No Thanks, I.R.S.!

Spring Val. Water-Works v. Bartlett, 16 F. 615, 634-35 (9th Cir. 1883) (“Citing the case of Calder v. Bull, decided so long ago as 1789, and quoting from the opinion of the court rendered by Mr. Justice CHASE, he said: 'In Calder v. Bull, * * * Mr. Justice CHASE said that there were acts which the federal and state legislatures could not do without exceeding their authority; and among them he mentioned a law which punished a citizen for an innocent act; a law that destroyed or impaired the lawful private contracts of citizens; A LAW THAT MADE A MAN A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE; and a law that took the property from A. and gave it to B. 'It is against all reason and justice,' he added, 'for people to intrust a legislature with such powers and therefore it cannot be presumed that they have done it. They may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but they cannot change innocence into guilt, or punish innocence as a crime, or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that a federal or state legislature possesses such power if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in all free republican governments.' 3 Dal. 388.' 99 U.S. 765.”)

"The Results of Legal Plunder. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality c~>ntradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either los ing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them." Frederic Bastiat, The Law, p. 12-13 (Foundation for Eco nomic Education, Inc. 1996) (1850).

"No question is ever settled, until it is settled right." Frank Warren Hackett, The Constitutionality of the Graduated Income Tax Law, 25 Yale Law Journal 427, 442 (1916).

Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908) (“In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment. Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor;”)

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihi lation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxa tion, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not." Annuals of Congress, 4th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 1898 (Jan.1797).

So SCOTUS in 2013 recognized that a foreign tax based on gross receipts DOES NOT QUALIFY as an income tax "in the U.S. sense" according to TREASURY.

PPL Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 569 U.S. 329 (2013) (“Treasury Regulation §1.901-2(a)(1) interprets this section to mean that a foreign tax is creditable if its “predominant character” “is that of an income tax in the U.S. sense.””)

PPL Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 569 U.S. 329, 343 (2013) (“A tax based solely on gross receipts (like the Third Circuit’s analysis) would be noncreditable because it would fail the Treasury Regulation’s net income requirement.”)

Petition to Supreme Court of California in Polk v. FTB has been filed. Two issues the court is asked to decide: 1. Can “gross income” for federal tax purposes be construed as necessarily including gross receipts paid to an individual for his own labor? And 2) Can “sources within the United States” be construed to necessarily include income from a source within a Union state, in the case of a nonresident alien individual? We are not counting on the California Supreme Court to accept this case, but the petition is a necessary step toward our real goal of getting this case before the United States Supreme Court. Please donate to support this cause. This case impacts literally everyone in the USA! We need a publicity campaign to bring attention to this case, we need assistance of experienced counsel, and we need support as we focus our efforts on this historic litigation at great expense to our time and energy we could otherwise be spending to bring in consulting fees etc. https://venmo.com/code?user_id=1943755229757440047&created=1660326377.559344&printed=1

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (1884) (“It has been well said that, "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper." Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.”)

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915) (“The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property — partaking of the nature of each — is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.”)

Spring Val. Water-Works v. Bartlett, 16 F. 615, 634-35 (9th Cir. 1883) (“Citing the case of Calder v. Bull, decided so long ago as 1789, and quoting from the opinion of the court rendered by Mr. Justice CHASE, he said: 'In Calder v. Bull, * * * Mr. Justice CHASE said that there were acts which the federal and state legislatures could not do without exceeding their authority; and among them he mentioned a law which punished a citizen for an innocent act; a law that destroyed or impaired the lawful private contracts of citizens; A LAW THAT MADE A MAN A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE; and a law that took the property from A. and gave it to B. 'It is against all reason and justice,' he added, 'for people to intrust a legislature with such powers and therefore it cannot be presumed that they have done it. They may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but they cannot change innocence into guilt, or punish innocence as a crime, or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that a federal or state legislature possesses such power if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in all free republican governments.' 3 Dal. 388.' 99 U.S. 765.”)

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 112-13 (1930) (“The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain, is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the Treasury Department which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not "salaries, wages or compensation for personal service" that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is "gains, profits and income derived" from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service. Salaries, wages or compensation for personal service are not to be taxed as an entirety unless in their entirety they are gains, profits and income. Since, also, it is the gain, profit or income to the individual that is to be taxed, it would seem plain that it is only the amount of such salaries, wages or compensation as is gain, profit or income to the individual, that is, such amount as the individual beneficially receives, for which he is to be taxed.”)

Fowlke v. Comm'r, 537 F. App'x 783, 4 (10th Cir. 2013) (“The tax code defines the term "United States person" to include citizens or residents of the United States. 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30) (2006). Because Mr. Fowlke does not deny that he is a citizen or resident of the United States, he is considered a "United States person" under the tax law.”)