Responses to: IRS Publication 2105 “Why Do I Have To Pay Taxes?”


By Adele Weiss
28 August 2016

NOTE: This is in response to the IRS Publication 2105, which can be viewed here.

The title of this IRS pamphlet is one well-constructed for the application of propaganda that has elements of truth within it, but there is clearly no reference to addressing (1) “Who are U.S. Taxpayers it is targeted toward?” and (2) “What is the jurisdiction to which all the statements are directed?”

Before going further, it needs to be stated that the National Government is not the sovereign. But rather the American People, whom we refer to in a non-statutory expression as American Nationals, are the sovereigns as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law for it is the author and source of law;…”

This means those American Nationals who make up the Constitutional Republic, the now 50 states of the Union, are the source of the law and are not subjects to it, but has delegated some powers to the National Government. “Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”

NOTICE: We need to state up front that we have no issue with the Federal Income Tax as written in the statutes found within the Internal Revenue Code. Those who are subject to these statutory laws, meaning those who are statutory U.S. Taxpayers, are recommended to adhere to them and not attempt to evade, avoid, or ignore them.

However, that audience is a rather small group. Those who are lawful nontaxpayers of the federal income tax are so by way of being “neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.”They have no imposed duty or obligation to file or pay that municipal income tax as you will learn from reading the law that was omitted from the IRS pamphlet.


Types of US Taxpayers:

  • Federal employees, Federal Officers, and Elected Federal Officials of the United States, the District of Columbia, its instrumentalities.  The reader can find a clear definition of this group stated in IRC 6331(a) where it addresses levy and in IRC 6321 where it addresses Liens. 
    • For example, stated in part in IRC 6331(a): Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.”
  • U.S. Resident Alien – 26 CFR §1.871-1 (a)
    • Those who were born in a foreign country but elect to live and work in either the Constitutional Republic or the territorial jurisdiction consisting of the District of Columbia or its US Territories.
  • U.S. person – 26 USC §7701 (a)(30)
    • Mainly describes legal fictions (domestic trusts, partnerships, corporations, et al) but also includes the statutory term U.S. citizen.
  • U.S. citizen – 8 USC §1401(a) & 3C AM JUR 2d Section 2689 “Who is a U.S. citizen and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (meaning the National Government territorial jurisdiction)
    • “A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his or her birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign…”
    • This definition does not include those born in the Constitutional Republic with unalienable rights.
  • Income derived from sources within the United States (meaning the District of Columbia) per IRC 861(a)
    • This is statutory law describing property belonging to the United States (the federal corporation located in Washington, D.C. and extends to its U.S. Territories) in which those who derive income from the use of such federal property are considered to be taxable.
  • Nonresident Alien Individual (NRAI) who lives in, resides in, or is domiciled in any U.S. Territory such as American Samoa or Puerto Rico.
  • NRAI who has made an intentional willful knowing voluntary election, with full disclosure of all ramifications of the financial impact to permit or allow the National Government to impose its municipal/territorial income tax them under IRC 6013(g) or (h)  -  26 CFR §1.871-1(a)
    • Stated in part in this regulation is the fact that NRAI are “taxable only on income from sources within” the territory belonging to the National Government (the United States) via “conduct of a trade or business in the United States.”
    • 26 USC §7701 (a)(26) defines “trade or business” to mean “the performance of the functions of a public office” which is what all those who work for the National Government operate within.
    • 26 USC §7408 (d) defines the statutory term “United States” to mean only “the District of Columbia.”
    • What is unique is that at the same time the election is made they allow the National Government to identify them by taxation to be one who is viewed by that government to be a U.S. resident alien even though they are not U.S. resident aliens.   Thus, their income can be taxed world-wide.


Emphasis on jurisdiction and why it is so important:

Laws of countries have jurisdictions to which the scope and power of those laws can only be made applicable. This is understood, perhaps more easily by stating that the laws of Brazil only apply within the jurisdictional boundaries of Brazil. This is true for any country you might like to consider. If you are not subject to that jurisdiction of whatever country or territory you are referencing that means you are not subject to the laws that only apply within that jurisdiction.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, states the following definitions on Jurisdiction. 

  • Jurisdiction – The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law; the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate, the power or right to exercise authority; control; the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised.
  • Lack of Jurisdiction - The phrase means the lack of power of a court to act in a particular manner of exercising authority over a party.  It may consist in the court's total want of power to act at all or lack of power to act in a particular case because conditions essential to the exercise of jurisdiction have not been complied with or may consist of deficiency of jurisdiction over subject matter or the party in question.
  • For more information, please review our Jurisdiction section and certainly the YouTube video on Jurisdiction posted in our Resource Center section.


