• FACT #1: There is no law making working Americans liable for the income tax (MORE)

  • FACT #3: Your right to earn a living is as exempt from taxation as freedom of speech (MORE)

  • FACT #2: There is no lawful basis for treating personal earnings as 100% profit (MORE)

Innocence Revealed Now Available on DVD.

Five Attorneys and a former IRS Special Agent shows that the average American does not owe income tax. Amazing information! More Details

Order Innocence Revealed on DVD now.

New / Operation Trojan Horse Now Available on DVD.

See what an ex Special IRS Criminal Investigation Division agent has to say to his colleagues about who is required to file and pay an income tax. More Details

Order Trojan Horse on DVD now.

Tom Cryer: Restoring Economic Rights

Tom Cryer on the Income Tax - Part 1

Part 2          Part 3          Part 4

Rediscover your constitutional rights

Dare to look behind the Wizard's curtain and you'll discover the "Great and Powerful Income Tax" is a monumental fraud. Cleverly built over decades amid the swamp of a single misunderstood word ("income") not to mention boxcars of false data heaped on school children, what your "income" actually IS -- as guaranteed by the US Constitution -- and what you think it is, are two separate things. Read on as Attorney Tom Cryer delivers you out of the IRS catecombs, toward a deeper appreciation of your own cherished freedoms and economic rights.

Learn More...

Published on www.Truth-Attack.com

There are many wild theories floating through the tax patriot movement as to whom the income tax statutes apply or to whom it doesn’t apply. However, only one position has the merit (quality legal argument) to meet the test of time and pass the muster of law. That position is the “rights” issue.

When one studies the income taxing power of government, he will understand that this power to tax is plenary and absolute over those who are its subjects. If government has the authority to tax, it has, within that authority, the power to destroy.

The question is, in reference to the income tax, over whom does government have that plenary taxable authority. To make that determination, one needs to start with a solid foundation and that foundation is expressed in the opinion letter below.

This opinion letter was written by Bob Minarik. The letter expresses the basic foundation used to show the lack of a legal duty to file federal and state income tax returns by one who does not come within the purview of government's plenary power of taxation as erroneously presumed and asserted by the income taxing statutes.


Dear Concerned American,

I am in receipt of your inquiry requesting my opinion as to any obligation or legal duty you may personally have to file a state or federal income tax return and pay an income tax.

First, as I am not aware of your personal situation, my comments will be general rather than specific. Second, I am not an attorney or an accountant. I have no formal education in tax law or law in general. What I am is a self-taught legal researcher and rights advocate who has researched the IR code extensively over the last 25 years. I have spent literally hundreds of hours at the law library and have sought counsel on this topic from numerous attorneys and tax professionals. I have made personal inquiry to the IRS and have also assisted many others in making similar inquiries to seek the specific authority and statute that imposes a legal duty on anyone to waive fundamental rights in order to comply with any income taxing statutes.
Although a number of court decisions have been based on the presumption that everyone has a “legal duty” to file forms, waive rights and pay an income tax merely for exercising one's right to work and exist, I have not encountered any lawful basis for that presumption. At no time has anyone been able to show me a specific statute that clearly and specifically states that I am liable or made liable “to file” a “U.S. Individual” income tax under Title 26 of the United States Code or any state code.

Personally, I have not “filed” a state or federal income tax form for over 25 years. I have determined that I do not have a legal duty to waive fundamental rights to comply with any income taxing scheme, merely for exercising my right to work and exist.

I base my personal determination on my findings in Title 26 itself, the lack of response by those in the IRS to my inquiries as to the basis of any alleged “legal duty” that I may have, on my inquiry of counsel and on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and of the lower courts.

My research indicates that to be found criminally guilty of violating any federal taxing statute, for failure to file or tax evasion, would require the government to prove that you not only committed an act or failed to perform an act, but that you had a willful intent to violate a known “legal duty.” See Cheek v. U.S., 111 S.Ct. 604 at 610 (1991), citing U.S. v. Murdock, 54 S.Ct. 223 (1933); U.S. v. Bishop, 93 S.Ct. 2008 (1973); and U.S. v. Pomponio, 97 S.Ct. 22 (1976).

The decision of whether to subject yourself to the income tax statues is a personal decision based on your own set of facts and circumstances, but I will address for you the basis for why I have no “legal duty” to file tax forms or pay an income tax.

Back in 1917, the Supreme Court of the United States of America restated the following fundamental standard:

In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the Government and in favor of the citizen.” Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 15 1 at 153 (1917).

With that standard as a basis, I then sought out the Privacy Act document that the IRS is required to give, under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a 5(e)( 1) of the Privacy Act, to every “individual who is asked to supply information.” In reference to Title 26, this document is IRS Privacy Act Notice # 609, which states:
“Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012 and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for.”

Section 6001 states in pertinent part: “Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title...... shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns..........”

Section 6011 states in pertinent part: "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title... shall make a return or statement...."

Section 6012 states in pertinent part: "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following : (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required.........”

These sections state that you must file a return in respect to income taxes if you are a "person liable" or a "person made liable" and you have for the "taxable year" under subtitle A, gross income exceeding the exemption amount.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to Note that Section 6012 is subservient (inferior) to Sections 6001 and 6011. This can be seen from 26 U.S.C. Section 6011(f) which states: “For requirements that returns of income, estate and gift taxes be made whether or not there is a tax liability, see subparts B and C.” Section 6012 is the first section of subpart B.

Section 6011(f) instructs that any filing requirements under Section 6012 are subservient to the prerequisites of Section 6001 and 6011, that one must first be liable or made liable for the tax before any obligation is imposed.

In addition, this premise is further verified with a review of subtitle A which begins with Section 1(a) and refers to a married individual (as defined in Sec. 7703) and a surviving spouse (as defined in Sec. 2(a)).

Section 7703(a)( 1) states: “The determination of whether an individual is married shall be made at the close of his taxable year....."

