Timeline 1950 to 2000

During this time frame, a large number of court cases related to the income tax, have come to light. Both sides of the issue use these cases to argue their points.

Also during this time, many people file EXEMPT on the IRS W-4 form, believing they are not taxable. The IRS responds with a letter to the company that the citizen works for telling the company to change the man/womans status from exempt to claiming zero exemptions, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, and in disregard to the Perjury statement on the w-4 form. Many citizens find themselves in trouble as they have no way to respond to the IRS's letter. Some try suing the companies they work for with the result of being fired from their jobs, or the courts protecting the companies from suit.

Some argue about the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR for short.
A similar argument is made about the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, which you can use to see what regulation(s) apply to what statute. It has been said if there's no regulation listed in the Parallel Table that means there is no regulation, but that's not true - it just hasn't been listed there yet, for whatever reason.

For example, look up 26 U.S.C. 7433 in the Parallel Table - it's not listed & obviously there's no regulation for it listed either. But there is a section 7433 & there is a regulation, at 26 CFR 301.7433-1. Then look up 26 U.S.C. 6001 & you'll find several Parts listed in both Title 26 & 27 of the CFR. The Parallel Table is just a finding aid & it is handy - but - it is not "definitive" & if you make the argument (as many have) that since it's not in the Parallel Table it doesn't exist you will lose. It may be intentional.

You can bet it's intentional. For Titles other than 26 & 27, finding implementing regulations for statutes is pretty straightforward, but it's a nightmare for 26 & 27. Also, not all statutes have accompanying regulations nor are they required to, but regarding 26 & 27, there are more regulations than there are statutes - often in places where you'd never think to look.

As to the Titles 26 and 27, it appears that al the enforcement regulations for the BATF are within 26 CFR and 26USC. And, in some of the regulations, the enforcement procedure in 26CFR relate to Title 27 only.



1954 the Internal Revenue code of 1939 is revised.

1977 Irwin Schiff, starts promoting his Zero return method.Writes book "how the goverment is screwing you"
1984 Irwin Schiff is charged with tax fraud.
1985 Irwin Schiff is convicted and sentanced to jail for 4 years

1991 Pete Hendrickson Found guilty of 1 count of tax evasion and using an incendary device in a US postal Mail box.

1992 Dallas Texas. EEOC V ISC. This unpublished case, settled by the court, is used by citizens to show that there is no law requiring a citizen to have a Social security Account number as a condition to being hired and/or paid by a company within the states of the union.
EEOC is a case brough on by the Equal Opportunity Comission against company Information Systems Consultants who hired Bruce Hanson, a christian man who refused to particpate in Social security due to his relegious convictins. ISC believed they were obilgated by law to obtain a SSN from Hansen. Failing that they believed they had a duty to terminate his employment.
The court ruled that the law requires a company to ask for the SSN. And that the law provides relief to the company if they do not obtain a SSN, by allowing the company to send a letter of transmittal to the IRS showing that they had asked for the number, but was not given one by the future worker (employee).
The court also said, that not having a SSN does not relieve the company (employer) nor the worker (employee) from any employment tax liablity and noted that without a SSN, it would be difficult if not imposible for the worker (employee) to obtain any refund of over withheld funds.

While Hansen won this case, it still does not address the issue of how one can be held reponsible for employment taxes for social security if one does not have a Social Secuirty number nor an account with the Social security Administration.

There has been one other case, dealing with Taco Bell for the same reason. However, in general, and in todays practice, a company will not consider anyone for hire, if they do not provide a SSN when they apply for work, even though there is no law that requires it. This is in fact, a form of discrimination that the courts are allowing.


1994 Barry Konicov, runs for US Congress as an independant and as a taxprotester, introduces america to his "Detaxing America" package, a package designed to set up a paper trail to be used as a reliable defense incase one is charged with tax evasion, and to stop withholding. And Publishes his book, The Great snow Job.

1995. The Internal Revenue Service did not comply with federal laws and failed to
follow its own internal guidelines when issuing lien notices based on an
audit of federal tax liens analyzed between September 2005 and February
2006, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration concluded in a
report released June 30.

TIGTA said it reviewed a statistically valid sample of 150 notices of
federal tax liens and determined IRS correctly mailed the lien notices to
taxpayers in only seven cases, or 4.7 percent of the time.

Additionally, IRS did not inform representatives of taxpayers that liens
were filed against their clients in 75 percent of the sampled cases, the
audit said. In addition, undelivered lien notices were not timely controlled
by IRS's automated lien system, the TIGTA's report, dated June 21, said.

1995 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in support of the Fifth Amendment.

A California man, Loren C. Troescher, stood up to the IRS, and refused to become a witness against himself in a tax case. When the IRS served him with a summons, he refused to supply information.

