Dear Mr. Simpson,

[Demosthenes]

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY

May 15, 2008

The Honorable Mike Simpson
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Simpson:

Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary Paulson regarding the concerns of one of your constituents about the legitimacy of the tax code. After consulting with the Office of Tax Policy, I would like to offer the following response.

Pursuant to section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, an income tax is imposed on the income of every person who is a citizen of the United States. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States. Thus, the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens are valid.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that citizens of the 50 states of the United States are not citizens of the United States and are not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts.

Thank you for sharing your constituent's views on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin I. Fromer
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs

[BBFlatt]

The letter from Rep Simpson (R-ID):

January 28, 2008

The Honorable Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 3134
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson,

Enclosed is a letter I received from James B. Smith, a constituent from Malad, Idaho, regarding his concerns about the legitimacy of the tax code.

I would appreciate it if you would review the documents included and provide a response to me that I can share with Mr. Smith. If you have any questions, please contact Malisah Small in my office at 202-225-5531.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Mike Simpson
Member of Congress
Washington, DC

* * * * *

June 1, 2007

Congressman Michael Simpson
275 South 5th Avenue, Suite 275
Pocatello, Idaho 83201

Dear Congressman Simpson,

Enclosed you will find a copy of a document authored by me entitled An Analysis. It consists of 11 pages. As supporting documents I have enclosed you will find:

1. A copy of Public Law 389 enacted by Congress on June 8, 1954 defining corporations (one page).

2. A copy of Public Law 86-70 enacted by Congress on June 25, 1959 deleting Alaska from the definition of a State under Title 26 US Code, Section 7701 when Alaska was admitted to the Union (one page).

3. A copy of Public Law 86-624 enacted by Congress on July 12, 1960 deleting Hawaii from the definition of a State under Title 26 US Code, Section 7701 when Hawaii was admitted to the Union (one page).

4. A copy of Treasury Decision 2313 authored by Commissioner W.H. Osborn, Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by Byron R. Newton, Acting Secretary of the Treasury (three pages).

5. A copy of the original complaint filed by Frank R. Brushaber that led to the decision of the United States Supreme Court entitled Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 1916, (three pages).

6. A copy of the 1920 census of the United States of Brooklyn, New York listing Frank Brushaber on line 454 (one page).

7. A copy of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1789 authored by Jefferson and Madison for the States of Kentucky and Virginia (three pages).

I request that you forward these documents to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Treasury Department and/or the Justice Department (Tax Division) with a request that they refute or confirm in writing the contents of the document entitled An Analysis within 30 days of the date of this letter. In the event they are unable the refute the contents I request that you require them to state in writing in a letter within 30 days of the date of this letter that they are unable to refute the contents of An Analysis and that it is true and correct for all legal purposes.

The reason for this request is very simple if you examine the copy of An Analysis I have prepared and enclosed. This document has been prepared over an extended period of time with assistance from previous members of the Congressional Delegates from Idaho. In addition I have sent copies to two attorneys in Idaho. One of them told me that he was not qualified to verify the contents of this document and the other told me that while the document appeared properly done and looked alright that it would cost me $ 50,000 to $ 100,000 for him to prepare a legal opinion on the document. The conclusions in the document are very serious to consider and would appear to substantiate fraud on the part of the Commissioner and the Treasury Department as they are currently enforcing in on the citizens of the State of Idaho.

I do not believe it necessary for the expenditure of that type of money to either confirm the accuracy of the information contained in that document or to refute it. That may be done very simply by forwarding these papers to any one or all of those agencies enumerated in paragraph 2 above requesting that they either confirm or refute in writing with proper legal documentation and documents within a timely manner preferably within a one month period from receipt of these documents.

If you are unable to assist me in this request I would like a letter from you enumerating the specific reasons you are unable to help me in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

James B. Smith
159 West 500 North
Malad, Idaho 83252

Enclosures 8

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

...the other told me that while the document appeared properly done and looked alright that it would cost me $ 50,000 to $ 100,000 for him to prepare a legal opinion on the document...

A question for the attorneys here: Does this sound like a reasonable amount for preparing a legal opinion of this type, or was this estimate intended to get rid of Smith?

