MLM, Network Marketing - IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

If you are looking for more information about MLM, Network Marketing and taxes, you want to read this.

One of the main issues is liability. There is none, period. If you are liable for taxes, then a statute must say, you are liable.

Let me give you an example of what that looks like and what it would look like if there was one.

This is Paul Mitchell's response to my inquiry of what one would look like and an example of a liability that does exist in subtitle C.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26_10_C.html


IRC 3403:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/3403.html

§ 3403. Liability for tax

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax
required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

[end excerpt]

As you see, based on the liability statute for the above mentioned in Chapter 24 of Subtitle C, the employer is liable and not the employee. Now, employer and employee needs to be defined to see who that fits but that is for another time.

If there was a liability, it would have to look something like the following. You take the above and just change the language slightly, to create a genuine liability STATUTE for taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A, for example:

The recipient of income shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deduced and withheld under subtitle A.

Cf. "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition.

The good thing for us, nothing like the example above exists for subtitle A where the statutes for income taxes are located. Continue reading for a lot of information being thrown around.

Below is my response to my friend Eric Jon Phelps in regards to taxes and liability. Below my response is his response to an article that he read. Below his response is the link that he is responding to.

------------------------------------------------

To: Eric Phelps

I'm glad you found the truth out about Pete.

I no longer pay taxes from my pay check. I terminated my w-4 from the corporation that I work for and replaced it with an Affidavit of exemption of withholding in lieu of a w-4.

The company I work for accepted it and changed my status to exempt from taxes. Now I am trying to get them to go back and change their records (w-2's) retroactive to the date that I signed them. Not fill out a 1040 like Pete says and declare myself under the jurisdiction of the United States (federal government, not 50 states)

I found out about the truth of Pete Hendrickson by reading Paul Mitchells work:

The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

This book is very old (meaning it has been around a while and Petes is fairly new) and you should be able to see that Pete plagiarized the title of his book from Paul's.

The problem with the Tax Code (Title 26, subtitle A) is that there is no Liability Statute. They can not create one either because they fell silent (see below for links).

Now, the IRS is ESTOPPED. Also, the United States has filed for bankruptcy and the FED can not collect nor can the IRS (see links below).

If any time was right to get things right and stop paying the Federal Municipal tax that we all have volunteered to sign on, now is that time.

Forget waiting for the states to claim sovereignty, we need to claim our STATE Citizenship now and ditch our United States citizenship which is nothing more than a declaration of Federal citizenship out of Washington DC, PR, Somoa, Virgin Islands. United States in this meaning is the Federal states and territories, not the 50 states.

We have all been tricked and lied to.



References to the above from Paul Mitchell's email responses to others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the best documents to send to Congress
are our 31Q&A and the Press Release concerning
the missing liability STATUTE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

We formally DEFAULTED IRS and Treasury
at the Tenth Circuit here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm
(see Item (7) )

This excellent abstract from American Jurisprudence
was later REMOVED from the latest edition:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit. United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359 ; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447; Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134 .

[end quote]


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen:

As of 5:31 a.m. today, March 31, 2009 A.D.,
the United States officially declared insolvency
as to its obligations allegedly payable to the
Federal Reserve Banks.

See Delivery Confirmation information below,
as provided by the USPS Track & Confirm
Internet system of notification via email.

The fully hyperlinked version of that
DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY
is here on the Internet:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm

The original hard copy is formatted using
Microsoft WORD 2003:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.doc

Please relieve us of the burden of shipping hard copies
by printing either document, and all incorporated Exhibits,
directly from the Internet.

Certified and embossed versions of the .doc version above
can be purchased from my office for a nominal certification fee
of $20.00 each. Please send either CASH or
a BLANK U.S. Postal Money Order to:

Forwarding Agent
7115 N. Division St. #B-354
Spokane 99208
WASHINGTON STATE, USA


Further details and a plain English explanation can be found
in this document:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm


Thank you for your professional consideration.


p.s. If you are presently engaged in litigation in either State or Federal Court(s),
please make a point of filing a DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
of the above DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY. Cf. Rule 201(d) in the
Federal Rules of Evidence ("FREV") for mandatory judicial notice of
adjudicative facts.

------------------------------------------------

TJ Chambers


*All Rights Reserved without Prejudice*

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Eric Phelps wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: Eric Phelps

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:11 PM

Subject: IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability

Dear Brethren and Friends,

After six-month review of over twenty Supreme Court cases, I have concluded that both Cryer and Hendrickson are liars as to who really owes the income-excise-privilege tax.

All this information is available in my Memorandum of Law on CD now for sale at the low price of 10.00. There is a three-fold nexis that catches nearly everyone so that they do indeed owe the income-excise-privilege tax on their monies.

The first is the government-granted privilege to do business as an artificial person such as a statutory trust, corporation or partnership. The second hook is working as a matter of professional license, such as a doctor or a lawyer. Any professional that is doing business with a state-granted license owes the income-excise-privilege tax as he is in privilege.

This was decided in Springer v. U.S. way back in 1870. Third, every person who is "employed" by the federal or any state government is in privilege and owes the income-excise-privilege tax, for the tax is an AVOIDABLE excise tax on his income derived from his "source," i.e., his government- conferred employment privilege.

And the last---and the most clever which began in 1942 thanks to the propaganda film of 33rd degree Walt Disney---is everyone working in the "legal relationship of employer and employee" owes the income-excise-privilege tax on their wages.

They derive "income from wages"---not that all wages are "income" as defined by the Supreme Court. For most Americans have volunteered into this "legal relationship" because most corporations will only hire "employees," evidenced by a signed W-4 or have admitted they are "self-employed."

Thus, the bullied American worker at common law moved from status to contract by voluntarily entering into a privileged relationship with the state of their residence and therefore the federal government/IRS can tax that "source" of "income" as per the 16th amendment and the Supreme Court's Helvering decision of 1938.

Thus, Hendrickson and Cryer and Schiff and a host of other "tax protest" leaders are fomenting a tax revolt while never telling the people they in fact owe the income-excise-privilege tax due to their "legal relationship of employer-employee" which they have ignorantly and voluntarily entered into with the state though they are working for a private business in the private sector.

Cryer is a LICENSED attorney and thus owes the income-excise-privilege tax on every cent he collected for his services. Cryer is also a high freemason as per his bio on his Memorandum of Law. Further, the DOJ/IRS must have deliberately lost their case against Cryer to further the revolt. This is pure Jesuit Hegelian dialectic at its finest!

Lord Bless,

Brother Eric

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855