copy/paste, print, and send to traitor agents:
Here is a draft of a letter, based on "The Memorandum," that is suitable for sending to a Congressman, Senators, or relevant government departments. It is written to establish a formal record of conscientious inquiry and due diligence.
***
[Your Full Name]
[Your Street Address]
[Your City, State, Zip Code]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Date]
The Honorable [Congressman's/Senator's Full Name]
[Office Address of Congressman/Senator]
[City, State, Zip Code]
**RE: Formal Inquiry Regarding the Application of Federal Income Tax Following the Supreme Court's Decision in *Moore v. United States***
Dear Representative/Senator [Last Name],
I am writing to you today as a constituent and a law-abiding citizen deeply committed to understanding and following the laws of the United States. My purpose is to seek clarity and official guidance on a matter of significant constitutional importance that has arisen from the recent Supreme Court decision in *Moore et al. v. United States* (June 20, 2024).
While the media focused on the case's specific holding concerning the taxation of unrealized gains, the Court's opinion included a foundational restatement of tax principles that has profound implications for every American. Specifically, on page two of its decision, the Court reaffirmed that **"Taxes on income are indirect taxes, and the 16th Amendment confirms that taxes on income need not be apportioned."**
As you know, under constitutional law, an "indirect tax" is synonymous with an "excise" or "privilege tax," a levy on a government-granted privilege rather than a direct imposition on a right, such as the right to one's own labor and property. This classification is supported by longstanding precedent, including *Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co.* (1916) and *American Airways Co. v. Wallace* (1932).
This legal distinction creates a pressing need for clarification for citizens like myself who are earnestly attempting to comply with the law. My review of the Internal Revenue Code indicates that the federal income tax, found in Subtitle A of Title 26, appears to be structured as such an excise. The statutory framework, particularly Chapter 3 which details the "Withholding of Tax on Non-Resident Aliens and Foreign Corporations," along with the associated Treasury Decisions governing the use of Forms W-4 and 1040, seems to define the taxable privilege as the earning of U.S. source income by foreign persons.
This has placed me, and millions of other Americans, in a position of serious legal uncertainty. For decades, we have routinely executed forms like the W-4 for employers and W-9 for banks under penalty of perjury, effectively assuming the legal status of a "withholding agent" or a party engaged in a privileged activity. However, if the income tax is an excise on a specific privilege that does not pertain to the domestic earnings of a U.S. citizen within a state, then my continued participation in this withholding system may be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
My primary duty is to obey the law. I do not wish to be in a position where I am either unknowingly failing to meet a legal obligation or, conversely, where I am voluntarily adhering to a administrative process from which I am legally exempt. This ambiguity places conscientious citizens in an untenable position.
Therefore, I respectfully request your assistance in obtaining clear, official answers to the following questions from the relevant authorities, such as the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service:
1. In light of the *Moore* decision's reaffirmation that the income tax is an indirect excise tax, what is the specific government-granted privilege upon which the tax imposed by Subtitle A of Title 26 is levied?
2. Does the legal requirement to file a Form 1040 and submit a Form W-4, as established by Treasury Decisions, apply to a U.S. citizen who earns wages from domestic sources entirely within one of the several states, and who is not engaged in any federally privileged activities (e.g., importing goods, selling alcohol, etc.)?
3. If such a citizen is required to participate in the income tax system, can you please provide the specific statutory and regulatory provisions, or Treasury Decisions, that create this obligation, reconciling it with the constitutional principle that an indirect tax must be upon a privilege and not a right?
I am not seeking to evade any lawful responsibility. I am seeking to understand what the law *is* so that I can follow it correctly. Your help in resolving this constitutional and administrative ambiguity would be of immense value to me and, I believe, to many of your constituents who strive to be compliant citizens.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]