Skip navigation

          A free, sovereign American that has applied for a Social Security number has given away all sovereignty and become a “U.S. resident” as defined at 26 USC Sec. 865(g), which includes the definition of “taxpayer” as defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) and the definition of “U.S. citizen” as exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c), along with the cite to importing at 26 USC Sec. 911 – please read the first page of this blog to see the actual definitions and link to the Defendant’s Reply (Case # 08-273 WDPA) therein to see the actual laws – statutes and regulations.

          The Social Security number is a “U.S. resident’s” partnership number.  FICA is a U.S. possession tax (26 USC Sec. 7655) and the possessions are treated as foreign countries (26 USC Sec. 865(i)(3), 26 USC Sec. 872(b)(7), 26 USC 2014(g), etc.).  Therefore FICA is a foreign tax. 

          The basis of filing a personal federal income tax begins at title 26 USC Sec. 901, “Taxes of foreign countries and of possessions of United States”.  This section allows a credit of any tax paid to a U.S. possession if the tax is a gross based tax, but not a net based tax (26 USC Sec. 901 (k)(1)(B)).  This is to distinguish between FICA, the gross based tax, and the income tax, the net based tax.

       Title 26 USC Sec. 902, “Deemed paid credit where domestic corporation owns 10 percent or more of voting stock of foreign corporation”, allows for a domestic corporation to be deemed as paying a percentage of its foreign affiliate’s income taxes, if the domestic corporation received dividends from its foreign affiliate.

          Title 26 USC Sec. 901 concerns the dividends that the domestic corporation, as the partnership in the definition of “taxpayer”, has attributed to the individual partners – identified by the Social Security numbers.  This dividend is known as a “patronage dividend”, and it includes as its basis a percentage of the income taxes paid by the domestic corporation’s foreign affiliate. 

          As identified within the Defendant’s Reply linked on page 1 of this blog, a partner is allowed to make the election under title 26 USC 901 individually, see 26 USC Sec. 901(m)(2) which cites to 26 USC 703(b).

          So by filing an IRS Form 1040, an individual is taking a foreign tax credit against his partnership self-employment earnings, which includes his patronage dividend.  This dividend is not distributed, so the individual never knows about this foreign tax credit.

          If the individual fails to file an IRS Form 1040, then the individual has taken a credit that the individual is not eligible to take – the offsetting foreign tax credit of FICA.  So under title 26 USC Sec. 901(m)(4) the individual is cited to 26 USC Sec. 6038, “Information reporting with respect to certain foreign corporations and partnerships”, for a reduction of credit for failing to file his partnership earnings.

          Title 26 USC Sec. 6038(a)(4) is the requirement that all individuals treated as “shareholders” having income (under subpart F of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1) must file a return.  The income from subpart F of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 is revenue from the collection of duties on importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws.  This income is what makes a person liable for the income tax. 

          Title 26 USC Sec. 6038(f)(1) is the cite to 26 USC Sec. 7203 for provisions for violating 26 USC Sec. 6038.   Title 26 USC Sec. 7203 is “Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax”.  

          So a charge of failure to file is not for the failure to file income taxes because of simply earning income per se, it is for failing to file partnership earnings, which include a patronage dividend based upon revenue from importing duties within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws, and taking a foreign tax credit that the individual is not allowed to take without filing. 

          The income tax only applies to collectors/assessors of internal revenue taxes (Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, in sections 49 through 51).  The patronage dividend is based upon income taxes paid by the foreign affiliate of the domestic corporation, which itself is the “taxpayer” (the agreement made by the “American employer” under title 26 USC Sec. 3121(l)).  Once the patronage dividend is attributed to the individual partner, then that individual is subject to the income tax.  A partnership does not pay income taxes, but instead, the partners are liable to file for their proportionate share of the profits or losses (26 USC Sec. 701).

          Now title 26 USC Sec. 7203 is within subtitle F, “Procedure and Administration”.  Within subtitle F is 26 USC Sec. 7701, “Definitions”.  At 26 USC Sec. 7701(a)(28) , “Other terms”, it states that any term used in this subtitle shall have the same meaning as in any other subtitle.  So the definitions of the terms “taxpayer”, “U.S. citizen”, and “U.S. resident” have the same meaning here as elsewhere in the Code.

