\-\-\-\--Original Message\-\-\-\--

From: Pitman Buck
\[[[mailto:pitmanbuckjr@sbcglobal.net]{.underline}](mailto:pitmanbuckjr@sbcglobal.net)\]

Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 5:16 PM

To: comments

Subject: Comments on Federal Tax Reform, by Pitman Buck, Jr.

Dear Members of the President\'s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform:

Attached in MS Word are my comments on the subject matter.

Sincerely,

Pitman Buck, Jr.

2525 Sunnycrest Dr.

Texas City, TX 77590

Ph. (409) 948-9171

TO: THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY PANEL ON FEDERAL TAX REFORM

Submitter's name: [Pitman Buck, Jr.]{.mark} - an individual

Date of submission: March 9, 2005

E-mail address: <pitmanbuckjr@sbcglobal.net>

Postal address: 2525 Sunnycrest Dr. Texas City, TX 77590

**The First Question Addressed**

"Headaches, unnecessary complexity, and burdens that taxpayers - both
individuals

and businesses - face because of the existing system."

[Pitman Buck]{.mark}'s Comments

My comments are based upon some twenty five years of study of the
Constitution for the United

States of America and the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC), with
emphasis on the income

tax (Subtitle A and related laws). Some presidents, IRS commissioners
and even federal

lawmakers have referred to the unnecessary complexity of the IRC and the
Panel's inclusion of

this topic for public comment implicitly confirms it. The obvious
question is "*Why* is the tax

code so complex?"

My years of study offer the answer: to *deceive* the American public
into believing that the

federal income tax is mandatorily imposed upon the labor and
intellectual earnings of most

working Americans. However, as defined by the IRC, the legal terms
"employee" (§3401(c)),

"wages" (§ 3401(a)), "employer" (§ 3401(d)) and "State" (§ 7701(10))
*exclude* Americans who

work in the *private*-sector of the 50 union states. For purposes of the
"Collection of income tax

at source on wages", "Withholding from Wages", and "Liability for Tax",
the IRC defines the

term "employee" in § 3401(c) of Chapter 24 thusly:

> For purposes of this chapter, the term \'\'employee\'\' includes an
> officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
> or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or
> any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The
> term \'\'employee\'\' also includes an officer of a corporation.

Americans who do *not* work for *federally*-connected entities are *not*
employees for the purposes

of Chapter 24 of the IRC and so are *not* subject to its provisions but
the IRS is not about to reveal

this little secret to the masses of Americans. The IRS strategy:
*"Confuse 'em with complexity!"*

**The Second Question Addressed**

"Aspects of the tax system that are unfair."

**[Pitman Buck]{.mark}'s Comments**

As a careful reader, I could not help but notice that the Panel's four
questions do not mention the

Constitution - particularly the Bill of Rights - to which any federal
tax *applicable* to American

citizens of the fifty union states must adhere. With this caveat, I
offer the following comments.

**With regard to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution for
the United States of America, the following texts were extracted from
the U. S. Supreme Court tax case of [Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616
(1866)]{.underline}**

> Now it is elementary knowledge that one cardinal rule of the court of
> chancery **is never to decree a discovery which might tend to convict
> the party of a crime**, **or to forfeit his property.**^8^ And any
> **compulsory** discovery **by extorting the party\'s oath** \[such as
> requiring an IRS Form 1040 affidavit\], or **compelling** the
> production of his private books and papers, **to convict him of
> crime**, or **to forfeit his property** \[such as the products of -
> and remuneration paid for - his labor and intellect\], is **contrary**
> to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the
> instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an
> American. **It may suit the purposes of despotic power** \[such as the
> IRS\], but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty
> and personal freedom.
>
> The **assumption** that the owner may be cited as a **witness** in a
> proceeding **to forfeit his property** seems to us gratuitous. It begs
> the question at issue. **A witness**, as well as a party, **is
> protected by the law from being compelled to give evidence** that
> tends to criminate him, or **to subject his property to forfeiture.**
> Queen v. Newel, Parker, 269; 1 Green^l^. Ev. 451-453. \[Note: The U.
> S. Supreme Court in *Garner v. United States,* 424 U.S. 648 (1976)
> stated that, **\"The information revealed in the preparation and
> filing of an income tax return is, for purposes of Fifth Amendment
> analysis, the testimony of a \'witness,\' as that term is used
> herein.\"** Bold added by PB\]
>
> Lord CAMDEN says: Such is the power, and therefore one would naturally
> expect that the law to warrant it should be clear in proportion as the
> power is exorbitant. **If it is law, it will be found in our books; if
> it is not to be found there it is not law.** (Bold emphases, brackets
> and their contents added by PB)

**Some Syllogisms About Filing IRS Form 1040**

by [Pitman Buck, Jr.]{.mark}

**Major premise:** Self-incriminating testimony may not be compelled by
the government.

**Minor premise:** IRS Form 1040 tax returns may be used as
self-incriminating testimony.

**Conclusion:** Therefore, IRS Form 1040 tax returns may not be
compelled by the government.

**Basis of major premise:** The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution for
the United States.

**Basis of minor premise**: *Flora v. United States*, 362 U.S. 145
(1960), *Garner v. United States*, 424 U.S. 656 (1975); 26 U.S.C.
6103(h); see also IRS notice regarding Privacy Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act.

**Basis of conclusion:** Logical deduction from major and minor
premises; see also *Bellis v. United States*, 417 U.S. 85 (1974);
*Counselman v. Hitchcock*, 142 U.S. 577 (1892); *Bram v. United States*,
168 U.S. 532 (1897); *United States v. Doe*, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), et.
al.

