Is INCOME TAX Illegal? The Answer May Surprise You [PART 1]
Add this to the list of things I never planned to research...
Wanna listen to this article instead of read? Here you go:
Disclaimer: this article is not legal advice, tax advice, or any other kind of advice or guidance. It is for research and informational purposes only. Always consult a professional.
Rewind to pre-American Revolution. Back then, America was under the rule of Britain. At this time, there were no income taxes, no corporate taxes, and no payroll taxes. Taxes were levied on ships on a per-tonnage basis (importing into America). This included taxes on slaves, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages. In all, the average tariff worked out to about 10 percent of the value of imports, with lower rates being imposed on goods from Britain than from elsewhere.
When Britain wanted to tax sugar and tea, the Illuminati revolutionaries in America knew this was their opportunity to act. This led to the Boston Tea Party (hoax). While that hoax was taking place, revolutionaries were imported into America to help start what we now refer to as the American Revolution. The whole thing was a giant scheme. People were told they must fight these evil taxes so they can have “freedom” and “liberty”, but, in all irony, as soon as the Revolution ended, new taxes were imposed, this time by our new government.
Remember, their plan was for the constitution to make us constitutors (a constitutor is someone responsible for someone else’s debt). Post-Revolution, Hamilton immediately set up a “robust federal government” and banks (which I would bet my bottom dollar actually means Rothschild, through Hamilton, set them up. Read my eBook The Never Before Told True Story of the Illuminati and the Takeover of America). The new graduated tax system was to start with taxing items and end with taking all our money, but they had to start with taxing items - the exact thing we fought the American Revolution to end. If they had gone full bore into taking citizens’ money, there would have been mutiny, and they needed time to get their new government set up.
While Washington, DC was being built in the shape of a Baphomet pentagram, Congress was given the power to decide everything on behalf of the country. Who exactly voted to give this new thing called “Congress” permission to make decisions for everyone? The revolutionaries, not the people. Although I would guess the people may have believed what they were being told. I’m sure they were preached lies about how great the new nation would be, never realizing the people who were being imported to control them were Illuminati Kabbalists.
TAXES IN THE CONSTITUTION
There are two kinds of taxation in the Constitution: indirect and direct. An indirect tax is a tax on something, such as tobacco or gas (exactly what we had just fought the war to end). Indirect taxes are taxes that, in theory, you can choose not to purchase and therefore owe no additional money. For example, if there were a tax on gasoline, you could choose to ride a bike instead of driving, and you wouldn’t owe a gas tax. If the tax were on sugar, you could choose not to buy it. The Constitution states the indirect tax must be the same in every state, making it inescapable, meaning, if Delaware institutes a tax on flour which you need for your bakery, you can’t get flour from New York to avoid the tax because the tax is universal across America. However, you can still choose not to buy flour and you would never owe the tax.
Come 1791, only a couple of years after the Constitution came to be, one of the very first things our new Congress did was impose an excise tax on distilled spirits, specifically the Whiskey Tax. They claimed this was to help fund the national debt from the American Revolution (Remember, Constitutors - someone responsible for someone else’s debt). This marked the first time Congress voted to tax an American product. They also taxed glass windows and other items.
The other tax is a direct tax, which is an inescapable tax. This tax must be apportioned. This means this tax has to be divided equally among all people: everyone owes the tax, and here is the amount.
It was now 1861, and of course, there was another war. This time around it was the “Civil War”. What our history books don’t tell us is that the Union (who we are told are the “good guys”), wanted to impose the first tax on income, and the Confederacy (the so-called “bad guys”) didn’t want to pay the tax. (Reality: both sides were Freemasons and Illuminati, and I have been having a hell of a time trying to unravel the true story of the Civil War. Here’s my flow chart thus far.)
Regardless of who was on what team or the true intentions behind the war, the first income tax went into effect, but it was repealed only a year later for being unconstitutional. Although it was repealed, these folks play the long game, and they will stop at nothing to reach their goals. After the repeal, we were back to no tax on income, but the other taxes all still remained.
A couple of decades later, they tried to institute the income tax again (1894 Income Tax Act). A court case, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court again ruled the Act was unconstitutional. They stated the direct tax violated the requirement for apportionment among the states (remember, in order for it to be a direct tax, it must be divided equally). This means, as of 1894, there still was no income tax.
In 1913, they tried a new angle. This time around, they ratified the Constitution and passed the 16th Amendment. Let me tell you exactly what it says in Section II. A. Subdivision 1. (This will sound like a bunch of confusing words, but don’t worry, I will explain it.)
“That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon such income, except as hereinafter provided; and a like tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.”
So as you can see, the Act clearly laid out a tax on income, right? Now they had their scheme in place: create war, create debt, tax, tax, tax the constitutors. Only a couple of years later, we were now in WW1, and they passed the United States War Revenue Act of 1917, which greatly increased federal income tax rates while simultaneously lowering exemptions and the income tax money rolled in…
The next most logical question is…
WHAT IS “INCOME”?
