1) America is not a Nation of law, 

2) The Constitution is not the law of land, and 

3) The Supreme Court really has no interest in upholding the laws of the United States or its Constitution. 

When Robert and Elena Brown of Las Vegas filed their 1996 "zero" income tax return, they requested a refund of the $5,035 in "wage taxes" they had paid that year. When the Government failed to send them their refund check as 
required by over 20 statutes, three constitutional provisions, and numerous Supreme Court decisions they sued the Government in Federal court in Las Vegas.  They were entitled to the refund on at least two grounds.  The 
Government admitted that no income taxes for 1996 had been assessed against 
them and no court had ever held that they owed income taxes for that year.  In addition, they were entitled to a "credit" for the wage taxes they had paid against the income taxes they owed.  Since (as explained above) they owed no income taxes, the "credit" had to take the form of a cash refund. 

In ruling against the Browns and giving the Government a summary judgment, Judge Philip Pro ignored the wage tax issue altogether and claimed in his ruling that "There is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary,"  thereby ignoring some 40 statutes in the Internal Revenue Code mandating the making of assessments with respect to income taxes.

In its unpublished decision (Docket No. 99-15308) affirming Judge Pro's egregious ruling, the 9th Circuit also ignored the issue of the wage tax and stated, with respect to the lack of any assessment, that "There is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary."   The fraudulent nature of that claim is fully exposed in our Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court.  Suffice it to say that the 9th Circuit did not cite one statute to support its decision. 

Federal courts apparently don't need laws on which to base their decisions.  If Federal courts don't need laws on which to base their decisions, what are their decisions based on? 

Robert and Elena Brown appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment for the United States in the Brown's action seeking a refund of taxes paid for tax year 1996 on the ground the IRS had failed to make any assessment against them and they had no tax liability.

These arguments are frivolous.  First, the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007,1008n.3 (9th Cir. 1988).  Second, compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation.  See United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014,1016 (9th Cir.1981).  The Browns are taxpayers within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code and are subject to federal tax laws and income tax.  See id.

Third, there is no requirement that the IRS make a formal assessment of tax liability before payment is necessary.  An assessment is merely a bookkeeping procedure that permits the government to bring its administrative apparatus to bear in collecting a tax.  See Zeier v. United States, 80 F.3d 1360, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting similar argument in estate tax context).  Most taxes are collected voluntarily, without an assessment; an assessment serves as the basis on which the IRS takes action against those who do not voluntarily pay their taxes on time.  See id.

 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

This action was commenced on May 29, 1998, by the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint to recover overpayment of federal income taxes for the year 1996 (#1).

On November 30,1998, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (#12). On December 14, 1998, Defendant United States filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment  (#13-#15).  On January 6, 1999, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#16).

The pleadings and Motions on file, and particularly the Form W-2’s submitted as exhibits to Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#15), unambiguously show that Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown received the sums of $23,846.73 and $20,354.42, respectively, for the year 1996 and that a total of $5,035.50 was withheld for that year.  Plaintiffs’ suit for refund is grounded in the claim that because no assessment had been made against them with regard to income taxes at the time they filed their income tax return, Form 1049 (sic), for the year 1996, they are entitled to a full refund of the entire amount of the taxes withheld.  Plaintiffs are wrong.

The absence of a tax assessment by the Internal Revenue Service does not prove that a taxpayer owes no taxes.  See 26 U.S.C. par. 6151 and Moran v. U.S., 63 F. 3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 1995). Indeed, the undisputed facts before the Court demonstrate that Plaintiffs cannot prove their claim of overpayment and entitlement to refund.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#12) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment  (#13-#15) is granted and that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant United States and against Plaintiffs Robert A. Brown and Elena H. Brown.

The Government has been able to hide the "wage tax," tax because the law is diabolically written to allow for a "credit" for such wage taxes paid against the income taxes shown on your tax return.  When the credit is taken, it appears that the taxpayer got a "credit" for income taxes previously paid against the income taxes reported on their tax return. 

But this is not the case.  Two separate taxes are involved here, not one - as the American public has been fraudulently lead to believe. The Government initiates the deception by falsely labeling the Chapter that establishes the wage tax as the "COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE,"  while captioning the actual statute that imposes the tax as "Income tax collected at source". 

Obviously, if the imposition of a wage tax were legal, the Government would not have resorted to such deception to hide the nature of the tax.

The Government felt compelled to create the "wage tax" (and hide it) because of W.W.II.  During that war the Government, for the first time, sought to collect income taxes from America's working, middle class.  Up until then, only wealthy Americans paid income taxes, and they did so by making a lump sum payment (or they could arrange for three lump sum payments) by March 15th of the year following that taxable year - i.e. 1938 income taxes were paid in 1939. 
However, believing that America's working class would not have the money to pay their income taxes in the subsequent year, the Government sought to collect income taxes from them in advance - on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.  However, this presented the Government with a problem.  By law income taxes are collected on the basis of assessments, which are made only after returns are filed.  Thus, there was no legal way the Federal government could compel the payment of income taxes before returns were filed and assessments made. 

Therefore a "pay-as-you-go" income tax was out of the question.  So the government hit upon another idea which, for various reasons, was slightly unconstitutional.  (But, there was a war going on, remember?)  To solve the problem, Congress created a new tax, but forgot to tell the American public about it.  Instead they claimed  that the new so called "Victory Tax,"  constituted  a "pay-as-you-go" income tax, which would only last for the duration of  WW II. 

What saved the wage tax from being blatantly unconstitutional (since a direct tax on wages violates the apportionment provisions of the Constitution) was the ability of wage earners to get a refund of all the "wage taxes" they paid, as is currently provided in Code Section 31(a).

a) No assessments for the funds at issue exist, and
b) No court has ever ruled that plaintiffs owed any income taxes for the year at issue?

3. Whether the Ruling of  the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with all of the taxing clauses of the Constitution and this Court's holdings in both Pollock, supra, and Brushaber, by  permitting the United States to retain funds collected as a federal tax but which were not collected either on the basis of apportionment as provided for in Article 1, Sections 2 and  9,  Clauses 3 and 4, nor on the  basis of geographic uniformity as  provided for in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution?

4. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with this Court's holding in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra, by claiming in its ruling that “The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens.”?

5. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and decisions of this Court in holding that federal courts and the petitioners are not bound by the “legislative powers “ vested in Congress, but are only bound by such court decisions as the Ninth Circuit deems appropriate to select and cite?

6. Whether the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in conflict with 26 U.S.C. 61 and the holding of this Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, supra and Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 in holding that  that “Compensation for labor services, paid in the form of wages or salary, is income subject to taxation.”

7.  Whether citizens of the United States have a right “to have the Assistance of Counsel” of their own choosing as guaranteed to them by the 6th Amendment, or are they now restricted by being allowed to have for such assistance only such “officers of the court” as are permitted by this Court?

1.  Jennifer A. Giamo, a trial attorney for the Tax Division of the Justice Department (202-307-6572) fabricated the Government's pleadings to the District Court. 
2. Gilbert S. Rothenberg (202-514-2914) and Alice L. Ronk (202-514-1882) fabricated the Government's pleading to the Ninth Circuit. 
3. Kathryn E. Landreth, the U.S. Attorney of Nevada also took responsibility for the Government's fabricated pleadings to the District Court, 
4. Loretta C. Argette, the Assistant Attorney General, took responsibility for the fabricated pleading to the Ninth Circuit.

   ---

Therefore, apart from engaging in the obstruction of justice and violations of their oaths of office, it is also clear that these four Federal judges and five Justice Department lawyers conspired to deny the Browns the “enjoyment” of the refund to which they are legally entitled both by “the Constitution and laws of the United States.”  As such, they were all in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, and it would not be too difficult to get criminal indictments against all 9 of them, if I could get before a Federal grand jury.
 

 If the Supreme Court does not reverse the lower courts’ decisions in this case, then apart from those Justices being accessories to the crimes committed by the nine above,  the American public will have irrefutable proof that the Supreme Court of the United States is not concerned with upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is primarily concerned with helping the Federal Government extort income taxes from the American public..