Response to IRS Notice of Intent to Levy (Deficiency Process)

A Notice of Intent to Levy from the IRS strikes fear into the hearts of most Americans!

Recently, an individual with some tax problems contacted me and asked if John Benson, author of Taxation by Misrepresentation, and I could help him with his tax troubles.

He sent me a trove of documents exchanged between him and the IRS, among which was a Notice of Intent to Levy with a VERY SHORT fuse.

John asked me to respond, and I did.

In a very few days, I drafted for this individual a Memorandum in Support of his request for a Due Process Hearing.

The individual told me, in several phone calls that he, I and the NSA (apparently) shared, that this Memo stated more clearly, more succinctly and in a more logical sequence the truth about income-tax laws, procedures and regulations than anything he had ever read in his 50+ years of life on this planet.

If what he claimed about this Memo is true, then there are probably millions of folks who might like to see what is contained within it.

You and I know that the main stream media (MSM) is not gonna alert millions of Americans to this information.

So, I am calling upon those of you who may choose to read the Memo to send other Americans to this website, www.no1040tax.com, and let them decide whether or not they are interested in this and similar materials available here.

To make this Memo available to all who have any interest, I have set it up so that everybody can pay or contribute whatever they choose, even “zero,” if they don’t choose to contribute or are simply not in a financial position to do so.

Please, rather than sending your copy to your friends, direct them to my website.

One last thought: While I authored this Memo on my own, its substance is based largely on John’s research, as set forth in his Book, Taxation by Misrepresentation.

John, like George Washington, has not only grown gray in service to his Country, he has also gone legally blind. He has slight tunnel vision remaining in his right eye.

He has chosen to use nutritional supplements to regain his health and has made considerable progress, including slow recovery of some sight in his left eye, from which he had seen nothing for over 10 years.

He, like me, lives way below the poverty line on Social Security.

Therefore, ALL the funds that you may choose to contribute for this Memo go straight to John and will be used by him to regain his health.

For those of you who like what you read and can afford to be generous, I am grateful and know that John will be, too!

To CONTRIBUTE (or not) and OBTAIN the Memo, click HERE!

Why ObamaCare Must Be Voluntary under the Constitution!

ObamaCare: Why Rush Limbaugh & Alex Jones Are Wrong, Chief Justice Roberts Is Correct and the ObamaCare “Tax” Is Voluntary for Most Americans under the Constitution

(The Truth about the ObamaCare “Tax” in Plain English)

 It is well said in the old proverb, ‘a lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on’. [1859 C. H. Spurgeon Gems from Spurgeon 74]

By the dissemination of knowledge, by enlightened discussion of cause and effect, to bring public opinion back to the intelligent attitude that condemns bad tendencies and resists the adoption of harmful measures, is to render a great service to one’s country. When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe. Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

In this eBook, I will show you, Dear Reader, that Chief Justice Roberts was absolutely correct in his ObamaCare Decision and that the talk-show hosts have simply been misinformed and do not, therefore, understand the basis of that decision.

Furthermore, I will show you unmistakably why, under the Constitution, the ObamaCare “tax” is, and must be, voluntary for most Americans.

To CONTRIBUTE (or not) and OBTAIN a copy of this eBook, click HERE

Taxation by Misrepresentation: Is Paying Federal Income Tax Voluntary?

 Uncle Sam Doesn’t Want You to Know that Income Taxes May Be Voluntary for Most Americans!

TAXATION BY MISREPRESENTATION

The Truth about Income Taxes in Plain English

 by John W. Benson

The tax Code contains “language so complicated and circumambient that neither Solomon nor all the wise men of the East could understand it or interpret it.” – Senator Alben W. Barkley, Senate Majority Leader, Congressional Record, 78th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 90, Part 2, February 23, 1944, page 1965

As Senator Barkley, later Vice President under President Truman, stated, there is a great deal of confusion in our Nation as to the truth about income taxes.

Almost 40 years ago, I began researching to discover for myself what laws lie at the foundation of the federal income taxes.

Little did I realize that I would be spending the rest of my life in this endeavor, clouded, as it is, by old, arcane and obfuscated language, laws, processes and procedures long out of the memory of the average lawyer, not to mention the average American.

The “down and dirty” result of my long quest was this: All our federal tax laws, processes and procedures are based upon those used by the king of England to collect his revenues in 1791. Some of those processes and procedures date back over 800 years to Magna Charta, the Great Charter of Liberties sealed by King John at the point of a sword on the Plains of Runnymede in 1215.

