Source: https://freedomclubusa.com/what_is_a_return_
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:54:26+00:00

Document:
Freedom Club USA - What is a Return?
A "return" is NOT a piece of paper within the "Internal" Revenue Code: it only describes a "kickback" of a federal payments!
What is a "return" and what does it mean from a legal perspective to "make a return", then?
Even more importantly, how can you "make a return" if there isn't a positive law anywhere that even defines what it is? The statute above is NOT law or positive law, so it doesn't help us at all. According to 26 U.S.C. §7806(b), the title of a code section means nothing, and therefore "file" is irrelevant because it is not mentioned. The body of the section says "make" instead of "file", so what they are really saying is that one must return to the government some amount of money. The section simply says it's a crime to fail to do that which is never legally defined anywhere in the "code". There are many "presumptions" that people in the tax industry make about what a "return" is, but the only source we are allowed to rely upon as law abiding citizens are enacted, positive law statutes. Everything else is just second-hand, hearsay evidence upon which to base a good faith belief.
The return required by section 6018 with respect to a decedent shall be filed with the return of the tax imposed by chapter 1 for the decedent's last taxable year or such later date specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Returns made under section 6019 (relating to gift taxes) shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.
Any extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return of income taxes imposed by subtitle A for any taxable year which is a calendar year shall be deemed to be also an extension of time granted the taxpayer for filing the return under section 6019 for such calendar year.
A "return" within the I.R.C. is therefore in effect and in truth a compelled "bribe" payment to the government for the "privilege" of having a federal job or receiving federal "payment". Recall that the U.S. government is defined in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) as a "federal corporation". As you will learn later, "income" is defined by the Sixteenth Amendment as "corporate profit". The IRS fakes most of us out into admitting we are "employees" of this federal corporation on the W-4 form, which says "employee" in the upper left corner. Under 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) and 26 CFR §31.3401 (c )-1, only those who are "public officers", who are "officers of a corporation" can be "employees". All such corporate officers ("taxpayers") are described in the code as being involved in a "trade or business" in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). Therefore, nearly all "taxpayers" under the I.R.C. are engaged in a "trade or business", which is a "public office", within the "United States", which is the United States federal government. Receipt of a federal payment by a public officer is then counted as "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. and we as the recipients are in the custody of corporate profit which must be returned to the federal government. The "tax" on this "corporate profit" under the I.R.C. is effectively a "return" or kickback of a percentage of the privileged payment received from the federal government. Until federal "tax" is withheld and paid, we are acting as a "fiduciary" or "transferee" (see 26 U.S.C. §6901) over federal property, and "in rem" federal jurisdiction exists over the property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, an "income tax" is nothing but a federal employee kickback payment. Those private citizens who refuse to commit perjury on a W- 4 form by declaring themselves to be federal "employees" or who refuse to pay this illegal bribe and expose this fraud for what it is may be slandered, called a tax cheat, and/or fired with no law authorizing such treatment whatsoever.
If you disagree, please show us a section anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations that defines a "return" as anything OTHER than a kickback payment from federal employees to the federal government. You are not allowed to "presume" otherwise. In the legal field, every statement and belief must be backed up with evidence or it is frivolous.
Why did the government implement the income tax this rather strange way? Isn't it easier to just cut the pay of federal "employees" rather than overpay them and ask for the difference back? The answer is that the Constitution still prohibits direct taxes under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 without apportionment as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court after the passage of the 16th ammendment. Therefore, the federal government couldn't impose a lawful or constitutional income tax and never did attempt to tax people in states of the Union using the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, they created a federal employee kickback program that only applied in the District of Columbia initially. This first "tax" or kickback program started during the Civil War with the Revenue Act of 1862, and applied only to public officers and excluded federal judges. Gradually since that time, our public servants in the "District of Criminals" have hijacked our legal system with the cooperation of the gov't lawyers and the federal judiciary. Of course this is for their benefit to confuse most of us by rewriting/expanding the code using vague and/or redefined "words of art" to expand the operation of this kickback "scheme" outside the District of Columbia by fooling people in the states of the Union into believing that they the proper subjects for what amounts to a tax exclusively on federal "employees".
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a)(2)(ii) For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970, the tax imposed by section 1(d), as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by a married alien individual who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year or by a foreign estate or trust. For such years the tax imposed by section 1 (c), as amended by such Act, shall apply to the income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by an unmarried alien individual (other than a surviving spouse) who is a nonresident of the United States for all or part of the taxable year.
See paragraph (b)(2) of section 1.871-8." [26 CFR § 1.1- 1(a)(2)(ii)] "trade or business" is then defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as "the functions of a public office" in the U.S government.
"The term 'trade or business' includes [is limited to] the performance of the functions of a public office."
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) also confirms that if we don't earn any income from within the District of Columbia, which is called the "United States" in the I.R.C., and if that income is not connected to a "trade or business", then it is foreign to the I.R.C. and outside the jurisdiction of the I.R.S.
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof?
The term "foreign estate" means an estate the income of which, from sources without the [federal] United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.
Therefore, only those who consent to be "taxpayers" and who receive a federal payments greater than the "exemption amount" indicated in 26 U.S.C. §6012 above must make a "return of income" to the government. The only way a person can earn such "income" and "gross income" is to have earnings "effectively connected with a trade or business in the [federal] United States", which is lawyer-trickery for saying that a person must be engaged in a political office (in the District of Columbia, which is the what "United States" is defined to mean in 26 U.S.C. §7701 (a)(9) and (a)(10)).
If you think we are wrong in our conclusions relating to a "trade or business" here, then please explain why 26 U.S.C. §6902(a) and 26 U.S.C. §6901(a)(1)(A)(i) places the burden of proof upon the Secretary of the Treasury in Tax Court Proceedings to prove that their opponent is a "transferee", which is a fiduciary of federal property connected to a "public office"? We assert that the only "taxpayer" who can litigate in Tax Court is one who is engaged in a "trade or business", which is a public office in the U.S. government.

References: §7806
 §3002
 §6331
 §31
 §7701
 §6901
 § 1
 §7701
 §7701
 §6012
 §7701
 §6902
 §6901