Kenneth R. Thomas, a Federal Attorney serving in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service stated in a Memorandum dated Sept. 22, 1995, in part that: 

  • “Among these many powers, Congress has been granted the authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District to Columbia. It should be noted, however, that there is no similar clause in the Constitution that gives Congress authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the states.”
  • “When Congress passes a law, there is no requirement under the Constitution that the Congress identify the nature or source of its authority.”

Speaking territorially, the Constitution is law only within the Constitutional Republic (the 50 states of the Union). It must be emphasized that the Constitution is not law within the Federal Zone (Washington, D.C. and its U.S. Territories) as that 10-mile-square area is separate from the Constitutional Republic. The reader needs to remember that the District of Columbia is not a state of the Union but a part of what is referred to as territory belonging to the federal corporation called the United States. Those who work for the National Government and thus hold a public office take an Oath of Office “to protect and to defend the Constitution,” but that is the limit of their obligation in a legal sense.  Public Office Holders are subject to the statutory laws created by the Congress.

This is an important statement in that the IRS will never directly show you the jurisdictional distinctions that make the federal income taxation statutes limited to the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the National Government (meaning the District of Columbia). It willfully uses deception or “Lies of Omission” so that it might continue to obfuscate the true nature and limitations for the application of the statutory laws promulgated in the IRC.

You will find stated, as we will demonstrate, that the IRS uses “Lies of Inference” and “Lies of Omission” to help confuse and mislead the reader into overlooking the major issue of Jurisdiction when they discuss the application of their special municipal laws.


Now to move forward with “KNOW THE LAW” as stated in IRS Publication 2105:

Paragraph 1 states: “There have always been individuals who argue taxes are illegal. They use false, misleading or unorthodox tax advice to gain followers. The courts have repeatedly rejected their arguments as frivolous and routinely impose penalties for raising such frivolous arguments.  Make sure you “Know the Law.”

Lies of Omission: Please note that we do not argue that the income tax statutory laws are illegal. We direct your attention to the reference statement “Courts have repeatedly rejected…”. But the IRS has not told the reader which “Courts” they refer to or the limited jurisdiction of those Courts being referred to.  The Courts the IRS is referring to are the United States Tax Court and/or United States District Courts. These courts are Article 1 and Article 4 courts respectively which have jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of Washington, D.C. and its U.S. Territories.

The United States Supreme Court in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) states in part: “The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 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 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.”

It is clear that the IRS was only referring to “territorial courts” without jurisdiction in the 50 states of the Union.

American Nationals are not subject to, and never have been by law, these territorial courts.  It is a fact that American Nationals have been duped into believing that they are subject to these territorial courts by those who serve those courts in behalf of the Congress.


Paragraph 2 states: “The United States Constitution Article 1,Section 8, Clause 1, states, “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

Lies of Inference: This is truly stated in the Constitution. No question about it. But that is not the full story.

What was not stated by the IRS was “what kind of taxes” are being addressed in this section of the Constitution.  This section in the Constitution does not state anything about a Direct Tax being levied upon Americans for an annual portion of their income. The reader is left to assume that this section addresses the nature of the federal income tax.

For a Direct Tax to be imposed upon American Nationals (a non-statutory term used to describe those born in one of the 50 states of the Union or naturalized there), the Constitution requires that the National Government adhere to the Rule of Apportionment as required at Article 1 Sections 2 & 9 of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court in the Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) clearly denied the National Government the power to impose a Federal Income Tax upon American Nationals when it omitted or disregarded the Rule of Apportionment. In fact the USSC stated for such an attempt would be an “unconstitutional” act by Congress.


Paragraph 3 states: “The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution” ratified on February 3, 1913, states, “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Lies of Inference: The 16th Amendment to the Constitution does state what the IRS shows. However, this is designed at first glance to misdirect the reader into overlooking the fact that the Congress cannot disregard the decision made by the USSC in the Pollock case just referenced.  Again, for the Congress to create a levy of a Federal Income Tax upon the American People – which is the IRS inference here – one must remember that such an act by Congress would be “unconstitutional.”

So many will naturally ask, “How did Congress apparently bypass the USSC decision?” The answer is that Congress did not bypass the Rule of Apportionment requirement but rather it avoided it all together.   The Federal Income Tax was only levied upon the territorial jurisdiction of the Congress.

