“I have a question regarding your article on taxation.  First off, I am VERY sympathetic to your view.  I believe the income tax to be the root of much evil.  Clearly, it is an aggression against our God-given right to property, so that in itself makes it immoral.  Take what is funded with the stolen money (i.e. aggressive wars, abortion, welfare, public education, etc. etc) and it becomes all the more obvious that income taxation, or all taxation for that matter, is wrong. 

However, recently I've read a few statements from the leadership of the Church that appear to state, in effect, that we should pay our income taxes.  I believe there was a statement from the 1st Presidency in the 70's (I could dig it up but I'm pretty certain you already know what I talking about) that said we should pay our taxes.  How do you square your stance with this teaching?“

I fully believe I am within the OFFICIAL STATEMENT by the church which allows me to fight the Income Tax or any tax for that matter if I have a well founded legal objection to the tax. I am also ONLY required to pay “REQUIRED INCOME TAXES and am not required to pay “voluntary” taxes that are not imposed by clearly written law since the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that if the taxing statute is not clear and unequivocal that the citizen is exempt.  Here is the statement by the Church on income taxes and I have followed it to the letter.

"Church members in any nation are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of that nation. If a member disapproves of tax laws, he may attempt to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment, or if he has a well founded legal objection, he may challenge them in the courts.

"A member who refuses to file a tax return, to pay required income taxes, or to comply with a final judgment in a tax case is in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church."

I am not required to file an income tax return. No law says I am required. 26 U.S.C. is at best, vague, unclear and equivocal and therefore all American citizens are “exempt. I am merely educated on the truth and the truth has made me free. If I am in error I seek the guidance of any Latter-day Saint that can answer my questions. I seek only to follow the law and follow the prophets who have repeated told me to “Eschew Communism” which is what I have done by refuting to participate in a Communist tax.

I have been politically active since I was 10. I am currently the State Chairman of the Independent American Party of Nevada. I have helped the party become the third largest and fastest growing party in Nevada with a 150% growth from 17,000 members in 2004 to 45,000 members this year. I have run for office several times, helped to change many laws and won several lawsuits concerning petitioning rights, voting rights and minor party rights. We have several 7 to 0 wins in the Nevada Supreme Court and just won a 7-0 decision again last year concerning voting requirements in Nevada. My family and I were instrumental in the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment both in Nevada and nationally. Our party and my family were leaders in the amendment to stop homosexual marriage that passed in Nevada just a few years ago.

I have not filed an income tax return in 29 years. I have no problems with the IRS. There are no court judgments against me, in fact I have never received so much as a demand letter. I do, however, have signed letters from the IRS stating I am not required to file a 1040 return. We have been able to prove, in court, that Social Security Numbers are not required but only voluntary and that 7-0 win at the Nevada Supreme Court, just last year, was about one of our IAP members that had no Social Security Number and wanted to vote. He won. He voted. Social Security Numbers are voluntary.

I have spent the last 12 years researching the laws and have spoken with federal judges (for other people), talked to many Department of Justice attorneys during trials and with countless IRS agents, both retired and active, and not one of them can show me any law that requires me to file a 1040 tax return. In fact three of my former IRS agent friends (one was a CID agent that the IRS had arrested and he was acquitted) all tell me that the IRS is a fraud and there is no law requiring most Americans to file. So do my personal attorneys.

I pay all taxes required by law too but I am not required to file a 1040 and can find no law that requires me to do so. Can you tell me what law requires me to file? Of course you cannot because there is no law. But if I am totally in error please tell me the number and chapter of the statute so that I can challenge it directly. The IRS has been unable to show it to me in 29 years. Even my attorneys have stated that the research I have done along with the letters I have received makes it clear that I am exempt. But I am still having a problem with the lack of a clear official position by the church and it causes me great pain.

I write this letter because the policy of the church is so vague that even Stake Presidents do not follow it with consistency. That is one of the reasons it causes me pain. One of my Stake Presidents (an open and active supporter of pro-abortionist Socialist Harry Reid, Mormon Democrat Senator from Nevada) refused to give me a temple recommend so I simply moved to another Stake with a Republican Stake President and got a temple recommend without a problem. Both Presidents were aware that I do not file or pay since I am not required to file or pay by law. The Stake President that refused to give me a temple recommend even had his first counselor, a lawyer, come in to tell me I was wrong. But I asked him to show me the law that required me to file a return and he could not. He also could not explain the signed letters I have from the IRS stating I am not required to file a 1040.

I cannot read the words of the prophets and come to the conclusion you obviously have come to. Here is my reasoning and I hope that you can explain this difficulty to me so that I can at least consider your opinion on this subject so that maybe I can feel less anger about it. Not toward you or the church but about the failure of my country to stop appeasing Satan by paying these Communist taxes.

What it boils down to is that I feel like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Do I follow God's commandment and not eat of the tree of life (pay income taxes if required) or do I multiply and replenish the earth by eschewing Communism? I cannot have it both ways. That is just as impossible as the choice Eve had.

I cannot have it both ways. Either I voluntarily file and pay a graduated income tax with Federal Reserve notes (5th plank of the Communist Manifesto) and support Socialism and Communism or I refuse to pay a tax I do not even owe and fight against Socialism and Communism and have to be insulted by church members for doing so.

