Internal Revenue Service
February 27, 1981
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1111 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20224
Dear Commissioner:
Attached is an affidavit rescinding and canceling all forms and communications which I have submitted to the Internal Revenue Service since and including tax year 1974.
I hereby request a public hearing, to determine as to whether I am obligated to complete and file income tax returns. I request that this hearing be a matter of record, and that an official representative of the Internal Revenue Service speak under oath in answer to my questions and concerns. I specifically request that this hearing be scheduled before April 15, 1981, the deadline for filing Form 1040 for tax year 1980. Your expeditious handling of this matter will be appreciated,
Among the questions which I would like to have answered at the hearing are these:
1. As used in the regulations, forms, and publications of the Internal Revenue Service, does the word “dollar” mean “dollar or unit of the money of account of the United States”?
2. If not, by what legislation has any other “dollar” been established as the unit for calculating, reporting, and paying taxes?
3. If “dollar” does mean “dollar or unit of the money of account of the United States,” is the money of account of the United States a material substance or thing of value which can generally be recognized, and which can be measured by comparison to a standard of measure which exists in the material world? If so, what is this substance or thing, and what is the unit which expresses it? Are there any units of this money in circulation? How can the par value of any other goods and services be determined in units of this money?
4. If a dollar or unit of the money of account of the United States is not a defined quantity and quality of a material substance or thing, is it then only an idea? Is it an abstract and undefined mental concept? If so, can the law of the United States require me to measure my income in, and pay taxes measured in, abstract units (dollars) which do not have a substantive denominant used as a standard of measure?
Until my questions are answered and it is established otherwise, I will act on the basis of my beliefs as stated in the enclosed affidavit.
Perhaps I can elaborate further on my concerns. In the books of account of the United States are kept records of receipts, disbursements, assets, and liabilities. These records appear in the forms of numbers which denote units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States. What is the standard of quality and quantity which defines the units (dollars) currently denoted by these numbers? Surely, there must be such a standard, for otherwise the U. S. Treasurer would have no way of measuring or counting the numbers of units (dollars) of the money of account which he receives or disburses.
Or is the money of account of the U.S. nothing more than an abstract and undefined mental concept which exists only in the minds of those who “create” it, which can be “measured” only mentally and abstractly in undefined abstract units (dollars) which also exist only in the minds of those doing the “measuring” (counting), in which case the numbers appearing in our accounting books are only a record of this abstract mental exercise which has occurred in the minds of those given the authority to “create” (and “destroy”) such money, and the authority to enter a record of their destructive or creative cogitation in the official accounting books of record.
It seems as if the “dollars” on checks and other financial records are abstract units which are undefined, have no sub stantive determinant, and measure nothing at all. Whether a piece of paper or a computer or bookkeeping entry represents one, five, ten, or more “dollars” today depends only on the whim of the creators of these “dollars”, and has no relationship to any other substance or thing, Such an abstract entity cannot serve as a standard of measurement. If a given piece of paper or computer entry can have a value of any arbitrary number of “dollars”, so can any other substance or service. Measurement of, keeping records of, reporting of, and paying taxes on “income” with such “dollars” is only a game of abstract nonsense. To speak of a “dollar” or unit as money without knowing what substance it is which this dollar or unit is used to denominate or measure is to participate in a linguistic, economic, and logical absurdity. Because we have been told that the “dollar” no longer denominates gold or silver, and nothing else has been substituted as the money of account of the U. S., it seems to me that our talk of “dollars” today is only an abstract and theoretical mental exercise which has no relationship in law to the money of account of the U. S.
A person of your position doesn’t need such a reminder, but let me state for the record that this communication is addressed to an institution, and is not meant as a complaint against you or any other employee of the I.R.S. To the extent that our system is based on incorrect premises, you and every other I.R.S. employee are victims in the same way that I am. We survive or perish together.
I thank you for the time you have given or will give to this lengthy communication. I would not impose on you in this way if I did not believe that these are significant questions.
Enclosure: Affidavit
February 27, 1981
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF IOWA
SIOUX COUNTY
John (family name), being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I
I am endowed by my Creator with numerous inalienable rights
which are protected by the United States Constitution, and which I have never knowingly or intentionally waived with regard to what I have been misled into believing was a compulsory duty to file a Form 1040 or “income tax return.”
II
To the best of my knowledge and belief, these statements are true:
1. The numbers in the accounting books of record of all the public offices and courts of the United States are used to denote units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States.
And be it further enacted, That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and milles or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mille the thousandth part of a dollar, and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation. (Coinage act of April 2, 1792, Sec. 20, 1 Statutes at Large, 246, compare 31 USCA 371)
2. The money of account of the United States is gold or silver.
It is declared to he the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality to be secured through international agreement, or by such safeguards of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in value of the coins of the two metals, and the equal power of every dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of debts. (31 USCA. 311)
3. The unit (dollar) used to express the money of account of the United States is defined in terms of weight (quantity) and fineness (quality).
The dollar of gold nine-tenths fine consisting of the weight determined under the provisions of section 821 of this title shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain such parity. (31 USCA 314)
4. A unit (dollar) of the money of account of the United States is therefore a gold coin of a specified weight and fineness issued by the United States, or a silver coin of a specified weight and fineness issued by the United States. It is the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain parity of value between the standard gold dollar and the standard silver dollar. (See 31 USCA 314 in II,3,above. Compare 31 USCA 311)
5. The par value of any goods or services as measured in units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States can be determined only by their exchange value relative to such units (dollars). (See 31 USCA 311,314, quoted in II,2,3,above)
6. There is now nothing in general circulation, nor is there anything commonly used in the markets, which is declared by law to be units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States.
7. No goods or services are now being commonly exchanged for units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States.
8. It is now impossible to determine the par value of any goods or services relative to units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States.
9. It is now impossible to express the value of anything in units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States.
10. It is now impossible for me to measure my income in units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States.
11. It is now impossible for me to complete and file a Form 1040 which requires "dollar" measurements.
12. The law cannot require me to do that which it is impossible for me to do.
13. Because the above statements have been true during the past seven years (and longer), I have since tax year 1974 had no duty nor any obligation to file a Form 1040, or in any other way to measure and report my income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), nor do I have any such duty or obligation at this time.
14. At this time I am unable to verify or to provide records to support statements and claims made in any reports, forms, or other communications which I may have sent to the IRS since and including tax year 1974, because I can no longer say that those statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
III
During the past seven years I have been impressed, influenced, pressured, misled, intimidated, and alarmed by:
1.The mailing of a package of tax forms to my home each year by the IRS, warning that I must file a tax return if my income was at least a specified number of “dollars.”
2. Numerous and repeated public warnings made by the IRS via the media of public communication warning of the “deadline” for filing a Form 1040 or “income tax return.”
3. The IRS’s public display and proffering of the Form 1040 in banks and post offices, the IRS’s repeated invitation through the public media to seek assistance from any IRS office in completing these forms, and the impressive number and variety of supplementary forms displayed in the entrance areas of IRS offices.
4. Numerous public media reports that people were threatened, harassed, arrested, prosecuted, fined, or jailed for failure to file income tax returns.
5.The presence of a growing army of private tax accountants, tax attorneys, tax form preparers, tax consultants, tax-shelter advisers, and financial-planning and estate-planning advisers, who claim that they offer services to help individuals in determining whether they are obligated to file a Form 1040, in measuring income and completing tax forms, and in developing strategies to minimize future tax liability.
6. The advice, suggestions, opinions, and assurances expressed by members of this army of practitioners.
7. The common and widespread practice of employers who automatically withhold “income taxes” from paychecks of their employees, and send year-end reports expressing “dollars” of income and of such withholdings.
8. The common and widespread practice of lending institutions, depository institutions, and other various institutions arid organizations, who for “tax purposes” send customers and associates year-end reports with numbers expressing “dollars” of interest and other payments received and of interest and other payments disbursed.
9. Widespread rumors and misinformed public opinion.
IV
That by all the subjects mentioned in III, above, I have been misled to believe erroneously that:
l. There is a legal duty and obligation upon me to measure my income in “dollars", then to put numbers on a Form 1040 which express the results of that measurement, and then to file such a completed form with the IRS.
2. There are in circulation “dollars” which the law requires me to use as a standard of value when measuring my income.
3. The numbers commonly used on checks, receipts, and price tags, and on the year-end tax reports distributed by employers, lending institutions, depository institutions, and other institutions and organizations, denote the “dollars” by which my income must be measured, and in terms of which I must make reports on the Form 1040.
4. “IRS will get you,” and I could be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment if I did not measure my income, and complete, sign, and file with the IRS a Form 1040.
5. It is possible for me to measure my income in the way which the law requires, and to use the results of such measurement to complete a Form 1040.
V
That the warnings, rumors, advice, assurances, pressures, and intimidations from the the sources listed in III, above, resulted lin the erroneous beliefs, misleading information, and misguided fears and apprehensions listed in IV, above, which caused me to complete unwittingly a Form 1040 for each of the tax years 1974 through 1979, as a result of intimidation and having been misled into thinking and believing that it was possible for me to measure my income as required by law, and that I had a legal duty and obligation to file a Form 1040, which completed forms I signed and sent to the Internal Revenue Service on or before the reported April 15 “deadline” for each year.
VI
Neither the IRS, nor any of its agents or employees, nor Form 1040, nor any other forms or publications of the IRS, nor any of the practitioners mentioned in III,5,above, nor any of those who sent me year-end reports for “tax Purposes”, ever warned me or advised me or suggested that I consider the possibility that one or more of the statements in II, above, are or might be true, or that merely sending Form 1040 to the IRS would, an itself, constitute legal evidence admissible in a court of law that the sender is subject to and liable for the income tax and has a legal duty and obligation to file a Form 1040, even though and regardless of the fact that the sender is actually and legally not subject to or liable for any income tax and has no legal duty or obligation whatsoever to file a Form 1040.
VII
It has recently been called to my attention that an official IRS form letter (FL 1264) states, “...the fact that you have sent us this Form 1040 shows that you recognize your obligation to file.” I declare that it has never been my intention or desire to show the IRS or anyone else that I recognize any such obligation, if I legally do not have such an obligation. The only reason why I completed and sent any Form 1040 to the IRS during the past many years is because I was misinformed as to the truth regarding the standard of value which the law requires me to use when measuring my income, and regarding the nature of the “dollars” commonly used in accounting for exchanges, and because I was misled, deceived, and intimidated by the subjects mentioned in III, above, to believe that I had a legal duty and obligation to file a Form 1040.
VIII
Recently I have personally examined many relevant sections of the United States Code, and I am now convinced and satisfied that it is impossible for me to measure my income in units (dollars) of the money of account of the United States, that it is therefore impossible for me to complete and file a Form 1040, that such has been the case for many years, that the law cannot require me to do that which it is impossible for me to do, and that therefore, since tax year 1974, I have not been required by law to complete and file a Form 1040.
IX
In reliance upon the relevant sections of the United States Code, and in reliance upon the fact that the law cannot require me to do that which it is impossible for me to do, I am now convinced and satisfied that since tax year 1974 I have had absolutely no legal duty or obligation to file any Form 1040, or make any income tax return, or to keep any records, or to supply any information to the IRS.
X
That by reason of the facts stated above, I do hereby exercise my legal right and moral obligation to rescind and cancel and to render null and void for any and all purposes each and every one of all income tax returns, Forms 1040, and other forms and communications which, at any time since and including tax year 1974, I might ever have caused to be signed with my name or sent to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States.
XI
In witness to the above statements, I am putting my signature below, with gratitude to God for the clarity of mind He has given me so that I might better understand .these matters, and asking Him to be my witness.
July 26, 1983
(To an Internal Revenue Agent)
Today I have come here to your office in Sioux City only because I wish to facilitate the termination of this cumbersome process in which we are entangled.
In February, 1981, I submitted to the Internal Revenue Service an affidavit expressing beliefs of mine, together with a list of important questions which were of concern to me. I have been trying for more than two years to obtain through the Internal Revenue Service answers to those questions of concern. Such efforts have been fruitless. The Internal Revenue Service has Ignored my questions of concern and proceeded to examine my tax returns for successive years. If you, or anyone else in the Internal Revenue Service, can help me get answers to those questions of concern, or give me helpful suggestions toward that end, I make this final request that you do so.
Meanwhile, I have decided to present for your inspection today documents related to the income tax return which my wife and I submitted for 1979. I do not wish to spend more time proving that we do not owe taxes which have been assessed based upon arbitrary determinations, such as real estate purchase prices of zero, and based upon assumptions which I now believe are erroneous and unlawful, while my concerns are ignored. My decision to present to you documents which you will probably interpret with your assumptions does not imply that I now accept your assumptions, nor that I believe I am required by law to submit anything to you. It only indicates that I wish to terminate this contentious process in which we are entangled. I prefer to spend my time in activities which are fruitful and harmonious.
April 24, 1984
(To an I.R.S. Appeals Officer)
I have come to meet you here in Sioux City today, only to avoid litigation and to facilitate the termination of our contentious entanglement.
I repeat what I said in my letter of July 26, 1983, to Internal Revenue Agent (name):
My decision to present to you documents which you will probably interpret with your assumptions does not imply that I now accept your assumptions, nor that I believe I am required by law to submit anything to you. It only indicates that I wish to terminate this contentious process in which we are entangled.
July 31, 1984
(To the same Appeals Officer)
As I said in my letter of April 24, 1984, I do not accept the assumptions which underlie your conclusions. Accordingly, I deny that your conclusions are correct. However, I will not initiate any legal challenge of actions in harmony with your latest conclusions.
I hope this will facilitate the termination of our entanglement.
August 22, 1984
(To the same Officer)
You will find enclosed funds of 126.56, as we discussed by telephone when you called me yesterday afternoon. Please send a note confirming receipt.
It is my understanding that your receipt of these funds will terminate our entanglement regarding 1980, and that you are sending me a note to confirm this understanding.
January 30, 1985
To The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
In February, 1981, I sent you an affidavit regarding some of my beliefs.
I hereby retract the oath in that affidavit.
I do this not because the statements in it are false. I believe that they are true. I do this because I have repented after considering the instructions of my Lord in Matthew 5:34,37, "I tell you, do not swear at all.... Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No', 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."
February 4, 1985
(From the Appeals Officer)
The report issued by the examining officer for 1979 had reflected a refund of $278.96. You had supplied additional information for 1979 to show that you would be entitled to a refund of $347.00 for 1979. However, in processing your case, we find that the statute of limitations for 1979 had expired prior to the receipt of the case in Appeals and that we cannot process your overassessment. Therefore, we will recommend that no changes be made to your 1979 return.
[]
|