From: Ima Hurt, Certified mail to: 1 0000 0000 0000



Download 338.67 Kb.
Page1/3
Date conversion09.06.2016
Size338.67 Kb.
  1   2   3
From: Ima Hurt, Certified mail to: 1) 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000

12345 Freedom Ln. 2) 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000

Justice , California 3) 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000

June 21, 2010


To: 1) Lisa Martini

Franchise Tax Board, 600 W Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 300, Santa Ana, CA 92701,

2) Patrick (no Surname disclosed) employee #073

Glynice (no Surname disclosed),

Angie (no Surname disclosed),

Daniel (no Surname disclosed),

Ceylon (no Surname disclosed),

Franchise Tax Board, PO BOX 2966, Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-2966, and

3) JoAnn (no Surname disclosed), Greg Thomas, Brenda (Hicks) Jordan

State of California Franchise Tax Board, P.O. Box 2952, Sacramento, CA 95812.


NOTICE AND DEMAND

TO THE ABOVE-ADDRESSED PARTIES AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES [see foot note1] PLEASE TAKE NOTICE2 OF THE FOLLOWING:


Like many people, I shied away from the complex tax codes. I was misled that everybody owes federal and state income taxes, until I learned about IRS agents, attorneys, CPA's, and paralegals, who discovered that the tax codes were misinterpreted. I used this information to correct the records with the tax agencies, trusting that the "revenue agents3 would not deceive me".
To my dismay and ever-increasing suspicion, instead of cooperation, I received nonresponsive or evasive "replies". The revenue agents, appear to indeed misapply the codes and exceed their jurisdiction. The cases referenced herein, denounced "compelled taxation", recognized the abolition of slavery, and reinforced the constitutionally ordained limitations of the legislative powers.4 I found no constitutional authority empowering legislators to impose5 a "fair share duty" upon people's fundamental liberty to make a living, or to regulate people's productivity by licensing their economic means, for the purpose of mandatory withholding at their work place. Throughout the years, funds were withheld from me by third parties, and transmitted to the federal and state tax agencies. Said funds were mistaken as related to taxable income. I tried to correct the errors by using the agency forms. The State (FTB) revenue agents (hereinafter "Agents") replied at some point that the form "...has been determined to be frivolous", and demanded that I file a "valid tax return". (Exhibit x)
"A claim, or defense, is frivolous if a proponent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim, or defense". [ Black's Law dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991]

[Emphasis added]


The design of the forms did not allow any opportunity for rational argument”. I offered to make all the necessary changes (Exhibit x), if Agents would provide the forms which, according to Agents, would be considered "valid" for correcting records.
Agents dishonored my offer, by providing no responsive answers, no "valid return" forms, no liability statute, and no proof of any alleged claim.6 I found Agents' evasive maneuvers to be highly suspect and uncharacteristic of public servants.
Furthermore, Agents undertook a strategy of mailing unsigned Notices and requests for payment,7 effectively turning my quest into a struggle to preserve my rights. Agents seem to espouse the broad contention that, being paid for working, represents "taxable income" because "everything that comes in" is "income" 8 within the definition of "gross income".9 Clearly, the Supreme Court disagreed.
Agents ignored my demands for clarification and my offers to meet and settle the issues (Exhibit x), ignored judicial precedent, and continued their extralegal enforcement, under the guise of policy. I believe Agents trespassed on my rights by violating their contract10 to public office,11 as follows:

A. Agents' appear to deceitfully reclassify the "nontaxpayer" into "taxpayer" status (Exhibit X). Revenue laws relate to "taxpayers".12 Revenue provisions distinguish between "taxpayer" and "non-taxpayer".13 The U. S. Senate recognizes the "taxpayer" as a separate person, distinct from the "nontaxpayer"(Exhibit 3). Throughout time, the courts have recognized the natural rights as the foundational principles14, and also upheld nontaxpayers' rights.15
B. Agents ignored the distinction between "taxpayer" and "nontaxpayer", and acted without a judicial review.16 Such review is part of due process, and is essential to shield people from being injured by administrative presumptions of status.17 Agents have no judicial authority to determine people's "relinquishment of rights",18 which must be established "before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them".19
C. Agents mailed no certified copies20 to inform21 me of any verified22 proof of liability for a

specific tax.23 Agents reach beyond constitutional boundaries when they act based on personal opinions or popular beliefs,24 which are not laws, statutes, regulations, or judicial reviews.

