Treasury Letter from 1984

[Chex]

No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

The burden of proof is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

Preponderance of Evidence. A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of ...

Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is ...

Burden of Proof Vs. Preponderance of Evidence. Civil and criminal litigation use different standards for finding a defendant responsible for the charge. While both ...

Since the IRS are the ones not accepting the law in 12USC411 where is there Preponderance of Evidence. Milam v. U.S. is really starting to smell.

[itsmymoney]

My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...

Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.

[doug555]

No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

The burden of proof is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

Preponderance of Evidence. A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of ...

Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is ...

Burden of Proof Vs. Preponderance of Evidence. Civil and criminal litigation use different standards for finding a defendant responsible for the charge. While both ...

Since the IRS are the ones not accepting the law in 12USC411 where is there Preponderance of Evidence. Milam v. U.S. is really starting to smell.

Good point and research.

In David's "Diminished Money counterclaim", one is the Plaintiff in that Civil Action.

[doug555]

Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

Doug: I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.

[ATTACH]2076[/ATTACH]


2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

Doug: No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

Doug: I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?

Doug: YES, definitely. See split-year example here.

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

Doug: I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.

My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...

See blue replies above... and thanks for your good questions.

It is great that David provides this forum because I am sure many others will have similar circumstances and questions, and will be able to profit from this exchange here.

And it is also important to avoid any bad precedents from being set by this group when others here have already paved the way successfully.

[allodial]

I am still going through all of the info y'all are sharing here (in the forum), while also digesting it fully (I am astounded how you can take apart stuff, like this letter, and point out what certain words/terms REALLY mean - I am actually curious as to where I can learn that language). I have read enough that I will be giving NOTICE AND DEMAND to "my" bank by the end of December and getting a stamp. What I would like to figure out is what I have to do, as far as proper notice to "my" EMPLOYER.

I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1700s/1800s Giles Jacob law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.

A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.

[Brian]

I would tend to recommend getting hold of a Black's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a Balllentine's Law Dictionary and an old 1800s Jacob Giles law dictionary online and consider that there are at least two English languages: 'common speak' and 'official'. Also the mindset of helping servants out or keeping them in line might be more fruitful and healthy than us/me vs them theater of war mindset. To be a good master might take some diligent study and rightly dividing of the word of truth.

A green contract law hornbook is a nice quite helpful start. I'd be sure to cover and the basics of contract formation, remedies and recourse, requirements for parties at the least. IMHO a book like this for only $5.96--is like free gold coins like forever. Consider that checks, promissory notes and bonds are types of contracts.

Thanks allodial! I found this one helpful as well. Negotiable Instruments and Check Collection

[itsmymoney]

Doug555,

Thank you for the 1040 example and all other info! However, I'm a little confused about the 1040 example and the overall 'math'. Are we conceding SS/Med withholding? Just to be sure I'm understanding this, I'd like to present numbers from one of my W-2 Forms and a simple filing, asking if you can confirm I am 'getting it'. PLEASE correct or instruct me where applicable...

"wages": 46,000 Fed 'income' tax withheld: 6200 FICA (SS/Med) withheld: 2600 standard + personal exemption: 10,000

The following is an extra step of calculating AGI just to illustrate (if correct) my understanding of the the logic behind the RILM deduction...
Adjusted Gross Income before RILM deduction: 36,000 (46,000 Gross Income - 10,000 exemptions)
Line 21 "Other income": -42,200 (AGI RILM of 36,000 + 'income' tax withheld RILM of 6200) <- in reality, ALL of the Gross Income (46K) was RILM.
Adjusted Gross Income after RILM deduction: -6200 (36,000 AGI minus -42,200 RILM)
Taxable Income: 0 Overpayment/Refund: 6200

Basically, this would refund all 'income' withholding and concede FICA because FICA can be perceived as a potential Federal privilege and also does not fall under Subtitle A 'income' tax. Again, please correct/instruct where applicable, and thank you for your patience and knowledge sharing!

Respectfully,

IMM

Doug555,

Like djlamb, I am considering filing 1040 for first time in 4 years. I have been restricting my signature and Redeeming in Lawful Money (RILF) on my paychecks/deposit slips since January 2013, however I have not added the '95a(2)' language (only 12 USC 411). Around that time I sent a Notice and Demand to the US Treasury in DC, however I have not done so with my local bank. I would be shocked if there is NO ONE at my local bank who is not 'in the know' about Redeeming in Lawful Money, but this is possible. In other words, in reviewing the restricted signature with the novation of 12 USC 411 wouldn't the question be raised internally at that bank such as, 'what is this language on the back of these checks?'. Another caveat is that I was very strict in also stamping ATM withdrawals and POS purchases for a long time, but not as much in the past 2 months - intermittently doing so.

Questions:

1) How much does not sending 'Notice and Demand' to my local bank 'hurt me'? As stated, Treasury was notified (recorded it in local Recorder's office), and I have been 100% consistent in novating all deposits into my local bank account. I have all those checks/deposit slips saved as evidence.

