Law Professor FAILS to collect Freedom Law Schools Income Tax Reward

Part 2 of 3

Freedom Law School Victories

From: Jonathan Siegel []
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:57 AM
To: Peymon <>

Subject: Re: Why section 61 of the code is missing wages and salaries! Mr. Mottahedeh, I claim your $300,000 income tax reward.  Here are the responses to your three propositions:

Your Proposition 1:  “Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States that requiring Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.”

Response:  As is shown in detail on my webpage here, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1, 61, 63, 6012, and 6151 require Americans to file an income tax return (which you call a “confession”) and pay an income tax.  These statutory provisions are part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which is a statute written by the Congress of the United States, and which is the statute that requires Americans to file an income tax return (which you call a “confession”) and pay income tax.

Your Proposition 2:  “Show how Americans can file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) without giving up their 5th amendment right to not give any information to the government that may be used to prosecute them.”

Response:  An American can file an income tax return (which you call a “confession”) without giving up their 5th Amendment rights by simply filing a return in accordance with the instructions provided by the Internal Revenue Service.  The requirement to file a tax return does not violate 5th Amendment rights.  See, e.g., United States v. MacLeod, 436 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927); United States v. MacLeod, 436 F.2d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 907 (1971); Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834, 835 (10th Cir. 1985).Your Proposition 3: “Prove that the 16th amendment to the United States Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern American courts permitted the income tax to exist was lawfully added to the United States Constitution.”

Response:  The requisite number of states ratified the 16th Amendment, and the errors in reciting the text of the amendment in some state instruments of ratification did not affect the validity of the state ratifications.  Full details may be found on my webpage here and in a memorandum prepared by the Solicitor of the Department of State in 1913, which can be found here.  For court decisions confirming that the 16th Amendment is a valid part of the U.S. Constitution, see, e.g., United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986); Cook v. Spillman, 806 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1986).

The content of the linked webpages in the above responses is a part of my responses.

Please send my $300,000 check to me at the following address:

Jonathan R. Siegel
Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St. NW, Washington, DC 20052

Thank you,

Jon Siegel

From: Peymon []
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:36 PM
To: ‘Jonathan Siegel’ <>
Subject: Response to Law Professor Siegel’s claim of the $300,000 Income Tax Reward of Freedom Law School

Dear Professor Siegel,

This is the response of Freedom Law School to your $300,000 Income Tax Reward claim that you submitted by your email below:

1) The first $100,000 reward states: “Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States that requiring Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax”. Your claim fails for these reasons:

a) The reward specifically asks for the “statute” not “Code”. See Wikipedia’s explanations and hyperlinks that fully explain the difference between statute and Code and the codification of statutes into the law process.  You offer only several codes of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), not statutes as specifically requested by the reward offer. As you know, the code is only prima fascia evidence of the statute, but not the statute itself. Title 26 is not positive law. Therefore we cannot be positive that any code section in Title 26 accurately reflects the precise language and intent of the statute. You have failed to show the “statute written by the Congress of the United States that requires Americans to file an income tax “CONFESSION” (return) and pay an income tax.”

b) As shown in our conversation below, Section 61 of the Code does not state that wages or salaries, which are by far the largest in Dollar terms and number of people that earn these items of income, are included in the Gross Income definition of Code Section 61. Section 61 lists compensation for services, including fee, commission and fringe benefits. Why would Section 61 list fringe benefit, which is normally an extra benefit of a wage earner or salaries employee, but not the wage and the salary itself?

Your previous argument in your email below states that, “Congress saw no need to specify that “compensation for services” includes wages and salaries because, as you say, those are the most common and obvious forms of compensation for services” violates the unanimous holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Gould v. Gould 245 U.S. 151 (1917) that, “In the interpretation of taxing statutes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. Doubts are resolved against the government.”

In short, you cannot successfully argue that Congress “must have intended to tax wages and salaries too, but was too busy, or think it necessary to list wages and salaries as Gross Income.” The fact that the US Supreme Court states that any doubts in this issue you MUST take the position that Congress did NOT tax what you propose was taxed by implication.

Since most American’s main source of income is wages and salaries, which Congress has NOT declared to be Gross Income, then Congress has never intended to tax vast majority of Americans with an income tax. Therefore your claim for this $100,000 reward fails for this reason as well.