Reprinted from www.libertylobby.org, home of The SPOTLIGHT archive
Expert Refutes Flawed Tax Arguments Being Sold to Honest Patriots, Anti-Tax Community
By Tony Blizzard
In his many years of tax research, Otto Skinner has done all American patriots a tremendous service. For instance, an entire chapter of his third book, The Biggest Tax Loophole of All, is dedicated to exposing 18 flawed tax arguments that result in fines and/or prison time for good, but misled, patriots.
Following is a listing of those arguments with very abbreviated, incomplete refutations.
For easier understanding, it must first be mentioned that taxation law begins with an obligation on the government to prove that a person is a taxpayer lawfully subject to (liable for) a tax. It is generally a mistake for the citizen to take it upon himself to attempt to prove to the government that he is not liable. A nontaxpayer has no standing in court to argue tax law.
Argument: Submitting the W-4 exempt form.
Refutation: This is a form for taxpayers, not nontaxpayers.
Argument: Stating that the tax is an unconstitutional, direct tax.
Refutation: The protester presents himself as being liable for the tax by arguing from the standing of a taxpayer. Moreover, the tax is neither unconstitutional nor direct.
Argument: Stating that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Refutation: The amendment created no new tax anyway. The protester again presents himself as being liable for the tax as a taxpayer.
Argument: Filing a 5th Amendment claim.
Refutation: Implies that the individual has committed a crime and is a taxpayer.
Argument: Stating that wages are not income.
Refutation: Wrongly assumes that pro perty (wages) is the subject of the tax.
Argument: Stating that "shall" means "may" in case law relied upon.
Refutation: That particular case, and the statement used from it, have no bearing on the tax.
Argument: Stating that the tax is voluntary.
Refutation: No tax is voluntary al though self-assessment may be.
Argument: Stating that the individual is not an employee.
Refutation: This argument is based on an erroneous definition of the term "includes" in the tax code.
Argument: Stating that the secretary must complete a tax return.
Refutation: Falsely mixes criminal and civil cases.
Argument: Stating that the individual is a nonresident alien, not a citizen, etc.
Refutation: Also stems from a flawed definition of the term "includes."
Argument: Stating that the tax is only on government employees.
Refutation: Argument is based on an act of Congress which established no tax.
Argument: Files zero tax returns (and often states that only corporations have income).
Refutation: Relies on three cases which do not back up the theory. Two of the cases resulted in convictions of those who used them. The other is misused in support of the definition of income.
Argument: Stating that lack of an OMB number on the 1040 instruction book nullifies the tax.
Refutation: OMB numbers apply to regulations but the taxpayer is obligated by statute.
Argument: Stating that zip codes are a federal geographic gimmick.
Refutation: Has nothing to do with who is subject to the tax as the tax is not territorial.
Argument: Stating that Title 26 is not positive law.
Refutation: Whether the code is "positive" or not, it is prima facie evidence of some act of Congress passed into law -- it is immaterial to the legitimacy of the tax.
Argument: Stating that tax levies can only be placed on the property of public servants.
Refutation: Argument ignores part of the code as well as who is subject to the tax.
Argument: Stating that the tax is the direct Victory Tax of 1942 and therefore can only be imposed for two years.
Refutation: The "Victory Tax" did not differ from the ordinary "income tax" thus nullifying the theory.
Argument: Stating that we have no lawful money, so what we use as money can't be taxed.
Refutation: Money (property) is not the subject of the tax, income amount is only the measure of the tax.
Skinner sums up the chapter with a few handy hints to help discern flawed arguments:
If the argument considered applies the tax to someone else instead of yourself, don't use it. You want the government to acknowledge that you are a nontaxpayer, not that someone else is a taxpayer.
If the argument has you filling out a form, it's false. Only taxpayers are obligated to fill out forms.
Finally, see what the argument gives as the subject of the tax and try to verify that subject in the tax code.
Always study the case law that has been used in tax cases appropriate to yours. Never take for granted that it actually supports your argument just because some "expert" says so.
Skinner's ability to cut through and understand legalese and his common sense approach to law are a godsend to the patriot anti-tax movement.
His books and bulletins are valuable tools which take the mystery out of tax law.
For more information write: Otto Skinner, P.O. Box 6609, San Pedro, CA 90734 or visit his website located at: