Written by Juha kulevi kiskonen
How you are tricked into believing you must pay Income Tax…
You have been tricked, into believing that you, a member of the public, must pay an income tax, when you are not required or obligated to do so… Let me expose the Governments fraud on you…
All definitions in this post, are taken from Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, some definitions are very long so ‘I will only use the relevant parts, but the whole definitions will be at the very bottom of this post.
Before I do get into why we are not obligated to pay taxes, and how you have been fooled into believing you must, we have to ask, what is a ‘TAX’?, A pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority…
A brief history on tax in Australia…
Sovereign Australian citizens didn’t always pay taxes on income, in fact Australians never did as free men under our Constitutional right to Common Law, Magna Charta and our Unalienable Natural rights, taxes on citizens only came about due to the first world war, businesses were already paying all they could.
Taxes from the public were needed for the War effort, this was done with ‘ An Act to consolidate the Law relating to the Imposition of Income Tax’, cited as Income Tax Act 1915, Assented to by the king which made it law, to come into effect 1 October 1915, it was a temporary measure, due to expire 31 December 1919.
The Income Tax Act 1915, for the first time started to tax men on their income, only single and widowed men with no dependants, over the age of 21, had to pay tax on money earned from exertion (labour), woman and married men with families payed no taxes at all on earnings. Businesses always had to pay taxes, on profits, licence fees or taxes, levies, duties and excise, someone had to pay for things the public needed, like hospitals, roads, police, fire brigades, everything, even the running of Government…
Then two years later, the Income Tax Act 1917, this was assented to on 28th September 1917, #2 in that Act stated it was to be used alongside Income Tax Act 1915, So it was in fact a supplement, it didn’t repeal or replace the latter Act, it was also due to expire along side the previous Act, The King knew that no LAW imposing a TAX on the people could be made permanent, it would infringed on the people’s rights under the Constitution, only that there were special circumstances, being the war that the people agreed to a temporary tax.
1919 came along and as promised the Income Tax Act expired,
Under the Constitution, The Government only has the power to create Legislation for Business and commerce, They have never been able under the constitution to make LAW, that was up to the people, and still is, any legislation the government came up with… without assent or proclamation it could never become law, Legislation is what’s known as statue law, it is only lawfully binding on business and corporations… not the public… unless by the consent of the member of the public. but why would anyone consent? no one in their right mind would consent to losing a right, to gain a law…
So why are the public paying taxes on income almost 100 years after The 1915 Act taxing the public had expired?… No other Acts, have been assented to (become Law) since 1917 in regards to Income Tax on men, or any members of the public for that matter…
So let’s explore consent, consent can be given in many ways… wittingly or unwittingly, verbally or by contracts that you yourself sign, or a contract that your parents signed on your behalf… your birth certificate is such a contract.
The government gives you an all caps name from on your birth certificate, or i should say berth certificate… which in fact turns you into a corporation, and binds you to legislation, as your LAW, if you want to know how this works search legal fiction strawman on YouTube , what this actually does is removes you from common law jurisdiction, which you have the right to under the constitution, your parents unwittingly consented to make you a ward of the state, your first ever contract puts you in what’s known as Admiralty law or corporate law, (law of the sea). this is how the government controls, fines, taxes and holds you to legislation, but unless you know all of this the government has you where they want you…. paying for the rest of your lives.
The Government knows this is against the law so their legislation is worded very carefully… In fact they use Legalese.
So lets have a look at the current legislation…
At this time I do not have a copy of these Act’s, but they are on the Federal Government’s website… ‘Income Tax Act 1986’ there is no mention that the public must pay Income Tax, but in the ‘Income Tax Rates Act 1986’ there is reference to natural persons having to pay tax on income… because there is no mention in the ‘Income Tax Act 1986’ I see this as an confusing, Who would normally read the ‘Income Tax Rates Act’? I guess an accountant would?
I will let you draw your own conclusion…I see it as a deliberate deception.
Lets look at the definition of some words the ATO use… because there is some word trickery at play here…
‘INCOME TAX.. A tax relating to the product or income from property or from business pursuits; a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, or offices; a tax on a ‘PERSON’S’ income, emoluments, profits, and the like, or excess thereof over a certain amount.
‘PERSON’. artificial persons, as corporations.
The ATO also states that an ‘INDIVIDUAL’ must pay Income Tax on several document’s, and will refer to you as an ‘INDIVIDUAL’ on your tax return and assessment notice… So what is an ‘INDIVIDUAL’? one of the legal definitions is a ‘corporation’.