Thank you.

[Dr. Caligari]

A question for the attorneys here: Does this sound like a reasonable amount for preparing a legal opinion of this type, or was this estimate intended to get rid of Smith?

The latter.

[The Observer]

A question for the attorneys here: Does this sound like a reasonable amount for preparing a legal opinion of this type, or was this estimate intended to get rid of Smith?

The latter.

Perhaps the attorney viewed it as a lottery ticket? That, if Smith is stupid enough to believe the gibberish in this analysis, he might be stupid enough to fork over $100 grand for my opinion?

[Cpt Banjo]

For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States.

I wish tax officials would quit saying things like this, although it appears the sentence came directly from In re Becraft. As Dan has pointed out in his FAQ, the courts have regrettably mangled their terminology in this regard. Moreover, the inclusion of the phrase "residing in the United States" is unnecessary.

P.S. to the LH and Sui Juris nutballs: send me your manuscript and a $100,000 retainer, and I'll be glad to issue my written legal opinion.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

The latter.

As I suspected.

Perhaps the attorney viewed it as a lottery ticket? That, if Smith is stupid enough to believe the gibberish in this analysis, he might be stupid enough to fork over $100 grand for my opinion?

We've used that same strategy to run off annoying "customers" who either won't pay, or can't pay. "Sticker Shock" them right out the door.

...

P.S. to the LH and Sui Juris nutballs: send me your manuscript and a $100,000 retainer, and I'll be glad to issue my written legal opinion.

Can I get a little commission for posing the question? Please? Free banjo lessons perhaps?

[Cpt Banjo]

Can I get a little commission for posing the question? Please? Free banjo lessons perhaps?

If I get any takers, you'll be the first to know, and I'll be glad to teach you to play Earl Scruggs' Groundspeed with its MITMITMI backward roll.

[LPC]

6. A copy of the 1920 census of the United States of Brooklyn, New York listing Frank Brushaber on line 454 (one page).

Anyone have a copy of the "analysis" done by Mr. Smith? I'm real curious about the significance of this. The district court opinion described Frank Brushaber as a citizen of New York in its opinion, so the fact that there was someone living in New York named Frank Brushaber should hardly come as a surprise.

[Dr. Caligari]

I'm real curious about the significance of this. The district court opinion described Frank Brushaber as a citizen of New York in its opinion, so the fact that there was someone living in New York named Frank Brushaber should hardly come as a surprise.

The argument, as I understand it from some Tax Defier boards, is as follows:
1. Brushaber lived in one of the 48 states;
2. The IRS subsequently issued a ruling that says that, based on the Brushaber decision, nonresident aliens owe tax on money earned in the U.S.;
3. Therefore, people living in the 50 states are nonresident aliens.

[Quixote]

The conclusions in the document are very serious to consider and would appear to substantiate fraud on the part of the Commissioner and the Treasury Department as they are currently enforcing in on the citizens of the State of Idaho.

Mr. Smith's tax denial seems to be narrowly focused. I wonder why the IRS is picking on Idaho.

[BBFlatt]

Anyone have a copy of the "analysis" done by Mr. Smith? I'm real curious about the significance of this. The district court opinion described Frank Brushaber as a citizen of New York in its opinion, so the fact that there was someone living in New York named Frank Brushaber should hardly come as a surprise.

Sorry, I copied the text of the letter from Tax Notes Today on Lexis (2008 TNT-89-18). The text of the attachments was not included.

[Quixote]

I'm real curious about the significance of this. The district court opinion described Frank Brushaber as a citizen of New York in its opinion, so the fact that there was someone living in New York named Frank Brushaber should hardly come as a surprise.

The argument, as I understand it from some Tax Defier boards, is as follows:
1. Brushaber lived in one of the 48 states;
2. The IRS subsequently issued a ruling that says that, based on the Brushaber decision, nonresident aliens owe tax on money earned in the U.S.;
3. Therefore, people living in the 50 states are nonresident aliens.

Can't argue with that. Compare that to the classic TP syllogism,

1) Socrates is a man.
2) All men are mortal.
3) Therfore, all mortals are Socrates.