Since slavery was abolished, nowhere in the Constitution25 are statutory enactments26 allowed to compel transfers of rights or property, without informed consent.27 The statutory scheme offers programs to members who consent to participate by voluntarily entering the jurisdiction of a particular program, for specific privileges or benefits.28 Membership to such programs creates specific excise29-taxable-liabilities, which become payable through "taxpayer" compliance.30


The delegated legislative powers limit taxation to specific means, reasons and circumstances. Agents are not endowed with the power to exert presumptions on non-participants, who are not within their authority.31 People have no "general liability" for excise taxes,32 occupation taxes,33

or taxes34 on income,35 which are not the same as the direct taxes on property.36
D. Agents provided no statutes37 supporting their assessments and determinations of deficiency for the alleged liabilities or penalties. Also, Agents provided no implementing regulations,38 and sent no certified copies of any verified deficiency which might make me subject to Agents' authority, or might give Agents lawful "reasons" to keep my funds.

Such lawful "reasons" could be:


1) if I entered a contract by which I "owed a duty" to the state,39 2) if I owed a "franchise tax"40 for a "trade or business",41 in the character of a corporation or public officer, which may carry a duty to the state;42 3) if anything were conferred to me as a franchised,43 "special privilege", which does not belong to the people, or citizens of the country, as a matter of "common right",44

4) if I requested or used state,45 or State "benefits";46 5) if I had a "tax liability",47 as a condition precedent to demands, or 6) If anything were given to me for which the state, or the State "can ask return".48 Without a meaningful meeting of the minds on essential elements,49 there can be no enforceable contract.50


E. Agents ignored my rights,51 and issued garnishment orders (Exhibit 6), without valid verification

of a "debt" or judgment,52 ignored my objections,53 and collected (Exhibit 7),54 on mere presumptions (Exhibit 8).55 All acts were conducted without any counter-testimony to my affidavits, and in disregard of my requests (Exhibits 2,7,8), and my Notices (Exhibits 8,9).


Agents also mailed unsigned penalties (Exhibits10-15),56 mailed unverified notices (Exhibits 16-19), determined taxes (Exhibits 20-24) without jurisdiction,57 and without replying to my

requests for clear, specific information (Exhibits 2, 7-9, 25-27).58 As if to add insult to injury, after Agents scoffed at my raising Constitutional safeguards (Exhibit #),59 they themselves used "general" Constitutional references for "All tax years" (Exhibit #). I suspect such maneuvers are a sneaky attempt to supposedly "legitimize" Agents' trespass on my rights, and to minimize or avoid being held accountable for misuse and abuse of their official immunity.60


F. Agents failed to disclose whether they presume that a W-4 Withholding Agreement for the Social Security61 contributions creates any obligations to pay "individual or personal income taxes".

26 CFR §301.6109-1(d)(3) instructs Agents that Social Security numbers are not to be used as "taxpayer" identification numbers. Also, "... railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time." United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980); According to the equal protection of the law, if the "benefit" is not contractual, then "the payment" is not contractual. See Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, and Title 42 USC, Section 1981.


Agents' conclusive presumptions62 were annulled by the contrary evidence provided in my sworn affidavits (Exhibits #, #, #). A “determination” may only be made after consideration of all relevant facts, statutes, and applicable regulations.63

G. The FTB disclosure officer confirmed (Exhibit #) that Agents are in fact acting under a claim for

federal64 income65 taxes which are territorial in character, and governed by federal regulations.

The officer's disclosure resonates with the provisions for taxation of federal income as promulgated in the Buck Act and the ACTA jurisdictional66 agreement between federal and state agencies ( Exhibit #). "... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government…" Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 187.