          However, at first glance, title 26 USC Sec. 7203 doesn’t use any of the above terms.  It simply states “Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return…”.  But within 26 USC Sec. 7203 are the cites to 26 USC Sec. 6654 and 26 USC Sec. 6655.  These two sections include all of the terms required to define the income tax – Sec. 6654 is for individuals and Sec. 6655 is for corporations.  Within Sec. 6654 are all of the following references and terms:  chapter 1 (income tax), chapter 2 (self-employment tax), “taxpayer”, “citizen of the United States”, “resident of the United States”, “gross income”, “taxable income”, “self-employment income”, “the Secretary”, and “regulations”.  The “any person” cited at the beginning of 26 USC Sec. 7203 is a “U.S. person” and it is defined also under 26 USC Sec. 7701 at (a)(30) as a citizen of the United States, a resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, a domestic corporation, an estate, or a trust.  So the charge of violation of 26 USC Sec. 7203 of willful failure contains all of the necessary terms of the charge  (imported from sections 6654 and 6655) without anyone realizing exactly what the charge is, making it appear that the simple act of earning money is somehow under federal jurisdiction.  However, since the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land, superceding the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, and it states that “all men are created equal”, no individual or group may own any other individual or group.  The bottom line is that the Social Security fraud, leading to the enslavement of sovereign Americans, was the only way that the federal government could subvert the phrase “all men are created equal”.  The federal government, and its owners, the international counterfeiters (Federal Reserve Board), know that they have no jurisdiction over sovereign Americans and have resorted to the most malevolent fraud in history.




    • Fascinating, excellent research! One item of note re. the penitent, the “person” that is the subject of the IRC 7203 penalty: For the entire IRC chapter that deals with criminal penaties, the term “person” is a custom-defined term DIFFERENT from 7701(a)(1). You can locate that defined term at IRC 7343. The Courts refer to this person as the “responsible person” vested with corporate- and tax-related duties. The foregoing will affect your expos’e.

  2. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see any reference here to the fact that there are no implementing regulations for either 7201 or 7203. Therefore, no penalties, either civil or criminal, can be legally imposed under those sections. And by the way, the IRC is NOT statutory law.

    • Big M,

      Some statutes, like the ones you cite here, are self-executing statutes and don’t require implementing regulations. These statutes state something like this: “Any person required under this title…”. The implementing regulations impose the liability elsewhere in the Code and then these statutes rest upon the other statutes with the implementing regulations. I tried that argument long ago and that was the legal answer I received from the Department of Justice.

        • Big M
        • Posted May 21, 2012 at 11:41 am
        • Permalink

        First, the key word is “required.” And the IRC is still NOT statutory law. And how can a statute be self-executing?

        • llstuler
        • Posted May 28, 2012 at 11:12 am
        • Permalink

        When Congress enacts an “Act of Congress” it is statutory law. Implementing regulations are written by the various executive agencies if needed or if there must be something explained in more detail – but the “Act of Congress” needs nothing further as to what is the law.

        • Ed Siceloff
        • Posted December 25, 2013 at 2:59 pm
        • Permalink

        (a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General Applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published by Congress. There shall be published in the Federal Register—
        (b) “For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.”
        This is from 44 USC 1505 Key word is “every” as it often is for them as well. There is no mention of differentiation between self executing statutes and regulation executing statutes. Don’t know what you argued to them, but this is the case. They are not fulfilling law. Of course, you know that. The biggest point within that framework is how a government created to secure the unalienable rights of the natural man or woman, as admitted to in the DOI, now has liening statutes against those rights that are unalienable, as per 26 USC 6331 and corresponding regulation. They fail at the only thing they are established to do.

        • llstuler
        • Posted December 27, 2013 at 11:22 am
        • Permalink

        If you read my Posts you will see that they are actually obeying the law to the letter, just under foreign commerce where the gov’t has sovereignty. The Birth Certificate makes you a citizen of Puerto Rico – a U.S. possession citizen is subject to the federal gov’t and since the possessions haven’t adopted the Constitution, you are also considered a foreigner. This makes you a “U.S. citizen”. Then the “Form SS-5” that you used to apply for a S.S. # is a federal employment form – you became a “taxpayer”, a member of the Merchant Marine. Only a federal employee is subject to federal employment taxes. The two terms, “U.S. citizen” (from the Birth Certificate (14th Amendment)) and “taxpayer” (from the “Form SS-5” (16th Amendment)), put together makes you a “U.S. resident” – a total slave. So as a foreigner you are subject to their bogus regulations and as a federal employee you are subject to their bogus regulations. The bankers (Fed) bankrupted the federal gov’t and are running everything. The bankers’ headquarters are in London. Great Britain was impressing our Merchant Marine into service during the War of 1812. Now, due to Great Britain’s bankers’ duplicity we are all being impressed into service – we are now paying the taxes that caused the Revolution long ago.