The Amendment clearly says, “…there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources…”, so what exactly is income? Believe it or not, there is no definition of what “income” is anywhere in the Constitution or the ratification. This meant income had to be defined by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has said, repeatedly, “…income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.” [Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants’ L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra; 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252-253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633.]
Now we must ask…
WHAT IS A “GAIN”?
There are two types of gains, realized and unrealized. Realized gains occur when you sell an asset for more than its purchase price, resulting in a profit. That profit is taxable. So let’s say you bought stock for $500 and it grew to $900, so you sold it. The profit, which you gained ($400), would be taxable.
Unrealized gains are potential profits on assets that you still hold and have not yet sold. These are not subject to taxation until realized. That means the stock you bought for $500 grew to $900, but you didn’t sell it because you wanted to see if it grows even larger. Because there is no profit in your hands yet, the profit only exists on paper, there is nothing to tax. The tax only happens when you sell it and the money touches your hands (or bank account). Why? Because being that you chose to hold that stock, something could happen that could plummet it down to $0 tomorrow, meaning you would lose money, not gain.
Being that income is defined as a “gain” and there are two types of gains, “realized,” which means the profit is in our hands, and “unrealized,” which means we don’t have profit yet, so we owe nothing, which of these two categories does the cashier at McDonald’s paycheck fall into? In order for a gain to apply to it, you would have to say “realized”, right? But how is flipping burgers “profit”? The employee didn’t make a financial investment in McDonald’s, so there was no investment to grow. He shows up to work each day because he must work to pay his bills and eat. He trades his time for money. McDonald’s trades its money for his time. Labor is an exchange of a day we could have spent at the beach for money. Labor is not an asset that has been sold at a profit.
This is why the Supreme Court stated income is from corporate gains - when a business sells something that results in profit, the profit is the gain, the business owes taxes on the gain. Because of this, “.. the definition of income approved by the Court is:
‘The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.’” [Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 9 A.L.R. 1570 (1920)]
The courts have also said, “Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor… and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will...” [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed. 268 (1825)]
BUT AREN’T WAGES “PROFIT”?
Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd ed.) defines “profit” as
“The advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. The gain made by the sale of produce or manufactures, after deducting the value of the labor, materials, rents, and all expenses, together with the interest of the capital employed.”
I then looked up the definition in my Black’s Law pocket edition and, as you can see from the photo below, it says “The excess of revenues over expenditures in a business transaction: gain.”
This means providing a service through labor and then charging for it is not profit for the same reason discussed earlier: it is a trade; I give up a day at the beach to come paint your kids’ room, you give me $200. There is nothing to profit from in this situation. Although I didn’t profit, the Home Depot that sold me the paint profited when I bought the paint from them because they bought the paint for $10 and sold it to me for $60 (have you seen the cost of paint lately? I was looking at painting a cement floor, and my eyeballs nearly popped out of my head.)
Trading time for money was addressed in Edwards v. Keith: “One does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them.” Then it was further emphasized in Conner v. U.S,
“If there is no gain, there is no income... Congress has taxed income, not compensation.”
It was again stated in Wilby v. Mississippi, “It certainly was not the intention of the legislature to levy a tax upon honest toil and labor.” There is no law to tax wages derived from labor, period.
BUT GOOGLE SAYS THE 16TH AMENDMENT GAVE THEM THE POWER!
Here’s one of the most important things: the Supreme Court, in at least 27 different decisions, said the amendment gave no new power of taxation.
This means they didn’t have the power to tax labor or wages before the 16th Amendment, and they didn’t obtain it after the Amendment. If they didn’t have it back then, and they didn’t get it with the Amendment, and there have been no new Amendments, they don’t have the power now. This means there is no law that requires a tax on labor or compensation for labor (wages).
BUT WHAT ABOUT “COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES”?
“Compensation for services” includes:
Fees. (Who charges fees? Businesses. The cell phone company, just look at your bill.)
Commissions. (Commissions are part of a business structure.)
Fringe benefits. (Although you may have mistaken this for friends with benefits, it actually means a company offers health care, paid time off, and stuff beyond pay for labor.)
And “similar items”.
The same code defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived, including but not limited to:
compensation for services (which means fees, commissions, fringe benefits.)
gross income from business.
gains from dealings in property.
interest (which is free money).
[gains from] rents. (Who rents property? People involved in business.)
[gains from] royalties.
[gains from] dividends and annuities.
income [gains] from life insurance and endowment contracts.
pensions (which typically include free money provided by the employer).
income from discharge of indebtedness.
[gains from] distributive shares of partnership gross income.
income in respect of a decedent.
and income from an interest in an estate or trust.
