case that was put before the Supreme Court,
Brown v. The United States,
Docket No. 99-2066, if heard, would have ended the income tax.
The case focused on a tax that few Americans know exists: the Federal "wage
tax." Since 1943, this tax has been collected (and disguised) by the Government
as the withholding of income taxes "at the source." However, the
taxes that get "withheld" from a worker's pay each week are not income
taxes. They have nothing to do with income taxes or
the 16th Amendment. They represent a "wage tax" imposed in Section
3402 of the Internal Revenue Code. Income taxes are imposed in Section
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
In its unpublished decision
(Docket No. 99-15308) affirming Judge Pro's egregious ruling, the 9th Circuit
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
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
Following is the
Table of contents to the Appendix
which accompanied our
Petition for Certiorari.
The petition and index
are published in booklet form and are available from Freedom Books for
a minimum donation of $50. U.S.
be used to publicize this case.
A. Ruling on Petition for Rehearing..............1a
B. Petitioner's Request that the Court Of Appeals Certify Whether
or Not It Had Addressed the Constitutional Violations Raised on Appeal............
C. Decision by Court of Appeals Of October 26, 1999..............5a
D. Order of District Court Of January 19, 1999..........8a
E. Plaintiff/Appellants’ Petition that the 9th Circuit Reconsider
October 26, 1999.............11a
F. Plaintiff/Appellants’ Opening Brief On Appeal to the 9th Circuit.......28a
G. Plaintiff/Appellants’ Reply Brief to the 9th Circuit .…….57a
Appendix C and D are shown below to provide the Actual Decisions handed
Actual Decisions Handed Down
APPENDIX C –
DECISION BY COURT OF
APPEALS OF OCTOBER 26, 1999
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
October 26 1999
Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk,
U.S. Court of Appeals
D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP
ROBERT A. BROWN,
ELENA H. BROWN,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United
States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District
Submitted October 18,
WALLACE AND LEAVY,
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.
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
1) This disposition is not
appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of
this circuit as may be provided
by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
2) The panel unanimously
finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. App. P 34(a)(2)
APPENDIX D –
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT
JANUARY 19, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JAN 21 1999
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
D.C. No CV No. CV-98-00825-PMP
ROBERT A. BROWN,
ELENA H. BROWN,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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
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.
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
"Two Tax System"
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
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).
By publicizing this case
we hope to bring this travesty to the attention of hard working Americans
everywhere, whose Government has been unlawfully exploiting them and fleecing
them of their hard-earned money. If we do not come together and stand
up for our rights as citizens, the existing tax structure will only continue
to make our lives more difficult by demanding more and more of our money
from us. Please- join with us to pressure the Supreme Court into
hearing this case and ruling on it. As you can read from the information
contained here, the whole matter of Brown vs. United States Of America
blatantly unlawful, and by definition as defined by other laws and statutes,
Just as our forefathers did,
we must take a stand against tyranny, and say to the Government,
The Supreme Court reconvenes
in October, and when they do, we hope to have their chambers flooded with
letters from citizens, demanding that this case be heard. Together
we have the power to take back control from the politicians and their Judiciary
bedfellows. There is a link at the bottom of this section that takes
you to a form letter to copy and mail to the Supreme Court. For the
cost of a 33 cent stamp you too can be a part of the most historical event
of the century.
"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"