The separation of powers doctrine67 requires an agreement before taxing the federal income of trades, businesses or occupations on federal territory within a state of the Union. Such agreements however, may not trump Constitutional canons: "The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. at 437, 52 S.Ct. at page 254, 76 L.Ed. 375, is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained." Foley Bros v. Ilardo, 336 U.S. 281, 69 S.Ct. 575, 93 L.Ed. 680 (1949)
"See also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., at 195 ("The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated"). The Constitution mandates this uncertainty by withholding from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. Congress has operated within this framework of legal uncertainty ever since this Court determined that it was the judiciary's duty "to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C. J.). Any possible benefit from eliminating this "legal uncertainty" would be at the expense of the Constitution's system of enumerated powers."

U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549 (1995)
" No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature."..."Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it... "... the recognition by the acts of Congress of the power and right of the States to tax, control, or regulate any business carried on within its limits, is entirely consistent with an intention on the part of Congress to tax such business for National purposes." License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) [Emphasis added]

"Other restrictions are, of course, found in Article I, Sections 2 and 9 requiring direct taxes to be apportioned according to population; Section 8 requiring uniformity; and Section 9 prohibiting export duties." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 277 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir., 1960) [Emphasis added]
Title 18 U.S.C. § 7 specifies that the territorial jurisdiction of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states, and Title 40 U.S.C. § 255 specifies the legal conditions that must be fulfilled for the United States government to have exclusive or shared jurisdiction within the area of lands belonging to the States of the Union.
Furthermore, Section 7851 of Title 26 USC reveals that the income taxes under Subtitle A were

extinguished upon the enactment of the 1954 Code (details Exhibit #), and the IRC index lists

only the liability of Citizens with income from insular possessions.
Federal administrative office regulations68 are exercised under the limited jurisdiction found in

Title 4 USC,69 ( Exhibit ##), and may not create liabilities70 for people,71 or the states.72


"..all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are

reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment]
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 54950 states: "In enacting this chapter, the

Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other

public agencies in this State73 exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business . . ."


Agents appear to replace " exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business ", with "exist to conduct people", or "exist to make demands", or "exist to sanction".74 Constitutional canons bind Government Codes to specific jurisdiction which cannot extend Agents' authority over people "making a living" in occupations of common right. Agents appear to conveniently "presume" or "assume" the existence of a "trade or business", in order to justify their allegations of a liability within Agents' jurisdiction. Clearly, there can be no legal sanction or penalty75 issued through unlawful imposition76 of Agents' "assumed" jurisdiction. I informed Agents (Exhibit #) that I retain all my rights. The right to contract is a constitutionally protected right and cannot be imposed,77 forbidden, hindered, or diminished.78 Legislators have no constitutional authority79 to enact statutes,80 or regulations, that could grant Agents an immoral, predatory license, to "generate revenue" by use of complex administrative techniques and evasive replies. Nor can statutes allow wordsmith definitions and regulations to enable Agents to act in ways which could easily be construed as "syndicated crimes",81 or to engage in legal violence to dupe people,82 or use "legal strategies" to bring even "taxpayers" in the position to prove a negative83 (Exhibit #).
Agents have no authority to demand payments for imaginary, ambiguous "statutory privileges",84 or to force people into accepting privileges, benefits or services.85 No legislation can vote away people's rights86 and grant administrative authority to entrap, trick, intimidate, or compel people to either purchase, or to provide services.87 Such acts would be racketeering, or practicing slavery.88

With freedom of choice as the guiding principle, it has been held that the "element of voluntariness" is vitiated 89. . . under duress brought on by government action, see e.g. McGucken v. United States, 407 F.2d 1349, 1351, 187 Ct.Cl. 284 (Ct.Cl), Perlman v U.S., 490 F2d. 933. [Emphasis added]


Each and every year, 2004 through the present, I asked Agents for verified proof behind Agents' allegations, presentments, penalties, determinations or claims. Absent specific answers and verified evidence, I could not make any informed corrections,90 and I can not assume, presume or guess any liability for Agents' ambiguous and misleading correspondence. Agents' letters lacked certified copies of verified debt, duty, liability, contract, or breach of a contract. Agents made no attempt to prove their jurisdiction,91 or show a lawful "reason" for garnishing, or not returning my funds.92
As one of the people,93 I am owed answers.94 I am not aware of, nor have Agents shown proof of any predicament95 that would subject me to comply with a specific statute and regulation related to Agents' administrative authority, procedures, policies, notices, demands, or penalties.96
In light of all the exhibits and footnotes herein, Agents appear to operate an apparatus for control and profit, counter to constitutional oath,97 Supreme Court rulings, United States Codes, Civil Code, Business and Professions Code, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Government Code.
My letters gave Agents sufficient notice of trespass due to lack of jurisdiction.98 Instead of bearing their burden of proof, and disclosing all the elements,99 Agents rushed to label my efforts as "frivolous", and to "tack on" penalties.