Here is how I came to that realization. (Tax laws and their history are not intended to be easily understood, so I hope you will understand that I am phrasing things as simply and as easily as I can, in order not to confuse you, dear Reader!)

In G.M. Leasing v. United States (1977), the government stated to the U.S. Supreme Court that all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) procedures are based upon the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856).

In Murray’s Lessee, the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required that all summary or administrative processes and procedures used by the federal government to ascertain, assess and collect its revenues must mirror, or be no different in principle from, the processes and procedures employed by the king of England in 1791 (the year the Fifth Amendment was ratified) to collect debts owed to him.

After reading Murray, G.M. Leasing, and the government’s admission to the Supreme Court in 1977, I came to realize that all IRS processes and procedures are, in substance and effect, simply the ancient English revenue processes and procedures employed by the king’s revenue officials in the Exchequer (Treasury) in 1791 dressed up in modern garb. To be sure, the words used are different and not intended to be easily understood. However, as the Murray Court stated clearly, “The name bestowed upon it cannot affect its constitutional validity.” 59 U.S. 272, 276 (1856).

Therefore, in order to understand today’s tax processes and procedures, you must understand the ancient processes employed by the Exchequer, some dating back in time before King John was forced to seal Magna Charta in 1215.

The Murray Court cited several English treatises as authorities on these ancient processes. I spent over a year hunting down the four principal treatises, as they are all long out of print, and read through each of them.

Based upon almost-40 years of research, I have attempted to unravel these processes in my principal book, Taxation by Misrepresentation, the Truth about Income Taxes in Plain English. I have included numerous authorities in support in order to lay today’s tax processes and procedures side by side with the English processes.

After having done this, I came to realize, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the Form 1040 tax return used today by the IRS as the record of an individual’s income-tax liability must be based upon one of only two similar records used by the king in 1791, both of which are cited by the Murray Court, namely, either the finding of an inquisition, aka an inquest of office (administrative hearing, in today’s terms), or a statute staple process (an ancient form of contract enacted by Parliament in 1353 for the benefit of merchants).

My conclusion as to which of these two processes applies to the Form 1040 tax return is both startling and has consequences that bring into question the convictions of countless Americans imprisoned for alleged tax crimes, not to mention the billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars collected by force in the name of tax laws.

A major finding of my research is that the Exchequer revenue processes were open to challenge by the king’s debtors at every stage of the proceedings, even before the debt was collected. What that means is that every alleged taxpayer is absolutely entitled to trial by jury to the IRS record of assessment before the government can collect a single penny of tax, based upon similar processes employed in the Exchequer and secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Jury Trial Clause of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In my book, I demonstrate, time and time again, how our present tax officials and those who enforce taxes in the courts are simply either woefully ignorant of the true basis of the income tax or are knowingly corrupt.

The following is a review of Taxation by Misrepresentation, the Truth about Income Taxes in Plain English, by a senior executive with one of the largest corporations in the world, one of the companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial stock market average:

Over years of studying government tyranny, monetary reform and freedom, I’ve run across a lot of information about how unconstitutional the US Income Tax is, how the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states, and how there’s really no law that compels citizens to pay Federal Income Tax. One of the best documentaries on this topic was the late Aaron Russo’s film “From Freedom to Fascism”. At one of Ron Paul’s early campaign rallies in the Bay Area in July, 2007, I even arranged for Joe Banister, a former IRS enforcement agent and whistle-blower living locally in San Jose to speak about the topic. A lot of the arguments seemed very convoluted to me, and for sure nothing seemed clear enough that you could take on the IRS and a heavy-handed judiciary and expect to come away unscathed.

Along comes a fantastic new book, “Taxation by Misrepresentation”, by John W. Benson, which I now believe is by far the best resource to understanding the true constitutional aspects of our income tax system, as well as the origin of the laws and processes involved in compelling citizens to pay it. Far from being convoluted, it is an extremely logical, sound and extraordinarily well-researched book. The engineer in me can connect all the dots and see where all the legal facts and foundations lie.

The book lays out the definitive case that US income tax is absolutely a “voluntary” tax,

which cannot be made compulsory by virtue of its unconstitutional nature, and which requires a great deal of fraud and outright intimidation on the part of the IRS to convince people that what can only be voluntary, is instead a lawful requirement.