Doug: I have saved my PDF records on a Google Drive, and reference that location on my 1040 so they can easily verify my banking demands. Not sending the N&D should not hurt you. IMO, it does not constitute non-hearsay evidence anyways.

IMM: Ok, sigh of relief, somewhat. So scan the evidence and then upload to Google Drive - indicate that link location on 1040 aside the Line 21 offset?

Doug: 1040, Line 21 has "See Attached" on it right after its description. The TaxACT Program then create a separate schedule that has Lines 1 & 2 available for your use. See example below. The Line 21 amount will always have a preceding dash to indicate a negative amount of "Other income", and it should always be greater than your Gross Income amount, because of adding in the "withholding" transactions amounts that were legitimately presumed by the employer to be provided in the default FRN currency.




2) Once the deposits were RILF into my account, is it absolutely necessary to RILF for every withdrawal from that account?

Doug: No. I just do it for "preponderance of evidence" tactic.

IMM: I will make it a point to reinforce this practice going forward.

3) I have been SEVERELY punished in 6702 penalties by Auntie for 2008 for my CTC filing for that year. I feel I will come under greater scrutiny from Auntie if filing 1040 with an offset for RILF. In other words, 'Oh, this guy is trying to "evade his taxes" again. Let's go after him'. Would anyone agree that I am at greater risk for issues with Auntie?

Doug: I was also penalized over past years non/filings. I had to file for all past years and was forced to tender FRNs to "pay" all of that off by establishing an installment plan with the IRS. During that time, I did file 1040s with the lawful money deduction on line 21, and it was honored without repercussions.

IMM: Interesting that STSC posters use the term, "usage fee". Through much research of the Internal Revenue Manual and 6209 document, a poster on LHF discovered that the 6702 'frivolous return' penalty was/is actually recorded in your IMF records as a 'user fee'. There are controls on the software that prevent a VALID 6702 penalty from being entered into the Individual Tax Class 2 module, thus they enter it as a Miscellaneous Penalty into the IMF '55' penalty module. I believe this module was specifically created for 'CTC' filers. Negative 'innovation' for sure.

Regarding my years 2011-2013, I filled out a 'faux return' with only the personal deductions for each year and did not 'owe them any money'. It was either even or a 'refund' due. I suspect if I file these 'late' they will hit me with the late filing penalty, so forget the 'refund'. But this is a small price to pay for getting these returns in order (according to 'them') and moving forward. However, for 2013, I believe I only have a couple of paychecks that were NOT novated (need to check). So for 2013, can I still file RILF for all checks EXCEPT for those couple of paychecks that were not novated?

Doug: YES, definitely. See split-year example here.

4) From the info I have provided, what do I need to do going forward?

Doug: I would set up an installment plan with IRS ASAP to pay off past taxes due. I also tendered several "indorsed bills" but they were never honored... but they also were never returned. Perhaps the http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/ approach is worth a try to truly PAY these obligations that are legitimate since you did endorse and use FRNs and thereby incurred their "usage fee" known as the Income Tax.

Then study my website at: http://1040relief.blogspot.com/ and the 1040 Help comprehensive post here on StSC.

However, there may be BIG CHANGES occurring that will solve your IRS problems - see http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/...s-now-100.html

IMM: I will consider installment if necessary. As I mentioned in 3), I will need to file and see what the fallout is for 2011-2013, potentially filing with partial or full RILF for 2013 as mentioned above. I will most certainly check out your website and the other link as well.

I have another question that I posed on the CB site that I will pose here at STSC in a new topic, regarding the 'redeeming' language within 12 USC 411.

Though I truly see and believe the law behind RILF and the success as such, I'm still nervous, to say the least. However, I thank you Doug555 and everyone else on this great Forum for your knowledge-sharing and support. I feel less nervous as a result.

I look forward to your responses to the above. Grateful, IMM.
Originally Posted by itsmymoney
My responses and follow-up questions in RED. Thank you...

See blue replies above... and thanks for your good questions.

It is great that David provides this forum because I am sure many others will have similar circumstances and questions, and will be able to profit from this exchange here.

And it is also important to avoid any bad precedents from being set by this group when others here have already paved the way successfully.

[doug555]

Doug555,

Thank you for the 1040 example and all other info! However, I'm a little confused about the 1040 example and the overall 'math'. Are we conceding SS/Med withholding? Just to be sure I'm understanding this, I'd like to present numbers from one of my W-2 Forms and a simple filing, asking if you can confirm I am 'getting it'. PLEASE correct or instruct me where applicable...

