War on Truth: Addressing the IRS ruling position by the Office of Associate Chief Counsel


By Adele Weiss
8 Feb 2018

First, let me state that Weiss+Associates is in full agreement with the IRS as to the information provided in their Ruling document ‘toward those who are subject and object of the revenue laws’ promulgated in the IRC.

There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the application of the federal-income-tax statutes within the IRC toward those that the Office of Associate Chief Counsel addressed. The targeted audience of the missive was stated 56 times in the nine-page document to be only those who are “Taxpayers” with an obligation to file and pay that territorial income tax. Only the six types of “Taxpayers” can be tax evaders, avoiders, or cheats.

Thus, what was stated by the Associate Chief Counsel for the IRS was truly stated, and there is no issue on that regard. However, what was stated was not a statement of the truth when one considers the larger body of American Nationals (a non-statutory term for those born in the Constitutional Republic – the 50 states of the Union – or naturalized there). They are referred to in the IRC as Nonresident Aliens and lawful Nontaxpayers of that tax.

Perhaps it is easier to show the law to distinguish from what the Associate Chief Counsel was stating vis-à-vis those American Nationals. It is evident that the Associate Chief Counsel did not prefer to elaborate on the existence of a large set of American Nationals who are “neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws” that he/she cites in this narrative. This group is referred to as lawful Non Taxpayers for the Federal Income Tax.

Secondly, one can find in the Federal Appellate Court decision in 1922 in the case of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 of the Federal court’s admission of the existence of this large group referred to as “Nontaxpayers.” As a footnote, Rasmussen was the equivalent of today’s IRS Commissioner. You will find stated in this court case the decision of the Federal Appellate court as stated 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.”

An interesting aspect to the IRS missive is that the Associate Chief Counsel completely “overlooks” the existence of those who are lawful nontaxpayers who have no duty or obligation to file or pay the federal income tax. The IRS Associate Chief Counsel is surprisingly quiet on this subject as it does not serve his/her interest to educate American Nationals correctly but chooses to state: “This revenue ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, promoters, and return preparers that all U.S. citizens and residents are subject to federal income tax.”

Words used are critical to understand before any presumptions are applied. ‘Statutory words’ often have a different meaning to that of the everyday expression used by American Nationals. For example, the use of ‘U.S. Citizen’ and ‘United States’ are defined differently by IRS statues and federal laws in the area of taxation.

Take the word, ‘U.S citizen’, a statutory term, is defined in the section entitled, “Who is born in United States and subject to United States Jurisdiction, as “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…”

Most American Nationals are not aware of this definition. The IRS goes silent on providing any explanation or definition of the meaning of this term. The reason for their silence is due to the impact on the IRS revenue stream. This would also have the potential for creating uproar among American Nationals as to the duplicity and gamesmanship being played upon unsuspecting American Nationals.

Silence is a species of conduct that equates to a fraud (a crime according to Black’s Law Dictionary) when one should clearly state the details of those who are and are not liable in a clear fashion in order to eliminate any potential for confusion or misapplication of the special laws within the IRC.

At this juncture, a third reference is presented. One needs to go back to the foundational document and the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Federal Income Tax. The USSC stated in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) that the federal income tax as established by the U.S. Congress was a direct tax. It further stipulated that an income tax is a direct tax requiring the National Government to adhere to the Rule of Apportionment stated in Article 1, Sections 2 & 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

An Act of Congress contrary to the inclusion of the Rule of Apportionment for taxation purposes was stated by the USSC to be an unconstitutional. When one reads the actual wording of the 16th Amendment, one finds the following:

“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.”

There is only one possibility for the U.S. Congress to pass such an Amendment and that exception is that there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions that are referred to by the same name … the United States. This explains the confusion and misapplication of the Federal Income Tax toward American Nationals who were never imposed with any duty or obligation to file and pay that municipal/territorial income tax. Within the District of Columbia, the U.S. Constitution has no full force and effect of law. Congress is the Monarch for that territorial jurisdiction, and it creates statutory laws to rule its domain and control those who are subject to its territorial jurisdiction.

When one reads the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment, written by former President William H. Taft, one sees that Taft admitted that such a power to tax American Nationals was not within the power of the Federal Government unless apportioned among the several States according to population (Rule of Apportionment). He also admitted:

“The decision of the Supreme Court in the income tax cases deprived the National Government of a power … it was generally supposed that Government had.”

Taft then suggests to the U.S. Congress:

“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.”

With no option to levy the Federal Income Tax upon American Nationals, this foundational document proves that the U.S. Congress levied the municipal/territorial income tax ONLY upon itself meaning those who hold a public office and derive income that is effectively connected with the performance and functions of that kind of a federal “trade or business” [IRC 7701 (a)(26)].

