Requirement for Consent

in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. §2201; see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d. 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under § 2201 where claim concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby

1

2

3

DISMISSED.”

4

[Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)]

5

"And by statutory definition, 'taxpayer' includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act. ...Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."

6

7

8

[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939)]

9

4. Emphasize that the IRS cannot lawfully make you a “taxpayer” by doing an involuntary assessment against you. 10

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and

11

12

13

their property is seized..."

14

[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]

15

Why the Government Can’t Lawfully Assess Human Beings With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent , Form #05.011 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 5. Insist that the burden of proof is upon the government to prove that you are a “taxpayer” before the burden shifts to you 16 under 26 U.S.C. §7491 to prove that you aren’t liable. Note that Section 7491 uses the word “taxpayer”, which you 17 aren’t. See: 18 Government Burden of Proof , Form #05.025 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 6. Emphasize that the government, which is usually the prosecution, may not cite or enforce any provision of the Internal 19 Revenue Code against a “nontaxpayer” who is not subject to it, which you should have extensive evidence to prove 20 includes you: 21

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not

22

23

24

assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

25

[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]

26

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [instrumentalities, officers, employees, and elected officials of the national and not Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the national Government]. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them[non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the

27

28

29

30

31

object of federal revenue laws.”

32

[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)]

33

7. Challenge jurisdiction of the government to enforce an income tax within a state of the Union using section 8 of the 34 following valuable resource: 35

Federal Jurisdiction , Form #05.018 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

8. Present evidence of unlawful duress to the court developed in the previous section, which hopefully will be extensive 36 and will already be in your IRS administrative record: 37

“An agreement [consent] obtained by duress, coercion, or intimidation is invalid, since the party coerced is not exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute the agreement as the state of mind induced. 74 [ Duress, like fraud, rarely becomes material, except where a contract or conveyance has been made which the maker wishes to avoid. As a general rule, duress renders the contract or conveyance voidable, not void, at the option of the person coerced, 75 and it is susceptible of

38

39

40

41

42

74 Brown v. Pierce, 74 U.S. 205, 7 Wall 205, 19 L.Ed. 134

75 Barnette v. Wells Fargo Nevada Nat’l Ban k, 270 U.S. 438, 70 L.Ed. 669, 46 S.Ct. 326 (holding that acts induced by duress which operate solely on the mind, and fall short of actual physical compulsion, are not void at law, but are voidable only, at the election of him whose acts were induced by it); Faske v. Gershman, 30 Misc.2d. 442, 215 N.Y.S.2d. 144; Glenney v. Crane (Tex Civ App Houston (1st Dist)), 352 S.W.2d. 773, writ ref n r e (May 16, 1962); Carroll v. Fetty, 121 W.Va. 215, 2 S.E.2d. 521, cert den 308 U.S. 571, 84 L.Ed. 479, 60 S.Ct. 85.

Requirement for Consent

367 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________