Your Name [as appears on the CP22E letter]
Mailing address [as appears on the CP22E letter – change if not correct]
City, state, [near but not in zip code]
Date [of this response letter]
IRS Agent Name
IRS Title
IRS Mailing Address
RE: Recent CP22E letter for same YIQ that was resolved by the US Tax Court against the IRS
Dear IRS Agent Name:
The CP 22E letter to which you are responsible for issuing was dated date of CP22E letter addresses the
same YIQ in which the Respondent, the IRS, lost their authority to pursue any enforcement action
against me by Levy action. The US Tax Court issued Docket Number input the USTC docket number with
the following date the decision was entered input the date the docket number was entered.
Your apparent lack of training in regard to the limited jurisdiction for the application of the federal
municipal income tax expressed in the Sixteenth Amendment is visibly apparent. The IRS only is
authorized to function within the limited jurisdiction of the National Government for its US Taxpayers.
That jurisdiction is the District of Columbia and the National Governments territories and possessions.
As you should already know from high school US History classes, the District of Columbia is not a state of
the Union but is a separate and distinct land mass that is foreign to the current 50 states of the Union
which make up the Constitutional Republic. As evidenced by the Sixteenth Amendment, the National
Government is free to operate without constitutional restrictions in its Congressional decisions to
burden those statutory US citizens [see 8 USC §1401(a) and 3C Am Jur 2d Section 2689] who are subject
to the territorial jurisdiction of the National Government and are fully under the dominion and control
of that government in which they are treated as its rightful property.
Within the Constitutional Republic the Constitution is in full force and effect of law. The Constitution is
defended by the US Supreme Court when the National Government via its greed and corruption tries to
venture unconstitutionally into the Constitutional Republic with its territorial Acts of Congress that do
not lawfully or correctly extend into our jurisdiction, the 50 states of the Union.
In the event you are struggling with cognitive dissonance with all the above, you need to read the
attachment provided by the Government Printing Office regarding the INCOME TAX“History and
Purpose of the Amendment.”
“The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895
in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895); 158 U.S. 601 (1895) whereby the
1|Page
attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United
Stateswas held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from
property, the Court declared, was a "direct tax" which Congress under the terms of Article I, §
2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although
scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained the collection of a similar tax
during the Civil War, the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which
Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.”
Here you have seen that the US Supreme Court, to which you are obligated to adhere to their decisions,
indicates the avoidance of the Rule of Apportionment, Census, and Enumeration cannot be disregarded
if the National Government desired to apply such a direct one-time tax. If the IRC Statutes were to
actually be applicable toward American Nationals [those born in the Constitutional Republic and earn
their living there in the private sector] then the Sixteenth Amendment would have reflected adherence
to the Rule of Apportionment.
As you can see by reading the Sixteenth Amendment, the National Government chose to ignore the Rule
of Apportionment, Census, and Enumeration.
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
There is only a singular jurisdiction to which the Sixteenth Amendment was therefore applicable within
and that was the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions of the National Government,
the statutory United States. If it were actually applied as many have inferred in their personal
ignorance, then the US Supreme Court would have hammered the National Government again with the
violation of yet another attempt for an Unconstitutional Act of Congress.
Now that you finally know the jurisdiction to which the federal municipal income tax can only be made
applicable within, there are several additional key points to address to prove your attempt at applying
this abhorrent act toward American Nationals must now stop.
1. Finality of USTC Decisions – IRM 35.3.9.3.1 subsection 2 shows a 90 day window for any
protest by the Respondent [the IRS] of the USTC decision as provided for any challenge. The
IRS was silent on any challenge due to the above information related to the Sixteenth
Amendment which was presented to the Chief Judge, Michael B. Thornton, in the US Tax
Court.
2. Importance of Court Decisions – IRM 4.10.7.2.9.8 subsection 3 shows that the decision of
the US Tax Court is binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years
litigated. As the IRS itself is willfully ignorant of federal laws and the Sixteenth Amendment I
had to engage that court to defeat the IRS claims of enforcement which it does not possess
toward those who are not lawfully identified US Taxpayers.
