What is the U.S. Tax Court?

The authority for the creation of the U.S. Tax Court and its activity in settling disputes can be found as stated in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 in the United States Constitution. The operational guidelines thus reflects taxation issues related to its Territory and other Property belonging to the United States (meaning the National Government).

The U.S. Tax Court is authorized by the National Government (Federal Government) to address remedies for those who are victims of illegal Substitute for Returns or Assessments/Deficiency Notices. The “United States Tax Court” is merely a tax appeal board and is NOT part of the Judicial branch. It is in fact a part of the Executive branch of the National Government. All deliberations of the U.S. Tax Court are heard by a single judge and without a jury.

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 in the United States Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

The U.S. Tax Court is NOT an Article III court which serves the People of the sovereign states of the Union (such as the U.S. Supreme Court or the Court of International Trade) but is rather an Administrative or Territorial Court under Article IV for the exclusive use of the National Government relating to its Territory and Property.

The IRS will tell you that the USTC is created as an Article I court under the Executive branch of the National Government. Whichever is actually correct in the context of which Article it is created under, the USTC only operates under the singular jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

This fact is further confirmed by former POTUS and Chief Justice William H. Taft in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 238 U.S. 298 (1921) where he stated:

• “The United States District Court (like the other Article IV court — the U.S. Tax Court) is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulation respecting the territory belonging to the United States (National Government).

• The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents (American Nationals not domiciled in Washington, D.C.) of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence (no regard for the Constitution in its territory), does not change its character as a mere territorial court.”

Most who appeal to this Territorial court under the Executive branch are giving it permission to make any decision it wants. All this in spite of the fact that the U.S. Tax Court has no more authority to compel payment of a tax than an administrative officer. In dealing with this ‘court’ you must be careful not to grant your consent by giving it authority over you that it would never have in the first place.

Therefore, the U.S. Tax Court cannot proceed with making any decision against your status as an American National (one born in one of the 50 states of the Constitutional Republic) without your consent.

Consent is a critical issue and the U.S. Tax Court judge takes an Oath of Office in which he/she will ‘administer justice without regard to persons’. By this Oath of Office, the judge is agreeing that he/she will not regard persons — which means that they do not care about the Constitutional rights of such ‘persons’ (described via the U.S. Constitution) as the Constitution is not applicable to the National Government within its exclusive jurisdiction (meaning Washington, D.C.).

Consent, according to Black’s Law Dictionary - Abridged 6th Edition, means “voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence, compliance, agreement, approval, permission.” The legal definition expresses clearly that “Willingness in fact that an act or an invasion of interest shall take place.”

The U.S. Tax Court gains consent from Americans quite easily when the unsuspecting Americans appeal to the U.S. Tax by:

    1. filing a written Amended Petition with the U.S. Tax Court, and
    2. paying a small filing fee, usually around $60.

Without clearly explaining to the petitioner the implications of consent, the court will make what appears to be an ‘Order’ in its initial correspondence. In reality the ‘Order’ is nothing more than a request for those outside the legislative jurisdiction of the tax laws stated in Title 26 to grant consent. Therefore, to gain your consent, the U.S. Tax Court acts in a ‘sub silentio’ fashion — without regard to the Constitutional Rights of ‘persons’ referenced in the U.S. Constitution — which is the Tax Court judges' responsibility as expressed in their Oath of Office.

Sub silentio is a new term for many and it means “under silence; without any notice being taken. Passing a thing sub silentio may be evidence of consent.”

Rights are not relinquished to the government without expressed or implied consent on the part of the American who becomes the petitioner with the U.S. Tax Court. For most, that is a grave mistake. We are very careful with guarding and protecting you in this all-important matter of consent. The U.S. Tax Court is never granted consent in our administrative dealings with this court thereby protecting the Constitutional Rights of the Americans we serve.

The IRS — via the Substitute for Return for a Form 1040, Assessment and Deficiency claims — have created a self-written record internally indicating that you have operated in a Public Office or acted on behalf of the National Government by being identified as the fiduciary for the Public Office called a “Taxpayer”. The IRS offers you their idea of a ‘remedy’ by informing you of the option to appeal to the U.S. Tax Court. If you are not careful, such an appeal amounts to a successful sub silentio submission on your part granting your consent to the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS to become “subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”

It is important to note that the term “United States” means — in regard to taxation issues — only the District of Columbia. This definition is found clearly stated at 26 USC §7408 (d).

Jurisdiction for the application of the special laws that are found in Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) is only within the municipality of the District of Columbia and other U.S. Territories. The Territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court is limited and does not extend into the 50 states of the Union as seen in the previously referenced Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

Jurisdiction — as you can tell by now — defines the power to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions, and declare judgment. Consent grants the court the power to decide the tax matter in controversy and presupposes via the sub silentio act the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties.

The U.S. Tax Court cannot compel anyone to submit to the jurisdiction of this territorial court as that would also be a violation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Without consent, the U.S. Tax Court has no legal jurisdiction and therefore must issue a Dismissal Order to the IRS Commissioner for Lack of Jurisdiction. The IRS Notice of Deficiency claims of tax liability is thus defeated due to the Lack of Jurisdiction for the application of the special laws in Title 26.

Once the U.S. Tax Court issues its Court Order to the IRS instructing them that you are not a “Taxpayer”, you will see that the Internal Revenue Manual [IRM] Section 4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006) directs the IRS to abide by the U.S. Tax Court decision in your favor:

1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.

2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decision of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decision. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.

3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decision of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.


Addressing jurisdiction properly, as we continue to do, fulfills the dream of the founders of this nation:

With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a
prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, 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, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

— Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

 

Our Mission

“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of
the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”
— American Communications Association
v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)