Excerpts:
First, throughout his brief, Jaxtheimer contends the IRS and the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is “one of the Posterity of We People, living and working within the exterior boundaries of the several States.” Aplt. Br. at 10. In Lonsdale, we rejected similar arguments that “individuals (free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law de jure citizens of a state, etc.) are not persons subject to taxation” and that “the authority of the United States is confined to the District of Columbia.” 919 F.2d at 1448 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ford, 552 F.3d at 1177 n.2 (rejecting as frivolous an argument that taxpayer was “not subject to the income tax because he [was] a non[-]resident alien to the political jurisdiction of the United States” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Second, Jaxtheimer contends Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), requires apportionment for direct taxes on personal employment income. But Lonsdale rejected the argument that “the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock . . . is authority for that and other arguments against the government’s power to impose income taxes on individuals.” Lonsdale, 919 F.2d at 1448.
Third, Jaxtheimer contends the Sixteenth Amendment did not extend any new taxing powers or change the requirement that income taxes be apportioned. Yet Lonsdale rejected the argument that “the Sixteenth Amendment . . . is either invalid or applies only to corporations.” Id.
Fourth, Jaxtheimer contends the IRS failed to distinguish “between a tax on income that may be enforceable as an excise[,] and a tax on income that burdens accumulation of property[, which is] subject to . . . apportionment.” Aplt. Br. at 14. To the extent this contention suggests that income from excise activities is taxable, but income from other activities such as labor are not taxable, Lonsdale rejected the premise that “wages are not income,” 919 F.2d at 1448.
Fifth, denying he is a “taxpayer,” Jaxtheimer contends the IRS and the Tax Court identified no internal revenue law that classified him as a “taxpayer” subject to taxes. To the extent this argument suggests he is not required to pay taxes so long as he denies that he is a taxpayer, Lonsdale rejected similar arguments that “the income tax is voluntary” and that “no statutory authority exists for imposing an income tax on individuals,” id.2; see also Ford, 552 F.3d at 1177 n.2 (rejecting as frivolous taxpayer’s arguments that “income taxes do not apply to him”).
Last, Jaxtheimer contends no internal revenue law requires him to file tax returns and he breached no duty under “common or natural law” to file a return, Aplt. Br. at 22. But Lonsdale rejected the argument that “individuals are not required to file tax returns fully reporting their income.” 919 F.2d at 1448; see also Ford, 552 F.3d at 1177 n.2 (rejecting as frivolous taxpayer’s argument that “he is not
required to file tax returns”).