2|Page
3. Just on this basis alone the IRS letter CP22E is an illegal act as the requirement of those
within the IRS are to abide by its decision. There is no power or authority granted to anyone
within the IRS to ignore or disregard a US Tax Court decision. By your sending the Letter
CP22E you have admitted and documented your willingness to break federal tax laws
imposed upon the Service.
4. IRM 5.1.11.6.7 – shows SFR Authority under 6020(b) of the IRC to create Substitute for
Return forms. There are 8 such forms listed but as referenced on your Letter CP 232E you
referred to Form 1040. When you review this IRM section you will find that there is NO
AUTHORITY for anyone within the IRS to create a SFR for a Form 1040. You are now a coconspirator to the fraud to base your letter upon a fraudulent SFR created by those within
the IRS Non Filer Group. You employment should be terminated based on this as well as all
the above. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
5. I have never filed a FIT return Form 1040 for the YIQ. The IRS has no authority to create a
SFR for a FORM 1040 for anyone such as me, a Nontaxpayer, and for that fact anyone who is
actually a US Taxpayer. There is no power or authority referenced in IRM 5.1.11.6.7.
6. You have purposely ignored the Federal Appellate decision at Economy Plumbing and
Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, in which you will find stated,
a. “They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The
latterare 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.”
7. Michael L. White, Federal Attorney, Office of the Federal Register has stated in his legal
opinion letter in behalf of the National Government that “Our records indicate that the
Internal Revenue Service has not incorporated by reference in the Federal Register any
requirement to make an income tax return.” The IRS is required to record any obligation
imposed upon American Nationals in the Federal Register such a requirement as stated at
26 CFR 601.702(a) Publication in the Federal Register and at 26 CFR 601.702(a)(2)(ii) Effect
of Failure to Publish shows that without the IRS doing as required means that “any imposed
obligation not so published shall not adversely change or affect a person’s rights.”
8. Those who are US Taxpayers, which are the target of federal revenue laws, are
a. Federal employees, officers, and elected officials of the National Government and
the District of Columbia, etc.
b. Those who are US Resident Aliens
c. Those who are statutory US Persons which include those who are statutory US
citizens as defined at 8 USC §1401(a) and 3 C Am Jur 2d Section 2689 by their birth
in a territory belonging to the National Government.
d. Those who derive income from a statutory Trade or Business where that income is
effectively connected with the conduct or performance of the functions of a Public
Office.
e. Those who derive income from federal property per 26 USC §861(a)
f.
3|Page
Those American Nationals who will willful and knowing intent made a voluntary
election to allow the national government to tax their income like that of a US
Resident Alien. Such an election is referred to by the US Department of the
Treasury at 31 USC §321 (d)(1) and (d)(2) to be a ‘gift or bequest made payable to
and for the use of the [statutory] United States.”
At this time you are now put on NOTICE of the fraud you are a willing participant in and if this fraud
perpetrated against this American National is not terminated within the next 10 calendar days from the
date of this letter, then a formal complaint against you and your immediate supervisor will ensue with
the US Department of Justice. A copy of this correspondence will be sent to my two US Senators and
House of Representative member from my district.
It is highly doubtful that the DOJ will provide approval of your actions as you are operating now under
Color of Law and have exceeded the Scope of your Office and the Scope of your Employment by such
disregard for federal tax laws.
Sincerely,
Your Name
American National with unalienable rights and one not subject to the limited jurisdiction of the National
Government for its municipal income tax laws.
Attachments:
1. Sixteenth Amendment
2. GPO History and Purpose of the Amendment
3. Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment, POTUS Taft, June 16, 1909, Congressional Record
of the United States Senate, pages 3344-3345
4. Michael L. White, Federal Attorney, Office of the Federal Register, legal opinion letter
5. Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585
CC:
Dept of Justice
IRS Chief Legal Counsel
IRS Commissioner
Both U.S. Senators from the state of xxxxxxxx
House of Representatives from the state of xxxxxxx
4|Page