This is documented in the Congressional Record of the United States Senate, where the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment — written by then President William H. Taft — was promulgated on June 16, 1909 in pages 3344-3345. Taft stated, “The Farmer’s Loan & Trust case was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population.”

From the reading of the actual 16th Amendment, it is evidently clear that the Rule of Apportionment was not a consideration. Therefore, in order for this amendment to be viable, it had to be applicable toward a jurisdiction in which the Constitution is not law.  Otherwise, the USSC would have struck down the 16th Amendment as “unconstitutional” as it stated in Pollock.

Taft further stated, “The decision of the Supreme Court in the income tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decision of the court, it was general supposed that Government ought to have.”

Lies of Omission: To prove that the 16th Amendment was only directed toward the territorial jurisdiction of the National Government, meaning Washington, D.C. and its U.S. Territories, one only has to read the following stated by then President Taft: “I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.”

The IRS routinely obfuscates the truth, as it doesn’t want the reader to see that the Congress willfully and purposely omitted the references to the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment. This is a death blow to the IRS scheme on its Lies of Inference that American Nationals owe the Federal Income Tax. The jurisdiction of the National Government, to which the USSC could not challenge, was and remains the District of Columbia and its U.S. Territories.


Paragraph 4 states: “Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment, and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax.”

Lies of Inference: Here again is the gross neglect to the limited territorial jurisdiction to which the Federal Income Tax is only applicable within. The word “individual” is defined in 5 USC §552a (a)(2) as “the term individual means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

By now, you know that this is a statutory section and applies only within the limited territorial jurisdiction of the National Government. It is interesting to note that this word is hidden outside Title 26.  The term “citizen of the United States” in the statutory sense is only addressing those identified in 8 USC §1401 (a) and 3C AM JUR 2d Section 2689 and in no context does it define American Nationals (as we have previously defined this non-statutory term).

Dwight E. Avis, former Head of Alcohol and Tobacco along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, testified before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee in February 1953, that the federal “income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax.”

This is the same expression stated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 31 USC §321 (d)(1) and (d)(2) that the Federal Income Tax is a “gift or bequest made payable to and for the use of the United States.” A gift or bequest is not a mandatory obligation.

Those who are legal U.S. Taxpayers are obligated to file and pay the Federal Income Tax, but that does not extend to the vast majority of the population located in the Constitutional Republic and working in the private sector.  It is only by “inference” that the IRS attempts to persuade the uninformed about the truth in their statement.  Multiple hundreds of millions of American Nationals were never imposed with any obligation to file and pay the Federal Income Tax.

The only parties made liable are those listed as U.S. Taxpayers and that only refers to a limited and small group of American Nationals who choose to work for the National Government or others who meet the statutory definitions of one who is a US Taxpayer.


Paragraph 5 states: “Congress has delegated to the IRS the responsibility of administering the tax laws – known as the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and found in Title 26 of the United States Code. Congress enacts these tax laws, and the IRS enforces them.”

From what you have seen so far, there is nothing to challenge this statement on the surface. The Federal Income Tax is perfectly “legal” within the singular jurisdiction known as the District of Columbia and its U.S. Territories.  With this, there is no argument. Congress only enacted statutory laws that apply toward those who are legal U.S. Taxpayers and not to those who are lawful nontaxpayers. Therefore the IRS can only attempt to enforce the statutory laws against those who meet the strict criteria of being a legal U.S. Taxpayer and not against the hundreds of millions of American Nationals who are “neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.”

Lies of Inference: Hidden is the intent to misdirect American Nationals into believing that the federal statutory laws only applicable in the Federal Zone are also applicable within the Constitutional Republic.  That is a false inference in order to compel American Nationals into associating with the National Government under the pretense of obligation that does not exist.

There are two Federal Appellate Court decisions which address the existence of two different and separate groups in regards to the income revenue statutory laws and shows American Nationals are lawful nontaxpayers. The first one is Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) which states in part, “The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, 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 laws.”

The second Federal Appellate case is Economy Plumbing & Heating v. United States, 470 F 2d 585 (1972), which states, “They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers.  The latter are without their scope.  No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.”

Yet the IRS continues to make claims against American Nationals when there is no law supporting such attempts at compelled association with the National Government for the sole purpose of expanding the nefarious thirst for control and dominion over the very lives of those they have taken an Oath of Office “to protect and to defend.”


Paragraph 6 states: “Sources of taxable income are identified in the Code under Section 61, Gross Income Defined. The list of sources under this section is not all inclusive.”