"wages": 46,000 Fed 'income' tax withheld: 6200 FICA (SS/Med) withheld: 2600 standard + personal exemption: 10,000

The following is an extra step of calculating AGI just to illustrate (if correct) my understanding of the the logic behind the RILM deduction...
Adjusted Gross Income before RILM deduction: 36,000 (46,000 Gross Income - 10,000 exemptions)
Line 21 "Other income": -42,200 (AGI RILM of 36,000 + 'income' tax withheld RILM of 6200) <- in reality, ALL of the Gross Income (46K) was RILM.
Adjusted Gross Income after RILM deduction: -6200 (36,000 AGI minus -42,200 RILM)
Taxable Income: 0 Overpayment/Refund: 6200

Basically, this would refund all 'income' withholding and concede FICA because FICA can be perceived as a potential Federal privilege and also does not fall under Subtitle A 'income' tax. Again, please correct/instruct where applicable, and thank you for your patience and knowledge sharing!

Respectfully,

IMM

I cannot follow your calculations... sorry. Just do 1040 as you normally would. Just use Line 21 to include "Other Income" which is the total amount from its attached Schedule.

See post10366 for an example of this Schedule.

Note thereon that Regular & Overtime Pay amounts are Gross amounts. You MUST use your payroll register printouts to do this schedule... not the W2 amounts. Otherwise you cannot pro-rate the amounts correctly.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW). All the other withheld amounts are valid amounts you must pay for the services received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

The Online version TaxACT make the 1040 Filing VERY EASY & VERY AFFORDABLE!!! I recommend also getting the Audit Protection package [called: Tax Audit Defense].

[itsmymoney]

I cannot follow your calculations... sorry. Just do 1040 as you normally would. Just use Line 21 to include "Other Income" which is the total amount from its attached Schedule.

See post10366 for an example of this Schedule.

Note thereon that Regular & Overtime Pay amounts are Gross amounts. You MUST use your payroll register printouts to do this schedule... not the W2 amounts. Otherwise you cannot pro-rate the amounts correctly.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW). All the other withheld amounts are valid amounts you must pay for the services received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

The Online version TaxACT make the 1040 Filing VERY EASY & VERY AFFORDABLE!!! I recommend also getting the Audit Protection package.

Doug555,

No problem. I think my example and comment are basically what you stated above. I will check out the TaxACT software (thanks for initiating me to this tool!).

Just a couple more items, please...

What are the 'payroll register printouts'? Is this something I need to request from company? Only other question I have is, I noticed a couple different versions of the 'Supporting Schedule for the 1040'. One example appeared to be an IRS Form and your 'post10366' link appears to be a 'home-grown' document. If the 'post10366' doc is in fact, 'home-grown' (not an IRS Form), I'm assuming the 'Form' does not matter - i.e. it's the content and reporting that counts. If I am mistaken, please clarify if you would, please. Most grateful for your help.

IMM

[doug555]

doug555,

no problem. I think my example and comment are basically what you stated above. I will check out the taxact software (thanks for initiating me to this tool!).

Just a couple more items, please...

What are the 'payroll register printouts'? Is this something i need to request from company?
yes

only other question i have is, i noticed a couple different versions of the 'supporting schedule for the 1040'. One example appeared to be an irs form and your 'post10366' link appears to be a 'home-grown' document. If the 'post10366' doc is in fact, 'home-grown' (not an irs form), i'm assuming the 'form' does not matter - i.e. It's the content and reporting that counts. If i am mistaken, please clarify if you would, please. Most grateful for your help.

home grown - content counts

imm

see highlighted above

[allodial]

...FICA...

Think of the "S" in GST.

[itsmymoney]

I cannot follow your calculations... sorry. Just do 1040 as you normally would. Just use Line 21 to include "Other Income" which is the total amount from its attached Schedule.

See post10366 for an example of this Schedule.

Note thereon that Regular & Overtime Pay amounts are Gross amounts. You MUST use your payroll register printouts to do this schedule... not the W2 amounts. Otherwise you cannot pro-rate the amounts correctly.

Please understand: You are NOT getting back any withheld amounts except the Federal Income Tax Withheld (FITW). All the other withheld amounts are valid amounts you must pay for the services received therefrom by contract agreement, now or in the future (Ex: Social Security).

The Online version TaxACT make the 1040 Filing VERY EASY & VERY AFFORDABLE!!! I recommend also getting the Audit Protection package.

Doug555, I contacted TaxACT and they told me they have a "Tax Audit Defense" package which is a 3rd-party tool. Is this synonymous with 'the Audit Protection package' you referred to?

IMM

[JohnnyCash]

I found this one helpful as well. Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons by Richard C. DiMare

[Chex]

I found this one helpful as well. Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons by Richard C. DiMare

Wow! David's name does get around now doesn't it?

You read this JC?

[JohnnyCash]

Yes, I've read the book.
"The current income tax .. is an avoidable .. regulatory excise tax on the incoming transfer of Federal Reserve notes and workers are not informed that they have an alternative right to have their labor taxed as property under the Constitution's two Direct Tax Clauses."

and since there are no direct taxes in effect, this worker owes no income tax.