As you will notice, none of those things apply to the McDonald’s cashier or me when I paint your kids’ walls. Now, if the cashier has a health care plan that they opted into, that is out of my realm of research. But I assume the cashier doesn’t have to accept the health care plan, and if they opt out of it, along with any other “fringe benefits”, and if they only exchange their time for money, nothing more, then there should be nothing to tax because there is no law taxing wages derived from labor.
BUT THE IRS SAYS!
This is the trickery. You see, the IRS can say whatever it would like, but the IRS cannot enact laws, nor does it have the power to stipulate a tax on labor.
As Dwight E Avis, the Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue, once said, “Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. The situation is as different as night and day.”
BUT THE TREASURY SAYS!
Although the Treasury says wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions, bonuses, rewards, severance pay, and more are all subject to taxation, Eisner v. Macomber, M. E. Blatt Co. v. United States, and Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores court rulings disagree, finding that “The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretative regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.”
This was expanded upon in Lucas v. Earl, “The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain, is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it…” The Court went on to say, “It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not, “salaries, wages or compensation for personal service,” that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is, “gains, profits and income derived” from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service. Salaries, wages or compensation for personal service are not to be taxed as an entirety unless in their entirety they are gains, profits and income.” The bottom line is, the Treasury does not have the power to create legislation outside of the Treasury itself, let alone amend the Constitution.
I know there has been a lot to take in, so before we continue on, let’s recap in a very easy-to-understand way:
There are two types of taxes: direct and indirect. Indirect taxes mean a tax on cigarettes. You can choose not to smoke, and you owe no tax. Direct taxes must be divided equally. Income tax is a direct tax because it is inescapable. However, “income” means gains, which means business or an investment. Walmart buys t-shirts from China for 50 cents and then sells them for $10. Walmart has gained $9.50 per sale. Walmart owes income tax on the $9.50 profit. Because this tax is divided equally, Amazon also owes the tax on its profit, as does every other business that has gained.
Labor is not a gain; there is no investment, our wages are not profit. We are trading our time for money to survive, and we are entitled to the fruits of our labor. If we agree to trade six hours that we could have been sleeping for a $20 an hour job working for the Republican party, sending out nonstop spam text messages that absolutely nobody wants, we are entitled to $20 for every hour we work, and that means $20, not $16 after taxes. If we wanted a $16 an hour job, we would get one.
The 16th Amendment did not provide any new power of taxation of wages derived from labor. This means there was no power before the 16th Amendment, the Amendment did not provide power, and there has been no power added since; therefore, there is no power to tax wages coming from labor.
The IRS and Treasury can say clouds are made of cream cheese, but it doesn’t mean they are, because the IRS and Treasury have no power to dictate the ingredients of clouds. It’s all quite easy to understand when someone finally explains it in a basic way, right? BUT, before you refuse to pay another dime of these unconstitutional taxes, PLEASE finish reading this series… Your life, quite literally, depends on it…
NEXT READ: PROOF We are All Slaves - Forced Involuntary Servitude in America
Don’t want to wait for the rest of this series to be released? Grab this full series as one beautiful eBook on Shadowbanned Library and help PRESERVE true history for the next generation! We are currently using Ko-Fi as a temporary website. Our real site launches January 1st, 2026. Every penny raised through ebook sales and donations is pumped back into building the site, which will give authors a safe place to share and sell their materials without fuckery. As much as I enjoy Substack, I know the day will come when my account, along with all of the others you enjoy reading, will be axed. If we don’t build out a place for authors now, what will be left? The new website will not be a Substack competitor. It is not a blogging site.
If you appreciate my journalism, hook me up with a coffee or become a paid sub! Subscriptions and donations help me afford to write articles. Most people don’t realize there are surprisingly a lot of costs that go into research and writing.
NEXT READ
SOURCES, NOTES & OTHER STUFF
*PLEASE do not buy social media influencers’ books and classes on this topic until AFTER YOU HAVE FINISHED READING MY SERIES. These people, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are guiding their followers off a cliff.
Disclaimer: this article is not legal advice, tax advice, or any other kind of advice or guidance. It is for research and informational purposes only. Always consult a professional.
“The income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.’ [45 Cong.Rec. 4420 (1909): Definition of “Income”’]
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx
https://web.archive.org/web/20070110135159/http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/Archive5.htm
https://givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResearchCD/TaxActs/IncomeTax1913.pdf
https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?date-end=1920&date-start=1913&keyword=the+sixteenth+amendment+no+new+power+of+taxation
https://archive.org/details/proof-income-tax-labor-slavery-230417/page/80/mode/2up
Have not paid income tax for 13 years. Never made sense to give money to the government it’s gonna give some of it back? And then you never know where it’s going… Except to foreign wars.
Taxation on labor is slavery... PERIOD!