Income Tax - A Legitimate Usage Fee

Income Tax - A Legitimate Usage Fee

Attachment 1792 Attachment 1793

“Income” is not taxed.
The IRC is simply used to calculate and disguise the FRN Usage Fee!

The unspoken lawful foundation of the “Income Tax” is that it is a legitimate usage fee for the use of the private credit and script of the Federal Reserve System. It is based upon simple Contract Law - compensation for service rendered.

Income itself is never taxed - it is only used to calculate said usage fee.

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are the default currency in the United States. To avoid its usage fee (aka “income tax”), one simply has to demand lawful money, United States Notes (USNs) in the form of FRNs, be used instead, for all transactions, as provided for in 12 USC 411, by making a substantive record of that demand on records (checks and deposit slips) used by financial institutions in their normal course of business documentation, and thereby creating admissible evidence per Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), and causing the presumed FRNs to be redeemed on an annual basis when 1040 Tax Returns are filed to enable this reconciliation of accounts.

When 12 USC 411 is effectively-connected to 12 USC 95a(2), because only lawful money payments can effect a “full acquittance and discharge”, then good faith reliance upon these statutes provides immunity from liability in any court, including tax court.

Attachment 1794


12 USC 95a(2)
Attachment 1795

Attachment 1796

A fee is a long way from usury. It truly is amazing how the house is built upon the foundation of terms. By the way check out a W-9 form. Look at US person. Do you see ESTATE?

Consider a transfer of estate in fee. Do you see the lock and the key?

Shalom
MJ

Very edifying! Thank you both!

http://youtu.be/GVItOYjQD0g


ACCESS TO THE KEEP

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

---

Quote:

---

.....the term "lawful money" has not been defined in federal legislation. It first came into use prior to 1933 when some United States currency was not legal tender but could be held by national banking associations as lawful money reserves. Since the act of May 12, 1933, as amended by the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, makes all coins and currency of the United States legal tender and the Joint Resolution of August 27, 1935, provides for the exchange of United States coin or currency for other types of such coin or currency, the term "lawful currency" no longer has such special significance.

---

---Michael E. Slindee, Acting Treasurer of the United States, in a letter to Mr. A. F. Davis of Cleveland, Ohio dated Dec. 29, 1947, published in "A Dollar Is a Dollar Is a Dollar," American Affairs, Vol. 10, p. 88 (April 1948), as re-printed in Money and Banking: Theory, Analysis, and Policy, p. 5, ed. by S. Mittra (Random House, New York 1970); also cited in Paul M. Horvitz, Monetary Policy and the Financial System, p. 28, footnote 3, Prentice-Hall, 3rd ed. (1974).

What is interesting is the substitution of "lawful currency" instead of "lawful money" in the Letter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

---Michael E. Slindee, Acting Treasurer of the United States, in a letter to Mr. A. F. Davis of Cleveland, Ohio dated Dec. 29, 1947, published in "A Dollar Is a Dollar Is a Dollar," American Affairs, Vol. 10, p. 88 (April 1948), as re-printed in Money and Banking: Theory, Analysis, and Policy, p. 5, ed. by S. Mittra (Random House, New York 1970); also cited in Paul M. Horvitz, Monetary Policy and the Financial System, p. 28, footnote 3, Prentice-Hall, 3rd ed. (1974).

What is interesting is the substitution of "lawful currency" instead of "lawful money" in the Letter!

---

I presume the quote is accurate but only show it because I have explained away Milam in context of Juilliard so many times it is redundant.

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit (obligations of the United States) of the United States." -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AZ)

Notes issued by the Federal Reserve, however, were generally lent out, with interest due. (Usufruct) So for every Federal Reserve dollar in circulation, somebody needed that dollar to pay off a debt.

During the Roaring Twenties, a lot of people took on debt, resulting in a great credit expansion. When only physical gold and silver was used as money, institutions were very cautious about lending it out because if the debtor defaulted, the creditor would be out some serious (sound) money. http://www.moonlightmint.com/bailout.htm

THE BAILOUT . Gold Certificates were no longer legal tender when held by the general public, unless exchanged at the US Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank for other non-gold paper.

The U.S. dollar is the currency most used in international transactions. Several countries use the U.S. dollar as their official currency, and many others allow it to be used in a de facto capacity. http://themoneyconverter.com/USD/MXN.aspx

De facto may mean existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not. In another example, a corporation may be said to have de facto corporate status by inadvertently failing to fully satisfy all legal requirements for the creation of corporate existence, but has exercised corporate powers in good faith. Other applications include de facto authority, de facto court, de facto officers, and others.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact". In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality ...

It’s just a business; although this business is for your property, as stated; Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

As fiscal agent and depository for the U.S. government, Federal Reserve Banks sell, service, and redeem Treasury securities. They also maintain currency and coin processing operations to ensure an adequate supply. http://www.newyorkfed.org/banking/payment_services.html

Thank you Chex;


Nicely put!

There is a real problem here with any type of fee. The Federal Reserve and its notes are given its status and relevance by the Congress of the United States of America. That government of the people is a trust, and the beneficiaries of the trust are the people. The Trust cannot place a fee upon the beneficiary to receive the benefits of the trust, this would be a failure of fiduciary duty and against the interests of the beneficiary. This is just as bad as a tax on the fruits of the labor of the people.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp

Definition of 'Lawful Money'

Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."

Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'

Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.

To illustrate how some people were confused by this, consider the following correspondence between the U.S. Treasury and citizen of Cleveland. 2



December 9, 1947

Honorable John W. Snyder
Sec. of the Treasury
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

I am sending you herewith via registered mail one ten-dollar Federal Reserve note. On this note is inscribed the following:

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve bank."

In accordance with this statement, will you send me $10.00 in lawful money?

Very truly yours,
A.F. Davis

*****

December 11, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis,

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 9th with enclosure of one ten dollar Federal Reserve note.

In compliance with your request, two five-dollar United States notes are transmitted herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

*****

December 23, 1947

Mr. M.E. Slindee
Acting Treasurer
Treasury Department
Fiscal Service
Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Receipt is hereby acknowledged of two $5.00 United States notes, which we interpret from your letter to be considered lawful money. Are we to infer from this that Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money?

I am enclosing one of the $5.00 notes which you sent me. I note that it states on the face,
"The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars."

I am hereby demanding five dollars.

Very truly yours,
A.F. Davis

*****

December 29, 1947

Mr. A.F. Davis
12818 Colt Road
Cleveland 1, Ohio

Dear Mr. Davis:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 23rd, transmitting one $5 United States note with a demand for payment of five dollars.

Your are advised that the term "lawful money" has not been defined in federal legislation. It first came to use prior to 1933 when some United States currency was not legal tender but could be held by national banking institutions as lawful money reserves. Since the act of May 12, 1933, as amended by the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, makes all coins and currency of the United States legal tender and the Joint Resolution of August 27, 1935, provides for the exchange of United States coin or currency for other types of such coin or currency, the term "lawful money" no longer has such special significance.

The $5 United States note received with your letter of December 23rd is returned herewith.

Very truly yours,
M.E. Slindee,
Acting Treasurer

*****

It is understandable how reasonable people can become confused when studying the history of the terms 'lawful money' and 'legal tender' in U.S. history. The blame for this rests with Congress who never bothered to define lawful money when it first used the term. However, the line of thinking that it is defined by the constitution as only gold or silver coin is incorrect. The constitution makes no such definition. Moreover, the restriction that States not make anything but gold or silver a legal tender does not apply to Congress, only to the States. Congress may declare anything it wishes a legal tender. And as the history above shows, it certainly has.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mone...ire/lawful.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

It is understandable how reasonable people can become confused when studying the history of the terms 'lawful money' and 'legal tender' in U.S. history. The blame for this rests with Congress who never bothered to define lawful money when it first used the term. However, the line of thinking that it is defined by the constitution as only gold or silver coin is incorrect. The constitution makes no such definition. Moreover, the restriction that States not make anything but gold or silver a legal tender does not apply to Congress, only to the States. Congress may declare anything it wishes a legal tender. And as the history above shows, it certainly has. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mone...ire/lawful.htm

---

To illustrate what is it that these two corporations are trading with each other? M&M's?

Quote:

---

the term "lawful currency" no longer has such special significance.

---

Interesting how the quote has become corrupted between "lawful money" and "lawful currency".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pumpkin

There is a real problem here with any type of fee. The Federal Reserve and its notes are given its status and relevance by the Congress of the United States of America. That government of the people is a trust, and the beneficiaries of the trust are the people. The Trust cannot place a fee upon the beneficiary to receive the benefits of the trust, this would be a failure of fiduciary duty and against the interests of the beneficiary. This is just as bad as a tax on the fruits of the labor of the people.

---

Status is estate. Fee is a long way from charge or usury. A fee is an interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp

Definition of 'Lawful Money'

Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."

Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'

Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.

---

I strongly disagree with investopedia's definition here: "Lawful Money: Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System"
"Lawful money" is the broadest view of money. In that it encompasses ALL circulating forms of money that are authorized by law. Regardless of who issues it.

"Lawful money of the U.S." is circulating money authorized by law and emitted by the U.S. Treasury.

You will find both of those terms sprinkled all over state and federal statutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

I strongly disagree with investopedia's definition here: "Lawful Money: Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System"
"Lawful money" is the broadest view of money. In that it encompasses ALL circulating forms of money that are authorized by law. Regardless of who issues it.

"Lawful money of the U.S." is circulating money authorized by law and emitted by the U.S. Treasury.

You will find both of those terms sprinkled all over state and federal statutes.

---

I like Freed's post on Lawful Money... see it at http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/lawful-money.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

I strongly disagree with investopedia's definition here: "Lawful Money: Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System".

---

Quote:

---

Act of Congress refers to statutes or legislation that are formally enacted by Congress through the legislative powers granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. Source

An Act of Congress is a statute enacted by the United States Congress. It can either be a Public Law, relating to the general public, or a Private Law, relating to specific institutions or individuals. Source

---

How many counter trolls does it take to plug a hole in the dam before it bursts?

Counter trolls are the start of trying to protect the interests of the printing company.

Newsmax Monday, June 16, 2014 02:35 PM

And now it even gets better, Mr. Mazur said Treasury was looking into how best to work with Congress and the IRS to fine-tune the system: "You can always improve." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/expatr...030800706.html

Even more funnier is this quote, "The law is more than 40 years old, but "no one ever heard of it" before the crackdown, said Edward Kleinbard, a former chief of staff on Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, and an expert in international tax law at the University of Southern California."

Wait to they get a load of this law that's 81 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Status is estate. Fee is a long way from charge or usury. A fee is an interest.

---

A man after my own studies in English Common Law.

Bravo ....

Etymology
Fee – A right in law to the use of land; i.e. a fief. Simple – in the unconstrained sense:

without limit to the inheritance of heirs;
unrestricted as to transfer of ownership.

The English word fee ultimately goes back to the Indo-European root peku, which refers to moveable wealth, that is, cattle. The Latin word pecunia, money, also comes from this root and becomes pecuniary in English. The root appears in Modern German as Vieh, cattle, beast. [6]

Now... how does "fee" relate to "use" or "usufruct"?

Can we not transfer the "fee" (interest) in the NAME back to the State?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

Etymology
Fee – A right in law to the use of land; i.e. a fief. Simple – in the unconstrained sense:

without limit to the inheritance of heirs;
unrestricted as to transfer of ownership.

The English word fee ultimately goes back to the Indo-European root peku, which refers to moveable wealth, that is, cattle. The Latin word pecunia, money, also comes from this root and becomes pecuniary in English. The root appears in Modern German as Vieh, cattle, beast. [6]

Now... how does "fee" relate to "use" or "usufruct"?

Can we not transfer the "fee" (interest) in the NAME back to the State?

---

Moveable wealth, in my opinion, likely included slaves in addition to cattle.

Someone mentioned something some time ago about serfs being souls bound to the Earth with the serfs themselves as "portable Earth" .... I'll have to go hunting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

A man after my own studies in English Common Law.

Bravo ....

---

Thank you.

A Fee is the NATURE of an interest in an Estate. As in Fee Simple or Fee Tail, etc. It is a qualified Estate wherein Fee Simple is an Allodial Estate but not Allodial Property. An Estate naturally comes from a Titular Head typically a Throne [King] by way of Grant or letters Patent.

Examining a Mortgage, we see that the Borrower granted the legal title to a trustee to be held in Trust until he performs his promises. Therefore the Borrower has a Right of Equity to perform upon the loan and the borrower has a right to occupy according to the terms of the agreement [Deed of Trust] but the Legal and the Equitable Titles have both been pledged as Security to a Lender. The Lender becomes beneficiary and the appointed trustee holds the legal title. Therefore the Borrower holds no title. Yet said borrower does have rights which are interests in the Estate.

The lender does NOT have to grant occupation upon the Estate until the loan has been satisfied; however in practice the lender typically does grant physical possession of the estate but the lender retains the Right of Possession. Therefore the Estate in Fee is Secure to the Lender being held by a Trustee until performance is made by borrower.

Usufruct is the Right to Enjoy Property vested in another. Right is in itself Property. Enjoy has specific special meaning too. Estate is an INTEREST in Property. And the nature of the Estate is called a FEE.

The American Serfs bargain in FEE. Therefore they transfer the Estate. Or rather they transfer their interests in the Estate. So we see the Trust first then the bargain of the Fee. Grantor to Grantee for consideration, grants the Estate in Fee Simple, Tail, Farm, etc.

A charge begs an estate to discharge the charge. Meaning the one who issues the charge must discharge the charge upon his own estate. Noticing that Property is not Estate but that Estate is an interest in Property. He who holds the Property creates the Estates in Leasehold or Freehold.

Now the presumption is that everything one does is for ones own estate as Grantor/Trustee of the Estate in Name. Therefore one must rebut that presumption by statement in the Contract or the Trust Agreement.

Again I say Daniel was not known by that name in Babylon. In Babylon he had a new name.

FEE (estates) From the French, fief. A fee is an estate which may continue forever. The word fee is explained to signify that the land, or other subject of property, belongs to its owner, and is transmissible, in the case of an individual, to those whom the law appoints to succeed him, under the appellation of heirs; and in the case of corporate bodies, to those who are to take on themselves the corporate function; and from the manner in which the body is to be continued, are denominated successors. 1 Co. Litt. 1, 271, b; Wright's Ten. 147, 150; 2 Bl. Com. 104. 106; Bouv. Inst. Index h. t.

2. Estates in fee are of several sorts, and have different denominations, according to their several natures and respective qualities. They 'may with propriety be divided into, 1. Fees simple. 2 . Fees determinable. 3. Fees qualified. 4. Fees conditional and 5. Fees tail.

3. - 1. A fee simple is an estate in lands or tenements which, in reference to the ownership of individuals, is not restrained to any heirs in particular, nor subject to any condition or collateral determination except the laws of escheat and the canons of descent, by which it may, be qualified, abridged or defeated. In other words, an estate in fee simple absolute, is an estate limited to a person and his heirs general or indefinite. Watk. Prin. Con. 76. And the omission of the word `his' will not vitiate the estate, nor are the words "and assigns forever" necessary to create it, although usually added. Co. Litt. 7, b 9, b; 237, b Plowd. 28, b; 29, a; Bro. Abr. Estates, 4. 1 Co. Litt. 1, b; Plowd. 557 2 Bl. Com. 104, 106 Hale's Analysis, 74. The word fee simple is sometimes used by the best writers on the law as contrasted with estates tail. 1 Co. Litt. 19. In this sense, the term comprehends all other fees as well as the estate, properly, and in strict propriety of technical language, peculiarly' distinguished by this appellation.


Note by MJ: A canon is church law. Enough said.

4. - 2. A determinable fee is an estate which may continue forever. Plowd. 557; Shep. Touch. 97. It is a quality of this estate while it falls under this denomination, that it is liable to be determined by some act or event, expressed on its limitation, to circumscribe its continuance, or inferred by the law as bounding its extent. 2 Bl. Com. 109. Limitations to a man. and his heirs, till the marriage of such. a person shall take place; Cro. Jac. 593; 10 Vin. Abr. 133; till debts shall be paid; Fearne, 187 until a minor shall attain the age of twenty-one years 3 Atk. 74 Ambler, 204; 9 Mod. 28 10 Vin. Abr. 203. Feariae, 342; are instances of such a determinable fee.

5. - 3. Qualified fee, is an interest given on its, first limitation, to a man and to certain of his heirs, and not to extend to all of them generally, nor confined to the issue of his body. A limitation to a man and his heirs on the part of his father, affords an example of this species of estate. Litt. 254 1 Inst. 27, a 220; 1 Prest. on Estates, 449.

6. - . A conditional fee, in the more general acceptation of the term, is when, to the limitation of an estate a condition is annexed, which renders the estate liable to be defeated. 10 Rep. 95, b. In this application of the term, either a determinable or a qualified fee may at the same time be a conditional fee. An estate limited to a man and his heirs, to commence on the performance of a condition, is also frequently described by this appellation. Prest. on East. 476; Fearne, 9. 7. - 5. As to fee-tail, see Tail.


