In a general sense, a tax is any contribution imposed by government upon individuals, for the use and service of the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name. Story, Const.Taylor v. Boyd, G3 Tex. 533; Morgan’s Co. v. State Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 Sup. Ct 1114, 30 L. Ed. 237; Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 500, 50 Pac. 944; McClelland v. State, 138 Ind 321, 37 N. E. 1089; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa. 2S. 1 Am. Rep. 215; Bonaparte v. State, 03 Md. 405; Pittsburgh, etc.. R. Co. v. State, 49 Ohio St. 189. 30 N. E. 435, 10 I,. I!. A. 380; Illinois Cont. It. Co. v. Decatur. 147 U. S. 190, 13 Sup. Ct. 293, 37 L. Ed. 132.
10 Cases where judges ruled against the I R S:
1. Our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon
distraint (imposition of distress) Supreme Ct: Flora v. U.S. 362U.S. 145, 4L ed
2nd 623, 80S Ct 630
2. Under our system, the people who are (in England) called subjects, are here the
sovereign (sovereign: having supreme rank, power, and authority, dominion
above all others) U.S. v. Lee, 106 US 196 at 208; and “The People of a State are
entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King (of England) by his
prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wend 9.20
3. The People, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in Statutes, which
would restrict prerogative right, title, or interest, unless expressly named. The
People v. Herkimer 15 Am Dec 379, 4 Cowen (N.Y 345, 348 (1825)
4. In common usage, the term “Person” does NOI include the sovereign.. U.S. v
Fox, 94 U.S. 315
5. The government has no inherent sovereignty within the 50 union states and
Congress can exercise no power which the sovereign people have not entrusted to
it: all else is excluded. Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S 421
6. Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and
unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward Blair v. Ridgely,
97 D. 218,249. S.P.
7. Governments do not GRANT rights, for they are unalienable rights which
cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away.. government can only secure
those rights. Butchers Union Co. v. Cresent City Co, 111 U.S 746, at 756-757
8. The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a
constitutional as well as a common-law right 48 Am Jur 2d, sec. 2, pg.80
9. The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the foundation of all
other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable (same as 7 above)
10. Legislature can name any Privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by any
means other than an income tax, but legislature cannot name something to be a
taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege(not a right). The right to receive
income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and realization and
receipt of income is therefore NOT a “privilege that can be taxed”. Jack Cole Co
v. McFarland, 337 S. W.2d 453, Ienn. What has been said? That you are NOI
one who is subject to the Internal Revenue Code, unless you choose to be and
volunteer! When you do that, you step out from under your constitutionally
protected rights, on to a whole new playing feild… one where you have no rights,
only privileges
