BARNES FEDERAL CODE, UNITED STATES STATUTES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT, 1922, REVENUE ACT OF 1921
When I first posted this article, I was sure that I had discovered undeniable "proof" of several "truths". One of the benefits of posting such an article is that you make yourself the focal point for others who may understand your "truths" with much more clarity than you yourself. This was the case with this article. It seems, now, that I had fallen victim to the misleading nature of the Internal Revenue statutes, which I am convinced without a doubt are deliberately written to obscure and obfuscate the content of those statutes, and of my own weary urge for a clear and apparent "silver bullet" regarding this whole tiresome and aggravating business of the federal government constantly trying to get it lecherous claws on every dime you earn. After studying several significant emails and related web site information that was provided to me in response to my posting of the original article, I have to say that my previous conclusions were invalid, misleading and potentially harmful to anyone who might decide on a course of action based on the information that I had posted. I have had to grapple with the question, "What was the benefit, if any, of the information that I had presented in the posted article??". I believe now, after reflecting for some days regarding the article, that the images presented from the REVENUE ACT OF 1921 clearly demonstrate the importance of the "source" of remuneration as the determining factor as to whether ANY individual, citizen, or nonresident alien, has any taxable "gross income".
The clear stipulations to "within" and "without" the "United States" illustrate that constitutionality is preserved in the present Internal Revenue Codes because the Codes observe the limitations of "jurisdiction" imposed under the Constitution. When I first reviewed the REVENUE ACT OF 1921, I thought that the intent & application of the Internal Revenue Income Tax was more succinctly and clearly illustrated there than in any of the present day Internal Revenue Code Statutes that have been designed to obscure the original intent of the tax and to hide it's true application. Now, I'm not so sure. There's plenty of deception apparent in the 1921 Act; just as it is today.
REVENUE ACT OF 1921
The above image is of the title page (page 267) of the REVENUE ACT OF 1921, and the Act begins with PART I.--General Provisions. § 5514. Note the definition of "United States" under subdivision (5). The misleading term "States" is included with the "Territories" and the "District of Columbia". Nowhere in the 1922 Supplement is the term "State" defined. Since the manual is a supplement, and not the entirety of the United States Statutes, I am unable to determine where that definition existed in those Statutes in 1922. However, I can draw on the current definitions of "United States" and "State" as given in 26 USC § 7701 to illustrate the constitutional limitation on federal jurisdiction for purposes of a direct tax on "income" without the constitutionally-mandated "apportionment" by "enumeration" as required in Article I. Sect. 2 and Article I. Sect. 9 of our Constitution. See below:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
"No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
DEFINITIONS:
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
It has been held by the Supreme Court that, when acting within the above jurisdiction, Congress is not restrained by the limitations of the Constitution.
For those of you who wish to develop a more perfect understanding of the diverse jurisdictions that exist relating to the "United States" and the "Sovereign and Independent States of the Union", I wish to draw your attention to the excellent brief on
FEDERAL JURISDICTION by noted attorney, Larry Becraft, Jr.
As proofs of the diverse and separate jurisdictions that are clearly indicated by "within" and "without" the United States, I draw your attention to 28 USC § 1746, which relates to sworn declarations under penalty of perjury:
(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (signature)".
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (signature)".
As examples of the consistent application in the federal statutes of the (capital "S") "State", I draw your attention to the following:
4 USC § 110.(d) - "The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States."
4 USC § 113.(b)(2) - "the term "State" includes the District of Columbia."
28 USC § 1332 (d) - "The word "states", as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."
As an alternative example of the application of the (little "s") "state", which consistently refers to the several states which are united by and under the Constitution:
28 USC § 1652. - "The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply."
In 1945, The U.S. Supreme Court officially defined the two distinct and separate meanings of the term "United States":
Hooven and Allison Co. v Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 1945: "The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses:
(1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations (i.e. Japan, England, France, Africa, etc.)
(2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends (i.e. Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.) OR
(3) It may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." (i.e. the 50 sovereign states of the union) (emphasis added)
Additionally:
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed 588 - "There is in our Political System [two governments], a government of the Several [50] States AND a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." (emphasis added)
Okay; now back to the REVENUE ACT OF 1921:
The above image is titled: Part II.--Individuals; and is comprised of sections 5522. Normal Tax [identified in the text of the section as "section 210" of the Act] and 5523. Surtax [identified as "section 211" of the Act]. Note that the "Normal Tax" and the "Surtax" are to be "...levied, collected , and paid.." on the "net income" of every Individual! It behooves us, then, to determine just WHAT is this "net income" of "individuals" that is to be taxed??...and, if at all possible under these misleading circumstances, just WHO is this "individual" whose "net income" is to be taxed??
The above image is § 5524. Net income of individuals defined.; page 277 of the 1922 Supplement [identified as "section 212" of the Act]. Note that the "net income" of an Individual means the "gross income" as defined in section 213 LESS THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SECTION 214 [which is § 5526 of this Supplement]!