Agents ignored my offers to settle the issues, by mailing nonresponsive replies100 to my inquiries, and by ignoring my demands for verified evidence and cross examination.101 Agents' garnishments from my work are factual evidence of abuse, due to the lack of liability, jurisdiction, or an order by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Agents appear to willfully misinterpret the statutes102 and regulations103 as a license to engage in predatory administrative "technicalities",104 instead of providing transparency and forthright answers for timely corrections. The hearings held at the FTB office are recorded proof of Agent's disingenuous statements (Exhibit #) about their authority. The records also show the lack of Agents' cooperation to provide any opportunity for me to cross examine105 their purported "evidence".106

I can only reason that Agents are acting in concert, under color of office,107 in such manner as to entrap me in some administrative scheme,108 through relentless, unfounded presentments under color of law.109 Agents' notices and proposed assessments reflect a desire to use delay tactics, for the apparent reason of charging interest and unlawfully keeping the fruits of my labor and live at my expense. Such tactics also appear as a convenient way to hide Agents' negligence,110 or fraud.111

Due to both - Agents' actions and lack of actions - the administrative process has been exhausted.

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect.... They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." [Emphasis added]

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SECTION 1. : All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Constitutional Liberty or Freedom. Such freedom as is enjoyed by the citizens of a country or state under the protection of its constitution. The aggregate of those personal, civil, and political rights of the individual which are guaranteed by the Constitution and secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies. [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991]

" All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation ... The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission;" McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819)

INJURIES

Because Agents exceeded their authority, I, Ima Hurt, have suffered the following injuries:


1. Loss of the amounts over-withheld, which Agents have not returned, in the amount of $?00.00, $?.000.00, $?,000.00 and $?000.00 for years 200? thru 200? respectively. Subtotal: $??,000.00
2. Time spent for ? years to prepare and reply, estimated to be ?,??? hours at $??/ hr. Subtotal: $ ???,000.00
3. Legal and paralegal consulting costs; Total $?,???.00;
4. Anguish, loss of sleep and of physical health. Amount of damages to date $??,000.
5. Financial hardship,112 collateral defamation, deterioration of my relationships with my work associates and my family, and interference with my pursuit of happiness.113
DUTY
The duties for Agents are codified in the United States Codes, California Penal Code, Civil Code, Business and Professions Code and California Government Code.
All principals are responsible for Agents' exercise of their duties. Notice to Agents is notice to the principal; notice to the principal is notice to Agents.114
All government Agents are public employees, and are duty bound by contract115 to the oath of office.
Agents have a moral, lawful and legal duty to exercise proper diligence to verify their policies do not infringe upon longstanding principles and constitutionally protected rights.116 Agents may not act against people117 so as to effectively change their duty into injury.118 All Agents have a duty to know and follow the laws which bind them, and should be held accountable to the highest standards of professional conduct: "Administration should be both reasonable and vigorous. It should be conducted with as little delay as possible and with great courtesy and considerateness. It should never try to overreach, and should be reasonable within the bounds of law and sound administration." (FTB mission statement)

The Codes119 disallow harmful acts120 such as, conspiring to extort, misrepresent, deceive or conceal critical information,121 in order to perpetuate error for the purpose of gain.122 Section 1986 of the Civil Code also disallows failure to act in such ways which would prevent injury to anyone.123