        • Posted December 27, 2013 at 8:43 pm
        • Permalink


        • llstuler
        • Posted December 31, 2013 at 1:21 pm
        • Permalink

        The federal gov’t has but a very few powers, so it has been a long series of misrepresentations over the years to make it appear all-powerful. The “Form SS-5” used to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form – you became a “taxpayer”, a member of the Merchant Marine. Under title 26, “Internal Revenue”, section 7701, “Definitions”, subsection (j)(1) “For the purposes of this title”: subsection (j)(4), “Definitions, for the purposes of this subsection” – this is where the term “employee” is defined for the purposes of this title and it states that this term has the same definition as in subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5. Title 5 is “Gov’t Organizations and Employees”, so the term “employee” is a gov’t employee throughout the title. By the way in a recent Supreme Court decision concerning Citizens United, it was ruled that a corporation is considered a citizen. This is more confirmation that the government is operating under foreign commerce. The same section as above, title 26, section 7701 at (a)(30) includes a corporation as a citizen – and, as evidenced within my Posts, internal revenue is within customs duties and is foreign commerce.
        As to the levy, yes, I, too, challenged that the levy fails to list subsection (a) which details the gov’t employee. The problem is that the I.R.S. employees are totally ignorant of the law (of course, they have to be) and the levy always is served on some third party that simply ignores your concerns out of fear of the I.R.S.

  3. That’s fine and dandy, but federal law has no jurisdiction inside the 50 states.

    • You’re absolutely right. That’s what I’ve been saying – internal revenue is foreign commerce. You are treated as a “U.S. resident”, which includes both the definitions of “taxpayer” (federal employee within the Merchant Marine) and “U.S. citizen” (a person born in one of the States who then acquires U.S. possession citizenship). You became a “U.S. citizen” through the birth certificate and you became a “taxpayer” by applying for Social Security. See my Post “The Bankers’ Blueprint to Destroy American Sovereignty” ( – it evidences that the bankers have bankrupted the U.S. and are controlling the government through foreign commerce.

  4. I forgot to add that if you go through the entire IRC, the only enforcement/penalty provisions you will find refer to 27 CFR, which is Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. That title only deals with alcohol, tobacco and firearm taxes. The two reasons why the IRS is enforcing these provisions on people in connection with income taxes are 1) they have no income tax provisions to enforce and 2) the IRS and the ATF are the same agency. And neither one of them is an agency of the Treasury Dept. in DC. You can prove this by going to Chapter 3 of Title 31 of the US Code, which lists the organization of the Treasury Dept.; neither agency is listed there. This is also why whenever an IRS agent illegally seizes somebody’s property, they immediately turn it over to the ATF.

    • I list the organization of the Treasury on a couple of my Posts. As I have pointed out, the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, imposed the unconstitutional tax on liquor (internal duties) and stated that the collectors of this new tax would be the same as those already empowered – those were the customs collectors. So that was the beginning of the ATF – it is within the Customs. Then the Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, created the income tax – it’s a tax on collectors of the “internal duties” – so the IRS is also within the Customs. The very first section within the chapter that you reference from title 31 mentions the IRS. They are two different agencies within the Customs, which is listed in title 31. So the basis of both of these agencies is liquor, title 27. Go to “The Income Tax and the Act of Congress that Created it” at for more. Go to “How to Read the Internal Revenue Code” at which evidences what you state – that title 27 is the basis of liability. There you will find the regulation that states that everything collected by the IRS gets delivered to the ATF.

        • Gary-W. : Zella All Rights Reserved
        • Posted December 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm
        • Permalink

        Also in your writing you are putting United States when in fact it is THE UNITED STATES (CORPORATION)the FRAUD. The United States is in fact the geographical and recognized as The United States of America. The all caps version is the FRAUD and the Upper/lower case version is in Fact . It is the Proper English Appelations that set them apart. A very important part of dealing with this. Its difference is whether you have a valid case or not. So, be sure you use the proper Appelation when dealing with them. You are not trying to becaome a State Soverign. but an Soverign American National that is GUARANTEED by The Declaration of Independence, “All Men(Women) are Created Equal”. Also look up Constitutionality of Law. Let your mind wrap around those two and get with it.