"The voices I hear are persuasive, seductive, fascinating, and confusing. Speaking across the earth, they are part of a mighty battle that is being waged for the minds of men. They are aimed at persuasion in political philosophy. There are voices of democracy competing with voices of communism, and each is winning converts according to the discernment and the judgment of listeners. The stakes are high, the weapons are sophisticated, the methods are clever." President Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 407

Which rule do I follow while still being consistent with the directions given by Ezra Taft Benson?

"The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that it will be the elders of Israel, not the Church, who will step forward to help save the Constitution. And have the elders been warned? Yes, they have. And besides, if the Church should ever inaugurate a program, who do you think would be in the forefront to get it moving? It would not be those who were sitting on the sidelines prior to that time or those who were appeasing the enemy. It would be those choice spirits who, not waiting to be "commanded in all things," will use their own free will, the counsel of the prophets, and the Spirit of the Lord as guidelines and who enter the battle "in a good cause" and bring to pass much righteousness in freedom's cause."

And what about the church’s support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Am I wrong to use it to fight for my freedoms?

“Policies and Announcements,” Ensign, May 1993, 102

Church Supports Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

Supporters of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act held a news conference in Washington, D.C., to announce the introduction in the U.S. Congress of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Church is a member of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which encouraged introduction of the legislation.

Representing the Church at the news conference was T. LaMar Sleight, president of the Oakton Virginia Stake. He read the following statement at the news conference:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports the principles expressed in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and urges its passage. We commend the sponsors of this legislation for their recognition of the importance of the free exercise of religion to the freedom and well-being of our pluralistic society. Although we would prefer that the Supreme Court reverse the Smith case and restore the full constitutional dimensions of the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion, we believe that this statutory restoration of the ‘compelling governmental interest’ standard is both a legitimate and a necessary response by the legislative branch to the degradation of religious freedom resulting from the Smith case. For Mormons, this legislation implements into federal law a vital principle of general application embodied in our Church’s eleventh Article of Faith, written in 1842: ‘We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.’ ”

If the Church supports the RFRA then does it not also support people taking advantage of this law to protect their religious liberty? To believe they do not would be, to me, ridiculous since the law would have no meaning.

The Churches official position on Socialism/Communism appears to be:

"Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet." First Presidency Message, in Conference Report, Apr. 1942

Has this changed? I could find no such change in doctrine. Am I misinformed? Is Communism not still Satan’s counterfeit plan?

The second commandment (plank) of the Ten Commandments of the Communist Manifesto is:    

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

My understanding is that the official Church position on income taxes is:

"Church members in any nation are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of that nation. If a member disapproves of tax laws, he may attempt to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment, or if he has a well founded legal objection, he may challenge them in the courts.

"A member who refuses to file a tax return, to pay required income taxes, or to comply with a final judgment in a tax case is in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church."

Am I wrong? Is there some other official church statement that I do not know about?

So what I have here is a conundrum.

The church supports the RFRA, which says the government has to demonstrate that any of their laws that violated anyone religious belief can be challenged.

The Church says Communism/Socialism cannot be supported by faithful members of the church.

The Communist manifesto says we MUST have “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

The Church's official position is that, "If a member disapproves of tax laws, he may… if he has a well founded legal objection…challenge them in the courts.”

Naturally, to challenge them in the courts, an American must have a controversy, so much like the church did with polygamy, men violated the alleged law so they could be arrested to cause a controversy.

So I would like to know: If we do not challenge the heavy progressive AND graduated income tax under the Church supported Religious Freedom Restoration Act are we not lending "aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies?"

Are you accusing me of trying to support a private agenda, political or financial or otherwise, trying to manipulate the prophet, not to follow him? It was not only President Benson that said we have a duty to fight against the evils of Socialism.

            Quoting President McKay:

             “In conclusion, I repeat that no greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of the Republic and of neighboring Republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States. ‘Let us, by exercising our privileges under the Constitution:

(1)               Preserve our right to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience,

(2)                Preserve the right to work when and where we choose....

(3)               Feel free to plan and to reap without the handicap of bureaucratic interference.

(4)               Devote our time, means, and life if necessary, to hold inviolate those laws which will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” (“Free Agency.. .A Divine Gift” 367, 378)

How can I “Feel free to plan and to reap without benefit handicap of bureaucratic interference” if I have to have “bureaucratic interference” with the bureaucratic IRS stealing what I reap?

How can I have control of property when they threaten it without law or in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

How am I “trying to manipulate the prophet, not to follow him”?

How can I be a faithful member of the church while paying a Communist tax that is not even founded in law? Tax law has to be clear and unequivocal or the citizen is exempt. I am exempt if only for the reason that the tax law is anything but clear and unequivocal.

 Here is a very shortened version of my well-founded legal objections to the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. Am I allowed, under the official position of the church to challenge the IRS? Are other members allowed to fight too or will we be arbitrarily disciplined and ridiculed for fighting against this Communist Tax?

Many of the statutes within U.S.C. 26 Internal Revenue Code, may have substantially burdened my religious exercise and therefore would be in violation of my statutorily created rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb-1)(herein after called RFRA) but because I, with a 100% surety, cannot pinpoint the law[s] that create any duty or obligation upon me or that actually make me liable for any of the several taxes within U.S.C. 26 so I cannot specifically state those statutes that are being challenged at this time.

Therefore until I learn from the IRS which statutes specifically apply to me and make me liable for any of the administered taxes I will call them the U.S.C. 26 § John Doe statutes.

Since statutes in U.S.C. 5 Government Organization and Employees, U.S.C. 6 Domestic Security,  U.S.C. 7 Agriculture, U.S.C. 11, Bankruptcy U.S.C. 12, U.S.C. 18, U.S.C. 19 Customs Duties, U.S.C. 20 Education, U.S.C. 31, U.S.C. 42 The Public Health and Welfare U.S.C. 48, Territories and Insular Possessions; may also substantially burden my religious exercise in violation of the RFRA I maintain the right to challenge any and all statues and/or regulations in these code sections if need be and any other statute or regulation that may later be discovered to substantially burden or link to any other state that substantially burdens my religious exercise.

If the IRS will give me (demonstrate) the exact statute[s] that makes me liable for the Income Tax I will specifically include those laws that substantially burdens my religious exercise when they are made available (demonstrated) by the Government.

In order to be eligible for tax court, which is a “particularized tribunal” a person must have received a Congressionally statutorily created right for which tax court was specifically created. If not then the Separation of powers doctrine has been violated. You MUST have received this "right" or you are not a "taxpayer."

“[W]hen Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right… No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts. Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.  458 U.S. 50, 83-84, 102 S.Ct. 2858,2877 - 2878 (1982)

Tax Court is a “particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks” and my religious exercise has been substantially burdened because I have been unable to find out what statutory right I am accused of accepting so that I am forced to go to Tax Court which would have no such authority unless I was seeking to adjudicate a statutorily created right. To labor for wages is not a Congressionally created statutorily created right. Property rights laws are State jurisdiction and therefore this U.S.C. 26 John Doe law is creating a burden and the IRS must demonstrate what law creates that burden. (Accordingly, “[w]e look initially to state law to determine what rights the taxpayer has in the property the Government seeks to reach, then to federal law to determine whether the taxpayer's state-delineated rights qualify as ‘property’ or ‘rights to property’ within the compass of the federal tax lien legislation.” U.S. v. Craft 535 U.S. 274, 278, 122 S.Ct. 1414, 1420 (2002))

My religious beliefs include but are not limited to:

a.    The Bible (King James version)   http://scriptures.lds.org/

b.    The Book of Mormon   http://scriptures.lds.org/

c.    The Doctrine and Covenants   http://scriptures.lds.org/

d.    The Pearl of Great Price  http://scriptures.lds.org/

e.    The Testament of Sovereignty  http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

f.         The teaching and speeches of the Apostles and Prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg

g.       The teachings and doctrines and research of The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty  http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

h.       The Constitution of the United States of America as per its original intent ONLY.  http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

i.         The Declaration of Independence http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

j.         All teachings of Jesus Christ

k.       The Bill of Rights    http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

l.         George Washington’s Farewell Address http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

m.     All other uplifting words from Heavenly inspired men that preach against the counterfeit plans and religion of Satan as described and defined by the prophets and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1.      That the prophets the Latter-day prophets Heber J. Grant, David O. McKay, Ezra Taft Benson and Joseph B. Wirthlin all warned Americans to “Let it the Constitution be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, in spelling books, and almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. In short, let it become the political religion of the nation.”  http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

2.      That The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty is such a political and inspired religion. http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/

Since there are a multitude of religions that have many doctrines and the government has many laws there are may be many laws that may conflict with many religious’ doctrines, at the same time, which may cause a substantial burden upon an adherent’s religious exercise, and so may be challenged under the judicial relief provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb) (herein after called RFRA) when those rights have been violated.

The Court in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal  126 S.Ct. 1211 (2006) was very clear that it is the government, not the claimant, that bears the burden of demonstrating a compelling interest:: "The Government argues that, although it would bear the burden of demonstrating a compelling interest as part of its affirmative defense at trial on the merits, the UDV should have borne the burden of disproving the asserted compelling interests at the hearing on the preliminary injunction. This argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004). In Ashcroft, we affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction in a case where the Government had failed to show a likelihood of success under the compelling interest test. We reasoned that “[a]s the Government bears the burden of proof on the ultimate question of [the challenged Act's] constitutionality, respondents [the movants] must be deemed likely to prevail unless the Government has shown that respondents' proposed less restrictive alternatives are less effective than [enforcing the Act].” Id., at 666, 124 S.Ct. 2783. That logic extends to this case; here the Government failed on the first prong of the compelling interest test, and did not reach the least restrictive means prong, but that can make no difference. The point remains that the burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the burdens at trial." Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1219 (‘2006)

The definition of a substantial burden is defined by the United States Supreme Court as: “[W]here Government puts “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division 450 U.S. 707, 708, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 1427 (‘1981)

The government has placed substantial pressure on me to modify my behavior and to violate my beliefs and therefore a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be direct or indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial. (See exhibits)

Until the government demonstrates all of the above the law, if any, is not applicable to me as that law is void because the government has not met its burden. I am, therefore, exempt for any law that substantially burdens my religious exercise so I cannot violate it. So why should I file if I am, at this time, exempt since the government has substantially burdened my religious beliefs?

The church that uses hoasca in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1214 (‘2006)) did not violate the drug laws because the drug laws violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act AND the government could not meet its burden to uphold those laws.

If it is true that:  “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

Then is it not also true, as was clearly demonstrated in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal  126 S.Ct. 1211, 1214 (‘2006)), that ANY law that violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act imposes no duties; it creates no office; is in legal contemplation, and is as inoperative as though it had never been passed when it comes to the law that is in violation of the RFRA since the RFRA imposes upon the courts the duty to view the so-called law, under the same standards that they have to view Constitutional violations.

The question is: When is the government in violation of the RFRA? I believe it is the second that a person realizes his religious exercise has been substantially burdened. In order to bring a "claim or defense" against the government the government, according to the RFRA MUST have violated the RFRA.

PERSONAL INCOME TAXES POLARIZE AND DIVIDE AN OTHERWISE UNITED NATION AND PROMOTE CLASS WARFARE AND MISTRUST OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

1.      The second plank in the Communist Manifesto (the Ten Commandments of the Communist Civil Religion) calls for a heavy, progressive (graduated) income tax not unlike what we have now with the IRS form 1040, which punishes Americans so that their wealth may be redistributed to the poor, Corporations and even to the wealthy.

2.      Such a redistribution of wealth by and through taxation is outside the powers of the Federal Legislature (Congress) and in violation of our Republican form of government according to the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull  3 U.S. 386, *388-389, (U.S. August Term 1798)

The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; 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 our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, *389 in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.

3.      Communism is a religion.

4.      Dr. Wallace Mills of St Mary’s University wrote the following to Christopher Hansen:

“I certainly came to the conclusion many years ago that Marxism is a religion, contrary to Marx’s contention that he was being ‘scientific’. This was related to my own upbringing in a fundamentalist, Pentecostal church and I came to see a huge number of similarities and parallels between the two belief systems.”

5.      The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot establish a religion of secularism in School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp  374 U.S. 203, *225, (1963)

We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’

6.      The Supreme Court has ruled in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, *578, (1992) that the government cannot establish a civic religion

[T]he government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds.

7.      Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations by Linda Woodhead Chapter 4, Titled Chinese Religions, page 99 states:

“The Cultural Revolution can itself be viewed as a secular or civic religion and revitalization of revolution….This civic religion was enforced through education.”

8.      HOST Krista Tippett. "From American Public Media, this is Speaking of Faith, public radio's conversation about belief, meaning, ethics, and ideas. Today, author Anchee Min on 'Surviving the Religion of Mao.'"

Author Anchee Min “I was taught to write ‘I love you, Chairman Mao’ before I was taught to write my own name. I never thought I belonged to myself. It was never ‘I love you, Papa’ and ‘I love you, Mama’; it's always ‘I love you, Communist Party of China,’ ‘I love you, Chairman Mao.’ What I want to say is that Mao was our religion.” Surviving the Religion of Mao TRANSCRIPT Broadcast Date: August 10, 2006

9.      Human Rights Watch/Asia Copyright © October 1997 by Human Rights Watch ISBN: 1-56432-224-6 stated that:

Every important Chinese leader and religious official has stressed that no one in China is prosecuted for his or her religious beliefs but rather for suspected criminal acts. Tightening of control over religion, they maintain, has come only at the expense of illegal groups and illegal activities. There are two problems with that argument, however. One is that refusal to register and submit to the kind of intrusive monitoring outlined above is precisely what renders an organization illegal. The second is that for Chinese officials, religious belief is a personal, individual act, and they distinguish between personal worship and participation in organized religious activities. It is the latter that they go to great lengths to control, not the former. The whole concept of religious freedom, however, involves not only freedom of the individual to believe but to manifest that belief in community with others.

10.  The IRS acts much the same way as the Communist Chinese. They allow Americans to have religious liberty as long as they “submit to the kind of intrusive monitoring” created by the Communist promoted graduated income tax.

11.  China allows for so-called religious freedom as long as you FIRST submit to their civic religion of Communism. The same is NOW true in the United States. As long as you get the Mark of the Beast, AKA Social Security Number and/or numerically marked Federal reserve notes (see the words of Constitution signer George Read), and voluntary comply with the income tax code (for I cannot call it law) then and only then can you practice your religion after you practice the Judicially and Congressionally established Civic religion of Communism/Socialism/Fascism.

12.  To be forced to practice atheistic communism is forcing me, by compulsion, of the acceptance of a creed (any system of principles or beliefs, WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University) or the practice of a form of religious worship and that is not lawful according the Supreme Court in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter 492 U.S. 573, *660, (1989)

[T]he Religion Clauses “forestal[l] compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship…”

13.  InTorcaso v. Watkins  367 U.S. 488, *494-495, (1961) the court overturned a requirement for public office in Maryland that required a belief in God stating:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’ Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

14.  If I am forced to sign a 1040 or other tax return that are ONLY for “taxpayers” (See also South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, (1984)(Non-taxpayers have different remedies), Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.  458 U.S. 50, *83-84, (1982) (only taxpayers can go to Tax Court) Economy Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. U. S.  470 F.2d 585, *589 (Ct.Cl.,1972) “[P]ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers…” ) Therefore a taxpayer must be considered by my faith to be a member of a religious cult, then I am forced “to profess a belief or disbelief in [a] religion” that is anathema to my religious beliefs and exercise and that is both unconstitutional and violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

15.  In Torcaso v. Watkins  367 U.S. 488, *496, (1961) the court overturned a requirement for public office in Maryland that required a belief in God stating:

This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 219, 97 L.Ed. 216. We there pointed out that whether or not ‘an abstract right to public employment exists,’ Congress could not pass a law providing “* * * that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.”

16.  Congress, by the reasoning in Torcaso could also not require a person receiving a Congressionally created right to “attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.” But this is exactly what is occurring with the Income tax as it is requiring me to obtain and or use a Social Security Number to promote the plans (do missionary work) demanded in the Communist Manifesto which was paid for by those same groups that have debauched Americas currency in order to destroy the Liberty of this people. Liberty and the promotion of liberty is an essential part of my religious exercise. To force me, through threats of sanctions, frivolous penalties, arrest, etc. to be a part of this obvious religious and/or anti-religious doctrine and practice is akin to forcing me to “attend [BLACK] Mass or take any active part in missionary work” and is therefore a violation of both the First Amendment and the RFRA.

17.  I, therefore cannot be forced to participate in a religious or creed promoting taxing scheme that “takes property from A. and gives it to B: [because] It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it” (see Calder v. Bull  3 U.S. 386, *389, (U.S. August Term 1798)

18.  Communism is a different belief than a belief in God and therefore neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion’… based on different beliefs than the existence of God and against those religions founded on the existence of God and yet that is exactly what the income Tax and the Federal Reserve System is attempting to do to me.

19.  Communism meets the standards of a religion a defined by the United States Supreme Court.

20.  To define what a religion is, is an establishment of a religion as it limits religion by acts of the court and/or Congress.

21.  Religion is the science of determining what is good and evil.

22.  It is a maxim of law that: Jus est ars boni et aequi. Law is the science of what is good and evil.

23.  Communism is being established by the governments of the USA as a civic or secular religion in the United States of America because the Communist Manifesto is being forced upon Americans especially, but not limited to, the 2nd, 5th and 10th planks of that manifesto.

24.  The redistribution of wealth by debauched currency such as Federal reserve notes and Income Taxes are Communist and/or Capitalist Sorcery in there design and nature.

25.  There was no income tax in the United States until after the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 AD.

26.  The U.S. Constitution requires that all direct taxes must be uniform as follows, from in Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which says: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

27.  To be uniform, a tax must apply equally to all persons similarly situated and all property of the same type or class being taxed must be taxed at the same percentage rate, no matter where people live, where the property is, or how much taxable income the person makes. Otherwise, the tax discriminates against the rich.

28.  The Supreme Court stated in the case of Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) that:

"Congress has the exclusive power of selecting the class. It has regulated that particular branch of commerce which concerns the bringing of alien passengers,' and that taxes shall be levied upon such property as shall be prescribed by law. The object of this provision was to prevent unjust discriminations. It prevents property from being classified, and taxed as classed, by different rules. All kinds of property must be taxed uniformly or be entirely exempt. The uniformity must be coextensive with the territory to which the tax applies. Mr. Justice Miller, in his lectures on the constitution, 1889 -1890 ( pages 240, 241), said of taxes levied by congress: ‘ The tax must be uniform on the particular article; and it is uniform, within the meaning of the constitutional requirement, if it is made to bear the same percentage over all the United States. That is manifestly the meaning of this word, as used in this clause. The framers of the constitution could not have meant to say that the government, in raising its revenues, should not be allowed to discriminate between the articles which it should tax.’ In discussing generally the requirement of uniformity found in state constitutions, he said: ‘The difficulties in the way of this construction have, however, been very largely obviated by the meaning of the word [157 U.S. 429, 595] 'uniform,' which has been adopted, holding that the uniformity must refer to articles of the same class; that is, different articles may be taxed at different amounts, provided the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere, with all people, and at all times.’ One of the learned counsel puts it very clearly when he says that the correct meaning of the provisions requiring duties, imposts, and excises to be 'uniform throughout the United States' is that the law imposing them should 'have an equal and uniform application in every part of the Union.'

If there were any doubt as to the intention of the states to make the grant of the right to impose indirect taxes subject to the condition that such taxes shall be in all respects uniform and impartial, that doubt, as said by counsel, should be resolved in the interest of justice, in favor of the taxpayer."

29.  The article being taxed in the case of Subtitle A income taxes is "income" as constitutionally defined. In order to meet the uniformity requirement, every dollar bill (the article being taxed) taxed must be taxed at the same rate and not in a way that is based on the income of the person receiving it, because this would amount to discrimination according to the Supreme Court as listed above.