Representing himself in court, Loren Troescher argued that he had a Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. The IRS argued that there was a "Tax Crime Exemption" to the Fifth Amendment. The district court agreed with the government, so Troesher appealed -- this time using an attorney.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt's opinion for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals states in part: "Troescher argues that the district court erred in rejecting his assertion of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. We agree, and therefore vacate the order and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of this opinion." (U.S. v. Troescher, No. 95-55609)

1996. State of Illinois files suit against Whitey Harrel for failure to file.
Jury forman asks to see the law. Judge respons the jury has everything they need. By refusing to show the jury the law, the jury found Harrel Not Guilty on all 3 counts.
Tax Patriots celebrate a victory for the little guy. 3 years later the state goes after Harrel again, for the next 3 years worth of returns and refuses to allow him to present evidence used in his previous case, nor to use the case as evidence in his defense. Some see this as further proof of judicial corruption.

1997. Loydd Long found not guilty of failure to file, due to discovery of MFR-01 code on his IRS Individual Master File. MFR-01 means filing not required. This case lead many tax patriots to demand MFR-01 status and to start looking at the IRS's master file program.

1998. CSPAN. US Senate holds IRS reform hearings for 5 days. Covered live on C-Span, the show still ranks in the top 5 requested copies of dvd sales from C-span.
During this week long hearing, testimony about IRS agent abuse and corruption within the system itself was heard constantly. IRS's first and only historian Shelly Waxman testified that the IRS routienly destroyed records and historical documents to cover up its potential criminal actions.



1999 Pete Hendrickson Publishes "Cracking the Code" A book to show the american people how the IRS is using a constructive fraud to create a legal presumption that the american citizen has to overcome.
Cracking The Code is based on 4 principals of law.
1. The law means what it says and says what it means.
2. The irs is intentionaly twisting the law to create a legal presumption that the non Tax payer must overcome.
3. That the IRS has provided a form for correcting the presumption.
4. That since congress requires citizens to risk felony conviction when we sign our names under penalties of perjury, as shuch we have a right to correct the IRS's incorrect records by using the forms made available by the IRS. And that form is the IRS form 4852.

Timeline 1900 to 1950

1948 Stuart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 168 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir.,1948)
This case holds a signficant point of arugment.
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment
and collection. They relate to taxpayers AND NOT TO NON-TAXPAYERS. The
latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-
taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and
remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and THEY ARE NEITHER OF THE SUBJECT NOR OF THE OBJECT OF THE
REVENUE LAWS."
This was later confirmed in the case Long V Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238

Today people who believe they are non-taxapayers are trying to use taxpayer methods to get their property returned to them, which was taken in case of a tax liablity, and many claim they have no choice as the courts have told them to file a 1040 to get the property back. Using a 1040 is a taxpayer method.

Under this case, it is clear that one can be a taxpayer for one tax imposed and a non taxpayer for another tax imposed.




1939. Internal Revenue code, the first tax law, is not law, it is code. It does not defined the word income, but does define gross income - 2 facts many people still argue are flaws in the system.

CORRECTION: (Thanks to Al for this info).
This is a very common misconception. The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely a codification of Volume 53, Part 1, of the U.S. Statutes At Large - done to make it easier to find internal revenue statutes.

In 1919, a committee was formed to codify the Statutes At Large into categories - there were so many statutes on the books that it was very difficult to find them & very easy to miss something important. In 1926 the 1st codification came out & that work continues to this day. New laws passed you may not find in the U.S. Code for quite some time, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, it means you have to look thru the Statutes At Large, until they are sorted into one of the 50 Titles of the U.S. Code.

Today the Internal Revenue Code is found primarily in U.S.C. Title 26, but also in Title 27, Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. And the Regulations are found primarily in Titles 26 & 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. And while neither the Internal Revenue Code purchased as a book separately, nor the corresponding sections of the U.S.C. & CFR are "positive law", they are codification of Statutes At Large & Treasury Regulations which are.


1916. The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity. In other words, the tax is an Excise tax, that does not require apportionment.

1913 Secretary of State Knox declares the 16th amendment ratified. Numberous challenges to his declaration result all the way to present day, due to the process being seen by some people as being flawed due to the way some states changed the words in the original amendment proposed. Lawsuits over this amendment began and the arguing about of the proper application of the income tax has never stopped.

Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.


In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million 2007 dollars).

During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars); after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 24% and the income threshold for paying this rate fell to a low of $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

Editors Note: Title 26, is the 26th title of the United States Federal Statutes at large. A listing of all 50 Titles, shown on the first pages of every Title, shows that Title 26 is Non-postivie law, that it is "prima facia". Meaning at first glance. While other titles reflect that actual laws as passed by the congress, Title 26 is one of the few that still remain "non positive law" and that fact has led to a lot of citizens arguing that the law can only apply to specific people, and not be broadly applied to the American public in general.

Timeline Civil war to 1900

1861. The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861, at 3% of all incomes over 800 dollars in order to help pay for the war effort in the American Civil War.[4][5] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862.

1894. In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.[10] Also, the Panic of 1893 is said to have something to do with the passage of Wilson-Gorman.

1895. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property. However, the Court affirmed that the Constitution did not deny Congress the power to impose a tax on real and personal property, and it affirmed that such would be a direct tax.

Lincoln starts it all during the civil war.

Civil War era. President Lincoln Starts the first income taxes. They are placed on the profits made by businesses, to help pay for the war. The taxes are imposed as excise taxes, on the profits of the companies. The amount of profit, determines the amount of the tax owed. No tax is imposed on individual people.