Lindsey Springer Update on Income Tax Liability

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

I have been following the Lindsey Springer case for awhile because it offers great insight into the tactics of the IRS and the Department of Justice, and how a tenacious, well-informed citizen keeps backing them into a corner.  Take a few minutes to read this latest update from Lindsey:


From: Lindsey Springer <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Subject: Government says no “express words in Title 26” make person liable for tax on receipt from source of  income
To: lindsey springer <[email protected]>

Lindsey Springer here and I feel obligated to those of you supporting my efforts to place these etched in stone words in your vault for safe keeping.

Yesterday, on August 12, 2009, the United States Department of Justice in 09-cr-043-SPF, USA v. Springer, told the United States District Court the following:


This issue arose in the wake of the Court ordering the United States to explain to the Court, Springer and Stilley, what the Grand Jury meant when it said “required by law” in the Grand Jury indictment.

The code sections cited in the quote above are the exact code sections the United States gave the Court, Springer and Stilley, as purportedly meant by the Grand Jury in uttering such phrase “required by law.”

The reason why this is so important is because section 6011(a), cited by the United States in the quote above and in the Court Ordered particulars, says “When required by regulation prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title….”

They are now admitting no express words in Title 26 make Springer liable for any tax imposed by “this title” yet they allege a tax was “due and owing.”

The United States admits each and every code section listed above does not “by express words in Title 26” make Springer “liable” for any tax.

This became very important after the 10th Circuit reversed our District Court Judge on August 18, 2008, almost a year earlier, in United States v. Farr, 536 F35 1174, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008) wherein the 10th said:

“By charging Ms. Farr with willfully attempting to defeat the “payment of the quarterly employment tax . . . due and owing by her,” the indictment effectively limited the first element of Section 7201 — a substantial tax due and owing — to liability for quarterly employment taxes which she purportedly owed. From that point on, absent a proper amendment to the indictment by the grand jury, the government was not free to prove any other tax liability at trial.”

For those of you barely hanging on I simply explain that the 16thAmendment only authorized a direct tax on income without apportionment “on the source” to which the income is derived. A case cited for the last 90 years by the United States is Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 19 (1916), wherein the Supreme Court held the purpose of the 16th Amendment:

“was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes.

If you are the source of generic income then Congress can impose a direct tax on the source and hold the source liable without regard to census or enumeration or rule of apportionment. If Congress seeks to make a certain activity taxable and it does not resort to the source, then it must resort to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the indirect tax or excise tax method.

The problem with this is that all excise taxes are regulated by the rule of “uniformity” and any rate that is “graduated” is not uniform. Uniformity means all articles taxed exactly the same way. If Congress seeks to tax income under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, the article being taxes being that of income can only be taxed at one rate and it matters not how much you received. If Congress resorts to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to impose an income tax, they likewise run into several other violations of the uniformity rule like marriage penalty and so on.

Only by imposing a direct tax on the source of income can Congress graduate or exempt and penalize standing behind the 16th Amendment.

In the case cited above, Ms. Farr was indicted for attempting to evade the employer withholding tax she was alleged to be “liable” for under Title 26, Section 3403. At trial the Government only proved she had not paid the 100% penalty assessed against her at Title 26, Section 6672.

The United States argued on appeal in Farr that “a constructive amendment did not occur because the employment tax and the trust fund recovery penalty are proverbial alter egos.” The Government asked the District Court and obtained a “contested instruction” during trial that dictated “to the jury that the trust fund recovery penalty and the quarterly employment taxes are the same thing. See Farr at page 1181.

The difficulty for the government in Farr was “that the difference between the quarterly employment taxes and the trust fund recovery penalty is not merely a semantic one under our precedent [10th Cir].”  “While the ultimate object of the IRS’s interest — recovering the underlying delinquent tax — is undoubtedly the same, the quarterly employment tax provision of Section 3403 and the trust fund recovery penalty of Section 6672 provide materially different means for achieving that end.”

Notice the 3403 liability and the 6672 liability are taxes on the source and not the recipient. This is why these sections standing alone reference who is liable. In contrast, none of the sections provided by the United States in its Court Ordered Bill of Particulars in USA v. Springer used the term Liability or liable except section 6011. Examining that section shows “when required by regulation prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title…”

Section 6011 places the liability for any tax imposed on the “person made liable.” Section 3403 makes the employer liable. Section 6672 makes the corporate officer liable. Section 1, 61,63, 6011, 6012, 6071, 6091, 6151 and 7203 do not ever say who is liable for the tax imposed by section 1 and for good reason.

