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