The above image is § 5525. Gross income defined.; also page 277 of the 1922 Supplement [identified as "section 213" of the Act]. Without including all the subsections (you can see the first paragraph of subsection (a), this section includes subsections (a), (b), & (c); please see subsection (c) to this section below.
As you can see from subsection (c), above, the only "individuals" who are defined in this section, beyond those "federal employees" named in subdivision (a), above, are "non-resident alien individuals", whose "...gross income means only the gross income from sources within the United States, determined under the provisions of section 217."
The above image is § 5526. Deductions allowed individuals.; page 279 of the 1922 Supplement [identified as "section 214" of the Act]. There follows, under subsection (a), (1) through (12) subdivisions of deductions allowed in computing net income.
The above image is subsection (b) of § 5526. Deductions allowed individuals.; page 281 of the 1922 Supplement [identified as "section 214" of the Act]. Note, again, that all deductions allowed for nonresident alien individuals are properly apportioned and allocated "with respect to sources of income within and without the United States"! There goes that "sources of income" thing again; and that "within and without the United States" jurisdiction thing again!! Obviously there must be some continuing basis to the constitutional limitations on federal jurisdiction and whether or not income "sources" from within its jurisdiction or not.
Note that buried at the bottom of the paragraph under section (b), above, is the following: "In the case of a citizen entitled to the benefits of section 262 the deductions shall be the same and shall be determined in the same manner as in the case of a nonresident alien individual.
". Now, we see two "classes" of "individuals" who have been identified as having taxable "gross income"; which, by definition above, can only include "gross income" from "sources within the United States". Note also, that the deductions of the "citizens" defined here "shall be the same and shall be determined in the same manner as...an nonresident alien individual." THEREFORE, the determination of deductions for these "citizens" would require that their deductions be "properly apportioned and allocated with respect to sources of income within and without the United States". Let's see who these "citizens" are???
The above image is § 5564a. Income from sources within the possession of the United States; page 310 of the 1922 Supplement [identified as "section 262" of the Act].. Note that in this section, the "citizens" named above in subsection (b) of § 5526 are defined as "citizens of the United States" who meet the conditions of subdivisions (1), (2) or (3); all three of which define percentages of "gross income" of such "citizens" & "domestic corporations" "derived from sources within a possession of the United States". Now!? Isn't that interesting???!!.............It appears from this section that even a "citizen" of that geographically defined area named the "United States" would be liable to pay the Internal Revenue Income Tax on "gross income from sources within the United States" ONLY IF he/she/it had received the "benefit" of a minimum percentage of "gross income" which was "derived from conduct of a trade or business within a POSSESSION of the United States".
KEEP IN MIND THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, THE "UNITED STATES" DID NOT INCLUDE "POSSESSIONS"; ONLY "TERRITORIES" AND "THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA".
Okay; let's try to summarize what we've learned so far.
(A) We've learned that the Act only has identified two classes of "individuals" so far who are liable to pay the Income Tax on their "gross income" "derived from souces within the geographical United States [District of Columbia & U.S. Territories]:
(1) Nonresident alien individuals who have derived income from "sources" within the District of Columbia or any of the U.S. Territories; and,
(2) Citizens of the District of Columbia or any of the U.S. Territories who first had received the benefit of deriving a minimum percentage of "gross income" from one of the foreign POSSESSIONS of the United States.
To paraphrase the above paragraph, it appears that the REVENUE ACT OF 1921 ONLY applied to nonresident aliens [foreigners] who were deriving income from sources within the District of Columbia or U.S. Territories, and to citizens of the District of Columbia or U.S. Territories who had FOREIGN EARNED INCOME from the FOREIGN POSSESSIONS of the United States; and in both cases, the Internal Revenue Income Tax only applied to the "gross income" which was derived or received within the District of Columbia or U.S. Territories!
Could this be true!!?? Well, yes...and no; I have found one additional "liable" individual.
The above image is of § 5563. Citizens of possessions of the United States.; page 309 of the 1922 Supplement [identified as "section 260" of the Act]. Herein I have discovered an additional class of individual who is liable for Income Taxes under this title.
(1) citizens of any possession of the United States (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) and who is not a resident of the United States; and, as stated above, said "citizen" is "subject to taxation...only as to income derived from sources within the United States". "In such case, the tax shall be computed and paid in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as in the case of other persons who are taxable only as to income derived from such sources."
So, we see that the above paraphrased application of the Act still holds true; we've just discovered another class of "individuals" who are still only liable for Income Taxes on "gross income" derived from "sources within the United States [District of Columbia and U.S. Territories]; not an exception by any means from the "rule" that we've discovered here. ALL "individuals" defined under the Act were ONLY taxed on "gross income" that was derived from a "source" within the "United States [District of Columbia or U.S. Territories]"