From the July 2003 Idaho Observer:

Schiff believes feds fear his 2002 tax return, attachment

Tax honesty icon discovers Supreme Court ruling that the term “income” must be used in a “constitutional sense”

Tax honesty advocates such as Irwin Schiff have no choice but to continue forging ahead with their tax-related research because the federal government refuses to be answerable to the legality of the income tax.

Rather than answer the peoples' pertinent questions, the government is increasing the militancy with which it prosecutes those who resist federal mandates to pay taxes on their wages.

Tax honesty advocates argue that a government comprised of elected representatives is supposed to serve the needs of its people. Accordingly, the people have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances in an honest and timely manner. The vengeful and violently coercive actions of the federal government with regard to the income tax is a powerful indication that the government considers itself to be above the law and unconcerned about the needs of people. This official belief is a direct attack upon the principles of government upon which our nation was formed.

Ceaseless study by Schiff, et al, have proved the lawless nature of the federal government. Most recently, Schiff has shown that a 1954 Supreme Court decision proves the federal government does not have the right to tax the peoples' wages and, that income, in its constitutional sense, is corporate profit. After making his discovery, Schiff began appearing on national TV and radio to tell the American people about the significance of the constitutional definition of “income” as it relates to federal withholding taxes deducted from their wages.

Schiff believes this discovery is responsible for his books being banned by court order and his being enjoined from speaking publicly about the income tax.

Attachment to Schiff's 2002 “zero” tax return

I, Irwin A. Schiff, include this statement as part of my 2002 income tax return.

In 2002 I had no “income” in a “constitutional sense” as the word “income” is used in Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. In going from the 1939 Code (Sec. 22) to the 1954 Code, both the House and Senate declared that “income” within the meaning of Section 61 is “based upon the 16th Amendment and the word 'income' is used in its constitutional sense.” This change in the meaning of “income” was explained in House Report No 1337 (note 10 at A 18), and Senate Report No 1622 (at note 10 at 168). For confirmation see footnote 11, in C.I.R. v, Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426. Income in its “constitutional sense” means income “separated from its source” as occurs when a corporate profit is determined. The tax is on “profit” and not on the “sources” that produced the profit. This “constitutional meaning” of “income” is rooted in the holding in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1 in which the Supreme Court said:

“The whole purpose of the (16th) Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the sources whence the income was derived.”

Therefore in taxing “income” the sources (i.e. wages, dividends, rents, interest, capital gains) that produced that “income” can not be “considered” or taxed directly, except by the rule apportionment. It is also clear that “income” in the “constitutional sense” can not mean the same thing as “income” in the “ordinary sense.”

Further proof that the “constitutional meaning” of “income” is corporate profit (since in taxing “profit” the sources themselves are not “considered” or taxed) is provided in the Supreme Court decision of Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (at pages 518 & 519.). In that decision the Supreme Court stated, “The word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”

So “income” in a “constitutional sense” (as referred to in House Report No 1337 , and Senate Report No 1622) as applied to Section 61 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code is synonymous with corporate profit.

Ergo, since I had no corporate “profit” in 2002, I had no “income” in a “constitutional sense” that is taxable under the 1954 Code.

(signed)

Irwin A. Schiff

Attachment of Irwin A. Schiff, Page 3 of 3

(Note: You can see a copy of Schiff's 2002 "zero" tax return at www.paynoincometax.com or obtain copies free of charge (though a donation to cover copy and mailing expenses is appreciated) by writing Freedom Books, 444 E. Sahara Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89104