Furthermore: Section 441(a) states: “Taxable income shall be computed on the basis of the taxpayer's taxable year.”

Section 441(b) states: “For purposes of this subtitle, the term ‘taxable year’ means
    (1) the taxpayer's annual accounting period........”

Section 451 (a) states: “The amount of any item of gross income shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer......”

For gross income (as defined under section 61) to have any bearing on a specific individual, that individual must be an individual with a “taxable year.” The only individuals' described in subtitle A who have a “taxable year” are “taxpayer” individuals. Following the specificity rule of statutory construction expressed in Gould vs. Gould, the only individuals who can have “taxable income” under Section 1 or section 2 are “taxpayer” individuals with a “taxable year.”

This is further verified by the definitions provided in section 2(a)(1) which states: "For purposes of Section 1, the term surviving spouse means a taxpayer....,"

Section 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d), have the same type of definition.

Under subtitle A, an income tax is imposed on the specific legally defined term “taxable income” of a “taxpayer” individual. The term “taxpayer” is generally defined at section 7701(a) as “any person subject to any internal revenue tax,” and specifically defined at Section 1313(b) as being “any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.”

A literal reading of sections 6001, 6011 and 6012 shows that one must first be liable or made liable to be a “taxpayer” (as that term is defined in the code) to have “taxable income.” At the minimum, one must already be obligated to waive rights in order to have a “legal duty” to comply with the income taxing statutes of the IR Code.

Again, it is very important to note and be able to distinguish between the terms “liable for tax” and “have a tax liability.” It is possible to be a “person liable” or a “person made liable” for a tax and have no tax liability. However, it is impossible to have a “tax liability” if one is not a “person liable” or a “person made liable.”

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized the specific restrictive nature of the term “taxpayer,” which follows the general restriction on any statutes that would impose an obligation, as expressed by the Supreme Court in Gould v. Gould (cited above), when the court stated:

“Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create non-statutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts.”

C.I.R. v. Trustees of Lumber Inv. Assn.,100 F.2d 18, 29 (7th Cir. 1938).

Again, as per Gould v. Gould, the statute making one liable must be clear in its language. To ascertain a standard for what is a clearly stated statute that imposes a “legal duty,” we can simply look in Title 26 of the United States Code, where there are specific sections for other taxes which do clearly state when one is “liable” or “made liable” and where a reasonable man can clearly understand that which meets the Gould v. Gould requisite.

Here is an example. Section 4401 (a) imposes a tax on wagers (gambling bets) and it states, “There shall be imposed on any wagers......an excise tax......” Section 4401(c) sets the requirement for who shall be “liable for the tax” and shall pay the tax:

“Each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and shall pay the tax under this subchapter on all wagers placed with him.”

Other sections of Title 26 of the U.S. Code that specifically impose a tax and distinctly specify who is “liable” to pay the tax are:

     1. Section 4261 (a) imposes a tax, and Section 4261(d) specifies who is liable to pay the tax.
     2. Section 4611(a) imposes a tax and Section 4611(d)(1)(2)(3) specifies three separate persons who are liable to pay the tax.
     3. Section 4971(a) imposes a tax and section 4971(e) specifies who is liable to pay the tax.
     4. Section 5001 (a) imposes a tax and section 5005(a) specifies who is liable to pay the tax.
     5. Section 5701(a)(b)(c) imposes a tax and section 5703(a)( 1)&(2) specifies who is liable to pay the tax.

A review of Sections 1, 2 and 3 of subtitle A shows that a tax is imposed on taxable income for the taxable year, but at no place in subtitle A or anywhere else in the Title 26 is there any section that specifically states who is liable or made liable to file or to pay an income tax.

Without a specific statute making anyone liable, the presumption is established that anyone who could be actually held liable for the income tax is one who is already a statutorily defined “taxpayer” and who is already “subject to” or “made liable for” some other internal revenue tax.

“That the power to tax is the power to destroy,” is a fundamental premise of taxation expressed by then Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark Supreme Court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 431 (1819). This premise expresses the bottom line of the plenary power of taxation that the sovereign has over those who are subjects to the sovereign. With this plenary power of taxation, the government can tax a subject to the point that the subject is destroyed.

I stand on the principle that the servant can never have the power to destroy the master. As per the preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, I assert that I am one of the posterity of “We the people,” who ordained and established the Constitution which set forth the powers and proscribed the limitations of the government of the U.S. of A.

As I am not one who has made himself subject or has been made a subject to government, I am therefore not one who can be subject to destruction by government.

But if I am not one who is a subject who can be destroyed, then who can the government tax even to the point of destruction?

Just prior to his statement that the power to tax is the power to destroy at page 429, Chief Justice Marshall expressed the following:

“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend are upon the soundest principles exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident. . . The sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its own, permission ......”

If I am not one who exists by the authority of the state or federal government or introduced by the permission of either, I am exempt from involvement from any taxing scheme that obligates me to waive fundamental rights. If this was not so, the servant could destroy the master and that premise would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights of the respective Constitutions for each of the States. This appears to me to be the reason why the IR Code, which to date has passed Constitutional muster, does not make a citizen liable for a tax that requires the waiver of rights regardless of the erroneous expansive wording of regulation 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1.

Unless I am clearly liable or made liable by a specific statute(s) of the tax code and I am one obligated to waive fundamental rights, I do not have a “legal duty” to file any income tax forms, keep or produce any records for the government, or give any information to any government entity. It would follow that if you are not a subject, you would not have any such "legal duty" either.

The final determination, however, is yours. You will have to determine whether you are one who is a master over your government or one who is a servant subject to it. You will have to determine whether your rights to work and exist are actually rights or just privileges that are subject to destruction.