The thesis of this book by John Benson is that the US Constitution explicitly disallows a tax on one’s labor, and that the 16th Amendment took “Income” to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909. Current Treasury regulations explicitly state exemptions from “gross income” include “those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government”, without ever enumerating such. But our treacherous overlords engineered a legalistic workaround for this thorny dilemma. Such a tax could be implemented if it was in accordance with “due process” according to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, requiring that such due process does not differ in principle from the statute law of England for the King to collect revenues at the time the Constitution was formed.

As a result, all IRS processes and procedures are, in substance and effect, simply the ancient English revenue processes and procedures employed by the king’s revenue officials in the Exchequer (Treasury) in 1791 dressed up in modern garb. To be sure, the author claims, the words used are different and not easily understood. In fact, these procedures and the laws relating back to them are deliberately shrouded in complexity in order to avoid the populace gaining any real insights to the foundations of our tax system.

Therefore, John claims, in order to understand today’s tax processes and procedures, you must understand the ancient processes employed by the Exchequer, some dating back in time before King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, the Great Charter of Liberties, on the Plains of Runnymede in 1215. If you knew that the foundations of our tax code relate back prior to the Magna Carta, you are in a very small minority.

A precedent-setting Supreme Court tax case in 1856 cited several English treatises as authorities on the ancient processes used by the king’s Exchequer. John and his associate, Glenn Ambort, spent over a year hunting down the four principal treatises, as they are all long out of print, and read through each of them. They traced the tax processes and procedures employed by the IRS today and laid them side by side with the English processes. By this process, John demonstrates a compelling case that the income tax process used today by the IRS must be based upon one of the only two processes used by the king in 1791, both of which are cited in the 1856 Supreme Court case, namely, either the finding of an inquisition, aka an inquest of office (administrative hearing, in today’s terms), or a “statute staple” process (an ancient form of contract enacted by Parliament for the benefit of merchants).

His conclusion as to which of these two processes apply to the Form 1040 tax return is both startling and has consequences that bring into question the convictions of countless Americans imprisoned for alleged tax crimes, not to mention the billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars collected by force in the name of tax laws. Essentially, the statute staple process is a voluntary contractual process used in merchant law and not common law. The result is that IRS taxation is a voluntary contractual process between consenting parties and cannot be compelled on an individual. Much of the IRS code and procedures today are therefore designed to both conform to this fact, while insidiously hiding its significance from the populace, and doing everything in their power to intimidate tax payers to “volunteering” payment, even if at gunpoint.

If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s another staggering implication to be revealed. In another blog post/book review I wrote, I covered how U.S. Citizens “volunteer” themselves into the status of “U.S. citizen” under the definition of the 14th Amendment. As I pointed out, this new “Federal” citizenship was initially intended for the recently freed slaves (rather than making them citizens of their states as most citizens were at the time). John points out in his book how Chief Justice Fuller described the 14th Amendment citizenship rule in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

The rule was the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liegemen to their liege lord. It was not local and temporary, as was the obedience to the laws owed by aliens within the dominions of the Crown, but permanent and indissoluble, and not to be cancelled by any change of time or place or circumstances.

And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction; that the act of April 9, 1866, expressed the contrary rule; that the Fourteenth Amendment prescribed the same rule as the act, and that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common law rule on this country for the first time, and made it “absolute and unbending” just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.

In other words, if you are a 14th Amendment “citizen”, you are a serf on the land, a liege to your lord, in this case the Federal Government. The Federal Government, as it would to a serf, “owns” your labor and can rightfully take your income now (the compensation for your labor) as it deems reasonable according to the contractual benefits you “applied for” when you “volunteer” or “contract” yourself into this status. Remember that under the Constitution, we have unalienable rights and are Citizens (cap “C”) of the United States of America (the country, not the corporation). How do you “volunteer” yourself to become a 14th Amendment citizen-serf, under the definition designed for freed slaves? Well, by “voluntarily” submitting your IRS Form 1040, you annually assert that you are a 14th Amendment citizen (small “c”). The 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, but does not prohibit “voluntary” servitude according to contract law.  Ergo, you have been had. This is less the Home of the Free and Land of the Brave, than the Home of Fools and the Land of Liars.

So, what do you do now? John points out in very clear terms in his “Disclaimer” at the very opening of his book that this is a political battle. Do NOT stop filing the usual tax returns and paying the usual taxes that the IRS and the courts require. This would be like going to a Mafia crime boss and telling him there’s no law allowing him to extract his “security” payments. You will not come out better for the conversation. Better to realize that we have become a nation of thugs and corruption, and not laws, despite your education to the contrary. John pleads with his readers to unite to overturn the entire system and replace it with a fairer and more transparent tax system for all, rather than for a small number to try to win a few battles in courts that, in his view, are simply not going to allow any victories, truth and justice be damned.

