Here is the Law
That Makes the Average American
Liable for the Income Tax
Various people have falsely claimed that there is no
law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax. These
people usually fall into one of three categories:
Reality Deniers -- No matter what
level of proof is shown to these idiots, they will continue to
believe that they are not liable for the income tax. When one of
their positions is shown to be bogus, they simply migrate to a new
bogus theory. Oh, and everything is a vast conspiracy involving the
Illuminati, Federal Reserve, Freemasons and your local Elks Lodge.
Scam Artists -- These are bad
people often with criminal records for doing other bad stuff who
make money selling books, tapes, DVDs, or paid seminars telling
people that they are not liable for the income tax. They make their
money spinning the tale of whatever seems to sell the best, and then
they usually disappear when their sucker customers get indicted for
Seriously Confused -- These are
average people who don't know what to believe because of the junk
sold by the scam artists and the fact that the reality deniers
actually believe in it, but are too lazy to do the hard research
themselves to see that the de-tax theories are totally bogus.
All of these three groups chant over and over "Show Us
The Law!" as if by sheer repetition of the lie (that there is no law
that makes the average American liable for the income tax) that the lie
may someday come true.
The purpose of this web page is simple: To show the
law that makes the average American liable for the income tax. So, for
all you morons, conmen, or just those trying to find out the truth, here
Let's start with the U.S. Constitution, which provides
the basis for Congress to enact the Internal Revenue Code:
The Congress shall have
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . .
. but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
Comment: Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the “Power
To law and collect Taxes” without further restriction in this
Section. Note that the uniformity requirement only applies to
“Duties, Imposts and Excises” and not to taxes. This means that
“Taxes” are treated differently than “Excises” under the
Constitution, since Taxes are not required to be uniform. Those
who would equate “Taxes” and “Excises” are simply wrong, and
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be
laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein
before directed to be taken.
Comment: Article I, Section 9, does not ban direct
taxes, but merely says that such taxes must be “in Proportion to
the Census of Enumeration”.
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.
Comment: Whether or not Article I, Section 9 applies to
income taxes, its requirement that such taxes be “in Proportion
to the Census of Enumeration” is eliminated. Note that no
new power of taxation is created (Congress already had all the
power it needed for the income tax) but a potential restriction
(if it existed at all) was abolished.
At this point, it is clear that the plain text
of the Constitution authorizes an income tax without regard to
either apportionment or the census. It is thus totally
irrelevant whether such taxes are “direct” or not – it simply
makes no difference whatsoever from the plain text of the
Finally, Congress passes the tax laws
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Summary: It is crystal clear from a reading of the
Constitution that Congress has the power to tax (I.8), that
“Taxes” are not the same as “Excises” (I.8), and that income can
be taxed without regard to either apportionment or a census
(Am.16). Congress is also authorized to draft income tax
legislation (I.8). The “direct” versus “indirect” argument is
simply a red herring, and -- if the issue exists at all -- is
conclusively resolved by the passage of the 16th Amendment.
The bottom line is that challenges to the income tax
based on the Constitution are bogus, and demonstrably so.
Now that we
have proven that the income tax is 100% constitutional, let's examine
the laws passed by Congress.
THE LAW that makes the average American liable to pay
income taxes is in Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.
§ 1. Congress put THE LAW right up front so that
nobody could miss it (well, nobody who was actually interested in
The statutory scheme that creates liability to pay
income taxes for the average American is discussed below:
Section 1. Tax Imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [various
categories, such as married individuals, single individuals,
etc., omitted for sake of this discussion] a tax determined in
accordance with the following table: [table omitted for
Comment: This is THE LAW that makes the
average American liable to pay income taxes. Some idiots claim
that this statute doesn't create liability because it doesn't
use the magic word "liable". Of course, the Constitution does
not require the use of the specific word "liable" and the word
"imposed" makes it clear that the tax is on the income.
Note also that there are only two parties involved: The one
paying money (to whom it is an expense) and the party receiving
the money (to whom it is income, which is shorthand for "money
coming in"). Thus, it is only "income" as to the person
receiving the money and thus the person receiving it is the only
person who could be liable for paying it (although there can be
separate liability for failure to withhold).
Section 63. Taxable Income Defined
(a) In general
[T]he term "taxable income" means gross income minus the
deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard
Comment: This means that taxable income is
all the income that you receive less any deductions to which you
may be entitled.
So what is "gross income"? Let's check out Section 61.
Section 61. Gross Income Defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income
means all income from whatever source derived, including (but
not limited 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;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Comment: Everything that is listed in Section 61, and
all other income, is considered "Gross Income" for purposes of
determining sections 1 and 63 above.
Did you know . . .
That George Washington hated tax protestors
and thought that they were traitors and criminals? Our First
President had the two leaders of one of the first tax protests,
Whiskey Rebellion, arrested, but then pardoned them because
he decided that one of them was a "simpleton" and the other was
"insane". Not much has changed since 1794 has it?
The point is: Even our Founding Fathers
hated tax protestors and thought that they were a stupid
It is that simple! This is why no accredited legal or
tax scholar worldwide thinks that the bogus theory "that there is no law
making the average American liable for the payment of income taxes" is
anymore than a bad joke. The Scam Artists and Reality Deniers have for
decades tried to get any legal or tax scholar interested in their kooky
reasons for not paying taxes, but none have bitten.
It is also the reason that ALL the courts in the
United States, included the United States Supreme Court, have routinely
characterized tax protestors' arguments as frivolous, and have hit tax
protestors with huge penalties up to $25,000 for making their stupid
arguments. All the courts in the United States have also routinely
affirmed the convictions of tax protestors.
The Few Criminal Acquittals
Over the years and out of literally thousands of tax
protestors who have been criminally prosecuted, a very small handful
have won acquittals in their criminal trials, by convincing the jury
that they were too stupid to understand that they had to pay taxes. But
even in these "wins", such as they were, all those tax protestors
remained 100% liable to pay their taxes. FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin, for
instance, won her criminal trial and avoided going to jail, but lost her
retirement pension and a lot more by paying her back taxes, interest and
penalties. Adding in their legal defense fees, all these tax protestors
would have been far ahead had they just paid their taxes in the first
No tax protestor has ever won a court case to avoid
their income taxes, never. It is not because of any kookie conspiracy
theories; it is simply because tax protestors are WRONG.
And there you have it folks! THE LAW (26 U.S.C.
§ 1, in conjunction with §§ 61 and 63) that creates
the income tax liability for the average American.
For those who want to read more about the technical
basis behind the income tax, and why tax protestors' various stupid
theories are wrong, please see:
$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! !
Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the
publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in
cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of
any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there
is no law
that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax.
Don't just tell us about your pet
theory -- nobody cares -- get out and win a case or shut up!
Number of takers so far: 0
Want to discuss this further or give your comments?
© 2007 by Financial & Tax Fraud Education
Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.