You will have to determine if you are one who has waived his fundamental rights to speak or not to speak as protected under the First Amendment, your right to be secure in your person, home, papers and effects, as protected under the Fourth Amendment, your right not to be compelled to be a witness against yourself and your right to due process of law as protected under the Fifth Amendment, your right to an impartial jud ge and jury, as protected under the Sixth Amendment, or any other rights protected under the Ninth Amendment.

The standard for the waiver of rights has already been established by the Supreme Court when the court stated:

“Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970). See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart V. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966); Empsak v. U.S., 349 U.S. 190 (1955); and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938).

The bottom line is that unless I have somehow waived or lost my fundamental rights, it is not within the power of Congress to impose a tax, applicable to me, that would destroy those rights.

As an example, back in the 1960s, this limitation was reinforced in a Texas voting rights case. The state of Texas was imposing a poll tax on the voters prior to letting them vote. In U.S. v. Texas, 252 F.Supp 234, 254 (1966), the U.S. District Court said:

"Since, in general, only those who wish to vote pay the poll tax, the tax as administered by the state is equivalent to a charge or penalty imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right . If 'the tax were increased to a high degree, as it could be if valid, it would result in the destruction of the right to vote. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244, 54 S.Ct. 444 (1936)."

Note that the district court reiterated the fundamental premise of law expressed by Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, cited above, that the “power to tax is the power to destroy.”

The Texas District Court went on to quote from the Supreme Court case of Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965), when it said:

"It has long been established that a state may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost v. Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583. ‘Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be * * * indirectly denied,’ Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 664, ‘or manipulated out of existence,’ Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345."

That Texas district court held the poll tax unconstitutional and invalid, and enjoi ned the state of Texas from requiring the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. Taken on direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the jud gment of the district court was affirmed. See Texas v. U.S., 384 U.S. 155 (1966).

So if you don't believe you have waived your rights and come within a “taxable class” of subjects, I suggest that you make inquiry of the IRS and your State taxing entity and ask for copies of any statutes making you specifically liable for an income tax. I also suggest that you request copies of all documents of determinations made, with the documents of fact and law in support, that show specifically that you personally are obligated and have a "legal duty" to waive fundamental rights or that you are within some "taxable class" obligated to waive fundamental rights merely for exercising your right to work and exist. Also request any documents of fact showing how you may have brought yourself within the purview of a taxing statute that required the waiver of your rights.

What is most important is that you make the inquiry. What you get in response to your inquiry is not as important as what you don't get. Absent documented verification of a waiver or loss of rights, you can confidently claim your status of master over government and deny any "legal duty" as a subject to it, regardless of the decisions of any courts that assert that government, with their plenary power of taxation, can tax you to the point of destruction.

Robert L. “Bob” Minarik, 5288 N. 1000 W., Rochester, Indiana 46975, Ph. 574-542-9065

(links go to FindLaw)

Federal taxes are collected from those who are "liable" for the various taxes imposed in the Internal Revenue Code. For example, 26 U.S.C. § 7601 commands that the Secretary of the Treasury "canvass" the various internal revenue districts to located those "liable" to pay any internal revenue tax:
Section 7601. Canvass of districts for taxable persons and objects.

(a) General rule.
The Secretary shall, to the extent he deems it practicable, cause  officers or employees of the Treasury Department to proceed, from  time to time, through each internal revenue district and inquire after and concerning all persons therein who may be liable to pay any internal revenue tax, and all persons owning or having the care and management of any objects with respect to which any tax is imposed.

After taxes are assessed against a taxpayer so liable therefor, the Secretary must give notice and demand for payment thereof to persons "liable" for the tax:
Section 6303. Notice and demand for tax.

(a) General rule.
Where it is not otherwise provided by this title, the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section 6203, give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof. Such notice shall be left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such person, or shall be sent by mail to such person's last known address.

Tax liens authorized via 26 U.S.C. § 6321 are filed against persons "liable" for the tax:
Section 6321. Lien for taxes.

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.

And the Secretary is authorized to collect taxes from those identified as "liable" for taxes:
Section 6331. Levy and distraint.

(a) Authority of Secretary.
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

The Internal Revenue Code imposes in subtitle C several different types of employments taxes, and only one party is "liable" therefor: the employer. The FICA tax is imposed in § 3101, and only the employer is "liable":
Section 3102. Deduction of tax from wages.
(a) Requirement.
The tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. * * *
(b) Indemnification of employer.
Every employer required so to deduct the tax shall be liable for the payment of such tax, and shall be indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.

The Railroad Retirement Tax is imposed via § 3201, and it is the employer who is liable therefor:
Section 3202. Deduction of tax from compensation.

(a) Requirement.
The taxes imposed by section 3201 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the taxes from the compensation of the employee as and when paid. * * *
(b) Indemnification of employer
Every employer required under subsection (a) to deduct the tax shall be liable for the payment of such tax and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

The employment tax imposed via § 3402 that provides for wage withholding makes the employer "liable" for it:
Section 3403. Liability for tax.

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

And those who provide pensions, etc, are considered employers who are "liable" for the deferred wage/income payments they make:
Section 3405. Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other deferred income.
* * *
(d) Liability for withholding.
(1) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the payor of a designated distribution (as defined in subsection (e)(1)) shall withhold, and be liable for, payment of the tax required to be withheld under this section.

And in certain circumstances, certain third parties are "liable" for employment taxes:
Section 3505. Liability of third parties paying or providing for wages.

(a) Direct payment by third parties
For purposes of sections 3102, 3202, 3402, and 3403, if a lender, surety, or other person, who is not an employer under such sections with respect to an employee or group of employees, pays wages directly to such an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, or to an agent on behalf of such employee or employees, such lender, surety, or other person shall be liable in his own person and estate to the United States in a sum equal to the taxes (together with interest) required to be deducted and withheld from such wages by such employer.
(b) Personal liability where funds are supplied
If a lender, surety, or other person supplies funds to or for the account of an employer for the specific purpose of paying wages of the employees of such employer, with actual notice or knowledge (within the meaning of section 6323(i)(1)) that such employer does not intend to or will not be able to make timely payment or deposit of the amounts of tax required by this subtitle to be deducted and withheld by such employer from such wages, such lender, surety, or other person shall be liable in his own person and estate to the United States in a sum equal to the taxes (together with interest) which are not paid over to the United States by such employer with respect to such wages.