        • llstuler
        • Posted December 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm
        • Permalink

        It’s all about corporations. The entry point starts at 26 U.S.C. section 3121(l) where someone applies for a S.S.#. This is the American Employer (The United States of America corporation) that has a foreign affiliate (corporation) extending the benefits of F.I.C.A. to the employees of the foreign affiliate. This is how the applicant becomes a “taxpayer” (26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5), a member of the Merchant Marine.
        All U.S. persons are deemed to be U.S. shareholders (title 26 U.S.C. section 958)and then are attributed an undistributed dividend. This dividend is based upon income tax collected by the foreign affiliate that becomes a credit as taxes paid to the American employer. This conveys the liability to file income tax as a collector of internal duties since you are now deemed to be a shareholder of the United States of America corporation.
        The internal duties are based upon an unconstitutional Act of Congress. Go to to see “The Whiskey Rebellion”.
        Go to to see “How to Read the Internal Revenue Code” to read the details.

  5. I would like to know why I don’t see anything about the 23c form Assessment Certificate signed by an appropriate Assessment Officer, Also I’m not seeing anything about the parallel of authority which shows what Title the IRS code section pertains to, when I look at the statutes in the Parallel of Authority many of them pertain to Title 27 part 70 which most people know as the Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms . I’m not saying what you have on here is incorrect . How about asking the IRS Commissioner what your “liability” is, I pretty much know he won’t answer you or if he does it will be a complete evasion of what you are asking. I’m sure most anyone that is being levied on and be collected on have never seen a 23c form, what they will send you is RACS 006 but never the 23c form. Another thing you may want to send copies of what you have found to your Senators etc so they can’t claim that they don’t know what you are talking about. They will most likely send you a Privacy Act Release form to sign to give them authority to look into the matter for you. I don’t think too many companies will want to have to answer to a Senator. I’m not saying that is the answer but somewhere along the line we have to put pressure on our so called representatives and make em work for their pay.

    • All the parallel table connections to Title 27 are laid out in my Post titled “How to Read the Internal Revenue Code” ( I haven’t addressed the 23c form.

        • Roy Dobbs
        • Posted February 11, 2016 at 10:48 am
        • Permalink

        Thank You, I must have overlooked something. Have a great day, Roy

  6. Ask the Commissioner (or any IRS agent) to certify per 26 USC § 6065 that you owe any taxes or are even required to file a return.

    26 U.S.C. § 6065 Verification of returns

    Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

    Guaranteed crickets.

    ALSO, if you are a 14 amendment citizen (ie. “U.S. citizen, individual, or person”) if you ever enter their courts, they will run roughshod over you. No verification or certification of ANY claim, document or fact. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. That is why the judges lose their minds when ever “Constitutional Rights” are mentioned in their courts. You are considered a 14th amendment citizen. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, unlike a State Citizen. Even the so-called court ruling WILL NOT BE SIGNED. Most likely stamped. And certainly not under penalties of perjury! Can you say “Fraud”?

    Another trick the IRS uses is the Master File. They can manipulate the this File by inputting and manipulating the computer. The computer has safety checks, but the IRM (Internal Revenue Manual) has instructions to the employees (who are clueless) to sidestep these safety checks allowing fraudulent entries…ie.assigning penalties that do not apply to you, assigning taxes that are not applicable to you….etc. Unless you know about this they will mess with you and manipulate the computer in their favor and you will be clueless. They then will try to put these fraudulent entries into the record.

    Land of the free, huh?

    • You got it! Your birth-certificate makes you a “U.S. Citizen” (14th Amendment Citizen) – this is a person born in one of the sovereign states who then establishes a residence in Puerto Rico and further acquires Puerto Rican citizenship. This is exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) which relates back to 26 USC 2501(b) where the term “Citizen” is defined for the entire title 26. The Brushaber decision of 1916 (which the IRS employees always cite when they state that the Supreme Court held that the income tax was under the federal government’s jurisdiction) held the constitutionality of the income tax, but never stated the specific jurisdiction – the federal government only has jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The birth certificate makes you a “U.S. citizen”, thus a foreigner (Puerto Rico is not only not a State that has joined the Union, but also Puerto Rico is under the military of the U.S. which explains the gold fringe on the flag). Then when you apply for a S.S.#, the “Form SS-5” is actually a federal employment form. You joined the Merchant Marine – the term “taxpayer” is defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5). Only federal employees are liable for federal employment taxes. The only citation to the I.R.S. in title 26 begins at 26 USC 3121(l)(1) and then is found at 26 CFR 36.3121(l)-0.

  7. Do you happen to know of anyone personally that has used Title 15 USC 1692 against the IRS and/or State departments of revenue? Thank You for your time, Roy Dobbs

    • I’ve never used this type of action. I know there are some who have tried to use the Fair Debt Collection laws, but I don’t know of the outcome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: