Federal Income Tax Law and Walker v Members of Congress

 

Most people know United States federal income tax law is complex. In the past, politicians have presented television ads during the election season showing a stack of volumes several feet high which are the American income tax law and complaints against this form of taxation on the American people are numerous and legendary.

Few people know that 39 state legislatures have already applied for an Article V Convention to repeal federal income tax along with many other amendment subjects. This number of applying states is one more state than is necessary for the ratification of the amendment. Only 34 states are required to compel Congress to call a convention. In all 50 states have applied 567 times for an Article V Convention. Congress has ignored all applications for a convention call. The language of the law of the Constitution is plain and clear. Article V states:

 

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,...”

 

           

            Mr. Walker chose to involve federal income tax law in Walker v. Members of Congress was not because he opposes paying income tax but because he believes he should only pay those taxes which have been legally and constitutionally levied. He is supported in his belief by federal statute. Thus, Mr. Walker did not bring suit not to pay income tax but instead followed the law and requested a reparation of income tax that had been illegally and unconstitutionally collected. Comments

 

Refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when the states have applied in proper number as they now have is a violation of not only federal income tax law but federal criminal law. The withholding of an official mandated or peremptory act by an official in order to continue to collect money is known as extortion.  The action by members of Congress where they are peremptorily required to do so to obey the law of the Constitution in order to continue to collect income tax, where, had the law been obeyed and income tax repealed, such tax would not have been collected is known as extortion, an act specifically forbidden in federal law.

            The details of this assertion are as follows:

            1. Unlike many laws where Congress has exempted itself from the effects and penalties of federal law. Congress is subject to income tax law, not only as taxpayers, but in their administrative or official capacities as elected members of Congress.

            2. An act of extortion on the part of a member of Congress is strictly forbidden under federal income tax law as well as other federal criminal laws all of which apply to members of Congress.

3. The withholding of an official act, such as calling an Article V Convention, when mandated to do so that allows the collection of federal income tax when that otherwise would not occur is defined as committing an act of extortion.

4. Federal law requires that the Attorney General must certify that any action taken by an official which is being challenged in a lawsuit is “within the scope of the office” before the United States can raise this as a defense in a lawsuit. The court record is clear. Neither the Attorney General nor any member of Congress ever asserted that refusal to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention was “within the scope” of their office. Thus, while the Attorney General could defend the members of Congress in court, he was unwilling to officially state their actions over which they were being sued were in fact legal. While in the lower courts, the Attorney General could avoid the question of “scope of office” by taking no action on certification, this avoidance was impossible in later appeals. Comments 

5. Under federal law, a citizen may seek reparation of federal income tax. Mr. Walker obeyed all applicable reparation laws in his lawsuit.

6. Federal law makes it clear that the District Courts shall have jurisdiction in lawsuits brought for the reparation of income tax based on ether violations of federal law (extortion) or violations of the Constitution committed. Thus, an assertion of lack of standing to do so by the district court violates this law. Comments

            Conclusion: As the refusal to call an Article V Convention is not within the scope of office of the members of Congress and permits an act of extortion to occur. The refusal violates federal income tax law as well as the Constitution. Mr. Walker is entitled to reparation of his income tax under appropriate federal laws.