No Thanks, I.R.S.!

Just heard from a client who has finally received a 100% refund from New Jersey of state income tax withholding from 2019 tax year. This claim was filed nearly a year ago, and NJ Dept of Treasury decided to play games with us, initially denying the refund because they claimed it was filed “after the due date”. We proved to them that the refund claim WAS timely filed, and now they have backed down and issued the refund. Perhaps once the word gets out that we WANT to litigate these refund claims, these tax agencies will be too afraid NOT to issue 100% refunds to my clients for all income tax withheld, lest we bring the matter into court and EXPOSE all the same issues we are EXPOSING in the Polk v. FTB case (see pinned post containing our petition to California Supreme Court in that case).

Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 322 (1976) (“Whether "fundamental" or not, "'the right of the individual . . . to engage in any of the common occupations of life'" has been repeatedly recognized by this Court as falling within the concept of liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572 (1972), quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). As long ago as Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), Mr. Justice Bradley wrote that this right "is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence . . . . This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen." Id., at 762 (concurring opinion). ”)

I am working on bringing in a team to help me handle client cases right now. I can see I am going to be too busy with bringing a case to the US Supreme Court this year and other litigation related to tax refunds and tax agencies ignoring the law, violating due process etc. arising from my client's tax filings. I am not taking any new cases at the moment. But when the team is in place, probably in April, we will begin to reach out to donors/clients to start moving their tax cases through the pipeline.

For all those looking for assistance with opting out of income taxes for 2023 and any other year: Please submit your 2023 evaluation requests to NoThanksIRS@protonmail.com We must begin with your 2023 tax year at this point and circle back to other tax years later. I am hoping to have my team reaching out to get you started in April sometime. Get an extension so you can still file your 2023 tax return "on time" by October. Personally, along with getting the team ready, I will have to focus on 2020 tax year refund cases that must be filed by mid-April for many states and by mid-May for all federal tax refund claims. These are the only tax matters that are truly urgent, because missing those three year deadlines to claim refund constitutes a waiver of your right to recover such refund. Once all those filings are submitted (hopefully most will be done well before that mid-May federal deadline, we can focus on getting everyone filed for 2023 and then work on getting you current ASAP, ideally filing all of your remaining unfiled returns before we get to the tax season next year in 2025. We are going to be more interested in cases where a donor/refund has a tax refund to claim and especially if the donor/client expresses interest in SUING these bastards (with out assistance of course) if they don't cut you a refund check within six months. These are cases we will want to get started more quickly on, because we do have to wait at last 6 months to see if they will give you the refund (which would be great. and a high percentage of the time, they HAVE done so.) We will also prioritize any case that becomes more urgent due to a tax agency demanding an unfiled return, threatening to assess a tax by default etc.

Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404, 407 (1946) (“The very essence of taxable income, as that concept is used in Section 22(a), is the accrual of some gain, profit or benefit to the taxpayer. This requirement of gain, of course, must be read in its statutory context. Not every benefit received by a taxpayer from his labor or investment necessarily renders him taxable. Nor is mere dominion over money or property decisive in all cases. In fact, no single conclusive criterion has yet been found to determine in all situations what is a sufficient gain to support the imposition of an income tax. No more can be said in general than that all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered. See Magill, Taxable Income (1945). ”)

Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 240-41 (1911) (“The language of the Thirteenth Amendment was not new. It reproduced the historic words of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory and gave them unrestricted application within the United States and all places subject to their jurisdiction. While the immediate concern was with African slavery, the Amendment was not limited to that. It was a charter of universal civil freedom for all persons, of whatever race, color or estate, under the flag. The words involuntary servitude have a "larger meaning than slavery." "It was very well understood that in the form of apprenticeship for long terms, as it had been practiced in the West India Islands, on the abolition of slavery by the English government, or by reducing the slaves to the condition of serfs attached to the plantation, the purpose of the article might have been evaded, if only the word slavery had been used." Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. p. 69. The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude.”)

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 90 (1872) (“The abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude was intended to make every one born in this country a freeman, and as such to give to him the right to pursue the ordinary avocations of life without other restraint than such as affects all others, and to enjoy equally with them the fruits of his labor. ”)

Ridley v. Gaffney, C/A 1:21-997-MBS, at *5 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2022) (““Involuntary servitude or involuntary slavery is a legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion, to which it may constitute slavery. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntaryservitude.”)

Beltran v. Cohen, 303 F. Supp. 889, 893 (N.D. Cal. 1969) (“Furthermore, it has been held that the requirements of the tax laws, even if imposing a kind of servitude, do not impose the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment. See, Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 924, 74 S.Ct. 311, 98 L.Ed. 417 (1954); and Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925 (10th Cir. 1954).”)

Merchants' L. T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 517 (1921) (“Further, § 2(c) clearly shows that it was the purpose of Congress to tax gains, derived from such a sale as we have here, in the manner in which this fund was assessed, by providing that "for the purpose of ascertaining the gain derived from the sale or other disposition of property, real, personal, or mixed, acquired before March first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, the fair market price or value of such property as of March first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, shall be the basis for determining the amount of such gain derived."”)

Here is an interesting case from 1921 revealing that in the 1916 Revenue Act, Congress recognized that fair market value is a BASIS when selling any kind of personal property in order to determine the amount of GAIN: Merchants' L. T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 516 (1921) (“Section 2(a) of the Act of September 8, 1916 ( 39 Stat. 757; 40 Stat. 300, 307, § 212), applicable to the case, defines the income of "a taxable person" as including "gains, profits and income derived from . . . sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, . . . or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever." Plainly the gain we are considering was derived from the sale of personal property, and, very certainly the comprehensive last clause "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever," must also include it, if the trustee was a "taxable person" within the meaning of the act when the assessment was made.”)

Merchants' L. T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 516 (1921) (“Assuming for the present that there was constitutional power to tax such a gain or profit as is here involved, are the terms of the statute comprehensive enough to include it?”)