As perennial as April showers are passionate spasms of outrage directed at the IRS and the income tax. Earnest advocates of a flat tax or a national sales tax, or some other dramatic change enlist the enthusiasms of a public whose complaints center in the unfair, intrusive, confiscatorial and incomprehensible administration and application of the income tax. (Think about that ‘incomprehensible’ thing for a moment. Is it not curious that a law allegedly requiring hours of compliance effort by virtually every adult American every year of their lives is incomprehensible even to its career administrators?! There is an old vulgarism that says: "If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t! Read on).

    All of this is healthy in its impulse, and doing away with the income tax would be a fine thing, but replacing the current system with one of the popularly advocated alternatives is not necessary, and would actually be counterproductive to the goal of radical simplification and a dramatic reduction in both the offensive behavior of the IRS and the dragging burden of confiscatory rates. A proper analysis of just what is authorized under the Sixteenth Amendment will make clear that a legal and proper administration of the law would offer these benefits all by itself for the vast majority of the population, because most people really have no income tax obligation at all. Wage and salary earners don’t have ‘income’ subject to taxes.

    The core issue regarding the income tax hinges on the definition of the word ‘income’ as used in the Sixteenth Amendment and the subsequent Revenue Acts which imposed the tax. The Supreme Court was called upon to clarify the term (which was recognized as misleading even while the amendment was debated) promptly upon the first application of the new act. In Eisner v. Macomber the court explicitly defined the term as meaning ‘Net Income’ as set forth in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, thus distinguishing a special class of receipts—those having the character of profit—as being the only variety subject to the tax. That is to say, net proceeds, which represent gain (profit) after expenses (outgo) have been deducted, fall into the class of ‘taxable’ income, while receipts equaled or exceeded by outgo and which thus lack the character of profit do not. The Court made clear that ‘income’ in the legal context of the tax does not mean ‘all dollars coming in’.

    Consider the income tax obligations of any corporation, in regard to which the current income tax was designed and implemented. Gross receipts are measured against expenses, including wages and salaries, with the difference (the profit-dividend) becoming ‘income’ subject to the tax. It is not at all uncommon for a business to have no ‘income’ subject to tax at all, despite considerable receipts. This is completely consistent with the Supreme Court’s definitions and the tax code.

    In Connor v. U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187, (1969), the Supreme Court iterated this point with rare and refreshing clarity:

"Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the Sixteenth Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under sec. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sec. 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain there is no income…Congress has taxed income, not compensation". (Emphasis added).

    Because corporations have varying expenses, and every dollar in receipts could conceivably have the capacity of profit (net income), it is proper to expect a complete accounting, by way of a ‘return’ in order to determine whether there has indeed been such income, balancing all receipts against ‘outgo’ to arrive at the ‘net’ (which might be zero or a loss). However, the same process cannot properly be applied to an individual’s wages or salary, for such receipts, being by their nature compensatory, are incapable of being income at all. They are at all times a direct exchange in which the value of the workers outgo-- the labor side of the exchange-- always equals or exceeds the value for which it is traded.

    As previously noted, in the context of tax law ‘income’ does not mean ‘every dollar that came in’. This is a tough concept for Americans to consider these days, having been led to believe for 55 years—the entire adult lives of nearly everyone in the country—the very opposite. But it is true. Though it is commonly believed that Congress can legally take any and all of the ‘dollars that come in’, and that therefore the reason for the incredible complications of the tax code is politicking as factions compete for special treatment, the real reason (along with deliberate obfuscation) is that under the Constitution the IRS MUST accept the deduction of expenses. Were the system not obliged to acknowledge the restrictive definition of income, the entire code could be little more than a couple of pages, listing what percentages of the ‘dollars coming in’ to send to Washington,… basically the tax tables.

    This is not to say that there is no political element behind much of the code’s complication, of course. Nothing inherent in the proper definition of income precludes Congress from declining to seize all that it legally could, and thus adding selected and politically favored ‘expenses’ that might not stand up to an accountant’s scrutiny but play well with the lobbying crowd. Once the system had opened itself to distortions of fact and principle in order to embrace progressivity and to expand its reach from legitimately tapping real incomes to illegitimately digging into the pockets of wage-earners as well, it became impossible to bar the door. The "equal protection" clause of the 14^th amendment, obviously requiring that the state be even-handed in its impositions as an inevitable corollary of even-handedness in its protections, was very quickly thrown overboard with absurd reasoning amounting to this in its substance: "Everyone is entitled to be treated unequally to those in other groups in the same fashion as everyone else in their own group, and since the inequality of treatment will predictably follow anyone from group to group, everyone is therefore really being treated equally. The state will treat equally all citizens sharing particular characteristics, which the state shall identify. Though Citizen ‘A’ and Citizen ‘B’ are treated differently by the code at the moment, it is because the law takes note of what it perceives as difference of condition between them. If Citizen ‘A’ comes to be identical in every respect to Citizen ‘B’, then they will be treated identically by the tax code, therefore they enjoy equality insofar as taxes are concerned". The fact that citizen ‘A’ will never in his life actually be treated exactly like citizen ‘B’ is immaterial—the possibility theoretically exists, and therefore the requirement of equality is met. I’m waiting for condition-sensitive speed-limits.

    It is a simple historical reality that we have just closed a century of the virtually undiluted triumph of progressive, socialist politics utterly dominated by populism, and were it not prevented by the subterranean legal realities of the 16^th amendment, the pandering state would have wallowed in an unrestrained and promiscuous mulcting of the productive sector of society. There would never have been a deduction for a business lunch, or business travel expenses, or anything else that benefits only a minority of the population. If Washington were not hobbled by those legal realities, howsoever widely unrecognized they may be, the class war would have been handily won decades ago and the US would be indistinguishable from (the once) Great Britain.

    Only total or deliberate ignorance would entertain the notion that Washington restrains itself in its predations on corporations and the wealthy-- or any other group possessing money and little voting strength-- because of some careful and wise recognition of a practical limit beyond which productivity is harmed, or the rule of law is overburdened and falters, or some other higher insight or purpose. The sole bone that would have been thrown to fairness in 1913 upon the first drafting of the tax code, had not a fear of restraint by the courts interceded, would have been the inclusion of all ‘income’ levels in the rolls of taxpayers, however cosmetically, both for the moral cover thus provided against outcry from the well-to-do who were the real target of the assault and to till the ground in anticipation of future expansion of the tax. It is instructive that it was instead a full 33 years after the passage of the 16^th amendment before Washington first voiced a claim on wages and salaries—a pace far from typical in any political system except when it is bucking its own courts and law.

    Among the many perverse consequences of the fraudulent tax administration is that nagging suspicion that "the system" is bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporate interests. Common sense suggests that if the 16^th amendment permits the taking of ‘dollars coming in’ without qualification, and the state does not take them willy-nilly, but acts with restraint, then it can only be that that restraint is being purchased. Of course, further thought points out that if this were so, there would be scandalous foreign bank accounts and jewel-filled safety-deposit boxes, and a whole sub-division of the press whose only role would be the exposure of such payoffs, but further thought is harder and rarer thought, and so the suspicion remains.

    Despite this, governmental units, relying on general economic ignorance and a complicit class of symbiotic professionals who support the big lie for the sake of job security, attempt to impose on wage and salary earners a definition of their labor receipts as profit, with certain amounts selectively exempt at bureaucratic discretion. No formula is available on a personal income tax forms with which to deduct labor from receipts, in order to arrive at a ‘net income’. Workers are invited to ‘voluntarily self-assess’ on the basis that wages and salaries are not compensation, but profit; that labor has no value, or has value but doesn’t belong to the laborer. You have to wonder just why your boss is paying you!

    It can’t be had both ways,… you are either being compensated for the value of your part of the exchange, or you are not. If you are being compensated, then you are giving up value in exchange for pay, outgo that actually exceeds the value of you pay. (If it didn’t, you wouldn’t be hired. Employers don’t hire workers in order to break even or lose money on what they cost). If you are not being compensated for your labor, you should be able to just show up each payday and collect your check!

    Consider this: the IRS will classify as income and demand taxes on the receipt of services-- say, your buddy fixing your pipes on Saturday-- declaring them to possess inherent and definable value on your tax return, but coyly refraining from pointing out that value to your friend so that he can deduct it on HIS 1040. Despite this, it is very hard for us to imagine money as not being uniquely and pre-eminently valuable and therefore deserving of the special status that is implicit in the common misunderstanding of the tax system. We all owe a debt to those early Supreme Court justices who set forth the truth of the matter for all to see while the issue was fresh and not obscured by 85 years of misinformation, careless economics training in the academy, and sly manipulations by elements of government.