This fact is further illustrated in the regulation found at 26 CFR § 1.871-1 (a) Classes of aliens. The first part of this regulation states:

“Resident alien individuals are, in general, taxable the same as citizens of the United States; that is, a resident alien is taxable on income derived from all sources, including sources without the United States.”

The second aspect to the same regulation is stated as follows:

“Nonresident alien individuals are taxable only on certain income from sources within the United States and on the income described in section 864(c)(4) from sources without the United States which is effectively connected for the taxable year with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States.”

This illustrates that one must first work for the National Government.

There is a third component to this regulation that now needs to be presented. This will require some study of the semantic gamesmanship used in this skillful use of legalese:

“However, nonresident alien individuals may elect, under section 6013 (g) or (h), to be treated as U.S. residents for purposes of determining their income tax liability under Chapters 1, 5, and 24 of the code.”

It is interesting to note that one not levied with any obligation under federal tax laws to file and pay the federal income tax [read as those who are nontaxpayers] cannot possibly have a liability for that tax. Once an American National makes the ‘voluntary election,’ they are not taxed (treated) as an American National [read as Nonresident Alien by U.S. Congress expression] but are instead taxed as if they were a U.S. Resident Alien.

Perhaps another example of wordsmithing via statutes can be timely presented in this discussion. The word, or phrase if you prefer, is the statutory reference by the IRS Associate Chief Counsel ‘United States.’ The U.S. Congress stated in the 63rd Congress Session 1 1913 Chapter 16, Page 177 Section Two as the following in describing the statutory term ‘United States’:

“That the word ‘State’ or ‘United States’ when used in this section shall be construed to include (to mean) any Territory, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, when construction is necessary to carry out its provisions.”

Confirmation of the statutory term ‘United States’ is provided by the statement under ‘Citizens and Residents outside the United States’ within the IRC. The IRC statement identifies the ‘United States’ used in the IRC [unless specifically stated otherwise] to mean only the District of Columbia. The IRC states:

“If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in, and does not have his principal place of business in, any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated for purposes of this section as residing in the District of Columbia.”

Another meaning within the IRC for ‘treated’ is expressed as ‘taxed.’

Today, we know that the Philippines and Cuba were granted independence. Alaska and Hawaii have been granted statehood within the Constitutional Republic. There is a list of territories in this Congressional map to also include American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, Midway Island, Wake Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Republic of Palau, Johnston Island, Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef and Palmyra Island, and Navassa Island.

Not a single state of the Union of the Constitutional Republic is shown to make up the statutory term ‘United States’ as referenced by the IRS Associate Chief Counsel. Thus, in combining the statutory ‘U.S. citizen’ and ‘United States,’ one sees more clearly what the IRS Associate Chief Counsel failed to present in the missive.

Only those born in these territories (statutory U.S. citizens) listed by the U.S. Congress are the subjects the Associate Chief Counsel can address with ‘Taxpayer.’ Again, the National Government was denied and deprived of any authority to apply the Federal Income Tax upon American Nationals. A review of the USSC Pollock decision and the direct admission of President Taft in his letter to the U.S. Congress on the establishment of the 16th Amendment shows no linkage to the Rule of Apportionment requirement as mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

Michael L. White, a Federal Attorney, Office of the Federal Register, stated his legal opinion on regulations published imposing the income tax. He stated:

“Our records indicate that the Internal Revenue Service has not incorporated by reference in the Federal Register a requirement to make an income tax return.”

The Federal Register Act requires the IRS to promulgate in the Federal Register any Regulation that is applicable toward American Nationals (Nonresident Aliens as expressed by the U.S. Congress).

Any failure on the part of the IRS to so publish any imposed obligation by regulation in the Federal Register means that such an attempt on the part of the IRS sans publication as lawfully required amounts to a nullity or legal invalidity. The regulation at 26 CFR § 601.702 Effect of failure to publish states in part:

“Thus, for example, any such matter which imposes an obligation and which is not so published or incorporated by reference shall not adversely change or affect a person’s rights.”

One can now better understand the importance of the legal opinion established by Michael L. White, Federal Attorney in regard to the IRS failure to so publish any “obligation” for the filing or paying of the Federal Income Tax by private-sector American Nationals (Nonresident Aliens per the term used by the U.S. Congress). Such a failure was purposeful by the IRS due to the discussion earlier about the USSC Pollock decision, the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment, and the jurisdictional limitation place upon the National Government where it willfully omitted any inclusion of the Rule of Apportionment requirement so stated in the U.S. Constitution.

There is much more on the Federal Income Tax that shows the date of enactment was August 16, 1954 and that it ceased to exist within nanoseconds the same day it was enacted. Thus, the lawful nontaxpayers as expressed by the Federal Appellate Court in the Long v. Rasmussen decision had to be considered, and as such, the Enactment of the IRC of 1954 died the same day it was enacted.