BREACH OF AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION AND BREACH OF DUTY
I believe Agents are breaching their oath of office, authority, jurisdiction and duty:124
1. By dishonoring their burden to prove their claims;125
2. By failing to provide the requested information 126 which was essential for timely correction of errors and elimination of unnecessary administrative harassment;
3. By unjust enrichment from the fruits of my labor, a violation of a constitutionally protected right.
4. By capriciously disregarding my sworn affidavits and my verified evidence, while arbitrarily denying my refunds (Exhibits 28, 29, 30) based on presumptions which hold no legal weight;
5. By mailing uncertified, unverified solicitations and unfounded penalties.127
6. By assuming jurisdiction, and continuing to act under color of office and color of law;
7. By unlawfully collecting garnishments128 and processing unfounded liens and levies;
8. By misrepresenting their authority, with full knowledge of the correct facts, such as to induce me to enter into agreements which I would not enter if Agents disclosed all facts.(Exhibit #)
The moral, public and private laws,129 have inherent limitations in their authority and cannot be construed as a license for Agents to cause injury. See Bill of Rights, 18 USC §§ 241, 242, 654, 1581; 42 USC §§ 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1994; The 14th Amendment. (Exhibit of all cited)
DAMAGES

Because Agents have demonstrated that Agents have no intention to return my over-withheld sums (Exhibit xs) because Agents have no right of ownership interest over said sums; because Agents reached outside the scope of Agents' lawful authority and acted under color of office and color of law when Agents should have not so done; because Agents have harassed, extorted and threatened to keep extorting, now therefore, Agents are liable for the following damages for the injuries suffered by Ima Hurt: special damages of $100,000.00 and general damages (same as special damages) of $100,000.00. Total $200,000.00



DEMAND

1. Therefore, I demand that within 21 days from the date of service of this Notice and Demand, Agents provide all the facts and proof as referenced in the above paragraphs A thru G, or show good cause, if more time is needed. The elements I request130 are prerequisite for proper diligent discharge of Agents' lawful and moral functions under oath and public contract.

2. names 1,2,3,4,5,6 Agents, and each of them, within 60 days of service of this Notice & Demand, in good faith, do their duty and pay the damages suffered by me at their hands; or within 21 days from the service of this Notice and Demand, show cause why said demand should not be enforced in a court of record in California.131

3. Agents notify me in writing of the specific element/s creating a presumption of "liability", and the "valid" forms and information so that I can make the corrections to erroneous information returns and income statements filed by third parties in regards to me, and avoid exposure to any further harassment by Agents.

4. Agents notify me in writing that the FTB account in regards to me is closed and no deficiency exists for the years 200?, 200?, 200?, 200?, 200? and 200?.

5. No Agents, FTB personnel or anyone acting in concert with them shall engage in any further collection, or any acts of harassment against me.



DEFAULT

If Agents do not answer within the 21 days, any and all un-contradicted 132 statements, presumptions and enclosures herein (Exhibits 1 thru ), shall become acquiesced as facts in the record,133 and Agents' non responsive replies, or collection attempts may be construed as willful.

If Agents fail to satisfy the demand within the allotted time after having been duly served with this notice and demand, then by tacit procuration Ima Hurt, her nominee or her assigns will determine for Agents the facts, their duties, and the damages owed by Agents.

Further, if Agents fail to satisfy the demand, then Ima Hurt may take lawful action in a court of record (in personam and in rem), to defend against Agents and persons acting in concert with Agents who have caused any injuries to Ima Hurt; to secure her substantive rights; and to redeem the aforementioned damages owed to her.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, all communications shall henceforth be on the record, i.e. in writing and duly served to: Ima Hurt, 12345 Freedom Ln., Justice, California.

Signature:_____________________ Date ____________

Enclosures: Exhibits 1 thru ?


1 California Civil Code 2332. As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of, and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to others.

2 "Knowledge of facts which would naturally lead an honest and prudent person to make inquiry constitutes 'notice' of everything which such inquiry pursued in good faith would disclose." Twitchell v. Nelson, 131 Minn. 375, 155 N.W. 621, 624; German-American Nat. Bank of Lincoln v. Martin, 277 Ill. 629, 115 N.E. 721, 729." (Black's Law Dict., 4th Edition, pg. 1210) (1968)

3 Revenue Agent: Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

27 USC §250.11 (2005)



4 "the people of the several States are absolutely and unconditionally sovereign within their respective territories" The Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Henry Debolt, Treasurer of Hamilton County, 57 U.S. 416, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1853)

5 "It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not (Page 594) unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence." Frost v. Railroad Commission of State of California, 271 U.S. 583, 46 S.Ct. 605, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1926) [Emphasis added]

6 5 USC §556(d): "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof."

