Operations Manager, ACS
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 24017
Fresno, California 93779
Ref: Your Request for Information
Your letter dated June 14, 2003 has several flaws. First, I know that the postal service is slow, but your letter was delivered today the 22nd. I can’t believe that it takes a letter from your office in Fresno to my home in Sandy, eight (8) days. Add to this another notice I received from the Fresno office dated the 16th of June was received here in Sandy on the 14th of June. This leads me to believe that the Fresno office is not careful in their mailings or does not care.
Secondly, the lack of information on your request tells me very little. The only thing that I know is that you are looking for a US individual income tax return for 2001. As to responding to previous request, I have received NONE. I have requests for the year 2000 and 2002 which have been responded to, but not 2001.
If you will take the time to research my file which is somewhere in the building, you will note that the reason for the absence of a US individual income tax return is because there is NO liability on my part to file. Over the years I have explained to your office time and time again the reasons, yet you people seem to lack the ability to read, understand what you read, or care less about the law.
For your benefit, as I do not recognize your name so you must be a new hire, I will briefly outline the basic reasons again.
My research into Supreme Court decisions respecting tax law support my conclusion. As directed by Internal Revenue Rulings by IR Handbook 4.2, Chapter 7: 220.127.116.11 (1)(05-14-99);
“Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”
“Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court … takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.” [Internal Revenue Service (www.irs.gov/bus_info/tax_pro/]
In as much as the Revenue Manual states that I can use Supreme Court decisions to support my position, I have; and you MUST FOLLOW! The Supreme Court says that the taxing authority of Congress, is inherent in the governments status as a “sovereign.”
“The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is coextensive with sovereignty.” [Curry vs. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357; See also, 26 R.C.L., Taxation (1920), 12. Power of Taxation Inherent in Sovereignty]
The Supreme Court very clearly defines the extent of government sovereignty over objects subject to taxation.
“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.”
In this same decision, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out;
“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.” [M’Cullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 429 ; reaffirmed in Shaffer vs. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 51 ; Reaffirmed and expanded in, State Tax Commission of Utah vs. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 ; Hale vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 74,75 (1906)]
The question now before you; who is the “sovereign” the government, or the individual? The Supreme Court has answered that question.
“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. ….The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man.” [2 U.S. 419 (Dall.) Chisholm, Ex’r. v. Georgia] (emphasis added)
Now knowing that you work for an extremely large government agency, you must appreciate the principle of “delegated authority.” This principle exists as a fact in any government activity or law. The authority for the revenue laws must come from some identifiable source. Under our form of government that source can only come from the people.
“The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people.” [U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63]
The best example I can give you of this principle comes from Ezra Taft Benson, one time Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower administration and former President of the LDS (Mormon) Church.
“… The proper function of government, then, is limited to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. … It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. … No individual possesses the power to take another’s wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator.” [ Ezra Taft Benson, “The Constitution, A Heavenly Banner,” p. 9] (emphasis added)
“Suppose (individual) ‘A’ wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since (individual) ‘B’ has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as (individual) ‘B’ wishes to keep his property, (individual) ‘A’ has no claim to it.
If ‘A’ has no power to take ‘B’s property, can he delegate any such power to the (government)? No! Even if everyone in the community desires that ‘B’ give his extra horse to ‘A’, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it.They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. [Ezra T. Benson from an address, The Proper Role of Government; p. 130, 131] (emphasis added)
If the right does not exist in the sovereign, it cannot be delegated or given to another. The fundamental principle is, “No man has the right to take another man’s property.” And since;
“[t]he right never existed, … the question whether it has been surrendered, cannot arise.” [M’Cullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 430]
The Supreme Court has also stated;
“Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, as generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will….” [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 ] (emphasis added)
Please note that the Supreme Court states that I have a “natural right” to the “fruits of (my) labor,” or wages and that the government (no person) can take them against my will.
These principles all work together so that I, or anyone can examine their situation and make the determination (self-assessment) as to their personal liability.
I have repeatedly presented these facts to the Service. I have written to your office in Washington D.C., to Fresno, and to Ogden, Utah. As of this date all have refused to provide me with any factual proof that would show otherwise. Until appropriately rebutted I stand, as Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court declared, “upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation.”
DECLARATION AND AFFIRMATION
Under the penalty of perjury, I Loral Sherwood Glazier, declare that the principles contained herein are to the best of my knowledge true and accurate. They form the basis for my determination and self assessment as a “non-taxpayer.”