30.  Because graduated income taxes violate the uniformity requirement of the Constitution, they must be voluntary, because the government cannot by legislation compel its citizens to violate the Constitution.

31.  The Supreme Court stated the following about the nature of income taxes in general, and that neither of these two cases has ever been overruled: "To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is…called taxation." Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874) "A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. " U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

32.  All entitlement programs, including Welfare, Social Security, FICA, etc, fall into the class of taxes identified in U.S. v. Butler that are "expropriations of money from one group for the benefit of another." Using income taxes to redistribute income or property between social classes or persons within society makes the U.S. into a socialist country:

"socialism 1.: any of various economic political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2. a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled [partially or wholly] by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, Merriam -Webster, p. 1118]

33.  The Supreme Court, in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), stated about the very first income tax instituted by Congress that: "The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness. … The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society."

34.  The payment of social benefits to persons not associated with the government under entitlement programs such as Social Security and Welfare invites and encourages the kind of class warfare described above in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

35.  Compelled charity is not charity at all, but slavery disguised as charity.

36.  It is also an anti-Christ religion and an establishment of religion in violation of the Constitutional restrictions against such on by the federal government.

37.   Social Security is not insurance and is not a contract as ruled by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis , 301 U.S. 619 (1937) and Flemming v. Nestor , 363 U.S. 603 (1960).

38.  Social Security is Socialism, and that socialism must be voluntary at all times in a free country if liberty is to be preserved.

39.  For the Social Security program to be called voluntary, a participant should be able or at least know how to quit a program at all times and that the agency should not constrain or restrict those who quit or refuse to provide information about how to quit.

40.   The Social Security Administration has no documented means to quit the Social Security program on their website or in any of their publications, and that they will not tell you how to do so if you call their 800 number.

41.  Absent an ability to leave the Social Security program at any time, the program constructively becomes a compulsory/involuntary program for those joined. Or were defrauded into joining because they are not allowed to quit.

42.  The application for joining Social Security does not indicate that the choice to join is irrevocable.

43.  Most persons who allegedly joined the Social Security program did so when they were not competent adults, and/or joining was done by the parents and without the consent or assent of the child joining.

44.  Persons whose parents applied for Social Security on their behalf are not offered a choice, upon reaching adulthood, to rescind the application so that their participation is entirely voluntary.

45.  The Enumeration at Birth Program of the Social Security Administration creates the impression at hospitals where babies are born that the obtaining of Social Security numbers for their children is mandatory, and that they make it inconvenient and awkward to refuse receiving a number for their child.

46.  Even though income tax returns require listing social security numbers for children who are dependents in order to claim them as deductions, parents may provide other proof such as a birth certificate in lieu of a social(ist) security number to claim the deduction for certain religious people.

47.  A majority of employers will insist that their employees obtain a Social Security Number as a precondition of employment, and that makes joining the program compulsory and not mandatory for all practical purposes. (See the definition of voluntary as defined in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992))

48.  The United States Supreme Court defined what voluntary meant in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

“Petitioners' argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary." Also not dispositive is the contention that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because, for many persons, the occasion would lack meaning without the recognition that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. This position fails to acknowledge that what for many was a spiritual imperative was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. It also gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by a student who would have to choose whether to miss graduation or conform to the state-sponsored practice in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high.”

49.  The government of the United States is acting in an invidious and/or covert manner to establish an anti-Christ religion and is calling it a voluntary system while violating the definition given of voluntary by the United States Supreme Court.

50.  Using the government to plunder the assets of the rich to support the poor using the force of the law is no less extortion or theft because it is called "taxation".

Therefore it is obvious that the IRS refuses to follow the law on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because they CANNOT even “demonstrate” the law that would require me and those like me, to file a 1040 return and pay a tax in Congressionally undefined “dollars.”

How can I sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury knowing what I know and not commit perjury. Are you telling me that I must commit perjury in order to pay a Communism inspired tax?

How can I say how many “dollars” I have in come when I do not know what a “dollar” is but I do know that Federal reserve notes are not dollars because of letters I have received from U.S. Senator John Ensign of Nevada, Assemblyman Robert Beer of Nevada and from a Kahre/Loglia trial a letter from the Department of the Treasury. All of these letters are clear that Federal reserve notes ARE NOT DOLLARS.

The terms Federal reserve note and legal tender are not found in the Internal Revenue Code. Taxable Income is to be judge for its value in “dollars.” There is no Congressionally created definition of what a dollar is.

Federal reserve notes are to be “payable to bearer on demand” but they are not payable on demand in anything because Americans can only receive other “fungible” “effectively non-interest-bearing promissory notes” that are not dollars. Americans only get other frn promissory notes for frn promissory notes. That is like getting a store coupon that is only redeemable in another store coupon that is redeemable in the same store coupon and nothing else, so it can never actually be redeemed. It is an I.O.U. for and I.O.U. It is a fraud. It is a scam. It is the establishment of a Civic religion of credit, fraud, deceit, and dishonesty. It is anti-Christ. It is an abomination to God.

Prov. 11: 1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight

Prov. 20: 10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.