    Because while that time passed and those corrosive elements worked, unfortunate subtleties of the terminology succeeded in quietly suppressing the ‘Net’ part of net income in the general treatment of the tax in documentation and common discourse on the subject, using ‘Income’ alone to represent the whole term, the distinction made by the Court has faded from the public’s mind. Thus, it behooves us to clarify the matter, by briefly examining the nature of the basic components of trade, money, labor, and compensation.

    Let’s begin with a simple mental exercise: Suppose that you were a shepherd who needed a new pair of shoes. You take a sheep down to your neighbor the cobbler, who trades you a pair of shoes for your sheep. You’re both happy, you with the shoes that you didn’t have before, and your neighbor with a week or two’s worth of dinner. Did either of you receive income? Clearly not. The market value of your sheep was equaled by the market value of the shoes, and neither you nor the cobbler made a profit. Now, let’s suppose that, rather than carrying your sheep to the cobbler’s, you gave him an IOU which can be redeemed for one sheep (or traded to someone else for one sheep’s worth of value in other goods, who will trade for it knowing that they can redeem it for a sheep, or trade it away themselves). Now you’ve got the shoes and the cobbler has a claim on a sheep or its equivalent value. Any profits (or increase) now? Of course not.

    Now, how about this-- instead of an IOU for one of your sheep, you give the cobbler the note you’re holding from your other neighbor, the carpenter, for a day’s worth of carpentry, (or its equivalent, as explained earlier), that you got last week in trade for one of your sheep. Any profit or increase now? No. And how about that carpenter, who redeems his note by doing a day’s worth of work for the cobbler. When the cobbler gives him the note, debt paid, has the carpenter received income? Clearly not.

    No one received any income in our example because by merely trading what they already possessed for it’s equivalent value in someone else’s property, none of our citizens increased their wealth, they simply converted pre-existing assets to a different form. Some would make the argument that our carpenter is an exception, saying that he didn’t really trade anything, he simply was paid for his time. The essence of that argument is that an individual doesn’t own his or her time/labor, leaving one to wonder to whom they would propose that it does belong. I will dismiss that argument with the observation that the carpenter could have spent his days making shoes like the cobbler or raising sheep like the shepherd if he wished. There is no practical difference between any of these choices, they are all just ways of using ones time/labor, and the specialization that individuals naturally gravitate toward as they discover where their talents and interests lie simply maximizes the benefit to the whole community. Besides, the very fact that someone would offer value in exchange for the carpenters time/labor establishes that time/labor as a legitimate tradable good.

    It is vitally important for the sake of clear thinking to understand that all tradable goods of any kind, including sheep and shoes as well as work (and by extension the notes or tokens, sometimes called money, used to facilitate the trading process), represent a unit of time/labor. If goods could be acquired without an expenditure of time/labor, they would have no value. They might still be desirable, as air is desirable, even necessary, but of no tradable value due to being attainable without any effort. For instance if gold, a tradable good long used as a form of money, were as common as sand and as easily acquired, we might still like to wear it as jewelry but we would not use it as money, for it would not represent any meaningful unit of time/labor. It can be used as money only because acquiring it requires effort in the mining process, both in locating and extracting it, rendering it a tradable good with an inherent value. The same is true of our shepherds sheep. If a sheep could be had by simply stepping outside and grabbing one, without hunting for it or husbanding it, sheep would have no value, and neither the cobbler nor the carpenter would offer their goods in trade for one. The value in these goods comes from the time/labor expenditure necessary to acquire them. All tradable goods consist of time/labor, either converted to a hard product through the picking of the apples, the raising of the sheep, the making of the shoes, etc.; rendered in its original form as service; or as a combination of the two.

    As an example of that last form, which is the most common form of tradable good in our complex economy, let us examine the shoemaker, who trades ‘x’ for his materials, and then sells (trades) his shoes for ‘x + y’?! Surely he has made a profit, and acquired income!