===================

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dj9v9s9buk

Shalom,
MJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Moveable wealth, in my opinion, likely included slaves in addition to cattle.

Someone mentioned something some time ago about serfs being souls bound to the Earth with the serfs themselves as "portable Earth" .... I'll have to go hunting...

---

The debtor is slave the lender. Enter the Deed of Trust where the borrower COVENANTS [makes certain promises]. A promise has VALUE. The one who promises has obligations to transfer that value. Therefore the one who promises has duties and the one receiving the promise has an equitable interest. Therefore an undertaking in an existing Use makes one by consent a Trustee. The CQU can then make demands upon the Trustee to perform. This is EXACTLY what is happening with the IRS. The CQU demands an accounting from the Trustees undertaking upon the established Uses.

Next time you hear a President say we just created 25000 new jobs - He means exactly what he said. Those are Uses that can be Occupied upon for the benefit of the Public and/or the individual.

Villeins - Serfs were FREEDMEN as far as their status with each other but they were and are bound in service to a higher power. Look around you today - what do you see? The commerce is king.

I remember in Daniel about ten men who are not the king but who give their backing to one who will be king. Ref. LUCIFERS CHILDREN by Milan Martin.

Shalom,
MJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug555

I like Freed's post on Lawful Money... see it at http://1040relief.blogspot.com/p/lawful-money.html

---

Thank you Doug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htm

---

Notice that this FAQ does define lawful money... see highlighted words below:

Attachment 1798

Then the question that arises is WHY did Congress put that provision to redeem FRNs in USNs in the Federal Reserve Act?

Was it an unspoken underlying SPIRITUAL DIMENSION issue, related to what happened in ancient Egypt when slavery was imposed on our ancestors?

To disallow the choice/use of USNs, would have imposed involuntary servitude (slavery) on our people in the form of perpetual indebtedness, because FRNs (IOUs) are incapable of paying/discharging obligations.

Does that choice (and that inelastic $300M backed by gold by President Lincoln) constitute the "red line" that cannot be crossed today without triggering the same sort of Divine Intervention that occurred in ancient Egypt?

Our ignorance of that choice is what is destroying us today... NOT "them". IMO

See more comments about this here...

Thanks for sharing that current information to us. However, I must say that the bailouts the federal government made many years back, to keep some large financial firms open and to prevent additional fiscal mayhem, may have not been as bad an idea as many believed. One of the biggest bailouts was the AIG bailout, which came to almost $200 billion being lent to the institution by the working class individuals. So far, the government has really made a profit on AIG, about $18 billion worth.

That stirs an interesting question George. - And Welcome!

NOTICE: RECAP it turns out is not free. It loads to "Public Archives" and is free from there but PACER charges for the initial download!

PACER is a government publication service. RECAP (PACER backwards) is a browser application that connects one up to a cloud (or server) called Public Archives. Somebody figured out that the government should not legally be making a profit off of PACER. So they invented RECAP and when you have RECAP on your browser you can upload files for free by downloading them to Public Archives as you download them for viewing.

However that did not shut down PACER or prevent many people from paying ten cents per page to view documents.

At first blush, endorsement is the consent to pay for either? Maybe receiving the benefit too?



P.S. Out of Washington:

Quote:

---

Dear Friend:

Montanans know how special our outdoor resources are, and what an important role our outdoor heritage plays in our lives.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives passed an initiative to sell off our most treasured recreation areas to the highest out-of-state bidders.

So yesterday, I introduced a bill to stop Congress from attempting to sell off our public lands.



I will always oppose any efforts to restrict access to our public lands. Yesterday on the Senate floor, I talked about Montana's public lands.
You can read my remarks below and watch my speech here. You can send this link to others who share our Montana values and know we must preserve access to our public lands.

Sincerely,



John Walsh

US Senate

---

I heard an audio from a Canadian "Dave" who began inquiring of bailed out companies about his stock? He considered himself an investor!

He was told his next replies would be from the Canadian FBI investigators.

A tax charged on the financial income of persons, corporations, or other legal entities is known as income tax. Nowadays, various income tax systems exist in the financial market with varying degrees of tax incidence.