Apart from one section in one Act, (which I feel is irrelevant) there is no other mention of a natural person having to pay tax on their Income. In fact I know of cases where a natural person has exposed the fraud committed by the taxman and won… and of the ‘Henke v Australian Government and the ATO’ case in the high court of England
So… Is a member of the public a corporation? I believe NO…I believe there’s more than enough evidence to win a case.
So are you obligated to pay Income Tax?
Unfortunately the answer is “YES”… not because it would be unlawful… but because you have given ‘CONSENT’ to wave your right to be a “Natural person”, So as far as the Government is concerned, you are a Corporation, obligated to pay ‘INCOME TAX’ under the current ‘Act’ and it would be illegal, but not unlawful if you didn’t pay your taxes on your Income, Simply by applying for a TAX FILE NUMBER.
Now that you know you are being deceived and made a fool of…
Can you STOP paying Income Tax?
YES you can, but only by going about it the right way, or you will end up in prison, and it’s really not that hard to do if you understand what and who you are in the Natural world, and in their system, the Corporate System,
If enough of the public stop paying taxes then maybe The Government will have to ask the rightful tax payers to pay what they are lawfully obligated to…
There is something wrong with the system, currently hundreds of multi-national companies and corporations, including banks, pay very little or no tax on hundreds of millions and some billions in profits, yet the public are paying a large percentage of there Income, not profit, in taxes, and the Government is planning to give these same companies and corporations a tax break… this has to be a joke… but what do you expect from a Millionaire ex banker, he’s just looking after his mates… not the people he’s is meant to be representing… There’s no kick backs in that is there.
What are we going to do about this?
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition
INCOME TAX. A tax relating to the product or income from property or from business pursuits; a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, or offices; a tax on a person’s income, emoluments, profits, and the like, or the excess thereof over a certain amount. Interstate Bond Co. v. State Revenue Commission of Georgia, 50 Ga.App. 744, 179 S.E. 559. An income tax is not levied upon property, funds, or profits, but upon the right of an individual or corporation to receive income or profits. Paine v. City of Oshkosh, 190 Wis. 69, 208 N.W. 790, 791. Under various constitutional and statutory provisions, a tax on incomes is sometimes said to be an excise tax and not a tax on property, Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 126 Miss. 34, 88 So. 4, 5, 25 A.L.R. 748; nor on business, but a tax on the proceeds arising therefrom, Young v. Illinois Athletic Club, 310 Ill. 75, 141 N.E. 369, 371, 30 A.L.R. 985. But in other cases an income tax is said to be a property and not a personal or excise tax: Commonwealth v. P. Horillard Co., 129 Va. 74, 105 S.E. 683, 684; Kennedy v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N.E. 747, 748. An “excise tax” is an indirect charge for the privilege of following an occupation or trade, or carrying on a business; while an “income tax” is a direct tax imposed upon income, and is as directly imposed as is a tax on land. United States v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., D.C.Pa., 262 F. 188, 190.
INDIVIDUAL. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial spersons. State v. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am.Rep. 583. As an adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.
LICENSE FEE or TAX. Charge imposed by sovereign for a privilege. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Publicker Commercial Alcohol Co., 347 Pa. 555, 32 A.2d 914, 917. Stone v. General Contract Purchase Corporation, 193 Miss. 301, 7 So.2d 806, 808, 140 A.L.R. 1029. Charge or fee imposed primarily for the discouragement of danger°. is employments, the protection of the safety of the public, or the regulation of relative rights, privileges, or duties as between individuals, Conard v. State, Del. Super., 2 Terry 107, 16 A.2d 121, 125. Price paid to governmental or municipal authority for a license to engage in and pursue a particular calling or occupation. See Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 50 Ga. 537; Levi v. Louisville, 97 Ky. 394, 30 S.W. 973, 28 L.R.A. 480. Tax on privilege of exercising corporate franchise. City Investments v. Johnson, 6 Ca1.2d 150, 56 P.2d 939, 940. The term “license tax” includes both charge imposed under police power for privilege of obtaining license to conduct particular business, and tax imposed upon business for sole purpose of raising revenue; “license tax” being defined as sum exacted for privilege of carrying on particular occupation. City of Waycross v. Bell, 169 Ga. 57, 149 S.E. 641, 642. Where a fee is exacted and something is required or permitted in addition to the payment of the sum, either to be done by the licensee, or by some regulation or restriction imposed on him, then the fee is a “license fee”. Conard v. State, Del.Super., 2 Terry 107, 16 A.2d 121, 125.
PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. People v. R. Co., 134 N.Y. 506, 31 N.E. 873. The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well as men. Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398, 177 N.E. 656. Term may include artificial beings, as corporations, 1 Bla.Com. 123; 4 Bingh. 669; People v. Com’rs of Taxes, 23 N.Y. 242; quasi-corporations, Sedgw. Stat. & Const. L. 372; L. R. 5 App. Cas. 857; territorial corporations, Seymour v. School District, 53 Conn. 507, 3 A. 552; and foreign corporations, People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 259; under statutes, forbidding the taking of property without due process of law and giving to all persons the equal protection of the laws, Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 17 S.Ct. 255, 165 U.S. 150, 41 L.Ed. 666; concerning claims arising from Indian depredations, U. S. v. Transp. Co., 17 S.Ct. 206, 164 U.S. 686, 41 L.Ed. 599; relating to taxation and the revenue laws, People v. McLean, 80 N.Y. 254; to attachments, Bray v. Wallingford, 20 Conn. 416; usurious contracts, Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249; applying to limitation of actions, Olcott v. R. Co., 20 N.Y. 210, 75 Am.Dec. 393; North Mo. R. Co. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453, 96 Am.Dec. 183; and concerning the admissibility as a witness of a party in his own behalf when the opposite party is a living person, La Farge v. Ins. Co., 22 N.Y. 352. A. corporation is also a person under a penal statute; U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392, 6 L.Ed. 502. Corporations are “persons” as that word is used in the first clause of the XIVth Amendment; Covington & L. Turnp. Co. v. Sandford, 17 S.Ct. 198, 164 U.S. 578, 41 L.Ed. 560; Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L.Ed. 819; People v. Fire Ass’n, 92 N.Y. 311, 44 Am.Rep. 380; U. S. v. Supply Co., 30 S.Ct. 15, 215 U.S. 50, 54 L.Ed. 87; contra, Central P. R. Co. v. Board, 60 Cal. 35. But a corporation of another state is not a “person” within the jurisdiction of the state until it has complied with the conditions of admission to do business in the state, Fire Ass’n of Phila. v. New York, 7 S.Ct. 108, 119 U.S. 110, 30 L.Ed. 342; and a statutory requirement of such conditions is not in conflict with the XIVth Amendment; Pembina Consol. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 8 S.Ct. 737, 125 U.S. 181, 189, 31 L.Ed. 650. It may include partnerships. In re Julian, D. C.Pa., 22 F.Supp. 97, 99. Also firms. State ex rel. Joseph R. Peebles Sons Co. v. State Board of Pharmacy, 127 Ohio St. 513, 189 N.E. 447, 448. “Persons” are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P.2d 850, 853. It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam., Ill., 178; Appeal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337 ; 4 A. 149 ; but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them. Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand., Va., 132. A county is a person in a legal sense, Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711; but a sovereign is not; In re Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751; U. S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192, but contra within the meaning of a statute, providing a penalty for ‘the fraudulent alteration of a public record with intent that any “person” be defrauded, Martin v. State, 24 Tex. 61; and within the meaning of a covenant for quiet and peaceful possession against all and every person or persons; Giddings v. Holter, 19 Mont. 263, 48 P. 8. An Indian is a person, U. S. v. Crook, 5 Dill. 459, Fed.Cas.No.14,891; and a slave was so considered, in so far, as to be capable of committing a riot .in conjunction with white men, State v. Thackam, 1 Bay, S.C., 358. The estate of a decedent is a person, Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N.E. 914, 7 N.E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77; and where the statute makes the owner of a dog liable for injuries to any person, it includes the property of such person, Brewer v. Crosby, 11 Gray, Mass., 29; but where the statute provided damages for the bite of a dog which had previously bitten a person, it was held insufficient to show that the dog had previously bitten a goat,  2 Q.B. 109; a dog will not be included in the word in an act which authorizes a person to kill dogs running at large, Heisrodt v. Hackett, 34 Mich. 283, 22 Am.Rep. 529. Where the statute prohibited any person from pursuing his usual vocation on the Lord’s Day, it was held to apply to a judge holding court. Bass v. Irvin, 49 Ga. 436. A child en ventre sa mere is not a person. Dietrich v. Northampton, 138 Mass. 14, 52 Am.Rep. 242; but an infant is so considered; Madden v. Springfield, 131 Mass. 441. In the United States bankrupty act of 1898, it is provided that the word “persons” shall include corporations, except where otherwise specified, and officers, partnerships, and women, and, when used with reference to the commission of acts which are therein forbidden, shall include persons who are participants in the forbidden acts, and the agents, officers, and members of the board of directors or trustees, or their controlling bodies, of corporations. 11 U.S.C.A. § 1. Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence ; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. “Entitled” and “bound” are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law. • • * A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the
CONSTITUTION. The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of gove…rnment deriving its whole authority from the governed. Fairhope Single Tax Corporation v. Melville, 193 Ala. 289, 69 So. 466, 470. See, also, Browne v. City of New York, 213 App. Div. 206, 211 N.Y.S. 306. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict; as the Novel Constitutions of Justinian; the Constitutions of Clarendon.