Clearly, being made "liable" for a tax via an express provision of the Internal Revenue Code is very important.

Subtitles D and E of the Internal Revenue Code impose various excise taxes, and excellent examples appear in these titles of sections of the Code that impose taxes and make specific parties "liable" therefor. For instance, the tax on tires is imposed via § 4071:
Section 4071. Imposition of tax.

(a) Imposition and rate of tax.
There is hereby imposed on tires of the type used on highway vehicles, if wholly or in part made of rubber, sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax at the following rates:

Those "liable" for this tax are identified in the same section as follows:
(b) Special rule for manufacturers who sell at retail.
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, if the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any tire delivers such tire to a retail store or retail outlet of such manufacturer, producer, or importer, he shall be liable for tax under subsection (a) in respect of such tire in the same manner as if it had been sold at the time it was delivered to such retail store or outlet. This subsection shall not apply to an article in respect to which tax has been imposed by subsection (a).

The section imposing the gambling tax also identifies who is "liable" for such tax:
Section 4401. Imposition of tax.

(a) Wagers.
(1) State authorized wagers.
There shall be imposed on any wager authorized under the law of  the State in which accepted an excise tax equal to 0.25 percent of the amount of such wager.
(c) Persons liable for tax.
Each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and shall pay the tax under this subchapter on all wagers placed with him. Each person who conducts any wagering pool or lottery shall be liable for and shall pay the tax under  this subchapter on all wagers placed in such pool or lottery. Any person required to register under section 4412 who receives wagers for or on behalf of another person without having registered under section 4412 the name and place of residence of such other person shall be liable for and shall pay the tax under this subchapter on all such wagers received by him.

Directly connected to this tax on wagers is a tax on those receiving the wagers as an occupation tax:
Section 4411. Imposition of tax.

(a) In general.
There shall be imposed a special tax of $500 per year to be paid by each person who is liable for the tax imposed under section 4401 or who is engaged in receiving wagers for or on behalf of any person so liable.
(b) Authorized persons.
Subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting "$50" for "$500" in the case of -
(1) any person whose liability for tax under section 4401 is  determined only under paragraph (1) of section 4401(a), and
(2) any person who is engaged in receiving wagers only for or on behalf of persons described in paragraph (1).

The section imposing a tax on crude oil also specifies who is "liable" for that tax:
Section 4611. Imposition of tax.

(a) General Rule.
There is hereby imposed a tax at the rate specified in subsection (c) on -
(1) crude oil received at a United States refinery, and
(2) petroleum products entered into the United States for consumption, use, or warehousing.
(d) Persons liable for tax.
(1) Crude oil received at refinery
The tax imposed by subsection (a)(1) shall be paid by the operator of the United States refinery.
(2) Imported petroleum product
The tax imposed by subsection (a)(2) shall be paid by the person entering the product for consumption, use, or warehousing.
(3) Tax on certain uses or exports
The tax imposed by subsection (b) shall be paid by the person  using or exporting the crude oil, as the case may be.

A tax is imposed on distilled spirits in § 5001:
Section 5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax.

(a) Rate of tax.
(1) General.
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on  each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all  fractional parts of a proof gallon.

Those who are "liable" for this tax are identified in § 5005:
Section 5005. Persons liable for tax.
(a) General.
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

The tax on wines makes certain parties "liable":
Section 5043. Collection of taxes on wines.

(a) Persons liable for payment.
The taxes on wine provided for in this subpart shall be paid -
(1) Bonded wine cellars.
In the case of wines removed from any bonded wine cellar, by the proprietor of such bonded wine cellar; except that -
(A) in the case of any transfer of wine in bond as authorized under the provisions of section 5362(b), the liability for payment of the tax shall become the liability of the transferee from the time of removal of the wine from the transferor's premises, and the transferor shall thereupon be relieved of such liability; and
(B) in the case of any wine withdrawn by a person other than such proprietor without payment of tax as authorized under the provisions of section 5362(c), the liability for payment of the tax shall become the liability of such person from the time of the removal of the wine from the bonded wine cellar, and such proprietor shall thereupon be relieved of such liability.
(2) Foreign wine.
In the case of foreign wines which are not transferred to a bonded wine cellar free of tax under section 5364, by the importer thereof.
(3) Other wines.
Immediately, in the case of any wine produced, imported, received, removed, or possessed otherwise than as authorized by law, by any person producing, importing, receiving, removing, or possessing such wine; and all such persons shall be jointly and severally liable for such tax with each other as well as with any proprietor, transferee, or importer who may be liable for the tax under this subsection.
(b) Payment of tax.
The taxes on wines shall be paid in accordance with section 5061.

Specific parties are made liable for the beer tax:
Section 5418. Beer imported in bulk.

Beer imported or brought into the United States in bulk containers may, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, be withdrawn from customs custody and transferred in such bulk containers to the premises of a brewery without payment of the internal revenue tax imposed on such beer. The proprietor of a brewery to which such beer is transferred shall become liable for the tax on the beer withdrawn from customs custody under this section upon release of the beer from customs custody, and the importer, or the person bringing such beer into the United States, shall thereupon be relieved of the liability for such tax.

The tobacco tax also makes a specific party liable for it:
Section 5703. Liability for tax and method of payment.

(a) Liability for tax.
(1) Original liability.
The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5701.

Pursuant to the commands of the federal Privacy Act, the IRS is required to give a notice (contained in the Privacy Act Notice or Notice 609) of the various laws that require persons to supply information to it. The IRS Privacy Act Notice states: "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011 and 6012(a), and their regulations. They say you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are LIABLE for." To determine whether one must file a federal income tax return, one thus only needs to study these 3 sections of the Code.
The first section states as follows:

Section 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns.

Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title.

The second section provides as follows:
Section 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list.

(a) General rule.
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

Thus, the "general requirement" for making a tax return is that, first, one must be liable for a tax. But WHO is LIABLE for the federal income tax? The federal income tax is found in subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and consists of sections 1 through 1563. You may download a 2002 version of the entire Internal Revenue Code here ( item 6 on this page, size: 1.34 Gigs).  Once downloaded, please search the Code (particularly the first 1563 sections) to determine who is "liable" for the federal income tax. The only section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes anyone "liable" for the federal income tax is as follows:
Section 1461. Liability for withheld tax.

Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

This party is the withholding agent for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations; see § 1441 and  § 1442.  Withholding agents may be individuals, corporations, estates, trusts, political organizations, homeowners associations, etc. These are the parties who are required to make federal income tax returns pursuant to § 6012:
Section 6012. Persons required to make returns of income.

(a) General rule.
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross  income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual -
(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or
(iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.
* * *
(2) Every corporation subject to taxation under subtitle A;
(3) Every estate the gross income of which for the taxable year is $600 or more;
(4) Every trust having for the taxable year any taxable income, or having gross income of $600 or over, regardless of the amount  of taxable income;
(5) Every estate or trust of which any beneficiary is a nonresident alien;
(6) Every political organization (within the meaning of section 527(e)(1)), and every fund treated under section 527(g) as if it constituted a political organization, which has political organization taxable income (within the meaning of section  527(c)(1)) for the taxable year; and
(7) Every homeowners association (within the meaning of section  528(c)(1)) which has homeowners association taxable income  (within the meaning of section 528(d)) for the taxable year.
(8) Every individual who receives payments during the calendar  year in which the taxable year begins under section 3507  (relating to advance payment of earned income credit).
(9) Every estate of an individual under chapter 7 or 11 of  title 11 of the United States Code (relating to bankruptcy) the gross income of which for the taxable year is not less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction under section 63(c)(2)(D).
except that subject to such conditions, limitations, and exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary, nonresident alien individuals subject to the tax imposed by section 871 and foreign corporations subject to the tax imposed by section 881 may be exempted from the requirement of making returns under this section.
(b) Returns made by fiduciaries and receivers.

Relevant Cases
Drake v. United States, 355 F.Supp. 710 (E.D. Mo. 1973)

William Irvin DRAKE,


Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,


Jack W. KLEIN et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.

January 10, 1973.

Michael J. Ebeling, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff and Third Party Defendant.

Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U.S. Atty., David W. Harlan, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for the United States.


WEBSTER, District Judge.

Plaintiff  William Irvin Drake instituted this action to recover amounts paid on  account of taxes assessed by defendant United States of America.  Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1340 and 1346.

On August  14, 1970, plaintiff was timely assessed the sum of $98,116.45 respecting  plaintiff's wagering activities during the period October, 1965 through  and including February, 1967. Plaintiff paid the sum of $19.00 against  this total liability. On December 4, 1970, plaintiff was timely assessed  the sum of $189,879.66 respecting plaintiff's income tax liability for  the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. Plaintiff has paid the sum of $3.00  respecting these assessments. Plaintiff denies liability under the  assessments and seeks to recover the $22.00 paid in protest. Defendant  has counter-claimed for the $98,107.90 alleged to remain unpaid on  account of the unsatisfied assessments.

Defendant, as third-party  plaintiff, demands judgment against third-party defendants Jack W.  Klein, Jacqueline C. Klein and Samuel O. Swofford, severally, on account  of taxes assessed against their wagering activities, and entirely  unpaid.


Defendant asserts, as a  defense to Count II of the complaint, plaintiff's failure to pay his  income tax assessment in full before seeking refund of the $3.00 paid in  protest. Defendant's position is well taken. In tax disputes, the  taxpayer has the option of resisting a proposed deficiency assessment in  the United States Tax Court or of paying the full amount of the  assessment and seeking refund in the United States District Court. Sec.  6214 I.R.C.; Sec. 7422 I.R.C. A taxpayer may not seek relief in the  District Court until he can allege that he has made a proper claim for  refund which has been rejected and that the amount assessed has  previously been paid. Sec. 7422 I.R.C. A court does not have  jurisdiction over a refund suit where the taxpayer has not paid the  entire amount of the assessment. Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145,  80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960). It therefore appears that this court  is without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's claim for refund of  income taxes under Count II, and Count II is hereby dismissed.


The assessments against  Drake, Mr. and Mrs. Klein and Swofford are based upon §§ 4401 and 4411  of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Title 26, U.S.C. §§ 4401 and  4411). Section 4401 imposes an excise tax on "wagers, as defined in §  4421, * * * equal to 10 per cent of the amount thereof." Section 4411  requires all persons liable for the tax under § 4401 to pay a special  stamp tax of $50.00 per year, with registration with the Internal  Revenue Service further required by § 4412. Section 4421 defines the  term "wager" to include "any wager with respect to a sports event or a  contest placed with a person engaged in the business of accepting such  wagers."

Section 4401(c) designates the persons liable for the tax as follows:

"(c)  [as amended by Sec. 151(a), Excise Tax Technical Changes Act of 1958,  P.L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1275] Persons Liable for Tax. — Each person who is  engaged in the business of accepting wagers shall be liable for and  shall pay the tax under this subchapter on all wagers placed with him.  Each person who conducts any wagering pool or lottery shall be liable  for and shall pay the tax under this  subchapter on all wagers placed in  such pool or lottery. Any person required to register under section  4412 who receives wagers for or on behalf of another person without  having registered under  section 4412 the name and place of residence of  such other person shall be liable for and shall pay the tax under this  subchapter on all such wagers received by him."