7

Unsigned requests for payment are invalid under California's Statute of Frauds, found at California Civil Code § 1624.



8


" ... We must reject ...the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts, everything that comes in is income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'..." Doyle vs.  Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 330 (1918)

9 California has no independent definition of any of these terms, and the IRC itself does not contain a definition of the general term “income.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, 404 (1940). [Emphasis added] Revenue & Taxation Code §17071 defines gross income as defined by §61 of the Internal Revenue Code. R&TC §17072 defines “adjusted gross income” as defined by §62 of the IRC. R&TC §17073 defines “taxable income” as defined by §63 of the IRC.

Policy never becomes law no matter how well used or well accepted. Policy never gains legal authority by usage.” Hall v. State, 933 S.W.2d 363, 326 Ark. 318. [Emphasis added]

10 "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter."

11 *63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247* “As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. ..[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public... [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official who tends to

weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, ... and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987) [Emphasis added]

12 "Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers." Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. US, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

13 "In Long v. Rasmussen, Collector, D.C., 281 F. 236, the court in construing the revenue provision in question, properly, so we think, makes a distinction between suits instituted by taxpayers and non-taxpayers. The former, so it is held, are within the scope of the inhibition, but the latter are not." Tomlinson v. Smith, 128 F.2d 808, 811 (7th Cir., 1942) [Emphasis added]

14 "Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor... and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will..." The Antelope, 23 U.S.66; 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed. 268 (1825)

15 "No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. US, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)[Emphasis added]

16 'A determination of the rights of an individual under the existing laws' is an exercise of judicial power...An essential element of judicial power . . . is that it requires "the ascertainment of existing rights."  People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27.

17 "Due process requires that when governmental agencies that adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly affect legal rights of individuals, they use procedures which have traditionally been associated with judicial process." Amos Treat & Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 306 F. 2d 260 (1962), 113 US App. D.C. 100 [Emphasis added]

18 There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, see, e.g., Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 70—71, 62 S.Ct. 457, 464—465, 86 L.Ed. 680, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.' Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966)

19 "A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them." Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961) [Emphasis added]

20 CERTIFIED COPY. A copy of a document or record, signed and certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody the original is entrusted. People v. Foster, 27 Misc. 576, 58 N.Y. Supp. 574; Ehrlick v. Mulligan, 104 N.J. Law, 375, 140 A. 463.

21 "The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” – California Government Code Section 54950.

22 Verification. Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Sheeley v. Justice of Santa Clara, 215 Cal. App. 2d 47, 48. (Black's Law 5th) [Emphasis added]

23 “Keep in mind the well settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed in clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.” Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 US 397 (1904). [Emphasis added]

24 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties..." Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425

25 The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other written laws are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1897] [Emphasis added]

26 "The 6th article of the constitution of the United States declares, that the laws made in pursuance of it, 'shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution, or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.' By this declaration, the states are prohibited from passing any acts which shall be repugnant to a law of the United States." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U. S. 316, 361 (1819).

27 "We know of no case in which a legislative act to transfer the property of A. to B. without his consent has ever been held a constitutional exercise of legislative power in any state in the Union. On the contrary, it has been constantly resisted as inconsistent with just principles by every judicial tribunal in which it has been attempted to be enforced:" Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters 657.

28 "A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting" California Civil Code, Section 1589

29 "Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S.  107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking.." Flint v.  Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S.  107. (1911)

30 "Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint (force, duress)." United States v. Flora, 362 US 145 (1958) [Emphasis added]

31 In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471, 1 L.Ed. 440; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93, 1 L.Ed. 507; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404, 405, 4 L.Ed. 579; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).

