration only if it is “wages” under Section 3401(a).
12. Senator Inouye, in a letter responding to an inquiry to a constituent who was a tax con-
sultant, stated, “Based on research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there
is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income
taxes.” You can see a copy of this letter and comments on our website.
13. The definition of “gross income,” found in IRC 61 and 26 CFR 1.61. CFR 1.61-1(a) defines
gross income as “all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.” IRC 61
defines gross income as “all income from whatever source derived, including (but not lim-
ited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe
benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from
dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (8) Alimony...(15)
Income from an interest in an estate or trust. Tax researchers have discovered that “items”
of income in IRC 61 are not the same as “sources” of income. CFR 1.861-1 says: “Section
861 et seq... and the regulations thereunder, determine the sources of income for purposes
of the income tax.” The specific sources are listed in CFR 1.861-8(f)(1). They are: (1) over-
all limitation to foreign tax credit; (2) international and foreign sales corporations; (3) non-
resident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the
U.S.; (4) foreign base company income; and (5) a list of fifteen other operative sections - all
foreign. All this lead to the conclusion that the term “gross income” does not apply to the
income of most citizens but to the incomes of nonresident aliens and U.S. citizens earning money abroad.