The source is the only liable person under the 16th Amendment. Not the recipient. Think about it. Why would the employer be held liable if the employer does not withhold the correct amount of withholding? Why is the employee not held liable? After all, the employee kept the lions share and certainly possesses what was not properly withheld. The reason is in the 16th Amendment. The employer is the source and is the only person under the 16th Amendment Congress can make or hold liable.

All I am doing here is explaining why the United States said “it is not the prosecution’s burden to prove that Defendant Springer was liable by express words in Title 26, US Code…” and why they are wrong about their burden but more importantly why they said it. Query – How can anyone be said to “owe” a tax if they are not the person made liable for that tax? Logically they cannot.

I realize some of you are immediately going to seek how to use this information to your advantage. The best way to use it is to write a letter to your Congressman, Freedom of Information, any Lawyer you know, and the IRS Commissioner, and ask them this prefaced question:

Title 26, section 6011 says “any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title.” If I receive money from one or several State located sources, where has Congress spoken in clear language the whole world can understand that I am made liable for a tax imposed on the income I received from one or several of these sources? Please identify the tax imposed by code section and the code section which makes me liable if they are different?

Instead of simply identifying the code section which made me liable, the United States chose to spend several pages in multiple pleadings saying how easy their liability theory was. They did cite to section 61 in another pleading but never said that section made me liable for any tax imposed by Title 26. In fact, I suggest you each see this for your self.

Go read section 1 (tax imposed on the income), 61 (gross income defined), 63 (taxable income defined), 6011 (no liability), 6012 (no exempt amount), 6071 (date of filing), 6091 (place to file) (no district directors or IR districts), 6151 (pay what returns says you owe) and 7203 (no definition or meaning of return). Section 61 never makes anyone liable for anything.

For this revelation I think it important to say that 6011 places the “made liable for any tax imposed by this title” as to be determined first by you or before any person is to make a return according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

Just thought you would like to see what is truly going on inside the battle between myself and the United States Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service.

I thank you for each supporting me as you have and can only say without your support I do not think I could have even written this release. Please consider my efforts when you are deciding who to support as I hope you find what I am saying and bringing to your attention a blessing. I can receive paypal at [email protected]

or my address is:

Lindsey Springer
5147 S. Harvard, # 116
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135

I pray God’s speed to you all.


Click on the following links for more information about the Springer case:


No direct un-apportioned tax confirmed by the US Supreme Court rulings in

CHAS. C. STEWARD MACH. CO. v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582(1937)

Knowledge is power.  Educate yourselves.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Friday, August 21st, 2009 at 7:46 am and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 comments so far


They are now admitting no express words in Title 26 make Springer liable for any tax imposed by “this title” yet they allege a tax was “due and owing.” ….THE GOVERNMENT IS SAYING THEY DO NOT HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF, and admits to NOTHING….. If the Judge says they have the burden of proof, they still may come up with it. Think about it.

Is the transcript of the hearing or proceeding available anywhere?

August 24th, 2009 at 11:06 am


I haven’t seen a transcript of the Lindsey Springer proceedings.

Please contact him at http://www.penaltyprotestor.org for more information.

Thank you.

