This article is echoing David William voice and refers to American legislation, however, with apprpriate research, you will find parallels in your local lawbooks, as the same game apply globally. Remember that you do not want to get caught up in trying to “prove” anything because you don’t have to, and it is counterproductive to even try. The Supreme Court says that you are exempt by default from any requirement unless a tax law contains clear and unequivocal language imposing the requirement upon you. This is all you really need. Make the person who is claiming you have to do something prove HIS claim!
Still, for your personal peace of mind, it is a good idea to be able to prove certain things, at least to yourself. I hope this bonus report will help you with that. The income tax laws most certainly do not clearly impose a requirement. I think it is important to understand exactly why that is.
The reason why the tax laws are written without clear and unequivocal language making all Americans in the 50 states liable for income tax is because the laws HAD TO BE written that way in order to not violate the limits of the Federal Constitution!
However, the income tax laws are also written with the deliberate intent to conceal the limits on federal taxing power in order to mislead people into misapplying the law against themselves and/or others. This does not and cannot change the limits on the federal taxing power , no matter how commonplace such misapplication has become, or how long it has been going on for.
Enjoy!
Summary of this report:
- Fundamental rights of all people that CANNOT be subject to taxation:
- Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
- Right to be left alone
- Right of free association
- Right to contract (or to not contract)
- Other enumerated rights in the federal Constitution
- Rights not enumerated in the federal Constitution are not to be denied or disparaged.
- Powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people.
Constitutional limits on state and federal government
No one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Slavery or involuntary servitude in any form (except as punishment for a crime of which a person shall be duly convicted) shall not exist in any part of the United States. The requirement to pay taxes is a quasi-contractual obligation. No state may pass any law impairing the obligations of contracts. This means federal government cannot pass any such law, either.
Constitutional limits on federal government taxing power
Federal government may only tax the use of federal property and subjects lawfully within federal jurisdiction; this means subjects that are physically within exclusively federal territory or subjects connected with the exercise of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Federal government has no jurisdiction over any private business inside any of the 50 states. Federal government has no power to legislate inside any of the 50 states. Federal government cannot license a trade or business inside a state in order to tax it. All direct taxes on property must be apportioned among the states according to population. No direct tax on property may be imposed unless in proportion to the census.
Indirect taxes must be uniform. Congress has power to lay and collect tax on incomes from whatever source derived without apportionment. Because there is no apportionment, income taxes are never direct taxes on property but always indirect taxes on federally-connected occupations and activities. If an income tax effectively becomes a direct tax in the way it is enforced, apportionment is required. Whether something qualifies as income within the meaning of 16th Amendment must be determined with regard to truth and substance, not mere form. The income tax is not a tax on income as property; but a tax on a federal privilege with the amount of tax being measured by the income derived from the privilege.
The federal income tax is thus not a federal tax on all income, but a federal tax on federal income. It is effectively a kickback for those who profit from acting as an agent for and performing the functions of the federal government.
Fundamental rights of all people are limits on government (and these rights CANNOT be subject to taxation):
Let’s start with the truths we hold to be self-evident in the USA that everyone has unalienable rights endowed by their Creator; and that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This principle is expressed in the first organic law of the USA-- commonly referred to as the “Declaration of Independence”. It also states in that document the self-evident truth that governments are created by people to serve them and to protect their rights; and that this is the only lawful purpose for which government exists ; and that a government derives its lawful powers from the consent of the governed.
This unanimous declaration of the 13 States of America laid a legal and philosophical foundation; and this foundation provides the proper context for all the laws in the USA that came after it.
If you ever believe you are being “forced” in the USA to do something “required by law” you have simply misunderstood the law! Your consent is always required for a law to be applicable to you. Of course, common law applies to everyone, and can be summed up as “don’t harm others or their property” and “do what you agreed to do.” This is all anyone really needs to know about the law in two sentences. This is just common sense, and a recognition of the fundamental rights of others. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arms stops at the end of my nose. Protection of these rights is why people form governments.
There is no “compelled performance” in the USA. We are not slaves or subjects of the government. A close reading of any law, code or regulation always bears this out. Any written law that plainly violates the fundamental law such as a right protected by the Federal Constitution could be (and would be) promptly challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Such challenges have never worked with the income tax laws, however. This is because the problem with the income tax is not with the way the law is written ; the problem is usually that the law has been misapplied.
People get very confused about this, because the government has devious ways of ensuring that evidence of your “consent” is created without you realizing it. But they DO need evidence
of your consent to be subject to their various laws, statutes and codes. Otherwise they would not bother with trying to get you to sign this or that document. Your signature on certain documents functions as evidence of your consent. Your failure to speak up and object to things you don’t want also functions as your consent (by default). Just like if you stand there and let the police walk into your house without saying anything. By your silence and failure to object to them coming in, you have consented to a search of your house. You cannot claim the police violated your rights, because you did not speak up and assert them! Thus by default you waived your right to prevent a search of your house without a warrant.
The bottom line is, the written law recognizes the need for your consent; even if you or the people enforcing a law don’t realize your consent is required. What people assume or believe has no bearing on the law. In the USA we are ruled by laws , not by men. It is up to YOU to know this in all of your dealings with government and its agents.
“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. ”―Robert Jackson
Did you know the Declaration of Independence is law?
The official print edition of the United States Code which contain the “general and permanent laws of the United States (updated every six years by the government printing office)” contains in Volume One at the very beginning a section called “ The Organic Laws of the United States of America.” Clicking on the Office of Law Revision Counsel’s link to the United States Code, at http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim reveals that these Organic Laws are first and foremost in the official publication of the laws of the United States. These Organic Laws are the supreme law of the United States, taking precedence over all others. A law that conflicts with their provisions is void and unenforceable.
In that beginning section of the United States Code are these four “Organic Laws of the United States”: The Unanimous Declaration of the united “States of America”; the Articles of Confederation creating a confederacy of sovereign states called “The United States of America” and a federal body called “the United States in Congress Assembled”; the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, creating a temporary government for federal territory called the “ United States ”” and making rules for the admission of new states to the Confederacy; and the Federal Constitution of 1787 which reorganized the “United States” (i.e. the federal government) but which did NOT repeal any of the preceding organic laws!
Therefore, to properly understand your relationship with state and federal government, you have to be familiar with the context provided by those three preceding organic laws of the United States. The details of that are beyond the scope of this report. Suffice to say, the Organic Laws of the USA are still the law today , so your unalienable rights are always there waiting for you to recognize them; and that the law requires that all of your dealings with anyone, including the government, be with your consent. If your experience tells you otherwise, it is only because YOU have not recognized your unalienable rights, so you have failed to recognize when you are waiving them.
I highly recommend Ed Rivera’s Organic Laws Institute website for more information on this fascinating topic, particularly as to how Americans have been scammed by the Federal Constitution for 240 years. Primarily by confusing the definition of “United States”—which the Supreme Court admits has at least three different definitions.
The bottom line is that your unalienable rights are the fundamental law of the USA; and the protection of those rights is the only reason for the government to exist in the first place. Naturally, then, the government cannot lawfully violate these rights. So your inherent rights are inherent limitations on government power.
So what are these rights?
The Declaration provides broad language: “...among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...” The courts over the years have fleshed these rights out more specifically in terms of how they limit government power.
First of all, you have the fundamental right to be left alone. No one can force you to associate with them, not even the government!
“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 knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. 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. "Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting ); see alsoWashington v. Harper,494 U.S. 210 (1990)
You have the right to freely associate (or to not associate) with others. This includes a right to contract with others, for your personal benefit. This includes the right to not contract with others. Your right to freely contract embraces the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness, all at once.
Most people depend for their survival on contracts with others where they exchange their labor for money. So any infringement of this right would be an infringement on the right to life itself!
For this reason, the highest courts have always recognized a fundamental right to enter into lawful contracts, and have recognized a property right in such contracts. This includes employment contracts , where you agree to exchange your labor for some other form of property, such as a paycheck.
“Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."Butchers Union Co. v Crescent City Co , 111 U.S. 746 (1883)
“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”Redfield v Fisher135 Or. 180, 292 P. 813, 819 (Ore. 1930)
"This right of a citizen to pursue any calling, business, or profession he may choose is a property right to be guarded by equity as zealously as any other form of property. (See Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, [32 L.Ed. 623, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2311.) " Labor is property. The laborer has the same right to sell his labor , and to contract with reference thereto, as any other property owner..."New Method Laundry Co. v. MacCann , 174 Cal. 26, 31 (1916)
“Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property ...is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money orother forms of property.”Coppage v. Kansas236 U.S. 1 (1915)
It should be obvious that a compelled tax on your right to contract or the right to labor is not permissible. Such a tax would be an unlawful infringement of your right to contract and the right to labor. It also seems obvious that forcing you into what would be effectively a contract with the government in connection with a private contract with another party (such as your private sector employer) would be effectively forcing you to associate with (and even to contract with) the government.
Perhaps this is why the U.S. Supreme Court was so emphatic in saying that the right to “avoid altogether” what would otherwise be your income taxes using means the laws permits (such as by standing on your fundamental rights and declining to waive them ) “ cannot be doubted”. Without the right to avoid income tax using lawful means, your fundamental property rights would seem to be relatively meaningless.
The government cannot directly infringe on these rights; the government also may not lawfully infringe your rights indirectly by the use of schemes and workarounds, either. The highest courts have made it clear that your fundamental rights cannot be infringed by the government through the use of indirect means any more than those rights can be infringed by direct laws violating those rights:
“Similarly, numerous cases have held that governmental entities cannot do indirectly that which they cannot do directly. See *841 Board of County Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 674, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 135 L.Ed.2d. 843 (1996) (holding that the First Amendment protects an independent contractor from termination or prevention of the automatic renewal of his at-will government contract in retaliation for exercising his freedom of speech); El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello, 165 F.3d. 106, 109 (1st Cir.1999) (holding that a government could not withdraw advertising from a newspaper which published articles critical of that administration because it violated clearly established First Amendment law prohibiting retaliation for the exercising of freedom of speech); North Mississippi Communications v. Jones, 792 F.2d. 1330, 1337 (5th Cir.1986) (same). The defendants violated clearly established Due Process and First Amendment law _by boycotting the plaintiffs' business in an effort to get them removed from the college.”Kinney v. Weaver,111 F.Supp.2d 831, E.D.Tex. (2000)
As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Harman v. Forssenius 380 U.S. (1965):
“ It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583. " Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be... indirectly denied," Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 664 , or "manipulated out of existence." Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345 .”
Therefore it should seem obvious that the federal income tax (as written) is NOT a tax on labor or an infringement of the right to contract, or a law compelling anyone to contract with the government. Although many people assume the income tax effectively is all of those things. But if that were true, it would make the income tax brazenly illegal and unconstitutional and it would have been struck down a long time ago.
A federal income tax law was actually struck down in 1895 by the U.S. Supreme Court simply because it was deemed a direct tax on property without complying with the Constitution’s rule of apportionment. This decision has never been overturned. Other tax laws have been struck down when they were deemed to violate the sovereignty of a state. So Congress is very careful to write tax laws in such a way that they cannot be challenged on Constitutional grounds.
People who misunderstand how the income tax really works have repeatedly tried and failed to argue in court that the federal income tax is “illegal” and/or “unconstitutional”. The repeated failure of these arguments has caused many people to just throw up their hands and assume the courts are simply “corrupt” and “lawless” and that we therefore just have to put up with an income tax these people believe MUST BE illegal or unconstitutional.
The federal government apparently does not even mind if most people believe the government is brazenly ignoring the Federal Constitution , so long as people are too scared or passive to do anything about it.
But the real reason why courts always ignore people who complain that the income tax or the IRS is “violating their Constitutional rights” is because income tax liability is always a voluntarily incurred obligation ; either as a condition of willingly doing business with the federal government or as a result of a (purportedly) voluntary choice to treat a payment made to you as though it is connected to the functions of a federal government office.
This is the real reason why the federal courts have said on the record in tax protestor cases that the Constitution is “irrelevant”. Because it is irrelevant when you have volunteered! But instead of listening and trying to make sense of what the courts have said, tax protestors have howled in outrage for decades that the courts “ignore the Constitution”.
The government just doesn’t want you to KNOW this is all voluntary, even if it means they have to let you believe they are violating the Constitution with the income tax laws. As long as they can get you to volunteer , however they can manage to do that, you have no legal recourse and nobody to blame but yourself!
What can be done about this is the subject of the main report on lawful income tax avoidance.
Other enumerated rights in the federal Constitution
There are of course, other fundamental rights which also function as limits on the government. Most people are aware that we have a so-called “Bill of Rights” in the Federal Constitution. This is commonly misunderstood as the government “giving us” rights.
In actuality, such an enumeration of rights was not even considered necessary by many people because of how “self-evident” individual rights were known to be at the time the Federal Constitution was adopted in 1787, only 11 years after the Declaration of Independence.
Several states, however, agreed to ratify the Federal Constitution only upon the condition that a “Bill of Rights” would be added to the Constitution at the earliest opportunity. These states were rightly distrustful of the efforts to centralize and consolidate power in the federal government.
The “Bill of Rights” as the first Ten Amendments to the Federal Constitution are commonly called, is more properly understood to be a bill of limitations on (and prohibitions of) government infringement of already existing self-evident rights ; not a “granting of rights” or (even worse) “privileges” by the government.
The most important of these “rights” for our purposes here are the 5th and 14th Amendment guarantees of the right to due process of law. No one can lawfully be deprived of life, liberty or property by federal or state government without due process of law.
This means that no IRS official can arbitrarily assess you with a tax. There must be some reasonable and rational basis for the tax assessment. That means there must be sufficient facts based on evidence , and the law must be properly and reasonably applied to those facts. There also must be sufficient notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the tax is assessed.
As was made clear in the main lawful income tax avoidance report, a vague law that does not clearly express any requirement or liability upon you violates the notice requirement for due process of law under the 5th and/or the 14 th Amendments.
Vague laws lead to arbitrary application of those laws and abuse of discretion by people in a position to apply those laws, such as your employer or anyone else who pays you and then reports the payment to the IRS as being subject to the income tax laws.
A vague income tax law makes it questionable at best whether the actual facts of a case actually support application of that law , even if someone else has testified to facts under oath that indicate you are liable for income tax; such as by filing a W-2 form or 1099 form reporting that a payment made to you was subject to the income tax laws.
So the “Achilles heel” of the income tax scheme is that the laws are vaguely written and therefore cannot possibly be compulsory. These laws would be “void for vagueness”. So unless you are willingly and knowingly volunteering to be liable for income tax , you are simply being duped or intimidated into cooperating with the creation of evidence which says you did volunteer.
Misapplication of the law is not a violation of your rights if you consent to it. The applicable legal maxim is “He who consents cannot receive an injury.”
You have no legal recourse if you expressly consent to the misapplication of the income tax laws against you (such as by filing a tax return and assessing yourself with tax.)
If you do not consent, your lack of consent must be made clear in the face of any evidence that indicates your consent was given , such as any document bearing your signature, but which you completed under duress or under the undue influence of another (such as a Form W- 4 withholding allowance certificate which your employer forced you to fill out).
Rights not enumerated in the federal Constitution are not to be denied or disparaged
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it clear who is the source of lawful power in the USA— the people have fundamental rights; and the protection of these rights is the sole basis for the government to exist, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The people retained all of these rights in the creation of the federal United States government:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that lawful power flows from the people of a state to the state government by consent of the governed, and that certain state powers were delegated to the federal government.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The federal government has no lawful power except the powers expressly or implicitly delegated to it by the states; powers which had first been delegated to each state by the people of each state.
Logically, no one can delegate power they do not themselves have. If I cannot force you into a contract with me, neither can any state or the federal government do so!
Constitutional limits on state and federal government
No deprivation of property without due process of law
No one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law by the federal government or by any state. This was covered already in the discussion of fundamental rights.
It is important to note that, in determining if due process rights have been violated , the substance is what matters, according to the U.S. Supreme Court:
“The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend , and in determining whether such rights are denied, the Court is governed by the substance of things, and not by mere form.”Simon v. Craft,182 U.S. 427 (1901)
Due process of law is required even in non-judicial settings, such as in any administrative proceeding with a government agency. For example, the IRS cannot get away with holding an examination interview (aka an audit) with you and then just ignoring everything you present and assessing you with tax without regard for the evidence you introduced. What would be the point of having an examination if they don’t have to take into account what you have to say? This would be technically granting you the form of a “right to be heard”, but denying you the substance; denying you a meaningful opportunity to be heard in order to affect the determination.
The courts have the power to review agency determinations based on the “abuse of discretion standard.” If a government agency makes a determination that is “arbitrary and capricious”; such as “cherry-picking” evidence or making conclusions that are not supported by the best evidence, or if the determination is based on misapplying the law, the determination may be overturned by a court if it can be shown that the official acted unreasonably and/or abused his discretion.
So you have a right to substantive due process even if you are dealing with matters informally and/or administratively and not in a courtroom. Of course, most people are intimidated when being audited by the IRS and so they usually volunteer to increase their tax bill. Nothing illegal about that, either. You have to refuse to be intimidated and stand on your rights.
No slavery or involuntary servitude
Another major restriction on everyone (not just government) in the USA is that slavery and involuntary servitude (in whatever form, class, degree or name) is unlawful per the 13th Amendment:
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
People have actually argued in court that the income tax laws subjected them to a form of involuntary servitude. One court answered that argument this way:
“ If the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude , they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment .”Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10th Cir. 1954).
Do you see what this court is saying? “ Not in voluntary” is a double negative**.** The court is effectively saying the income tax is a form of voluntary servitude if it were to be classed as servitude. Whatever it is, the requirements are voluntarily incurred, the court is indirectly saying.
This is exactly correct! Your volunteering makes the requirements of the income tax laws legally binding upon you, even where they otherwise would not be.
The requirement to pay taxes is a quasi-contractual obligation.
The Supreme Court has said the obligation to pay taxes is “quasi-contractual”:
“The obligation to pay taxes is not penal; it is a statutory liability , quasi-contractual in nature , enforceable, if there be no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence.” >Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268 (1935)
“Quasi-contractual” means the obligation operates effectively like a contract , even if there is no actual written contract. Most contracts work this way, actually.
A good example is when you sit down in a restaurant and order food from the menu. There is no written contract. You form a contract with the restaurant through your conduct. If you run out of the place after you eat and do not pay the bill, the restaurant can claim legal injury. You formed a contract when you ordered the food, and when the restaurant brought you what you ordered. You are obligated to pay the bill. You cannot lawfully refuse to pay and defend yourself by demanding that they produce a written contract. This is why people who are arguing against an income tax liability by demanding that a contract be produced never get anywhere. There is no written contract; the contract was formed by their conduct.
As we already covered, you have the right to freely contract or to not contract. Whether you formed a contract or not is a legal determination based on the facts of the case. The facts that are put before the finder of facts are what determine if a contract was formed. Perhaps the most crucial feature of a valid contract is consent of the parties to the contract.
Because tax obligations are quasi-contractual, it is always presumed you have consented to a tax obligation that is being claimed against you. It is vital to speak up and make it clear if your willing and knowing consent was not actually given.
The income tax statutes determine who is a “taxpayer” (i.e. a person subject to income tax) in case of any controversy. The courts admit they do not have power to make someone a “taxpayer” in order to apply the tax laws against them:
"And by statutory definition the term "taxpayer" includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. ...Since the statutory definition of taxpayer is exclusive , the federal [and state] courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n , 100 F.2d.18 (1939)
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom 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, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.Hale v. Henkel,201 U.S. 43 (1906)
No state may pass any law impairing the obligations of contracts. This means federal government cannot pass any such law, either.
The Federal Constitution at Article I Section 10 states:
“ No State shall ....pass any ...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...”
This is relevant for two reasons: it means the state and federal government may not impair your private contracts by forcing you or the other party (including your employer) to connect the contract to the state or federal government for tax purposes.
It also means that if you and the other party choose to connect your private contract to the state or federal government for tax purposes, the state and federal government cannot stop you!
However, this must be agreed upon by all parties to the contract, and it is unlawful for the payer or employer to unilaterally impair your contract without your consent. This is why you are “asked” to give your Social Security Number; and why you have to sign the W-4 withholding allowance form. These things are NOT required by law! But the employer assumes they are, then forces you to cooperate. After you cooperate and sign the W-4, the law no longer matters—because the evidence you just created will show that you consented to this impairment of your private contract.
That is, the law no longer matters until you speak and object to make it clear that you did NOT knowingly or willingly consent to any impairment of the obligations of your private contract.
Constitutional limits on federal government taxing power
Federal government may only tax the use of federal property and subjects lawfully within federal jurisdiction
This should be pretty obvious, but a government cannot tax anything or any activity that is outside either its legal jurisdiction or its geographical jurisdiction.
The problem with federal taxation seems to be that people do not understand where federal jurisdiction begins and ends. The federal government makes little or no effort to clear up such confusion, since such confusion leads to people passively accepting federal usurpation and overstepping of the federal government’s lawful boundaries.
As a result, people tend to passively accept statements like “this is required by federal law” as justification for forcing people to furnish their Social Security Numbers to be hired; and forcing people to fill out a Form W-4 for income tax withholding; and for reporting compensation for labor as “gross income” to the IRS.
The Federal Constitution defines a very limited geographical area of federal government jurisdiction at Article I Section 8, clause 17 :
“The Congress shall have power ...
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square ) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;”
The area described is the District of Columbia, and other federal areas purchased by the federal government within states (with the consent of those states).
Within the areas described, Congress has exclusive jurisdiction to pass laws for those federal areas. All other areas of the USA are under the exclusive jurisdiction of one of the states. These areas are not subject to federal authority except with respect to:
- enumerated powers of federal government
- federal property
- federal contract rights
The Federal government has no general jurisdiction over business inside any of the 50 states:
“It is no longer open to question that the general [federal] government [including its agents, the IRS], unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, 38 S. Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect to the internal affairs of the states, and emphatically not with regard to legislation.”Carter v. Carter Coal Co.298 U.S. 238 (1936)
“The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time [including AFTER the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment] this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions.Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1.298 U.S. 513; 56 S. Ct. 892 (1936)
“ Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses , licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.
But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. 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. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. 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.”License Tax Cases,72 U.S. 462 (1866)
Federal legislation, including federal tax legislation , can only reach into the states when the law passed has some foundation in one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Federal Constitution.
Two fairly recent cases illustrate the effect of the Supreme Court’s (and thus the IRS’s) recognition of these jurisdictional limits on federal taxing power :
In U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 546 (1995) and Jones v. United States 995739 (2000), the Supreme
Court smacked down, respectively, a federal law against possessing a gun within 1000 feet of a school and a federal law punishing arson. The Court stated in each case that the law in question had no foundation in any enumerated power of Congress , so in each case the law was thus unconstitutional, void and unenforceable.
Remember that what Congress cannot regulate directly by passing a law, it also cannot regulate indirectly, including regulating something by passing a tax law. Therefore, the Congress did not react to the Lopez and Jones decisions by enacting a massive federal tax upon possessing a gun within 1000 feet of a school; or by enacting a massive federal tax upon acts of arson; the Congress did not do so because it has no power to do so.
The Supreme Court over the years has struck down many different attempted tax structures because the objects of the tax could not be proven to be related to any delegated power of Congress. In one of the most clear expressions of this limitation on federal taxing power , the court said:
“...all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control anyone of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word "tax" would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.”Bailey v Drexel Furniture Co.259 U.S. 20 (1922)
If the courts are this emphatic about guarding the reserved sovereignty and power of the states , how much more so must they be for guarding the reserved rights and sovereignty of the people , and the protection of fundamental rights, which is the only purpose for which government exists in the first place!
The following quotes illuminate the point that the taxing power of Congress is limited to certain subjects , and that there are excepted subjects that cannot be subject to the federal taxing power; and that the 16 th Amendment did nothing to change that.
Therefore there are some “incomes” that are simply not subject to the federal taxing power; these excepted subjects never were subject to federal taxing power, and never will be:
"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..."Peck v. Lowe,247 U.S. 165 (1918)
"[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income."Taft v. Bowers , 278 US 470, 481 (1929)
"[T]he sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245- 2246 (1910); id. at 2539 ; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17- 18 (1916)"
So. Carolina v. Baker , 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
Therefore there are certain subjects that are simply not subject to the powers of the federal government to tax , before or after the 16th Amendment!
Why is this? The Supreme Court recognizes in the below cite (using a double negative again) that there are some things which Congress does not have any authority to burden with taxation:
“Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax not within the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment -- that is, one in which the regulation of apportionment or the rule of uniformity is wholly negligible because the tax is one entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists.”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
In the Stanton case, the tax in question was not outside the scope of the federal taxing power. In making this point, however, the Court made it clear that there are certain things that Congress might possibly attempt to tax that would be outside the federal taxing power.
For example, the federal government has no general power to burden a private business with taxation. In a case involving a tax upon a citizen’s properly taxable banking activities (since regulating banking activity is related to a delegated power of Congress) the Supreme Court made it clear that the federal taxing power and enforcement powers did not (and could not) extend to private business :
"...Messrs. Green will be directed to produce such books and papers as the supervisor may desire to examine, connected with their banking operations ; it being understood that this right upon the part of the supervisor extends only to such books and papers as relate to their banking operations, and are connected with the internal revenue of the United States."
"It is said that this is an attempt at an unreasonable seizure and search into the private affairs of the citizens, against which they are protected by the constitution.
[But t]here is no attempt to investigate any of the private affairs of the Messrs. Green, only an examination into so much of their business as relates to the operations of their banking house and is connected with the subjects of taxation; beyond this, he has no right to institute an inquiry." (Emphasis added.) _Stanwood v. Green_2 Abb. U.S. 184 (1870)
This 1870 decision was referred to by the Supreme Court as recently as 1978 in explaining the still existing limits on federal taxing power , specifically discussing limits on federal tax enforcement powers:
“The interrelated nature of fraud investigations thus was apparent as early as 1864. Section 14 of the 1864 Act permitted the issuance of a summons to investigate a suspected fraudulent return. It also prescribed a 100% increase in valuation as a civil penalty for falsehood. Section 15 established the criminal penalties for such conduct. Four years later, when Congress created the position of district supervisor, that official received similar summons authority. Act of July 20, 1868, § 49, 15 Stat. 14 4 - 145; see Cong.Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 3450 (1868). The federal courts enforced these summonses when they were issued in good faith and in compliance with instructions from the Commissioner. See In re Meador, 16 F.Cas. 1294, 1296 (No. 9,375) (ND Ga. 1869); Stanwood v. Green, 22 F.Cas. 1077, 1079 (No. 13,301) (SD Miss. 1870) ("it being understood that this right upon the part of the supervisor extends only to such books and papers as relate to their banking operations , and are connected with the internal revenue of the United States").”United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank , 437 U.S. 298 (1978)
How do books and papers and certain business operations become “ connected with the internal revenue of the United States ”? Congress certainly cannot connect a business with the internal revenue of the United States just by deciding to tax every business in the states , as we have already seen.
There must be a connection by way of an enumerated power being exercised ; or by way of the use of federal property; or by way of a federal contract. This is the ONLY way the federal government can acquire a right to “institute an inquiry” upon a business activity, much less to impose and collect a tax upon it.
We have spent quite a bit of time already on your fundamental rights, so that I could make this point: the federal government’s taxing power does not include the right to burden any of your fundamental rights with a tax:
“It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional.”Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
“Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege .”Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 Supreme Court of Tennessee (1960)
“An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right , but is an excise tax ...the legislature may declare as “privileged” and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matter of common right, but it has no power to declare a ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right.” _Simms v. Ahrens_,271 SW720 (1925)
The Federal government may tax privileged occupations, so long as the privilege is granted by
the federal government:
” The "Government" is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government, but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed , as we have held.”United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U.S. 174 (1944)
So with this understanding that there are jurisdictional limits on the objects and subjects within federal taxing power , there are additional limitations as to the mode in which that federal taxing power may be lawfully exercised upon any subject within federal taxing jurisdiction.
A look at these limitations on the mode of exercise of federal taxing power will make it even more obvious that income tax liability is always a voluntarily incurred obligation , and never compelled by law generally upon Americans in the 50 states.
All direct taxes on property must be apportioned among the states according to population
From the 1787 Federal Constitution:
Article I: Section 2
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.
This limit on federal taxing power has to do with the principle of “no taxation without representation.” This limitation on the federal government’s taxing power was considered so important, that it is the only limitation expressed twice in the Federal Constitution! This limit on direct taxes is restated at Article I, Section 9:
Article I: Section 9
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid , unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
The Supreme Court in the case cited below explains direct taxes and “capitations” and the reason why the framers of the federal Constitution limited federal direct taxes with the apportionment requirement:
“The remarkable coincidence of the clause of the Constitution with this passage in using the word "capitation " as a generic [p570] expression, including the different species of direct taxes , an acceptation of the word peculiar , it is believed, to Dr. (Adam) Smith , leaves little doubt that the framers of the one had the other in view at the time, and that they, as well as he , by direct taxes, meant those paid directly from, and falling immediately on, the revenue , and, by indirect, those which are paid indirectly out of the revenue by falling immediately upon the expense .”
... all taxes on [p574] real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes...
...Nothing can be clearer than that what the Constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any State through a majority made up from the other States...Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company157 U.S. 429 (1895)
So any tax falling directly on (or paid directly from) revenue is a direct tax. A tax on property in any form is a direct tax. The property rights of people were of paramount importance to the framers of the Organic Laws of the USA, including even the Federal Constitution. They clearly did not grant the federal government any power to tax the money paid to people for their labor or permit any federal tax to be laid upon people’s property, at least not without apportionment.
The rule of apportionment limits the direct taxing power of the federal government by making sure all the states would share the burden of any direct tax imposed. Remember that the Federal Constitution is a compact amongst the states. And the federal government is just a body formed by the states.
This rule of apportionment for representation in Congress and for direct taxes was intended to keep the people (and their representatives) from the more populous states from “ganging up on” other states with less representation in Congress in order to stick the people of those less populous states with the bill whenever Congress passed a direct tax.
Congress has not actually passed a direct tax in a very long time. Every time it did so in the past, the tax was a one-time enactment, the amount of money they were trying to raise was stated, the purposes of the tax was stated (usually to retire a debt from a war) and the tax was always laid upon the states , not the people; and the amount of the tax divided up according to each state’s percentage of representatives in Congress , to make sure each state would pay its fair share of the tax. The states would in turn tax their people to raise the money it needed to pay the direct tax. This is how federal direct taxation and apportionment works.
There has never been a direct federal tax imposed directly by the federal government on the people of any state. Nor could there be! The people are actually not even a party to the Federal Constitution, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2011 case Bond v United States.
Because of all the complications with direct taxes, the federal government has relied almost
entirely on indirect taxes for the entire history of the United States.
All indirect taxes must be uniform. The income tax is an indirect tax.
From the 1787 federal Constitution:
Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises , to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Supreme Court explains in the below case the difference between direct taxes and indirect
taxes, making it clear that indirect taxes are by definition avoidable taxes.
“Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone 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. “Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
The income tax has always been described by the Supreme Court as “in the nature of an
excise”-- making it an indirect and avoidable tax.
“...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation , but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged , and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived -- that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. “ _Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co_., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
The Courts have routinely described excises as taxes upon the exercise of a privilege :
"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain (licensed) occupations and upon corporate privileges ; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privilege ."Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
“The terms "excise" tax and " privilege " tax are synonymous, and the two are often used interchangeably.”American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace , et al. 57 F.2d 877 (1932)
The Congressional Record even agrees that the income tax is an excise with respect to certain
activities and privileges.
From the Congressional Record March 7, 1943 p. 2580:
“The income tax is therefore not a tax on income as such. It is an excise with respect to certain activities and privileges, 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.”
In truth, as a practical matter, the income tax is most often applied by subjects who are technically volunteering themselves into liability , which makes the tax as applied to such subjects exempt from the uniformity requirement for indirect taxes in the Federal Constitution.
The income tax is basically non-Constitutional in those cases, because it is a voluntarily incurred obligation having nothing to do with any actual privilege.
The 16 th Amendment only clarifies that Congress has the power to lay and collect tax on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment.
Here is the text of the 16th Amendment:
Amendment XVI
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.
You are encouraged by the government and its lackeys to misunderstand the meaning of “income” in the Sixteenth Amendment to mean “all that comes in” by not noticing the qualifying phrase “from whatever source derived” that limits what “income” can mean.
This topic is covered in the main lawful income tax avoidance report. Because of this qualifier in the 16th Amendment, it is clear that “income” is always something derived from a source , as wine is derived from grapes. So “income” for tax purposes is thus limited to a gain or profit and cannot mean “all that comes in”, according to the numerous Supreme Court decisions defining “income” for federal income tax purposes.
The 16th Amendment is properly understood only in the context of the other taxing limitations imposed in the Federal Constitution Even after the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court has struck down income tax laws when they were applied as a direct tax on property if the tax is not apportioned.
“Congress was not empowered by the Sixteenth Amendment to tax, as income of the stockholder , without apportionment , a stock dividend [i.e. property] made lawfully and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913. P. 252 U. S. 201. Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418.
The Revenue Act of September 8, 1916, c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, plainly evinces the purpose of Congress to impose such taxes, and is to that extent in conflict with Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, and Art. I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution. Pp. 252 U. S. 199, 252 U. S. 217.
These provisions of the Constitution necessarily limit the extension, by construction, of the Sixteenth Amendment. P. 252 U. S. 205.Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
This helps to define the limits on what “income” for tax purposes can be:
“It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 , and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330, 335, 38 Sup. Ct. 540, 62 L. Ed. 1142, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913 ( 38 Stat. 114). There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets ,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.Merchant’s Loan and Trust Co. v. Smietanka255 U.S. 509 ( 1921 ).
Note that the meaning of “income” for tax purposes in this 1921 decision goes back to a 1909 corporation excise tax act, which was four years before the 16th Amendment was declared ratified in 1913.
So the 16 th Amendment did not change the definition of “income” for tax purposes. If something was not “income” subject to the federal taxing power before the 16th Amendment, it was still not income subject to federal taxing power AFTER the 16th Amendment.
The Court made it clear that the already existing limits on taxing power in the Federal Constitution limited what “income” could mean in the 16th Amendment, and in the Acts of Congress:
“In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the (Sixteenth) 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.”Eisner v. Macomber , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
The 16th Amendment only modified the rules to make it clear that an income tax was not ever intended to be a direct tax on the source of the income. So the income tax is always an indirect tax, and this is why there is no apportionment requirement.
You are encouraged by the government to misunderstand the 16th Amendment as allowing a direct tax on income as property, without apportionment. This feeds the establishment myth that Congress has imposed a tax on the money coming in for all Americans. The Courts have repeatedly debunked this idea. A direct tax still has to be apportioned , even after the 16th Amendment, according to the below decision, made 24 years after the 16th Amendment :
“ If [a] tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise , it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Whether the [income] tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance [for this analysis]. If not that, it is an "impost", or a "duty". A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not. "Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
The income tax is not ever intended to be a direct tax on property. If an income tax effectively
becomes a direct tax in the way it is enforced , apportionment would in that case be required.
Congress cannot work around the apportionment requirement for a direct tax by just calling it
an indirect tax:
“If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct , the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the Nation and the States of which it is composed would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
“Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent , in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.”Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
“The substance , and not the shadow, determines the validity of the exercise of the power ."Postal Telegraph Co. v. Adams,155 U.S. 688, 698 (1895)
Thus, the federal taxing power limits the income tax to effectively being an excise tax on the
exercise of federal privilege. The government cannot lawfully pretend you are exercising a federal privilege in order to tax you when you are only exercising your fundamental rights.
However, if you can be duped or intimidated into volunteering , none of this matters.
The point is to recognize that, due to these limits on federal taxing power:
Anybody who claim you are “ required by law ” to give them a Social Security number in connection with a private contract is DEAD WRONG.
Anybody who claims you are “ required by law ” to furnish them a W-4 withholding allowance certificate and/or that they are “ required by law ” to withhold income taxes from your private sector remuneration for your labor is DEAD WRONG.
Anybody who claims they are “ required by law ” to report payments made to you in connection with any private contract is DEAD WRONG.
Anybody who claims you are “ required by law ” to report the money you made from your job or your private business as “gross income” to IRS is DEAD WRONG.
Anybody who claims you are “ required by law ” to deduct and withhold income taxes from your private employees is DEAD WRONG.
Anybody who claims you are “ required by law ” to pay employment taxes in connection with your payments made to your private employees is DEAD WRONG.
NAMASTE