Admit or Deny

ADMIT or DENY

        The text below is the text of a letter I sent multiple times to four specific individuals within the IRS.

        Since this letter is a touch over 8,000 words, and is 15 pages of ten point font on legal size paper, the IRS' reply, IF ANY, will be on a subsequent web page.

        Editorial addition: There are two letters I have received from the IRS. They are linked below. As you will see when you read them, they are "letters", but they do not classify as a "response".

        I've placed further comments and information below the text of this letter.

Dale R. Eastman
P.O. Box nnnn
Xxxxxx, XX
nnnnn-nnnn

IRS
Mark Everson
Commissioner, IRS
1111 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, District of Columbia
20224
Certified Mail: 7003 2260 0001 1963 4851
1st mailing: December 7, 2006

Dear Mark Everson,
(Dear R. M. Owens,)
(Dear Dennis L. Parizek,)
(Dear Thomas D. Mathews,)

Failure to meet the criteria on this page within the generous period of time given is an admission that you agree that this letter and its stated facts will activate estoppel.

Failure to substantively respond to this letter by January 15, 2007 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Failure to substantively respond to this letter by January 15, 2007 is an admission that you are knowingly demanding other or greater sums than are authorized by law.

Failure to substantively respond to this letter by January 15, 2007 is an admission that you do not have authority to collect the taxes in question from me.

Failure to certify your answers under penalties of perjury is admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Failure to certify your answers under penalties of perjury is an admission that you do not have the authority to collect the taxes in question from me.

Responding to this letter with a form Letter 3175 or any similar non-factual and/or non-substantive reply is a failure to respond to this letter.

There are 139 statements of fact that you are required to deny with proof in order to prove that you are not violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The statements of fact presented to you have supporting evidence presented in the form of Supreme Court citations, Statute citations, Regulation citations, and IRM citations. Each numbered statement of fact defaults to an admission of the fact as true if you fail to address such numbered statement of fact.

These statements of fact are based upon the presumption that the tax laws in question are created under the authority of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. If the tax laws in question are created under the authority of Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution then you are to advise me of this IMMEDIATELY.

I make this statement upon my own knowledge earned from my own diligent studies of the written words of law, since the IRS refused and continues to refuse to answer important questions about the written words of law contained in the IRC code sections and Treasury Regulations thereunder.

This letter, and your answers (or failure to answer) WILL be uploaded to the internet. If any fact I have presented is wrong, PROVE IT NOW so that others will be informed as to such an error.

I certify under penalties of perjury that the following 139 statements of fact are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

             Dale R. Eastman                                      Notary:

             X_____________                                  X_________________
                                   _________________

                              Commission expires:

Page 1 of 15

All bold face and/or underline emphasis in the cited Supreme Court cases are mine for the purpose of embossing the points of importance to make them stand out from the stilted English the Justices used in the case decisions. All bold face and/or underline emphasis in the other citations are mine for the purpose of bringing certain points of importance into focus and awareness.

1. Admit or deny: When an official does an act the Constitution does not allow, an official loses all official immunity and such an official can be sued in his/her INDIVIDUAL (personal) CAPACITY.

2. Admit or deny: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

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;

3. Admit or deny: Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

4. Admit or deny: Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

5. Admit or deny: Prior to the alleged¹ ratification of the 16^th Amendment Congress had the power to lay Direct Taxes only if laid subject to the rule of apportionment.

6. Admit or deny: Prior to the alleged ratification of the 16^th Amendment Congress had the power to lay Duties, Imposts and Excises only if laid subject to the rule of uniformity.

7. Admit or deny: The power to lay a Direct-Unapportioned Tax would be a “new power of taxation.”

8. Admit or deny: Amendment 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

9. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

[T]he Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
---
A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

---------------------------
¹ That fact that the Sixteenth Amendment was NOT ratified, proven by Bill Benson in The Law That Never Was, makes no difference to this affidavit of facts, thus: The word “alleged” or “allegedly” when used in reference to the 16th Amendment and when used directly preceding the word “ratified” may be ignored.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 2 of 15

The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.

The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment-'incomes, from whatever source derived'-the essential thought being expressed with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution.

10. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court has stated in effect, that the meaning of “income” is defined by the intent of the people when the 16th Amendment was allegedly ratified.

11. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court has stated in effect, that Congress can NOT define the meaning of the term “income” since the word “income” is now in the Constitution.

12. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court has stated, subsequent to the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment, that the requirement of “apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property” “is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

13. Admit or deny: The requirement of “apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property” “is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts” means the 16th Amendment did NOT remove the requirement that DIRECT TAXES MUST BE APPORTIONED.

14. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court has stated that gain or profit, proceeding (derived) from the (invested) property, severed from the capital (invested property), however invested or employed, is 16th Amendment, Constitutional income (return on investment) and that such “income” can be taxed regardless of the source (invested property) of such income (return on investment).

15. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916):

... the bill alleged twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of paragraphs or subdivisions. As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 3 of 15

---
But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, WOULD CAUSE ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DESTROY ANOTHER; that is, they WOULD RESULT IN BRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT exempting a direct tax from apportionment INTO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

16. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court DENIED that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a Direct-Unapportioned tax, because such an amendment “would cause the Constitution to conflict with itself.”

17. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court DENIED that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a Direct-Unapportioned tax, because such an amendment would cause radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system.

18. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916):

This is the text of the Amendment:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned…

19. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court DENIED that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a new power to lay a Direct Tax that is NOT subject to the rule of apportionment.

20. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916):

The bill contained many averments on the following subjects, which may be divided into two generic classes:
---
(B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.

Without attempting minutely to state every possible ground of attack which might be deduced from the averments of the bill, but in substance embracing every material grievance therein asserted and pressed in argument upon our attention in the elaborate briefs which have been submitted, we come to separately dispose of the legal propositions advanced in the bill and arguments concerning the two classes.
---
Class B. Under this class these propositions are relied upon:
(1) That as the 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.

(2) Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the 16th Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 4 of 15

As to the second, while indeed it is distinct from the subjects considered in the Brushaber Case, … a brief analysis will serve to demonstrate that the distinction is one without a difference, and therefore that the proposition is also foreclosed by the previous ruling.
---
But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation...

21. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court denied the proposition that “The 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment”.

22. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court has TWICE STATED that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.

23. Admit or deny: The Supreme Court has TWICE DENIED that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a Direct-Unapportioned tax.

24. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911):

These cases involve the constitutional validity of 38 of the act of Congress approved August 5, 1909, known as 'the corporation tax' law. Stat. at L. 1st Sess. 61st Cong. pp. 11-112-117, chap. 6, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, pp. 659-844-849.
---
The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking.
---
This tax, it is expressly stated, is to be equivalent to 1 per centum of the entire net income over and above $5,000 received from all sources during the year,-this is the measure of the tax explicitly adopted by the statute. The income is not limited to such as is received from property used in the business, strictly speaking, but is expressly declared to be upon the entire net income above $5,000 from all sources, excluding the amounts received as dividends on stock in other corporations, joint stock companies or associations, or insurance companies also subject to the tax. In other words, the tax is imposed upon the doing of business of the character described, and the measure of the tax is to be income, with the deduction stated, received not only from property used in business, but from every source.

25. Admit or deny: The Flint v. Stone Tracy case is in regard to the tax act of 1909.

26. Admit or deny: The tax act of 1909 is a tax on corporate net income.

27. Admit or deny: The tax act of 1909 is “an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity”.

28. Admit or deny: The 1909 income tax act is an excise tax.

29. Admit or deny: The requirement to pay an excise tax “involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking.”

30. Admit or deny: An excise tax is a tax upon a privilege.

31. Admit or deny: An excise tax can be legally ducked by not doing the privileged activity.

32. Admit or deny: A direct tax has “the element of absolute and unavoidable demand.”

33. Admit or deny: A tax that can not be avoided in one's everyday affairs of life is a direct tax.

34. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895):

Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 5 of 15

---
We inquire, therefore, what, at the time the constitution was framed and adopted, were recognized as direct taxes? What did those who framed and adopted it understand the terms to designate and include?
---
Luther Martin, in his well known communication to the legislature of Maryland in January, 1788, expressed his views thus: 'By the power to lay and collect taxes they may proceed to direct taxation on every individual, either by a capitation tax on their heads, or an assessment on their property.
---
Mr. Dexter observed that his colleague 'had stated the meaning of direct taxes to be a capitation tax, or a general tax on all the taxable property of the citizens; and that a gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Nicholas] thought the meaning was that all taxes are direct which are paid by the citizen without being recompensed by the consumer; but that, where the tax was only advanced and repaid by the consumer, the tax was indirect.

He thought that both opinions were just, and not inconsistent, though the gentlemen had differed about them.

He thought that a general tax on all taxable property was a direct tax, because it was paid without being recompensed by the consumer.'
---
Albert Gallatin, in his Sketch of the Finances of the United States, published in November, 1796, said: 'The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense.
---
The general line of observation was obviously influenced by Mr. Hamilton's brief for the government, in which he said: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.' 7 Hamilton's Works (Lodge's Ed.) 332.

Mr. Hamilton also argued: 'If the meaning of the word 'excise' is to be sought in a British statute, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an 'excise.' ... An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one, yet, where so important a distinction in the constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.' 7 Hamilton's Works (Lodge's Ed.) 333.

If the question had related to an income tax, the reference would have been fatal, as such taxes have been always classed by the law of Great Britain as direct taxes.
---
From the foregoing it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes; (3) that the rules of apportionment and of uniformity were adopted in view of that distinction and those systems; (4) that whether the tax on carriages was direct or indirect was disputed, but the tax was sustained as a tax on the use and an excise; (5) that the original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be exercised only in extraordinary exigencies; and down to August 15, 1894, this expectation has been realized.

35. Admit or deny: Any unavoidable tax on property is a direct tax.

36. Admit or deny: The following list is a non-exclusive list of property I have a right to own:

Right to Life;
Right to Liberty;
Right to Property;
body;
mind;
soul;
gold;
silver;
money;
Federal Reserve Notes;
personal property;
real property;
labor;
rights to exchange property with others;
property traded for like valued property;
revenue.

37. Admit or deny: A Direct Tax is a tax on ANY of the above listed property.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 6 of 15

38. Admit or deny: The following text is contained on Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:

The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

39. Admit or deny: The income tax is an excise tax.

40. Admit or deny: The income tax is a tax on the doing of “certain activities and privileges”.

41. Admit or deny: Income “is the basis for determining the amount of tax” upon the privileges or privileged activities.

42. Admit or deny: Dale R. Eastman has not done any excise taxable privileged activity, nor has he invoked any excise taxable privilege that makes him liable to pay an “income” tax.

Failure to state, under penalties of perjury, the excise taxable privilege you allege I invoked, or the excise taxable privileged activity you allege I did that makes me liable to pay an "income" tax IS ADMISSION that I have NOT invoked any excise taxable privilege or done any excise taxable privileged activity that would subject me to the liability of an “income” tax.

Failure to respond to this letter by January 15, 2007 IS ADMISSION that you are attempting to knowingly violate my unalienable rights to property as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Failure to respond to this letter by January 15, 2007 IS ADMISSION that you are attempting to knowingly violate the Constitutional proscription against Direct-Unapportioned taxation.

Failure to state, under penalties of perjury, the excise taxable privilege you allege I invoked, or the excise taxable privileged activity you allege I did that makes me liable to pay an "income" tax IS ADMISSION that you are attempting to knowingly violate my unalienable rights to property guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Failure to state, under penalties of perjury, the excise taxable privilege you allege I invoked, or the excise taxable privileged activity you allege I did that makes me liable to pay an "income" tax IS ADMISSION that you are attempting to knowingly violate the Constitutional proscription against Direct-Unapportioned taxation.

Any attempt to assert that I am arguing that “the income tax is unconstitutional” is a bold faced lie, born of deliberate malice; outright ignorance of what the preceding pages state; or both. Such a lie or ignorance is preemptively denied:

THE INCOME TAX IS PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

It is the mis-application of the income tax laws by the IRS, its employees, agents, and officers (whether the malfeasance is malicious, deliberate, or ignorant), that is unconstitutional. Although the previous statement applies to myself, it certainly may apply to other Citizens of the 50 united States.

As shown by the previous pages of this document, Congress has enacted an excise / privilege tax upon certain privileges and privileged activities.

As shown by the previous pages of this document, if Congress enacted a Direct-Unapportioned tax upon the Citizen’s property, such an Act would be unconstitutional.

Congress has NOT enacted a Direct-Unapportioned tax upon the Citizen’s property according to the written words of the IRC² and the Secretary of Treasury has NOT “officially interpreted” the IRC into a Direct-Unapportioned tax according to the written words of the CFR³.

---------------------------
² Internal Revenue Code, otherwise known as Title 26 of the USC (United States Code) for those citizens new to the issue who will be reading this document.
³ Code of Federal Regulations for those citizens new to the issue who will be reading this document. CFR’s have the full force and effect of law when properly promulgated (disseminated).

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 7 of 15

43. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRM⁴ section 4.10.7.2.3.1:

4.10.7.2.3.1 (05-14-1999)
Income Tax Regulations
The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are the official Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code and follow the numbering sequence of Internal Revenue Code sections.

44. Admit or deny: The Federal Income Tax Regulations are the official Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code.

45. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRM section 4.10.7.2.3.4:

4.10.7.2.3.4 (05-14-1999)
Authority of the Regulations
The Service is bound by the regulations.

46. Admit or deny: The Internal Revenue Service is bound by the regulations.

47. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 1:

Sec. 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ..

.
48. Admit or deny: Each subsection, 1(a) through 1(e) inclusive, contains the following text:

… a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

49. Admit or deny: The income tax is imposed upon taxable income.

50. Admit or deny: If taxable income equals zero, no tax is due.

51. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 63:

Sec. 63. Taxable income defined
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

52. Admit or deny: The section 63 definition of taxable income is NOT the rules for determining taxable income.

53. Admit or deny: If one does not have gross income as it is statutorily defined, one can NOT have “taxable income”.

54. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 61:

Sec. 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;

---------------------------
⁴ Internal Revenue Manual, which is the ‘employee handbook’ of IRS employees for those Citizens new to the issue who will be reading this document.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 8 of 15

55. Admit or deny: Except as otherwise provided Gross income means:

all income from whatever source derived;
compensation for services,
gross income derived from business;

56. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of COMMISSIONER v. GLENSHAW GLASS CO., 348 U.S. 426 (1955):

[ Footnote 11 ] In discussing 61 (a) of the 1954 Code, the House Report states:

"This section corresponds to section 22 (a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22 (a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22 (a).

"Section 61 (a) provides that gross income includes `all income from whatever source derived.' This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word `income' is used in its constitutional sense." H. R. Rep. No. 1337, supra, note 10, at A18.

A virtually identical statement appears in S. Rep. No. 1622, supra, note 10, at 168.

57. Admit or deny: “All income from whatever source derived” means “All 16^th Amendment, Constitutional income from whatever source derived.”

58. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the Supreme Court case of WRIGHT v. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 583 (1938):

The Court has hitherto consistently held that a literal reading of a provision of the Constitution which defeats a purpose evident when the instrument is read as a whole, is not to be favored.
---
'From whatever source derived,' as it is written in the Sixteenth Amendment, does not mean from whatever source derived.

59. Admit or deny: “All income from whatever source derived” is NOT to be read literally.

60. Admit or deny: Since 16^th Amendment, Constitutional income is the return on invested property regardless of the source invested in, (see fact 14) then the proper interpretation of section 61(a) is to read it to mean:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, [statutory] gross income means all [return on investment,] [Constitutional] income from whatever [investment] source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items [of non-statutorily defined gross income]…

61. Admit or deny: Compensation for labor is NOT 16^th Amendment “income” and thus, “all income from whatever source derived” does NOT act to bring compensation for labor into the statutory definition of gross income.

62. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 61:

Sec. 61. Gross income defined
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following).

63. Admit or deny: If “All income from whatever source derived” touched every item (of non-statutorily defined gross income), there would be no need for part II (sec. 71 and following) to specifically include certain items (of non-statutorily defined gross income) into (statutorily defined) gross income.

64. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.61-1:

Sec. 1.61-1 Gross income.
(a) General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.

65. Admit or deny: The U.S. Constitution is known as organic law and/or fundamental law.

66. Admit or deny: “Excluded by law” in CFR section 1.61-1(a) also means “excluded by Constitutional law”.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 9 of 15

67. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.61-1:

Sec. 1.61-1 Gross income.
(b) Cross references.
To the extent that another section of the Code or of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61 and the regulations thereunder.

68. Admit or deny: IRC section 61 and Treasury Regulation 1.61-1 et seq. are outranked by any and every other Code section or Regulation thereunder that addresses an item of income.

69. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.61-2:

Sec. 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.
(a) In general. (1) Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are income to the recipients unless excluded by law.

70. Admit or deny: In light of the proper Constitutional meaning of the term “income”, the word “income” used in Treasury Regulation 1.61-2 is used in the generic form and means “gross income”. (See facts 9 through 15 inclusive)

71. Admit or deny: “Compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits” is Constitutional income as that term is defined by the Supreme Court and as such that 16^th Amendment Constitutional “income” is `“[gross] income to the recipients unless excluded by law.” (See facts 9 through 15 inclusive)

72. Admit or deny: Compensation for services NOT on the basis of a percentage of profits is NOT Constitutional income. (See facts 9 through 15 inclusive)

73. Admit or deny: “Excluded by law” also means “excluded by Constitutional law.” (See fact 65)

74. Admit or deny: Excluded by Constitutional law means any tax which is a Direct Tax not laid according to the Rule of Apportionment. In other words:

75. Admit or deny: Any Direct-Unapportioned tax upon an item of gross income that is NOT 16^th Amendment “income” is an item of income that is “excluded by Constitutional law”.

76. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 7806:

Sec. 7806. Construction of title
(b) Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.

77. Admit or deny: The location of various statutes within title 26 is of no importance in determining which statutes are involved with a particular item of (generic sense of the word) income.

78. Admit or deny: Descriptive matter shall not be given any legal effect.

79. Admit or deny: The following are representative of descriptions contained within Titles, Subtitles, Chapters, Subchapters, Parts, and Sections and as such shall NOT be given any legal effect.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States
PART I - SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States

80. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 861:

Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 10 of 15

The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:

(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States; except that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if -

(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States …
---
In addition, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual in connection with …

81. Admit or deny: The gross income that is “Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States” “shall be treated as income from sources within the United States.”

82. Admit or deny: The exceptions to section 861(a)(3) do NOT include Citizens of the 50 united States.

83. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-1:

Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
(a) Categories of income. Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax.
---
The statute provides for the following three categories of income:

(1) Within the United States.
The gross income from sources within the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See Secs. 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.

84. Admit or deny: Section 861 and the regulations thereunder “determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax.”

85. Admit or deny: (Sub) section 861(b) is THE section to use in regard to determining taxable income from sources within the United States. (Fact number 84 can NOT be denied if no Code section or regulation is cited that says who should use section 861(b) to determine domestic taxable income.)

86. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 861:

Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(b) Taxable income from sources within United States
From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as being income from sources within the United States there shall be deducted the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States.

87. Admit or deny: “Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States” is “gross income specified in subsection (a)” and thus, section 861(b) is THE section to use in regard to determining taxable income from sources within the United States.

88. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.862-1:

Sec. 1.862-1 Income specifically from sources without the United States.
(b) Taxable income.
The taxable income from sources without the United States, in the case of the items of gross income specified in paragraph (a) of this section, SHALL BE DETERMINED ON THE SAME BASIS AS THAT USED IN Sec. 1.861-8 for determining the taxable income from sources within the United States.

89. Admit or deny: The taxable income from sources without the United States shall be determined on the same basis as that used in Sec. 1.861-8 for determining the taxable income from sources within the United States.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 11 of 15

90. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.863-1:

Sec. 1.863-1 Allocation of gross income under section 863(a).
(c) Determination of taxable income.
The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or without the United States WILL BE DETERMINED UNDER THE RULES OF Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.

91. Admit or deny: The taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Sec. 1.861-8 et seq.

92. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8:

Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

(a) In general--
(1) Scope.
Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States after gross income from sources within the United States has been determined. Sections 862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources without the United States after gross income from sources without the United States has been determined. THIS SECTION PROVIDES SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR APPLYING THE CITED CODE SECTIONS by prescribing rules for the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other deductions (referred to collectively in this section as ``deductions'') of the taxpayer. The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections.

93. Admit or deny: Section 861(b) states in GENERAL TERMS how to determine taxable income from sources within the United States.

94. Admit or deny: Regulation section 1.861-8 provides SPECIFIC GUIDANCE to apply Code section 861(b).

95. Admit or deny: Regulation section 1.861-8 prescribes THE rules for the allocation and apportionment of the (referred to collectively) deductions.

96. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8:

Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

(a) In general--
(3) Class of gross income.
For purposes of this section, the gross income to which a specific deduction is definitely related is referred to as a ``class of gross income'' and may consist of one or more items (or subdivisions of these items) of gross income enumerated in section 61, namely:

(i) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items;

97. Admit or deny: A class of gross income may consist of compensation for services enumerated in IRC section 61.

98. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8:

Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

(b) Allocation--
(1) In general.
For purposes of this section, the gross income to which a specific deduction is definitely related is referred to as a ``class of gross income'' and may consist of one or more items of gross income. The rules emphasize the factual relationship between the deduction and a class of gross income. See paragraph (d)(1) of this section which provides that in a taxable year there may be no item of gross income in a class or less gross income than deductions allocated to the class, and paragraph (d)(2) of this section which provides that a class of gross income may include excluded income.

99. Admit or deny: A class of gross income is one or more items of gross income with a factual relationship to certain deductions.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 12 of 15

100. Admit or deny: A class of gross income may include excluded income.

101. Admit or deny: Since A class of gross income may include excluded income and since a class of gross income may consist of compensation for services enumerated in IRC section 61 then compensation for services may be excluded income.

102. Admit or deny: A prudent person would examine paragraph (d)(2) to see if their compensation for services (compensation for labor) is excluded income.

103. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8:

Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

(a) In general--
(4) Statutory grouping of gross income and residual grouping of gross income.
For purposes of this section, the term ``statutory grouping of gross income'' or ``statutory grouping'' means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at ``taxable income'' from which specific source or activity under an operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.) Gross income from other sources or activities is referred to as the ``residual grouping of gross income'' or ``residual grouping.''
---
In some instances, where the operative section so requires, the statutory grouping or the residual grouping may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income. See paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to the allocation and apportionment of deductions to excluded income.

104. Admit or deny: The statutory grouping or the residual grouping may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income.

105. Admit or deny: A prudent person would examine paragraph (d)(2) to see if their statutory grouping or their residual grouping of gross income may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income.

106. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8:

Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.

(d) Excess of deductions and excluded and eliminated income--
(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded, or eliminated income. [Reserved] For guidance, see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2).

107. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8T:

108. Admit or deny: The term exempt income means ANY income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.

109. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8T:

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 13 of 15

110. Admit or deny: Considered exempt means considered not taxable.

111. Admit or deny: Considered not exempt means considered not, not taxable.

112. Admit or deny: Double negatives cancel.

113. Admit or deny: Considered not exempt means considered taxable.

114. Admit or deny: For all practical purposes, “He’s a liar” and “He’s considered a liar” have no meaningful distinction.

115. Admit or deny: Law does not have to state what it does NOT apply to.

116. Admit or deny: Law does have to state what it DOES apply to.

117. Admit or deny: Regulation 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) is to be read as if it states: “The following items are considered to be taxable income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:”

118. Admit or deny: When properly decoded, Regulation 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) clearly states that the law applies to the “following items”.

119. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within Treasury Regulation 1.861-8T:

Sec. 1.861-8T Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities (temporary).

(d) Excess of deductions and excluded and eliminated items of income.
(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded or eliminated income--
(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt

(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business;

(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC and its related supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC;

(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and

(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder (however, the rules of Sec. 1.911-6 do not require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)).

120. Admit or deny: The only gross income of a Citizen of the 50 united States that is taxable (not exempt) is foreign earned income.

121. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within the instructions for tax Form 1040:

You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and pensions, from sources outside the United States unless exempt by law or a tax treaty. You must also report earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources outside the United States.

122. Admit or deny: The instructions for Form 1040 REQUIRE the reporting of income earned outside the United States, and such requirement corresponds correctly to the written words of law in treasury regulation 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)(D).

123. Admit or deny: There is NO corresponding instructions for Form 1040 requiring the reporting of earned income from sources inside the United States. (Failure to cite the page number and the URL of the Form 1040 instructions requiring the reporting of income earned inside the United States results in a default admission that fact 123 is true.)

124. Admit or deny: The following text is contained within IRC section 7343:

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 14 of 15

Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter D - Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture Provisions
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"

The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

125. Admit or deny: The term “person” as used in Chapter 75 includes an officer of a corporation who as such officer is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

126. Admit or deny: The term “person” as used in Chapter 75 includes an employee of a corporation who as such employee is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

127. Admit or deny: The term “person” as used in Chapter 75 includes a member of a partnership who as such partner is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

128. Admit or deny: The term “person” as used in Chapter 75 includes an employee of a partnership who as such employee is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

129. Admit or deny: The four previously described entities (facts 125 through 128 inclusive) are within the meaning of the dictionary definition of the word “person”.

130. Admit or deny: If Chapter 75 applied to the dictionary defined word “person”, then there would be no need for IRC section 7343.

131. Admit or deny: A statutorily defined term has ONLY the meaning assigned to it under the statute so defining that term.

132. Admit or deny: IRC section 7343 brings the four previously described entities (facts 125 through 128 inclusive) under authority of the penalty statutes in Chapter 75 by including them within the term “person” as statutorily defined for Chapter 75.

133. Admit or deny: Absent IRC section 7343 the four previously described entities (facts 125 through 128 inclusive) are not “persons” to which the penalty statutes in Chapter 75 apply.

134. Admit or deny: If absent IRC section 7343, the four previously described entities are NOT persons to which Chapter 75 applies when such persons are within the dictionary meaning of “person”, Then, absent an IRC section that brings any other dictionary “person” within the statutorily defined “person”, no other dictionary “person” is subject to the penalty provisions of Chapter 75.

135. Admit or deny: Chapter 75 penalty provisions ONLY apply to the statutorily defined “persons” “included” in IRC section 7343.

136. Admit or deny: To argue that “includes” is a word of expansion in order to include individuals that are already contained within the generic dictionary meaning of the word "person" is to prove that if the generic dictionary meaning of the word person is meant, there would be no need for a statutorily defined term because the named entities in IRC section 7343 would already be included in the dictionary meaning.

137. Admit or deny: Dale R. Eastman is within the dictionary definition of the word “person”.

138. Admit or deny: Dale R. Eastman is NOT within the statutory definition of the word “person”.

139. Admit or deny: Since Dale R. Eastman is NOT within the statutory definition of the word “person” the penalty statutes in Chapter 75 DO NOT APPLY TO Dale R. Eastman.

Failure to respond to this letter within the time period listed on page 1 is an admission that you are knowingly violating my Unalienable Rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Page 15 of 15

        I know as hearsay from my reading on the net, that the IRS "conveniently" loses a lot of mail that they don't like.

        I know for a fact, from a phone conversation with an IRS flunky, that the IRS "lost" a previously mailed letter that I sent certified.

         IRS flunky: "As a matter of fact let me check to see if there is anything showing that any correspondence was received whatsoever regarding your account... And I don't see any... Its not notated on your account." 243 kb wave file.

        Because I know for a fact that the IRS conveniently "lost" my previous letter, I've sent them multiple copies (thirteen to date) of this letter to "lose".

Certified Article Numbers, Mailing Dates, Addresses, and the officials addressed are on this page.

Scans of ALL the return receipt green cards are on this page. Approximately 848 kb. total.

Scumbag LIARS in Ogden Utah claim Dennis L. Parizek doesn't exist. Scans showing the LIES are shown on this page.

ACS Cincinnatti replies are shown on this page.

The loquacious response of the IRS is shown on this page.

A generic draft of the above letter is available for downloading. The file is an MS works word processor file. The format is legal sized paper (8½ X 14); 10 point Times New Roman font. Right click, save as. affidavit.wps