One can easily see in 26 USC § 7851 (a) (1) (A) Subtitle ‘A’ documents the ending of the IRC of 1954 on the date of enactment of Title 26.

“Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 6 of this title shall apply only with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after the date of enactment of this title …”

Keep in mind that the IRC effective date of enactment was August 16, 1954, and then read 26 USC § 7851 (a) (6) (A) regarding the enforcement actions referenced by the IRS Associate Chief Counsel Subtitle ‘F’ within IRC 7851 stipulates:

“The provisions of subtitle ‘F’ shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by this title.”

With the emphasis by the Associate Chief Counsel only addressing only legal U.S. Taxpayers and avoiding any conflict with those American Nationals, who are legal Nontaxpayers, this issue is cleared up. There is much more to this discussion to make it as complete as possible, but due to time restrictions, this should address your questions most effectively.

Lastly, one final regulation (for the purpose of this discussion) states:

“Resident alien individuals are, in general, taxable the same as citizens of the United States; that is, a resident alien is taxable on income derived from all sources, including sources without the United States. Nonresident alien individuals are taxable only on certain income from sources within the United States and on the income describe in section 864 (c) (4) from sources without the United States which is effectively connected for the taxable year with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States.”

A statutory ‘trade or business’ means one derives income from “the performance of the functions of a public office” created by the U.S. Congress.

This regulation above continues with the additional statement:

“However, nonresident alien individuals may elect, under section 6013 (g) or (h), to be treated as U.S. resident for purposes of determining their income tax liability under Chapters 1, 5, and 24 of the code.”

This is how the National Government has succeeded in bypassing the limitations placed against it via the USSC and the U.S. Constitution. One sees that the National Government ‘permits’ any American National (read as Nonresident alien by wording of the U.S. Congress) to ‘volunteer’ into the U.S. Tax Club but does so sub silentio. There is no full disclosure of the ramifications of what that act will do to the American National. Thus, there is no willful and knowing intent on the part of the American National, and this explains the reason the U.S. Congress provided IRC 6013 (g)(4)(A) for American Nationals to leave the U.S. Tax Club if they so desired and avoid violation of the 13th Amendment.

In conclusion, no further confusion should arise if one continues to study and understand the definitions of statutory terms and the limited territorial jurisdiction for the application of the Federal Income Tax.

For those statutory ‘U.S. Citizens’ who were born in the territorial United States, they should and must pay their fair share of any tax burden imposed upon them by the U.S. Congress. The comments within that missive are directed only to that group who are repeatedly shown in that correspondence to be “U.S. Taxpayers” only.

Conversely, there simply is no ability, power, or authority for the IRS to create a nexus with American Nationals so protected by the U.S. Constitution. The National Government and its employees, federal officers, and elected federal officials know all too well these facts of law and the limitations placed against them by the USSC in its effort to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

To do otherwise, puts any federal employee, federal officer, or elected federal official at risk of violation of the 13th Amendment which banishes slavery and involuntary indentured servitude within either jurisdiction referred to as the ‘United States.’

It would be unwise for any such action, on the part of the National Government, to act against an American National working in the private sector to be duped, deceived in any fashion, or engaging in fraud by the National Government. However, it is clearly evident that American Nationals have been drawn into federal jurisdiction, sub silentio, and by other variants so Machiavellian that it takes time for American Nationals to see the actual paradigm that ‘the King has no clothes on.’

Such violations of trust and avoidance of the limitations placed against the National Government by the U.S. Constitution would, in the minds of many legal scholars, be cause for implementation of the 18 USC §1589 (a) through (d) for abuses related to force, threats of force, abuse of law, threatened abuse of law, or abuse of legal process. There can be no consent when fraud is the basis for the deception that has been in effect for over 100 years.

Overall, this is the importance for the Revocation of Election process, so that each American National who chooses to do so can permanently leave the U.S. Tax Club behind and move on with their financial lives. The IRC statutes were created by the U.S. Congress so it knows all too well the house was built upon sand and not bedrock.

There is only a well-worn and thin respect for the National Government when it attempts to vacate the limited role for its functionality as defined in the Constitution. It appears that history has shown the path of former governments, countries, and empires that tread the circular path of those who have come and gone.

The Constitution is not perfect as it was established by imperfect men. However, it is perfect in the sense that it was something new at the time of its creation by those who had great expectations for the new country that it represented and offered the oppressed hope for a government of the people and not of monarchs and aristocrats.

May the Heavenly Father referenced in the U.S. Constitution continue to prosper and protect all American Nationals, including those serving correctly and honestly within the National Government, that make up the Constitutional Republic, and that people of that Republic seek Him in His period of Grace.

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)