CONSTITUTIONAL. Consistent with the constitution; authorized by the constitution; not conflicting with any provision of the constitution or fundamental law of the state. Dependent upon a constitution, or secured or regulated by a constitution; as “constitutional monarchy,” “constitutional rights.”
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (1) That branch of the public law of a state which treats of the organization and frame of government, the organs and powers of sovereignty, the distribution of political and governmental authorities and functions, the fundamental principles which are to regulate the relations of government and subject, and which prescribes generally the plan and method according to which the public affairs of the state are to be administered. (2) That department of the science of law which treats of constitutions, their establishment, construction, and interpretation, and of the validity of legal enactments as tested by the criterion of conformity to the fundamental law. (3) A constitutional law is one which is consonant to, and agrees with, the constitution; one which is not in violation of any provision of the constitution of the particular state.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OR FREEDOM. Such freedom as is enjoyed by the citizens of a country or state under the protection of its constitution; the aggregate of those personal, civil, and political rights of the individual which are guaranteed by the constitution and secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies. People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 106, 9 Am.Rep. 103.
TAX, v. To impose a tax; to enact or declare that a pecuniary contribution shall be made by the persons liable, for the support of government. Spoken of an individual, to be taxed is to be included in an assessment made for purposes of taxation.
Practice- A pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority. In re Mytinger, D.C.Tex., 31 F.Supp. 977, 978, 979. Annual compensation paid to government for annual protection and for current support of government. Alabama Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, C.C.A.5, 134 F.2d 602, 608. A ratable portion of the produce of the property and labor of the individual citizens, taken by the nation, in the exercise of its sovereign rights, for the support of government, for the administration of the laws, and as the means for continuing in operation the various legitimate functions of the state. Black, Tax Titles, § 2; New London v. Miller, 60 Conn. 112, 22 A. 499; Graham v. St. Joseph Tp., 67 Mich. 652, 35 N.W. 808; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1, 6 L.Ed. 23; Tevander v. Ruysdael, C.C.A.I11., 299 F. 746, 753; Montgomery County v. City of Montgomery, 190 Ala. 366, 67 So. 311, 313; Strand v. Marin, 30 N.D. 165, 152 N.W. 280. An enforced contribution of money or other property, assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule or apportionment by authority of a sovereign state on persons or property within its jurisdiction for the purpose of defraying the public expenses. Heirs v. Mitchell, 95 Fla. 345, 116 So. 81, 85. In a general sense, any contribution imposed by government upon individuals, for the use and serv
ice of the state, whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name. Story, Const. § 950. And in its essential characteristics is not a debt. City of Newark v. Jos. Hollander, Inc., 136 N.J.Eq. 539, 42 A.2d 872, 875.
Synonyms- In a broad sense, taxes undoubtedly include assessments, and the right to impose assessments has its foundation in the taxing power of the government; and yet, in practice and as generally understood, there is a broad distinction between the two terms. “Taxes,” as the term is generally used, are public burdens imposed generally upon the inhabitants of the whole state, or upon some civil division thereof, for governmental purposes, without reference to peculiar benefits to particular individuals or property. “Assessments” have reference to impositions for improvements which are specially beneficial to particular individuals or property, and which are imposed in proportion to the particular benefits supposed to be conferred. They are justified only because the improvements confer special benefits, and are just’ only when they are divided in proportion to such benefits. Roosevelt Hospital v. New York, 84 N.Y. 112. Flansburg v. Shumway, 117 Neb. 125, 219 N.W. 956, 958. As distinguished from other kinds of taxation, “assessments” are those special and local impositions upon property in the- immediate vicinity of municipal improvements which are necessary to pay for the improvement, and are laid with reference to the special benefit which the property is supposed to have derived therefrom. Hale v. Kenosha, 29 Wis. 599; Ridenour v. Saffin, 1 Handy (Ohio) 464; King v. Portland, 2 Or. 146; Witherow v. Board of Drainage Com’rs of Powder Springs Creek Drainage Dist. No. 2, 155 Ga. 476, 117 S.E. 329, 330. Taxes differ from subsidies, in being certain and orderly, and from forced contributions, etc., in that they are levied by authority of law, and by some rule of proportion which is intended to insure uniformity of contribution, and a just apportionment of the burdens of government. Cooley, Tax’n, 2. To assess or determine; to liquidate, adjust, or settle. Spoken particularly of taxing costs (q. v.).