Sections 44.4403-1 and 44.6001-1 of the Wagering Tax Regulations require, in part, daily records of the following:

(1) The gross amount of all wagers accepted;

(2) The gross amount of each class or type of wager accepted on each separate event, contest, or other wagering medium;

(3) The gross amount of wagers accepted directly;  accepted by agents; accepted as laid-off wagers;

(4) Detailed information with respect to laid-off wagers; and

(5) The gross amount of tax collected from or charged to bettors as a separate item.

Where  persons liable for the tax imposed by Section 4401, fail to maintain  records as required in Sections 44.4403-1 and 44.6001-1(b) of the  Wagering Tax Regulations, the government is justified in estimating the  volume and extent of their wagering operations. Hodoh v. United States,  153 F. Supp. 822 (N.D.Ohio, 1957); O'Neill v. United States, 198 F.  Supp. 367 (E.D.N.Y., 1961); Pinder v. United States, 330 F.2d 119  (C.A.5, 1964). The burden of proof is on the person so assessed not only  to show that the amount of the assessment was wrong, but to produce  convincing evidence from which a proper determination of the amount of  tax due may be ascertained. Pinder v. United States, supra; Hodges v.  United States, 223 F.2d 140 (C.A.5, 1955); Hamilton v. United States,  429 F.2d 427 (C.A.2, 1970).

Neither plaintiff nor any of the  third-party defendants registered under the provisions of § 4412, nor  did any of them maintain the detailed records required by §§ 44.4403-1  and 44.6001-1 of the Wagering Tax Regulations. They contend that they  were not "persons liable for [the] tax" within the meaning of § 4401(c).

The  case was tried to the court. Drake testified that during the period  covered by the assessments he was working for Swofford as a runner, and  that Swofford was operating a "numbers" lottery. The "numbers" lottery  is a gambling operation, particularly popular among members of the black  communities of St. Louis and St. Louis County. The operator is  generally known as a policy company. In a customary operation, managers  in the local communities, acting as entrepreneurs, distribute lottery  sheets and other paraphernalia supplied by the policy company through  writers. The writers and managers work on a percentage of the take. The  cost to the bettor is usually small ($1.00 or less per bet). Briefly  summarized, the manager collects the winnings on the last lottery and  prepares a record of results on "hit" sheets and "take" sheets. Because  of a certain mutual distrust, the policy company exchanges the  "drawings" or list of winning numbers from the next lottery at the same  time it receives the material from the previous lottery from the  manager. This is frequently accomplished on neutral ground between two  slowly passing automobiles and is known in the industry as a  "cut-loose".

Swofford corroborated Drake's testimony and admitted  his operation of the wagering business. The court finds from the  preponderance of the credible evidence that Drake was paid approximately  $100.00 per week when he worked; that his function was to carry out the  "cut-loose" in the City of St. Louis for the policy company; that he  accepted no wagers and had nothing to do with the keeping of accounts or  records. He had no control over the operation and paid the taxes under  protest. In 1967, Drake was arrested and thereafter indicted by the  Grand Jury. He pleaded guilty to one count of engaging in the business  of accepting wagers as bookmakers without paying the occupational tax  imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 4411, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Swofford  also pleaded guilty to accepting wagers and evading taxes due thereon in  violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 before Judge Regan, U.S.A. v. Swofford,  et al. E.D.Mo. No. 67 Cr. 102(3) (1967).

Mr. and Mrs. Klein each  testified with respect to their relationship to Swofford. In late 1966,  Swofford asked Klein if he could use his garage. Klein had an idea of  what was going on, and this was later confirmed. Klein testified that he  had no financial or proprietary interest in the operation or any  control over the draw. He testified that he was not engaged in a  gambling business. Mrs. Klein acknowledged that she occasionally helped  Swofford run adding machine tapes on some of the packages which were  later delivered to Drake. Occasionally Mr. Klein counted some money for  Swofford. He testified that these activities took place on an average of  three times per week. Both Mr. and Mrs. Klein pleaded guilty with Drake  to the charge of engaging in the business of accepting wagers as  bookmakers without paying the occupational tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. §  4411, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

Mrs. Klein admitted that  on one occasion she went to Swofford's trailer and that she frequently  saw Drake at a bar which they both frequented. Both Mr. and Mrs. Klein  denied receiving any compensation from Swofford, and he testified to  like effect. Swofford testified that he showed his appreciation for the  hospitality extended by the Kleins by taking them out to dinner from  time to time and by providing other forms of entertainment for them. The  frequently played cards and drank before Swofford went to work.  Swofford testified that he had known Jack Klein for thirty years or  more. His purpose in using the garage was to work on his forms without  having to return to his trailer, which was located some distance away in  Jefferson County. Swofford testified that his modus operandi was  substantially as follows: he would leave his home between 9:30 and 10:30  a.m. and go to the trailer, where he would print result drawings until  12:00. He usually printed his winning drawings two days in advance in  case he should be incapacitated by his drinking. These sheets, printed  in advance, made him very vulnerable to his customers, and he took extra  precautions not to have them found. After printing the sheets, he would  deliver the city drawings to Drake at one of the bars. Drake made the  "cut-loose" in the city. Swofford generally made the "cut-loose" himself  in the county. After that, Swofford would go to the Kleins' garage and  work an average of two hours. At the Kleins he added up the top sheets  or prepared for the next drawing, cutting numbers, doing paper work,  etc. He testified that Drake did not know about the trailer. Swofford  customarily provided morning and afternoon drawings. At the end of the  day, he would review the take sheets in his home behind locked doors,  making corrections. Swofford testified that Drake had access to the  drawings prior to the "cut-loose" but that if anything went wrong that  would be his last time. He paid his managers once a week and further  testified that the manager was a free agent who could move elsewhere  with his clientele.

Special Agent Richard W. Carr of the Internal  Revenue Service testified that he had placed Swofford under  surveillance in the Fall of 1966, and his testimony with respect to  Swofford's comings and goings was consistent with the testimony of other  witnesses. He testified that he seized various wagering apparatus at  Swofford's trailer.