32 A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits is an indirect (excise) tax. Tyler v. U. S. 281, U.S. 497, 502 (1930);

33  "It was, therefore, an occupation tax, and, being a state tax also, the section authorizing it is in conflict with the Constitution; In the opinion of the Chief Justice he reviewed the decisions of this court in the cases of Washington v. State, Baker v. State, State v. Washmood, and Standard Oil Co. v. Brodie, and the review of these cases was summarized by him as follows: "The effect of these decisions undoubtedly is that the state cannot tax occupations generally, but must find its power to tax outside of this restriction...The power was found in the Baker Case and in the gasoline case in the right to tax the franchise of corporations as a privilege tax and to tax the use of public highways. " Sims v. Ahrens,167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720 (Ark., 1925)

34  "... the state is without power to impose either an income or occupation tax for state purposes, and the court below was, therefore, correct in holding that act unconstitutional, and that decree is affirmed." Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720 (Ark., 1925)

35 "Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat.112), in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed." Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174, (1926)

36 [T]he California income tax is not a tax on property. In the matter of appeals of Fred Dauberger, et. al., Page 6. California State Board of Equalization.

37 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 797, at p. 800 (1964): “Without question, a taxing statute must describe with some certainty the transaction, service, or object to be taxed, and in the typical situation it is construed against the Government.”  Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559, 82 L.Ed.858

38 " we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act would impose no penalties upon anyone.""... only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulation issued by the Secretary and not the broad authorizing language of the statute which is to be tested against the standards of the Fourth Amendment; and that when so tested they are valid." California Bankers v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974) [Emphasis added]

39 "The individual ... owes no duty to the state . . . since he receives nothing there-from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,... He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43. [Emphasis added]

40

"Franchise Tax: A tax on the franchise of a corporation, on the right and privilege of carrying on business in the character of a corporation, for the purposes for which it was created and in the conditions which surround it." Justice of Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan and Bldg. Ass'n, Mo.App., 369 S.W. 2d 764, 766.



41 "Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to Tax it." License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497

42 "All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation... The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission;". McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U. S. 316, 429 (1819). [Emphasis added]

43 "Franchise: A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right." Artesian Water Co. v. State Dept. of Highways and Transp., Del.Super., 330 A 2d 432, 439.

44 Judge SMITH then reviews all our previous decisions... whether or not it is within the power of the Legislature, under article 16, § 5, of our Constitution, to tax occupations which are of common right, and correctly announces the doctrine of these cases to be that "the state cannot tax for revenue purposes occupations which are of common right." ... Now, if an income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on pursuits and occupations that are of common right, then an income tax law, if properly framed, is not inhibited by article 16, § 5, which provides that "all property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value" ascertained in a manner to make it "equal and uniform throughout the state," and that "hawkers, peddlers, ferries, exhibitions and privileges" may be taxed in such manner as the Legislature deems proper. Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720 (Ark., 1925) [Emphasis added]

45 "It is to be noted that the statute differentiates between States of the United States and foreign states by the use of a capital S for the word when applied to a State of the United States." Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)

46 "... railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time." United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980); "We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments... This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint." Fleming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) [Emphasis added]

47

... Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.” Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, 1414 (1983).



48 As was said in Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 (1940), "[t]he simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return." Colonial Pipeline Co v Traigle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975) [Emphasis added]



49 “Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947).

50 "There was a total absence of proof of the appellees' assent to the alleged agreement or that its terms and conditions were free from doubt, speculation and conjecture or that there was a sufficient meeting of the minds of the parties to establish an agreement. See Fla. Jur., Contracts, §§ 14, 15, 16 and 27. See Smith's Bakery, Inc. v. Jernigan, supra; Newcomb v. Belton, supra." Hettenbaugh v. Keyes-Ozon-Fincher Ins., Inc., 147 So.2d 328, 329 (Fla. App. 3 Dist., 1962) [Emphasis added]

51 "The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people." City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 (Tex. App. - Dallas [5th Dist.], 1922)

52 "..the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, .. and a copy of such verification or judgment,.." 15 U.S.C. sec.1692g(b) [Emphasis added]



53 "The defendant collected the money, and it is alleged that he still has it. He was notified when he received it that the plaintiff disputed his right. If he had not right, as he had not, to collect the money, his doing so in the name of the state cannot protect him. Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. 75, 21 L. ed. 63. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 29 L. ed. 185, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903, 962." Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Timothy Connor, 223 U.S. 280, 32 S.Ct. 216, 56 L.Ed. 436 (1912)

54 Both federal and State taxing agencies are subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. sec.1692g(b) requiring original proof of debt, including any alleged "tax" debt.

55 "The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions," Bailey v. Alabama,219 U.S. 219,239

56 R&TC
  1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page