Bob McNeil

September 19th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Hey there guys, you’ve ALL got to read this pdf doc ASAP from SEDM that outlines in very painful and lengthy detail (97 pages) ALL of the ‘tricky nuances’ of the federal goverments TOTAL LACK of jurisdiction and authority, and their TOTAL LACK of any ‘positive law’ Regulations (26 USC, Subtitle F and Subtitle A) having NOT been properly implemented / passed / enacted by our U.S. Congress… As they MUST by their own IRM (Manual) PROVE that you are a ‘taxpayer’ FIRST by producing EVIDENCE in a Court, (not citing any tax codes, IRC) and this MUST be done in a State Court FIRST, and all at the same time they MUST FIRST FOLLOW EVERY U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING THAT APPLIES too, and again, they can NOT cite any IRC (Code) to you unless they have FIRST PROVEN that you’re a ‘federally connected’, ‘excise taxable’ ‘taxpayer’ under the ‘private-law jurisdiction’ of the IRC in Court, i.e.: subsequently as a ‘reciever’ of any ‘government related’ source(s) of ‘taxable income’ including having a ‘trade or business’ catagory under IRC…! Do you get it folks, the IRS/DOJ CHEATS BIG TIME at all of the Rules because we are all ‘ignorant’ of their ‘fruadulent and deceitful’ actions against ALL of us ‘private-sector’ employee’s who ONLY ‘earn’ by right a U.S. Constituitonally protected ‘payment’ of ‘NON-taxable wages’ in TRADE from a ‘private-sector employer’, who is ALSO a Constituitonally protected party and is NOT a ‘federally connected source’ to any of us working in the Constituitonally protected ‘private-sector’…! Therefore, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER and/or LETTER THAT THE IRS/DOJ SENDS TO US IS FRAUDULENT, (as it Quotes the IRC to ‘non-taxpayers’ which is unlawful and illegal for them to do so!) WE CAN SUE THEM AND ALSO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THEM FOR U.S. POSTAL MAIL FRUAD TOO…! The pdf doc I mentioned, I think is called the ‘FederalJurisdiction.pdf’, you can search for it using Google and it’s on the SEDM website. First though, PLEASE follow all of the instructions to comply with their Ministry rules / requirements, as outlined in pdf, as well as other places on their website…! (and) He has our backs folks; Phil. 4:13, “I can do ALL things through Christ who strengtheneth me…” and II Tim. 2:15 says to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed…” P.S. ALL of these Trials that are in the news lately are ALL illegal and really ‘mis-trials’ based upon the facts mentioned above as they are/were without proper Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) because we are NOT ‘federal citizens’ or ‘federal employees’ even subject to the jurisdiction of ANY federal Court, so, Hendrickson, Springer, Mitchell, et al, any of these guys SHOULD file Legal Motions ASAP to Demand all federal Judges be forced to Constituitonally ‘Vacate’ these fruadulent Judgments as NOT prescribing to the federal rules of procedure, NOT subscribing to the rules of due process, and therefore thy MUST be thrown out of Court ASAP and the Rulings MUST be set aside as Treasonous, go ahead folks, read the pdf doc it’s ALL in there…! God Bless, jbm

P.S.S. One last thought, have you all seen Thomas Jefferson’s ‘IRATE’ Quote: “’…Speak to me NOT of ‘just men’, rather, let us BIND MEN DOWN with the Chains of the Constitution…!’”

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” –Thomas Jefferson
(sorry, my spelling corrected copy II)

December 15th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Olde Reb


We, the People, have been lead to believe that every person must pay an income tax. Claims that there is no law that establishes liability for an individual income tax have been made for years. Nevertheless, the courts have repeatedly ruled indictments for income tax prosecutions are valid with United States v Vroman, 975 F2d 669 (9th. Cir. 1992) being a prominent example.

A challenge to the indictment can be made for failure to allege a crime. Such a Motion has been formatted as a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment based upon an analysis of the Vroman opinion with an adaptation for an ongoing Section 7206 prosecution (adaptable to other prosecutions). The conclusions of the Vroman court are proven to be spurious and do not concur with Supreme Court adjudication for Due Process, a Case, or the requirements for a valid indictment.
Direct inconsistencies with Supreme court opinions is fertile area for SC review. An appeal is only to review errors of law that are made ON THE RECORD.

Constitutional rights are only available to a belligerent claimant. If an individual does not demand his Rights, the courts have no requirement to acknowledge them, and lawyers are not required to assert your Constitutional rights. It is the courts that are perverting Due Process to enforce a tax that does not exist, and they intimidate lawyers.

Your constitutional right to make a living, enshrined within the clause of Liberty, is not an acceptable object for taxation. A tax cannot be levied upon your right to a trial by jury; neither can a tax be levied upon your right to pursue a livelihood as secured by the clause of Liberty.

If Congress can properly levy a tax upon your livelihood, they can confiscate 100 percent of your earnings and you are reduced to abject peonage. The Constitutional structure of We the People establishing a government of servants has suffered a coup de grace.
[snipped analysis of Vroman and MTD (27 pages) is at http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/17-53/

March 13th, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)