John has made this a very easy read for the layman, but provided enough references that other researchers will be able to verify facts for themselves. He is close to releasing a legal guide for attorneys defending tax protesters that will be far more detailed based on his 30+ years of research. Finally, you will be amazed at the personal tribulations that John Benson and his colleague, Glenn Ambort, have been through, as detailed in the final chapters of the book. When you expose the fraudulent foundations of an empire, you are not electing the comfortable, easy way of life. But like they say, you only catch flak when you are over the target.

To CONTRIBUTE (or not) and obtain a copy of Taxation by Misrepresentation (including the Sun Tzu Petition), (e-version), click HERE

 

Sun Tzu Petition to IRS Chief Counsel: Is My Income Taxable under the Constitution?

Uncle Sam Doesn't Want You to Know that Income Taxes Are Voluntary for Most Americans

PETITION TO IRS CHIEF COUNSEL: Is My Income Taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution?

We Are often Told that Income Taxes Are Voluntary!

Sun Tzu places that issue squarely before the Chief Counsel of the IRS in his Petition.

Very seldom does a student come up with something I, John Benson, have not thought about in my 35+ years of research. However, in April of 2012, I received an email with an attached document that one of my students from over 20 years ago had drafted for my review.

The title was: Request for Determination of 2011 Income Tax Liability &  for Redress of Grievance.

This Petition to the IRS Chief Counsel is 4 ½ pages long and more fully sets forth what I have been teaching, in shorthand, than anything I have ever come across in all my years of research. It is the CliffsNotes version of my Book, Taxation by Misrepresentation, the Truth about Income Taxes in Plain English.

Reading this powerful document is not a substitute for reading my complete Book. Therefore, I have included it as part of my principal book, Taxation by Misrepresentation. I believe that the Sun Tzu is an extraordinary example of what fertile minds can do with my research, once they are informed of the true nature of income taxes.

I have known this particular student for over 20 years and gave him my permission to use my research in any way he chose to and advised him to publish the document himself.

He declined and said that, since it was all based upon his understanding of my research, I should publish it under my name and declined to take any credit for his brilliant encapsulation of my ideas.

I cannot tell you how very powerful this amazing document is, how concise and very much on point in every respect!

He filed it with the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service in Washington, DC, and with the Internal Revenue Service offices here, in Salt Lake City.

I have edited it only for purposes of privacy and added paragraph numbers. The language is unchanged!

Watch closely as this modern Sun Tzu shreds the IRS practices and procedures!

To CONTRIBUTE (or not) and OBTAIN a copy of Taxation by Misrepresentation (including the Sun Tzu Petition), (e-version), click HERE

To CONTRIBUTE (or not) and OBTAIN the Sun Tzu Petition SEPARATELY, Click HERE (eBook) (REMINDER: Sun Tzu Petition is now included in Taxation by Misrepresentation – No need to order if you have purchased Taxation by Misrepresentation!)

Here is an email John sent to an individual about the Sun Tzu Petition:

You may find this of interest, if you have read the Sun Tzu Petition.

I am well acquainted with Tommy Cryer’s material and have no problem with it.

First of all, in the Sun Tzu Petition, sales commissions are earnings much like wages and salaries, i.e., they are  items of income given in return for one’s labor and sales abilities.

Second, the difference between the article you posted at the bottom of your email is this: Tommy stakes out a position that the govt will, if it chooses, target before a jury, should it decide to pursue a criminal indictment against the individual.

In that case, the defendant would be given the chance to defend his position before the jury, usually composed of folks who are abysmally ignorant of the issues Tommy raises.

Moreover, you will have great difficulty arguing any tax laws or theories before the jury.

Naturally, Tommy was an atty and, therefore, much more qualified to explain his position to a jury than the average tax defendant.

Sun Tzu’s Petition takes an entirely different approach, altho based in much of the same beliefs as Tommy takes.

Sun Tzu took the material from my book, Taxation by Misrepresentation, and instead of placing the burden upon himself to prove the validity of his beliefs, he turned the tables and asked the IRS Chief Counsel and, later, his Congressman and US Senators, to provide him with a legal determination, pursuant to IRC § 6201, what, if any, of his listed items of income were “not taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution.” 26 CFR § 1.312-6(b).