Lies of Inference:  IRC statutory laws are only applicable against those who are statutory U.S. Taxpayers as the law clearly shows. These statutory laws have nothing to do with American Nationals unless they choose to work for the National Government, derive income from the use of federal property, or make a foolish voluntary election (which fortunately can be terminated by statutes created by the Congress).


Paragraph 7 states: “Section 6702 of the Code authorizes the IRS to impose a $5000 penalty against persons who submit frivolous tax returns or other documents.”

Lies of Omission: What the IRS does not state is that only Implementing Regulations published in the Federal Register [evidenced by volume, date, and page number] once they meet the litmus test of the Constitutional restrictions against such actually apply toward American Nationals. This reference to the statue in Section 6702 only pertains to statutory U.S. taxpayers but the IRS conveniently omitted this fact.

What you see when you review the statutes in Title 26 when matched with the Enforcement Regulations are astounding when one realizes the impact. The IRS will never tell American Nationals that they are prohibited from cross-referencing their statutory laws to the regulations of another title in the Code of Federal Regulations. They are prohibited from doing such by 1 CFR 21.21 (c).

Here is what one finds when they review the Parallel Table of Authorities for statutes in the IRC to regulations in the CFR:

26 USC Description Enforcement Regulation
6201 Assessment Authority 27CFR Part 70
6203 Method of Assessment 27CFR Part 70
6301 Collection Activity 27CFR Part 24, 25, 53, 70…
6303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27CFR Part 53,70
6321 Lien for Taxes 27CFR Part 70
6331 Levy and Distraint 27CFR Part 70
6332 Surrender of property subject to levy 27CFR Part 70
6651 Failure to file tax return or to pay tax 27CFR Part 70
7401 Authorization [judicial proceedings] 27CFR Part 70
7403 Action to enforce lien or subject property 27CFR Part 70
7601 Canvass of districts for taxable persons 27CFR Part 70
7602 Examination of books and witnesses 27CFR Part 70, 170, 296
7603 Service of Summons 27CFR Part 70
7604 Enforcement of Summons 27CFR Part 70
7605 Time and Place of examination 27CFR Part 70
7608 Authority of IRS Enforcement Officers 27CFR Part 70, 170, 296
7851 Applicability of Revenue Laws – Subtitle A 27CFR Part 24 Wine Production


As you can readily see, these major sections of the Internal Revenue Code completely lack any enforcement authority.

The rest of the IRS pamphlet 2105 discusses the Myths and the Truths as the IRS states them to be. Once again, this section of their propaganda is directed only toward those who are legal U.S. Taxpayers and not toward American Nationals who are “neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.”


Closing Commentary

The real cost of the heavy progressive income taxation upon society in modern America is socialism which does not work well but for a season before it then collapses. Modern Greece, in the last two decades, shows the impact of what happens at the end of the socialistic model. Economic decline and the resulting impact on business.

What the Congress has accomplished is identical to what the Senate in Rome did over 1,900 years ago. The Roman Empire collapsed from the weight of socialism which caused most Roman citizens to simply give up and live on “Circuses and Bread” distributed by the Empire. Rome at one time was the envy of the world.

Romans eventually left their farms as it became too costly to work when virtually all that was earned was taken by the government. Following that, the population of Roman citizens dropped so precipitously that immigration was the key to maintaining the growth in the decline of the national population. The problems that arose from this caused others who once viewed Rome as the miracle of history to no longer support the Empire. They had only come to Rome seeking the money they could earn but never assimilated into the culture that was Rome. When the end came, there was no one to defend Rome. They all left and Rome fell.

As a part of this historical event, the Roman currency was debased by reduction of silver content in the Roman coins to such a point that no one would accept them in payment and the demand for gold became the bedrock for a medium of exchange. Economic growth declined due to the burden of heavy taxation.  There was a collapse of law and order at the end of the Roman Empire’s life.  The family unit broke down.  Hard work and self-discipline were lost due to the decline.  Those who had wealth pursued the only remaining option … they withdrew from that society and moved away from Rome’s control.

The Welfare System of today is analogous to what Rome did, and it led to the collapse of that once impressive empire. The welfare state became too large to support as the revenues declined due to the disenfranchisement of the Roman people. Regulations and price controls caused lost motivation to produce or create new businesses. The parallels of today in the United States of America are identical to that which occurred in Rome.

The New Roman Empire, which was once the envy of the world, is in the same condition that Rome was in before it fell.  Emperor Valens, who most people never heard of, was the last Roman Caesar.  The Emperor Valens of today is the powerful elite who are thinking of global control and self-aggrandizement.  The U.S. appears to be electing the modern-day equivalent of Emperor Valens.

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)