Prov. 20: 23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.

This lack of a non-malleable “landmark” that a person of average intelligence can understand does not give “fair notice…to enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law.”

The fact is that if Americans were paid in Gold Eagle coins ($50, $25, and $5) or Silver Liberty One Dollar Coins that the average married couple would have income currently (2008 AD) totaling the equivalent of 350,000 Federal Reserve Notes a year before they would even meet the filing requirement for federal income tax. Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Congress calls Gold Eagles and Silver Liberty One Dollar coins to be legal tender AND Dollars. Congress NEVER calls Federal Reserve Notes dollars.

Assemblyman Robert Beers of Nevada wrote to me in 2007 AD and stated:

No statute defines - or ever has defined - the "one dollar" Federal Reserve Note "FRN" as the "dollar," or even as a species of "dollar." Moreover, the United States Code provides that FRNs "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States... or at any Federal Reserve bank." Thus, FRNs are not themselves "lawful money" - otherwise, they would not be "redeemable in lawful money." And if FRNs are not even "lawful money," it is inconceivable that they are somehow "dollars," the very units in which all "United States money is expressed."

People are confused on this point because of the insidious manner in which FRNs" evolved" - actually, degenerated is a more appropriate verb - from the late 1920s until today. FRNs of Series 1928 through Series 1950E carried the obligation "The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand [some number of] dollars." Prior to 1934, the notes carried the inscription "Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank." After 1934, the notes carried the inscription "this note... is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank" (post-1934) . Starting with Series 1963, the words "will pay to the bearer on demand" no longer appear ; and each FRN simply states a particular denomination in "dollars."

My brother, Joel Hansen, an attorney answered the following questions:

In response to your letter of January 17, 2008, I respond :

1. What law establishes the definition of what a dollar is?

Answer: There is no statute in 31 USC that defines what a dollar is.

2.Has any law established what the definition of a dollar is since Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1951)

Answer: There is currently no definition made by Congress of the word dollar.

So, I ask again: How can I testify under oath and therefore under penalty of perjury, reporting how many “dollars” in “income” I have in come when I do not know what a “dollar” is but I do know that Federal reserve notes are not dollars?

Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints require me to commit perjury in order to file a voluntary anti-Christ pro-Communist income tax for which there is no law that requires me to file a return unless I am liable and there is no statute that makes the average American liable?

That was a VERY shortened version of my WELL FOUNDED LEGAL OBJECTION to the Communist inspired U.S. Income Tax and according to the OFFICIAL Church stand I have the RIGHT to pursue this course of action. Are you, saying that I am violating Church doctrine by following this course of action? If so PLEASE explain to me how that is possible.

In the words of former Florida Governor Reuben Askew, the lottery is “the worst form of taxation ever invented.” This is because the poor pay a much higher proportion of their income than the rich. Economists describe this kind of tax as highly regressive. Writing in the National Tax Journal, one economist stated that most forms of gambling, including state lotteries and numbers games, turn out to be “two to three times more regressive than sales taxes.”

Well at least it is not a part of the Communist Manifesto. Shouldn’t we preach to get rid of Income Tax as the "worst form of taxation ever invented?" I don't see gambling as a part of the Communist plan to steal free agency. Income Tax destroys free agency. Gambling does not.

Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. –United States v. Flora, 362 US 145 (1958)

Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply... –Dwight E. Avis, Head of ATF, IRS –House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings –1953 

The real point of audits is to instill fear, not to extract revenue; the IRS aims at winning through intimidation and (thereby) getting maximum voluntary compliance. –Paul Strassel, Former IRS Headquarters Agent `Wall St. Journal' 1/28/80

The IRS's goal is to increase the rate at which taxpayers voluntarily pay their taxes from the current 82.3% to 90% by 2001. –The Washington Post front page Dec. 2, 1993, IRS Hopes Change

Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe. –Johnie M. Walters IRS Commissioner, 1971 Form 1040 Booklet

From Publication 21/ 1998 update

Do you have to file a tax return and pay taxes?”

Answer from Pub. 21:

The U. S. income tax system is built on the idea of "voluntary compliance." This means that it is left to the taxpayer to keep the necessary records, file a return on time, pay any required taxes, and meet any other requirements of the tax law. The system is built on trust in the citizens to know their responsibilities and to do what needs to be done. Taxpayers voluntarily follow the steps the tax system lays out. Failure to do so can result in penalties.

Two aspects of the Federal Income Tax system - voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax - make it important for you to understand your rights and responsibilities as a taxpayer. 'Voluntary compliance' places on the taxpayer the responsibility for filing an income tax return. You must decide whether the law requires you to file a return. If it does, you must file your return by the date it is due. –IRS Publication 21

You are among the millions of Americans who comply with the tax law voluntarily. –1992 Form1040 Tax Instruction Booklet

Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. –Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 IRS IR Audit Manual

The mission of the service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance. –Donald C. Alexander, IRS Commissioner, Federal Register, March 1974

The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system. –Jerome Kurtz IRS Commissioner, 1980 IR Annual Report

We have a voluntary compliance system. –Fred Goldberg, IRS Commissioner, Nightline with Ted Koppel, Apr.13, 1990

I repeat how that the Supreme Court defines “voluntary”in LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

“Petitioners' argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary." Also not dispositive is the contention that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because, for many persons, the occasion would lack meaning without the recognition that human achievements cannot be understood apart from their spiritual essence. This position fails to acknowledge that what for many was a spiritual imperative was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. It also gives insufficient recognition to the real conflict of conscience faced by a student who would have to choose whether to miss graduation or conform to the state-sponsored practice in an environment where the risk of compulsion is especially high.”