A somewhat lengthy recitation of the modus  operandi of the "numbers" lottery business has been made in order to  place the respective parties in their proper roles and to determine  whether, under the applicable statutes, any or all of them are liable  for the assessments made by the government.


Third-party defendant  Swofford. Swofford has acknowledged his participation, and there can be  no doubt but that he was a person liable for wagering taxes imposed by §  4401 and § 4411. He ran the business. He failed to register. He failed  to keep records, and he failed to pay the wagering taxes. On August 14,  1970, defendant was assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or  his duly authorized agent for the taxable period October 14, 1965 to  June 30, 1967 in the amount of $132.72 pursuant to § 4411.

Pursuant  to § 4401, the Commissioner timely assessed Swofford for the taxable  period October 14, 1965 — February 28, 1967 the sum of $98,070.45.  Third-party defendant Swofford has failed to prove that the assessment  was wrong and has failed to produce convincing evidence from which a  proper determination of the amount of tax due may be ascertained.  Judgment will therefore be entered in favor of third-party plaintiff and  against third-party defendant Swofford in the amount of $98,203.17.


Third-party defendants  Jack W. Klein and Jacqueline C. Klein. These parties have each been  assessed for the taxable period October 14, 1965 to June 30, 1967 the  sum of $132.62 pursuant to § 4411 and for the period October 14, 1965 to  February 28, 1967 and have each been assessed $97,982.15 pursuant to §  4401 for a total of $98,114.77 each party. The question presented for  determination is whether either Jack W. Klein or Jacqueline C. Klein are  persons liable within the meaning of § 4401(c). The government contends  that by furnishing vital auditing functions and a place of operation  the Kleins made themselves liable under this section. The key words of  the section are: "Each person who is engaged in the business of  accepting wagers" and "each person who conducts any wagering pool or  lottery * * *" (Emphasis supplied). A mere pick-up man or other employee  who has no proprietary interest in the operation and who receives no  wagers for his own account is not engaged in the business nor does he  conduct a wagering pool or lottery, and is not liable for the tax. United States v. Calamaro,  354 U.S. 351, 77 S.Ct. 1138, 1 L.Ed.2d 1394 (1957); Ingram v. United  States, 259 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1958), affirmed in part, reversed in part  on other grounds 360 U.S. 672, 79 S.Ct. 1314, 3 L.Ed.2d 96; United  States v. Bowen, 411 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1969).

The government  contends that the guilty pleas by Swofford, Mr. and Mrs. Klein and Drake  before Judge Regan are admissions against interest which establish that  they were personally liable under § 4401(c). The court has considered  such pleas for what they are worth, and has accorded them very little  weight. At the time of plea, no questions were asked or answers given  touching upon the factual basis for the plea.[fn1] The parties testified  that they were advised to plead guilty by their attorney and that each  of them only knew that they did not have a wagering stamp. The plea,  under these circumstances, standing alone, is no evidence that any of  the three had any wagers placed with them or conducted a wagering pool  or lottery within the meaning of § 4401(c).

While the court does  not condone the actions of the Kleins in knowingly permitting Swofford  to perform certain functions of an illegal lottery in their home and in  assisting him in various minor ways, the court concludes from the  preponderance of the credible evidence that the Kleins were not persons  liable for tax within the meaning of § 4401(c). There was no evidence of  participation in the proceeds of the business or that either of the  Kleins had any control or management functions. They received no  compensation except such largesse as their friend Swofford saw fit to  bestow from time to time in terms of entertainment outside the home. One  may find the relationship between the three bizarre, but the court does  not find the testimony to be so improbable as to be beyond belief.  There was no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, judgment will be  entered in favor of third-party defendants Jack W. Klein and Jacqueline  C. Klein and against third-party plaintiff on the third-party complaint.


William Irvin Drake.  Defendant claims that Drake played an indispensable role which enabled  Swofford to extend his business in the city while handling the county  business himself. The government stresses the trust imposed in Drake by  giving him access to advance materials. For reasons previously set forth  in relation to Mr. and Mrs. Klein, the court concludes that this  relationship was not such as to make Drake a person liable for the tax  within the meaning of § 4401(c). He was a paid runner, nothing more. He  was not conducting a lottery business, but was a mere employee having no  interest or participation in the proceeds of the business. Accordingly,  the court concludes that plaintiff Drake is entitled to recover amounts  paid by him under protest against the assessment for wagering taxes.  Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in  the sum of $19.00. Judgment on the counterclaim will be entered in favor  of plaintiff and against defendant. Each party will bear his own costs.

This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

So ordered.

[fn1] The criminal case pre-dated McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969).

See also Fine v. United States, 206 F.Supp. 520 (Colo. 1962).

Other Tax Laws' Liability Provisions

  • Estate Tax:  26  U.S.C. §§ 2032A and 2056A specifically state who is liable  for the tax.
  • FICA:  26 U.S.C. §  3102(b) specifically states who is liable for the tax.
  • Railroad Retirement  Tax:  26 U.S.C. § 3202 specifically states who is liable for the  tax.
  • Employment Taxes in  General: 26 U.S.C. § 3505 specifically imposes liability.
  • Luxury Passenger   Automobile Excise Tax:  26 U.S.C. §§ 4002 and 4003 specify  who is  primarily liable and who is secondarily liable.
  • Heavy Trucks and  Trailers Excise Tax:  26 U.S.C. §§ 4051 and 4052  specifically impose liability for the tax.
  • Tire Manufacture  Excise Tax:  26 U.S.C. § 4071 specifies who is liable for the  tax.
  • Manufacturers Excise  Tax:  26 U.S.C. § 4219 specifies who is liable for the tax.
  • Tax on Wagers:  26  U.S.C. § 4401 specifically states who is liable for the tax.
  • Wagering  Occupational Tax:  26 U.S.C. § 4411.
  • Vehicle Use Tax:  26  U.S.C. § 4483.
  • Tax on Petroleum:   26 U.S.C. § 4611.
  • Tax on Chemicals:   26 U.S.C. § 4662.
  • Tax on Contributions  to Qualified Employer Pension Plans:  26 U.S.C. § 4972.
  • Excise  Tax on Failure to Satisfy Continuation Coverage Requirements of Group  Health Plans:  26 U.S.C. § 4980B.
  • Excise  Tax on Failure to Meet Certain Group Health Plan Requirements:  26  U.S.C. § 4980D.
  • Excise  Tax on Failure of Applicable Plans Reducing Benefit Accruals to  Satisfy Notice Requirements:  26 U.S.C. § 4980F.
  • Gallonage  Tax on Distilled Spirits:  26 U.S.C. § 5005.
  • Gallonage  Tax on Wines:  26 U.S.C. § 5043.
  • Storage  Tax on Imported Distilled Spirits:  26 U.S.C. § 5232.
  • Tax  on Wine Imported in Bulk:  26 U.S.C. § 5364.
  • Tax  on Beer Imported in Bulk:  26 U.S.C. § 5418.
  • Excise  Tax on Manufacture of Tobacco Products:  26 U.S.C. § 5703.
  • Tax on Purchase,  Receipt, Possession or Sale of Tobacco Products:  26 U.S.C. §  5751.



Yes, you
can do it!  It's a lot easier than you think.

Your  T-Trooper Group, Meet-up Group, civic club or other association can host  a one-day TA Mini-Sem with hardly any effort and minimal up front  costs,
helping to spread the word, waking the sleeping giant, and at the same time recruit new members and raise $2,000-5,000 or even more in one weekend.  Prior experience is not necessary because TA will lead you through it, backing you up and helping you along the whole way.

TA has  a number of nationally known presenters, all with interesting stories  to tell and a host of Truth to spread around, including:

  • Joe   Banister,  former IRS C.I.D.   Special Agent whose integrity forced him to resign  from the IRS   after learning the truth about the income tax law;

  • Larry   Becraft, nationally renowned   tax "crime" defense attorney and unsurpassed authority on   the income tax law and its history;

  • Tom   Cryer,  Constitutionalist   attorney who has refused to file or pay income taxes  since 1993 and   who beat the IRS in court when it prosecuted him for  daring to   challenge them with the truth;

  • Vernice   Kuglin,  the Fed-Ex pilot who   went head to head, nose to nose, with the IRS and  was acquitted of   all charges the IRS could conjure up against her;

  • Larken   Rose,  author of numerous   books exposing the IRS's myths and lies and whose  books and writings   were so damaging to the IRS it railroaded him  through a bogus trial   and sent him to prison.

TA is constantly adding new and interesting presenters to the list, so ask who is available when you call.

The host group receives ALL admission fees! TA does not charge the host anything for instructions, materials, support, publicity or for the presenter.   All TA receives is donations to the TA cause received at the event(s).

TA  will provide you with detailed instructions and tips for making your  Mini-Sem a big success both for your group and for TA.  A few simple  steps are all it takes:

  1. Call TA at   318 866-9966 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it to reserve tentative dates   for your Mini-Sems
  2. Receive the   initial TA Mini-Sem materials packet
  3. Reserve  a   meeting place (or places for tandem events, doubling your impact and    fundraising potential*)—TA will give you tips for low to no cost    facilities
  4. If   necessary, make travel and lodging arrangements for the TA presenter
  5. Confirm your   reserved dates with TA
  6. Receive  the   complete Mini-Sem materials packet with detailed tips,  instructions   and all the materials you will need to make your Mini-Sem a  big hit
  7. Publicize    your event(s) through local media and publications (TA will help you    publicize your event(s) through the News From The Front, TA's   Schedule  of Events and with press releases sent to media in your   area) and,  finally,
  8. Hold your   Mini-Sem

It's simple!  Really!  Call TA today to get started on hosting your group's own TA Mini-Sem.

*Fundraising and public impact are maximized by conducting back-to-back events in two communities on the same weekend.

Is It About Money?

Think again. This is about your freedom and your right to govern your own life, community and state; but most of all this is about your sole ownership of your labor and the fruits of that labor. You are not a slave, not in whole, not in part, not in any way.

More Details

Is It About Freedom?

  • The US Constitution prohibits any direct tax upon your labor or property. When federal agencies are allowed to operate above the law only then can you be ruled by fear, intimidation and force.  YOU ARE NOT FREE!
  • The Fed uses money stolen through income tax to buy legislators and bring states in line. Thus the Fed, not you nor your state representatives, rules. Your state has  been reduced, once again, to a colony of a distant and indifferent  government, and YOU ARE NOT FREE!
  • Finally, third, and perhaps even more importantly, the power to tax  is the power to destroy. If the federal government can tax one freedom, it can tax all of our freedoms. If we permit them to tax our most precious and  fragile assets, if all we have is kept only by the consent of the  government—then we are at its mercy and YOU ARE NOT FREE!

Our Mission: Evolution, Not Revolution

A wall stands between you and economic freedom. That wall went up one brick at a time but can be taken down in the same way. Help us get Americans and even the IRS to better understand our Constitutional freedoms. And engage with the IRS safely through risk-free activities.

Read More


Welcome to Truth Attack, a coalition of like-minded citizens and groups working to restore the limited and distant federal republic guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Memorandum

Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus. Tom Cryer wrote The Memorandum. A must-read for every American. Welcome to the fight for YOUR economic rights.

Click: You won't believe your eyes.

Help Support Us!


Taking on the IRS is very costly. Support the fight to put the government back in its box... one tentacle at a time.

Click to make a donation...

Educate Others

One mission of Truth Attack is to educate ordinary Americans so the cause of Liberty can prevail!

Donate To LWRN

Help spread the message of liberty across this land through our expanding FM network.

Make a donation