Several things to note with this approach, Richard:

1. Sun Tzu doesn’t advocate any position or belief;

2. He cites the Code and the regs exactly as written;

3. If indicted, he will be able to put his Petition to the IRS Chief Counsel before the jury as evidence of his good-faith attempt to comply with the demands of the IRC;

4. It is doubtful that any member of the jury will have ever heard of the concept that the tax regs, themselves, point out that at least some “income” exists that is “not taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution.”

5. Finally, 26 CFR § 1.265-1(d) requires that, before Sun Tzu can file a true, accurate and complete tax return, he must obtain from the Secretary or his authorized delegate, the legal determination, pursuant to IRC § 6201, as which, if any of his items of income are “not taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution.”

6. Sun Tzu and the IRS Chief Counsel know full well that, because Form 1040 is a statute staple contract, the 13th Amendment requires that such a contract be entered into voluntarily.

7. That is because, when you sign the Form 1040 statute staple contract, sometimes known as a bond or a deed, you convey actual title to your body, lands, goods and income therefrom to the govt, to the extent of the tax imposed at IRC § 1 and under all the onerous terms and conditions of the IRC, the “recognizance” to the Form 104 statute staple contract, bond or deed. In effect, you enter into a condition of servitude to the govt and, under the 13th Amendment, such servitude must be voluntary.

8.The IRS Chief Counsel and Sun Tzu both know, as well, that the legal determination required under IRC § 6201 is made by the recording of the taxpayer’s liability on the IRS records, i.e., by the assessment of the individual’s liability to the tax. See IRC § 6203 (“The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment.”)

9. Both IRS Chief Counsel and Sun Tzu are acutely aware that the Secretary can make no assessment unless he has a record of the alleged tax due and owing. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co., 59 US 272 (1856) (The king could collect no debt unless it had been made a matter of record in the king’s exchequer – his treasury dept); see also US v GM Leasing, 429 US 338, 360 (1977) (All IRS procedures are based upon the standards set forth in Murray’s Lessee).

10. As you will note, the letter from the US Senator back to Sun Tzu, stated clearly that the IRS is declining to answer any of Sun Tzu’s questions or requests in his Petition.

11. Yet, IRC § 6203 states clearly that the Secretary is required to send to Sun Tzu a record of the assessment if he, Sun Tzu, requests it, which he most assuredly did request in his Petition.

12. So, Richard, in one case, you have a jury listening to your beliefs about why you failed to file or filed what the govt will denote as a false return. In the other case, you have a jury listening to why the Chief Counsel refused to answer questions that the defendant asked of the Chief Counsel and why the Chief Counsel refused to send the record of assessment made, pursuant to IRC § 6203, and to which Sun Tzu was entitled pursuant to that same section.

13. Moreover, Sun Tzu followed up his requests by letters to the highest members of Congress that he could find, in his attempt to get the Chief Counsel to perform the duties required of the Secretary under the tax Code and tax regs.

Which position would you prefer to be in, if you were taken before a jury?

So, this is Sun Tzu’s approach to forcing, if you will, the IRS Chief Counsel to admit that none of Sun Tzu’s earnings are taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution, if only by the obvious fact that the Chief Counsel is unwilling and, really, unable to have the Secretary perform the actions that Sun Tzu requested, actions that the tax Code and tax regs require the Secretary to perform.

The linchpin to Sun Tzu’s Petition can be traced to the fact that the Secretary can make no assessment absent a record, namely, in this case, the record of the Form 1040 statute staple contract, a record that Sun Tzu is willing to file but only AFTER he has received the Secretary’s determination as to which, if any, items of income are not taxable by the Federal Govt under the Constitution.

IOW, Sun Tzu has set up a stand-off, if you will. He cannot file a truthful Form 1040 until he has the info required of the regs, and the Secretary cannot provide the info requested until Sun Tzu has filed a voluntary Form 1040 statute staple contract, bond or deed.

Sun Tzu was able to set up this stand-off because he knew, from my research that the Form 1040 must be a statute staple record, as the king only used two kinds of records and, pursuant to the due process rule set forth by the Murray Court, that record had to mirror either a statute staple record or a record issuing forth from a commission of inquiry by the kings commissioners, one based upon a public hearing taken under oath of witnesses and sealed by the commissioner.

It is clear that a Form 1040 is neither public nor is it derived from witnesses under oath nor does it contain the seal of IRS officials. It is, in every respect, the mirror of a statute staple voluntary contract, bond or deed.

Sun Tzu has hoisted the IRS on its own petard!

Hope this helps.

John

To CONTRIBUTE (or not) and Obtain this eBook, CLICK HERE