\*\*\*\*

**Major premise:** An \"affirmation of belief\" may not be compelled by
government.^1^

**Minor premise:** A signed Form 1040 jurat is an \"affirmation of
belief.\"^2^

**Conclusion:** Therefore, a signed Form 1040 jurat may not be compelled
by government.

^1^ First Amendment, Constitution for the United States; *West Virginia
State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette*, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); see also 8 *Wigmore
on Evidence*, pp. 378-79, regarding 5^th^ Amendment protection.

^2^ See the government's prescribed text for the jurat of Form 1040.

\*\*\*\*

**Major premise:** Within the exercise of a *free* intellect, knowledge
and belief can neither be dictated nor required by law.

**Minor premise:** The lawful ability of an individual to make and
subscribe - *under penalties of perjury* - a Form 1040 income tax return
is necessarily within the exercise of a *free* intellect.

**Conclusion:** Therefore, the lawful ability of an individual to make
and subscribe - *under penalties of perjury* - a Form 1040 income tax
return can neither be dictated nor required by law.

**Major premise:** An individual who believes that he does not owe
federal income taxes is prohibited by laws that prohibit perjury (such
as Title 18 U.S.C. § 1621 and Title 26 U.S.C. § 7206) from
self-assessing, under penalties of perjury, federal income taxes on Form
1040 (or on any form).

**Minor premise:** Pitman Buck is an individual who believes that he
does not owe federal income taxes.

**Conclusion:** Therefore, Pitman Buck is prohibited by laws that
prohibit perjury (such as Title 18 U.S.C. § 1621 and Title 26 U.S.C. §
7206) from self-assessing, under penalties of perjury, federal income
taxes on Form 1040 (or on any form).

\*\*\*\*

**Major premise:** An affidavit is a voluntary document.^1^

**Minor premise:** A valid Form 1040 tax return is an affidavit.^2^

**Conclusion:** Therefore, a valid Form 1040 tax return is a voluntary
document.

^1^ *Black\'s Law Dictionary*, 6th ed., p. 58.

^2^ A valid Form 1040 tax return meets the definition of an affidavit,
i.e., it is a written or printed statement intended by law to be a
statement of facts based upon the filer's knowledge and belief (the
filer's *state of mind* is itself a legal fact or event) confirmed by
the oath or affirmation authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury and
delegated by him to the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, or
otherwise authorized to be validated as true under penalties of perjury
by statutory authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

[Pitman Buck, Jr., submitter]{.mark}

\*\*\*\*

**Major premise:** The waiver of constitutional rights must be \"knowing
and voluntary.\"^1^

**Minor premise:** The completion, signing and filing of a *valid* Form
1040 return with the IRS constitutes the waiver of constitutional
rights.^2^

**Conclusion:** Therefore, the completion, signing and filing of a
*valid* Form 1040 return with the IRS must be \"knowing and voluntary.\"

^1^ The First Amendment protects the individual's right to
***intellectual freedom***, i.e., the *freedom of knowledge and belief*
and the *expression thereof*, and to *liberty of conscience*. See
*Counselman v. Hitchcock*, 142 U.S. 547 (1892), *Escobedo v. Illinois*,
378 U.S. 478 (1964), *Marchetti v. United States*, 390 U.S. (1968). The
First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law (1) restricting
the individual's right to *freedom of knowledge and belief* and (2) that
would require an individual to act, state or sign anything contrary to
his own knowledge and belief (the good faith doctrine). This protection
of the individual is especially effective against an alleged requirement
of government to testify under oath or the penalties of perjury in a way
that would cause the individual to involuntarily make a false statement.
Example: Given an individual who does **not** *believe* that he owes
federal income tax, it is **not** possible to *compel* that individual
to b*elieve* that he does owe federal income tax so as to *make* him
able to *honestly* affirm and subscribe, [under]{.underline} penalties
of perjury, a Form 1040 stating that he *believes* he owes such a tax.

^2^ The minor premise is true because the very *act* of having filed a
tax Form 1040 is used by government in the courts to incriminate the
filer. It is also true that any self-incriminating testimony on the tax
form is used against the filer. In order to use any self-incriminating
evidence against their filers, U.S. attorneys in the Department of
Justice "persuade" the courts that the tax forms were filed
"voluntarily" despite the fact that individuals file tax Form 1040
because of fear of the IRS, intimidation and threats of prosecution (for
the phantom crime of "willful failure to file," see § 7203 in the
federal tax code) even though there is no law requiring individuals to
file. U.S. attorneys surely know that in light of the 4th and 5th
Amendments, no law pursuant to the Constitution may compel an individual
to create [under]{.underline} penalties of perjury a self-incriminating
document or an IRS Form 1040 tax return that would cause him "**to
forfeit his property**" such as the remuneration paid to him in exchange
for his physical and intellect labor. (Supra, Boyd) It is simply absurd
to think that government may lawfully require individuals to file
self-incriminating or self- forfeiting documents! One should now
understand why the IRS resorts to such phrases as "our voluntary
self-assessment system" and the notorious phrase, "voluntary compliance
with the tax laws" but ***woe*** to the individual who does not
"volunteer" to file a tax return, even in the absence of a law requiring
it.

In summary, the federal government's myriad prosecutions of Americans
under color of § 7203 for *willful*

*failure* to make and file a *valid* (*i.e., voluntary*) IRS Form 1040
tax return is **utter *nonsense and mental ***

***terrorism which, together with their unlawful incarceration and
sometimes even the confiscation of***

***their homes, constitutes the government's ultimate tax fraud against
the people!***

This is - to put it mildly - *unfair!*

[]{.mark}

Thank you.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[Pitman Buck, Jr.]{.mark}

[Submitter]{.mark}