The question must be asked: Does the word “voluntary” MEAN what the Supreme Court RULED it means or did the United States Supreme Court lie when they ruled: Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. –United States v. Flora, 362 US 145 (1958)

Or are they establishing a civil religion like President Faust warned us against?

Rockefeller testified before Congress that he did not pay a cent in income tax. The rich pay LESS than the middle class so the middle class pay a much higher portion of their income than the rich. Why are you not saying the same things about the Communist Income Tax?

How can I sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury knowing what I know and not commit perjury. Are you telling me that I must commit perjury in order to pay a Communism inspired tax? If you are then I humbly submit that you are wrong.

Do I not have the right to resist an alleged law (I have yet to have ever seen this alleged law) when I consider it to be usurpation of the Constitution and authority!

"But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation. "–Theophilus Parsons, Massachusetts Convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution

And as I recall the church has 501(c)3 status. Is that not a legal way of "avoiding" income taxes. The church certainly was not forced to take 501(c)3 status. They did it to get out of paying income taxes. So are we to follow the example of the Church leaders and take EVERY opportunity we find in the law to "avoid" income taxes?

Cannot I not find a legal way to do the same? Have I not done so? Does the IRS not agree with me in writing?

Did President Grant not tell the members in General Conference in 1936 AD that the Social Security plan (Townsend plan) was in violation of the teaching of Brigham Young and the Lord? Am I to follow the Prophet or embrace Communism?

- - -

Christopher H. Hansen is the founder and Presiding Sovereign of The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty. He started this fellowship because three LDS prophets commanded us to make the Constitution the political religion of America. Christopher is also the State Chairman of the Independent American Party of Nevada. He has not filed an income tax return in 30 years, and has his own TV show in Pahrump, Nevada called American Sovereign.

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Chris said:

I still think you are in error. I think it is a dangerous path you are leading down. Not that income tax is wrong, but because you have no control over wether the government will someday decide to put you in jail. They hate people in open defiance of their so caled laws. They recently put Wesley Snipes in jail for 3 years he was part of an orgainzation in open defiance of the income tax. I too am in defiance, but I will still pay them. I will work within the political system to get the income tax repealed, but I will not sacrifice my own person sovriengty over a few lousy dollars. I will work to pay as little taxes as possible by exploiting code, etc. But I will not draw the line and risk my freedom for a few measly dollars. Dollars which I won't be able to take with me in heaven. I will also follow the prophets and pay income tax. As Dallin H. Oaks said in a talk, "I have corresponded with several Church members who sought to use something President Benson is quoted as saying as a basis for refusing to file an income-tax return or to pay income taxes. I have tried to persuade these persons that their interpretation cannot be what President Benson intended, because both he and his predecessors in that sacred office, and all of the General Authorities, have faithfully filed their income-tax returns and paid the taxes required by law." If it is good enough for the prophet it is good enough for me. In the meantime, I expect in my lifetime through hard political work to get the tax laws reformed and income tax abolished. That is at least 20 years off now. But it is a goal I will work at.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 07, 2008
Votes: +0

Joel Skousen said:

Chris is right in the technical aspects of the law. He's also right on principle. I applaud that. Sadly, this will never be reformed by political votes---unless it's to install another type of deceptive tax (usually in addition to the Income Tax). By the way, a flat tax still is an income tax and doesn't get rid of the IRS at all. That said, there is an inherant trap in the government's strange reluctance to amend the tax law and deny the tax protesters the legal basis for non-filing: It would only take the Ways and Means Committee a couple of days to draft a law closing the vague language of the IRS code. Not a single lawmaker has ever attempted to do so, even though they have the votes. The IRS has never proposed any closures of the loopholes. Why not? It is not because these people in power need these loopholes. In fact, they don't use them nor do they join the tax protest movement. The reason the code is never corrected is because the government is keeping a trap open to keep reeling in unsuspecting constitutional conservatives and putting them in jail. The Powers That Be even instruct judges to allow a few tax protesters to win an occassional case, just to keep the trap open. That's my warning. Don't go there. Besides, the Lord can make up the difference financially, when you pay taxes. By the way, Chris does come from a great patriotic family who has always fought the good fight. Live to fight another day, Chris---there are other fights more profitable and less dangerous than this one. Best wishes, Joel Skousen, World Affairs Brief.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 07, 2008 | url
Votes: +0

Steven Montgomery said:

	Christopher, Kudo's to a great article. While I agree with both Chris and Joel that one needs to be extremely wary when battling with the "powers that be," your reasoning and logic are sound. I congratulate you for your great efforts. You are a great warrior for freedom.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 10, 2008
Votes: +0

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment