Dinar Daily
Welcome to Dinar Daily Discussions.

Logging in with your USERNAME allows you to participate in discussions, see what has recently been posted, and other options. Guests can post but they do have limited abilities.

We are NOT a guru forum. We are a dinarian forum. The opinions expressed on the forum do not reflect the of opinion of Dinar Daily specifically, but rather reflect the views of the individual posters only.


We are in compliance with, "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Get Daily Updates of the NEWS & GURUS in your EMAIL

Enter your email address:



Go down


Post by roadglide on Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:18 pm

The IRC 3401 and 3121, and Title 26 USC 3401 & 3121 are the only places that define Income, Wages, Employees and their Employer, and those who are legally liable to pay an Income Tax. The Rule of Law is specific in that it only allows federally privileged employees, officers, elected officials of the United States, a state, political subdivision, District of Columbia, officer of a corporation, and other artificial entities to be taxed.

Supreme Court Cases and Congressional records in support of this Affidavit

The United States Courts have ruled:
“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and NOT to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for NON-TAXPAYERS, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws”.Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238. (1922), Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S. 470 F. 2d 585, at 589. (1972)

The United States Supreme Court said:
“A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution”. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at page 113. (1943)

The Courts also said:
“The individual, unlike the corporation, CANNOT be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; BUT the individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise CANNOT be imposed”.
Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, at page 819. (Oregon 1930)

“Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right CANNOT be taxed as a privilege”.
Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W. 2d 453, 455-456. (Tenn 1960)

“The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a Constitutional as well as a Common Law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry”.

TITLE 15 U.S.C. § 17 Release date: 2004-05-18
Anti-trust laws... ...”The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce...and therefore cannot be made subject to any tax as though it were such.”

"The income tax system is a self-reporting and self-assessing one. It is based upon voluntary assessment and payment not distraint"
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 176

"Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government"
Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863

House Congressional Record, 27 March 1943, page 2580, “The income tax is, therefore, NOT a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, which is measured by referring to the income which they produce. The income is NOT the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax”.

"Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully expressed."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

"In construing federal revenue statute, Supreme Court gives no weight to Treasury regulation which attempts to add to statute something which is not there." United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351 (1957), 1 L. Ed. 2d 1394, 77 S. Ct. 1138 (1957)

"The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune. It was intended only to remove all occasions for any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary"
Evans V. Gore, 253 U.S. 245

"The extension of tax by implication is not favored"
Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239

"Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress"
Blatt Co. v. United States, 59 S. Ct. 472

"Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or employed. Income is not a wage or compensation from any type of labor"
Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"
Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

"To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self-incriminatory, is beyond the power of Congress"
United States v. Lombardo, 228 F. 980,981

"In numerous cases where the IRS has sought enforcement of its summons pursuant to statute, courts have held that a taxpayer may refuse production of personal books and records by assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination."
Hill v. Philpott, 445 F2d 144, 146

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn” Proverbs 29:2
Forum Friend
Forum Friend

Posts : 132
Join date : 2011-06-18
Age : 70
Location : Right Here


Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum