In fact, just WHAT ARE your inalienable rights of property? How do you know if you are waiving them if you do not know what they encompass? If I could legally prove to you that today's income tax is legal ONLY when you waive your inalienable rights of property, would you be interested? Would you care?

The TRUTH is that you HAVE waived your inalienable property rights, when you pay personal income tax. You have traded a non-taxed inalienable right for a taxable privilege. Do you think that was a good trade? If not, you need this information. You need to reclaim your inalienable right of property!

Hylton v. United States 3 U.S. 171 (1796) "The great object of the Constitution was, to give Congress a power to lay taxes, adequate to the exigencies of government; but they were to observe two rules in imposing them, namely the rule of uniformity, when they laid duties, imposts, or excises; and the rule of apportionment, according to the census, when they laid any direct tax."

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust 158 U.S. 601(1895) "As heretofore stated, the Constitution divided Federal taxation into two great classes, the class of direct taxes, and the class of duties, imposts, and excises; and prescribed two rules which qualified the grant of power as to each class. The power to lay direct taxes apportioned among the states in proportion to their representation in the popular branch of Congress, a representation based on population ascertained by the census, was plenary and absolute; but to lay direct taxes without apportionment was forbidden." "The power to tax real and personal property (labor) and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded: that such a tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied: ..." "We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes." An excise duty is an inland impost, levied upon articles of manufacture or sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades or to deal in commodities. In the Constitution, the words "duties, imposts and excise" are put in antithesis to direct taxes. A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon his property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution.

Taxes upon property of any type, or the income from that property, must be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment. A tax on your whole income is essentially a tax on the receipts of your whole property, and is a direct tax. Isn't this what the Supreme Court just said? Is the Constitution still valid law?

Knowlton v. Moore 178 U.S. 41 "Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon possessions and enjoyment of rights. Indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange."

A 'direct' tax is 'directly' on your property, real or personal (inalienable rights, your body, or your real estate), and it is always apportioned. It is basically a property tax. It is on something you OWN! A tax on income from property is legally the same as a tax on the property itself. Both taxes (on property v. the income from property) must be direct taxes with apportionment.

Licensed privileges are taxed with an indirect tax!

(2) The Supreme Court rules that contracts for personal employment are inalienable rights.

Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915) Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - 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 or other forms of PROPERTY.

The Colorado Constitution, Article II Section 3, states: "Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property;"

The inalienable right of property, secured by your state Constitution, (check yours) applies to real estate and to personal property (your labor or investments). Personal property includes personal possessions and your own body. Using your body to engage in labor is an inalienable right. To contract out this labor, in exchange for money, is an inalienable right, and is what freedom and liberty is all about. At least according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Are your inalienable rights, secured by your state Constitution, still valid?

Receiving income from labor (personal property), or rental income from real property, is NOT taxable as a 'privilege', because it is an inalienable right. Inalienable rights can only be taxed with a direct tax.

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. 111 U.S. 746 (1883) "As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: "We hold these truths to be self- evident" - that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement - "that all men are endowed" - not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or Acts of Congress, but "by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" -- that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime -- " and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these" -- not grant them but secure them-- "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

"Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue 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. The common business and callings of life, the ORDINARY TRADES AND PURSUITS, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore, be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.

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. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.

Your labor is your 'property', and is the original foundation of all other property, according to the Supreme Court. Exchanging your labor for money, is exchanging one form of property for another form of property. It is an inalienable right, not a franchise or privilege granted by the government. And this personal property income can only be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment among the states.

As we have seen, the Constitution DOES allow federal taxation of property, real and personal, and the income from that property, but ONLY with a direct tax, through apportionment.

Are you exercising an inalienable right in your occupation? Or did you trade it in for a licensed privilege? And if you are engaged in a licensed occupation, has a tax been imposed on that licensed occupation?

A 'lawful' business or occupation is one you can engage in without a license. To engage in it without a license would be unlawful.

(3) The U.S. Constitution requires all direct taxes to be apportioned.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers ..."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have the 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;"

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

As the Supreme Court stated earlier, there are only two classes of taxes in the Constitution. Direct and indirect. The direct tax limitation of apportionment was so important that the founding fathers put it in twice, since it affects inalienable rights. Since today's income tax is not apportioned, it can only be classified as an indirect tax. The Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is in its nature an excise tax, which is an indirect tax. Is the Constitution no longer valid? If that is the case, is the whole Constitution now invalid, or just certain non-important parts? If just certain parts are valid, what parts?

(4) The Supreme Court rules that the 16th Amendment did not change anything!

Did the 16th Amendment change the Constitutional requirement for apportionment of direct taxes?

The 16th Amendment states: "The Congress shall have the 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."

Note: Indirect taxes, never did have to be apportioned, and never have been since the Constitution was written. Indirect taxes are on privileges, and Congress has the power to tax privileges, based on the income received, from whatever source of privileged activity.

Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920), The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 16th Amendment is valid, but, did not grant any new powers of taxation! Congressional Reports and Record backs up this ruling.

Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that 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..."

Peck & Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 165, 172 (1918) "The Sixteenth Amendment . . . does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects . . .

In the above Stanton case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment was implemented to PREVENT the taking of the income tax from out of the class of excises, duties and imposts, and placing it in the class of direct taxes. If this is not true, then when and how did it change?

Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920) "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."

Since income taxes are not presently apportioned, they obviously fall into the indirect category, which they have always been in.

16 Am Jur 2d - Constitutional Law- Sect 219. "In construing statutes with relation to constitutional provisions, the courts take into consideration the principle that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution."

Therefore, if the IRS's interpretation of a statute appears to violate the constitution, it is probably being misinterpreted. The statutes are valid as written. The IRS and the courts claim that the statutes do not mean what they plainly say either, because they are based on the Constitution.

The 16th amendment did NOT change the Constitutional requirement that a direct tax must be apportioned. It did not change the income tax from a direct tax to an indirect tax. It just reemphasized the fact that the income tax was always an indirect tax, based on a taxable (privileged) activity, and therefore could be collected without apportionment, from whatever taxable source derived. It is, and always was, an indirect tax, applied only to a taxed licensed activity or privilege. In a 'free' republic, the IRS is bound by the constitution, from which its powers are derived. Emphasis on the word 'free'.

Is the IRS violating this Constitutional mandate and taxing your property income (labor) with an indirect tax as a privilege? You bet they are! Can you get them to stop? Yes, if you can get the courts to uphold the Constitution and your inalienable rights. The federal courts claim that relying on the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, or your inalienable rights are just frivolous arguments. Is this true? Are we just slaves of the government now?

(5) THE U.S. SUPREME COURT has ruled that the income tax is an indirect excise tax, imposed on a privileged (licensed) activity.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1, 16- 17. (1916) "The conclusion reached in the Pollock case . . . recognized the fact that taxation on income was, in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such." also See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. 158 US 601 at 637. (1895)

These are Supreme Court cases that have never been overturned. The income tax is an indirect EXCISE tax based on the exercise of a PRIVILEGE, and the income received from the privileged activity, is used to determine the amount of the tax. The income received from the "taxable" activity is called "taxable" income. There is no 'requirement' to engage in a privileged activity, therefore the tax is voluntary. It only becomes mandatory when you voluntarily engage in a taxed activity. Is receiving income from real property, or labor (also property), a privilege granted by the government? NO! It is an inalienable right, secured by both state and federal constitutions. Check your state constitution to see if you have the inalienable right of property. Check with your state Governor and your federal Congressman to see if you still have this inalienable right of property.

Jack Cole Company vs. McFarland 337 S.W. 2d 453. " Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege" (Taxation Key 53) "The right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and the realization and receipt of income is therefore not a " privilege that can be taxed." (Taxation Key 933)

Since the internal revenue statutes only apply to taxpayers, (those engaged in privileged taxable activities) any non-taxable income would not even be mentioned in the statutes, since only taxable subjects are described, not all the non-taxable subjects. A privileged 'activity' is taxable, only after a tax is imposed on it! The IRS wants you to think that all income is received from privileges, and that you no longer have the inalienable rights of property. Is this now true?

Again, from the legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur.) Chapter 71 Section 94, we read "The (inalienable) right to acquire, possess, or own property cannot, . . . be made the subject of an excise tax. The theory appears to be that a tax upon the right to acquire, possess, hold or own property is tantamount to a tax upon the property itself, and hence, must be regarded as a property tax and not an excise tax."

The inalienable right to own property (real or personal) and receive income from that property (rents or labor income) can only be taxed with a direct tax. Unless you waive those rights!

71 Am. Jur 194 says "A tax on an essential attribute of a thing is a tax on the thing itself, and no tax can be imposed on the right of ownership, which is not also a tax on property. An individual, unlike a corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, nor for the enjoyment of the right to own property."

(6) CONGRESSIONAL research states that the income tax applies only to certain activities and privileges, and is NOT on income itself!

From Congressional Record - House 3-27-1943. pg 2580 "So the amendment (16th) made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income. The income tax is, therefore, 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."

From a report by The Congressional Research Service. Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 725 titled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws", dated May 25, 1979 and updated Sept. 26, 1984 "The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity. Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to RESTRAIN the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property."

Congress writes the laws, and Congressional Records and Reports state that the income tax is based on the exercise of privileges (licenses), privileges that have a tax imposed on them. A tax, to be valid must, be 'imposed'. To exchange labor for money is an exchange of one property for another, and is an inalienable right, not a privilege. Has your Congressman sold you into slavery by violating this right?

(7) No federal direct tax has been imposed on income received from labor (personal property) or from the rental or sale of real estate! It WAS tried once before though!

In 1894 Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1894. In this act Congress attempted to tax people and property income (both taxable only with a direct tax) with an indirect tax, and call it a duty, levied without apportionment. The Supreme court found this part of the Act unconstitutional and ruled:

Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601 (1895) "It is said that a tax on the whole income of property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without apportionment, whether direct or indirect. We do not think so. Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath, and the restriction blown to the winds in another.

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

Second. We are of the opinion that taxes on personal property or on the income of personal property (labor), are likewise direct taxes.

Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid."

Remember, the tax is NOT on the income itself, it is on a taxed licensed activity that produces 'taxable' income. And a 'taxpayer' is ONLY someone who receives 'taxable income'! Are you a 'taxpayer'?

So you see, once before Congress tried to tax real and personal property with an indirect tax, and the Supreme Court ruled that part unconstitutional because it was not applied as a direct tax and apportioned. The law has not changed. To attempt to collect a federal tax on real property, or personal property, or on the income from either, as a direct tax without apportionment, or as an indirect tax, is still unconstitutional. The part of the Revenue Act of 1894 that was NOT unconstitutional was later incorporated into the 16th Amendment.

Will the courts uphold this direct tax constitutional requirement, or have the American people been lulled to sleep so much that they no longer care about their inalienable rights? Would you care about your inalienable rights if it meant that you didn't have to pay income tax?

The income tax itself is NOT unconstitutional, because it is an indirect excise tax. It all depends on the subject being taxed (property v. licensed privilege), and how the IRS attempts to collect it. The income tax is a tax imposed on a taxed licensed activity, measured by the income produced by that activity, and is not directly on the income itself, and is collected as an indirect excise tax. The current income tax is 100% legal and Constitutional!

Converting labor to cash is not a 'privilege', taxable with an excise (privilege) tax, it is an inalienable right. Converting real estate to cash is not an excise taxed activity. It is an inalienable right to acquire or dispose of property. Do you still value your inalienable rights? Enough to take a stand for them?

(8) So how the HELL does the IRS get away with taxing my inalienable right of property income, with a privilege tax? Is this legal?

This is the best kept secret in America! The IRS CAN tax your inalienable right of property income as a licensed privilege because you have waived your inalienable rights in exchange for the privilege of being taxed! How is this possible you ask?

The whole trick is to understand the legal concept of 'presumption'.

Black's Law Dictionary defines it for us.

Black' Law Dictionary.

Presumption. An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence.

What does this say? An example: If you file a tax return, it creates the presumption that you are a 'taxpayer' and owe a tax, since you wouldn't file the return if you weren't. This evidence, the return, a W-2, a W-4, a 1099, etc., can be used to prove the fact that you believe you are liable for a tax, and you didn't pay. Or past returns can be presented to create the legal presumption that you were liable for a tax, but didn't file this year. Presumption is used to create facts when you don't have any. If the presumption that your income is taxable is not rebutted, then the presumption is accepted as true.

There you have the secret! The income tax is 'presumed' to be an excise tax on privileges, unless and until it is determined that the tax must be apportioned as a direct tax! You are 'presumed' to be a 'taxpayer' unless and until it is determined otherwise! If YOU do not rebut this presumption, then the income received from exercising your inalienable right IS taxable as a privilege. You did not demand that your inalienable rights be upheld, and thereby waived your inalienable rights! It is a well grounded legal principle. Claims not made are deemed waived.

Let's check another Supreme Court case.

Hale v. Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review 302 U.S. 95 (1937) The controversy in New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, decided in the last term, evoked a ruling by this court that a state tax upon net income which included rents derived from land in another state was not equivalent to a property tax imposed upon the land itself. The incidence of a tax on income differs from that of a tax on property. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust 157 U.S. 429 was considered and distinguished. Two rulings emerge as a result of the analysis. By the teaching of the Pollock Case an income tax on the rents of land or even on the fruits of other investments is an impost upon property within the section of the Constitution requiring apportionment of direct taxes among the states.

In line with that conception of the Pollock Case is Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., supra, where the court pointed out (240 U.S. 1) at pages 16, 17 that "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 that to the contrary such taxes were enforceable as excises except to the extent that violence might thus be done to the spirit and intent of the rule governing apportionment.

Income taxes are 'presumed' to be excise taxes on privileges, and may be imposed without apportionment, except when they violate the apportionment rule. If a person does NOT rebut this indirect tax presumption, then the rule of apportionment is not violated when property income is taxed with an indirect privilege tax. The apportionment rule WOULD be violated when the property income was not connected to an excise activity, and the presumptuous attempt was made to tax the income of the property with an indirect excise tax, and this presumption WAS rebutted. Property income, to be taxable with an excise income tax, must be connected to an excise taxable activity. Property income by itself, must be taxed with a direct tax, to be constitutional.

All income taxes must fall into either the category of direct taxes or of indirect taxes.

Direct income taxes are on property. Indirect income taxes are on licensed privileges.

All income is 'presumed' to be from a taxed licensed (privileged) activity, unless and until it is determined otherwise. It is up to you to provide that rebuttal. If you don't, you waive your inalienable right!

Income from the sale or rental of real property is taxable only with a direct tax through apportionment, unless that income is received in connection with a taxed excise activity. Then it is taxed with the excise income tax.

Income from personal property (labor) is also taxable only with a direct tax through apportionment, again, except when it is received in connection with a taxed excise activity.

Labor is an inalienable right. Acquiring property, and selling property, is an inalienable right.

Labor and real property are both forms of property. Income from either of these kinds of property (rights) is taxable only with a direct tax through apportionment.

A licensed occupation is a privilege, granted by the government. Not all privileges are automatically taxable. A tax must first be 'imposed' on each licensed privilege, before it is taxable.

All taxing statutes and regulations apply ONLY to taxes ' imposed'. The entire Internal Revenue Code only applies to the imposition of indirect taxes on certain identified licensed privileges, since there are currently no federal direct income taxes imposed with apportionment.

'Taxable' income is only received from taxed privileges, privileges on which a tax has been 'imposed'.

There are currently no federal direct taxes imposed on the 'inalienable right' of property, real or personal, nor on the income from either one.

If all these legal authorities are wrong, then we no longer have valid laws. The freedoms we have, are going to be lost forever if these plain tax laws are not upheld by the courts. Demand that your inalienable rights be upheld! The IRS is acting entirely within the law, through the power of presumption. It's time to call their bluff!

Since the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, and ARE valid, then so are these arguments that real property income, and personal property income, are not taxable with a federal indirect income tax, because to be taxable it must be received from a privileged (taxable) excise activity, which produces income, from which to measure a tax.

ARE these authorities valid to you? Or are you ready to waive your remaining freedom?

Order our complete I.R.S. information package. Send $15 to:

The AWARE Group
ATTN: I.R.S. Report
2435 East North St. #105
Greenville, SC 29615