    What the shoemaker has done is mixed his time/labor, which is one of his resources, with his raw materials, creating more value for the raw materials as they become refined into a product of a different kind, but only to the same degree as the cobbler’s expenditure of his time and energy. If the cobbler attempted to sell his shoes for more than the value of the resources consumed in the production process, his customers, who also can acquire leather and thread, and also have time and energy, could make them for themselves. If those customers were to make that choice, and fashion their own shoes, they could surely not be charged with having received income represented by some calculation of the increased value of the leather and thread; no more can the cobbler.

    This is not to say that the cobbler does not enjoy a competitive advantage in evaluating his goods for the market; he can take advantage of his greater experience and superior efficiency in making his products, making his expenditure relatively less than that faced by his customers in contemplating whether to buy or make their own. But that same advantage is enjoyed by all specialists in the market, and thus does not change the dynamic of trading value for equal value, with gain to none, and in any case does not represent some magical infusion of resource or value not originating from (and belonging to), the cobbler.

    Theoretically, we all could make our own consumable products, spending our time hunting for materials, and sitting around fashioning the things we need, we would simply lose the greater efficiency of specialization which provides for less cost of time/labor in production. Choosing the advantages of specialization, and the necessary mechanism of trade to actualize its benefits, does not add to our inherent personal resources despite allowing us to acquire more and better goods than we could make or acquire were we to live in a vacuum.

    All of our players in this example are participants in a specialization based market economy, the same market economy in which you and I participate in every detail, rendered a little tricky to perceive by the use of different terms for key ingredients, most notably IOUs (or notes) for money, and the references to work as a tradable good. The money that we use today in the United States is simply IOUs which, for convenience and efficiency, we have recently (about a hundred years ago) decided should be written by a central authority for the sake of uniformity. After all, goes the argument, transactions are often wide-ranging in the players they involve and the distances and layers of ownership and obligation that they navigate. That centralization removes from money the personal IOU obligation of the original notes. Thus a dollar bill, for example, no longer has the name of the carpenter on it, identifying him as the origin of the note and his time/labor as the backing for the notes value, because the market’s participants all understand that everyone’s notes are tradable for everyone’s goods, since everyone’s tradable goods ultimately are of the same nature.

    It was only in the early 20^th century that the American economy began this experiment with centralized printing of money, prior to that time paper money consisted exclusively of banknotes issued by individual financial institutions redeemable upon demand by the bank for a tradable good such as gold or silver. Our Federal Reserve scrip of today will not be redeemed by the issuing institution, the Federal government, but is imbued with value by our general agreement as participants in the market to accept it as a trading medium. This distinction does not mitigate its nature as a token symbolizing time/labor. When you are paid dollars by one participating member of the market, you are receiving notes of obligation against the common pool of market wealth equal to your contribution to that pool, and redeemable in the form of any other equally valued portion of the pool. That pool is the aggregate of all the time/labor invested by the participants in that market.

    In focusing on the acquisition of money, those attempting to apply the income tax laws fail to recognize or acknowledge that money is simply representative of other resources, converted for the convenience of trade into more portable form. If you were to spend your day in a wild orchard picking apples, would you have acquired a bushel-full of income? Of course not. Why then should that suddenly change when you convert that effort to tokens by trading the apples to someone else for one of their IOUs? Or one of our centrally printed generic IOUs? No-one would say that you received income if you traded your apples for a bushel of your neighbors oranges, and when you trade your apples for money you are simply receiving a symbol representing a bushel of oranges (or other things of equivalent value).

    I think we can all agree that merely eating the apples in our example above wouldn’t raise the specter of income. No more would the eating of the steaks that you might buy with the money for which you traded the apples. But according to the tax code as it is administered today, you’d have to pay an ‘income tax’ on that money before you shopped for those steaks.

    Despite the fact that your average accountant, tax attorney, IRS agent, or tax court judge won’t volunteer the information, the U.S. Courts have understood the relationship between time/labor, trade, and the proper definition of ‘income’, and have ruled accordingly over the years, establishing the freedom of wages, salaries, and original commissions from consideration of income taxes.

    In Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), the Supreme Court held that,

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the Treasury Department which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services.

It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not "salaries, wages or compensation for personal service" that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is "gains, profits and income derived" from salaries wages or compensation for personal service". (Emphasis added)

    In Eisner v. Macomber, the court rendered meaningless any creative definitions of ‘income’ that might be floated by Congress or the IRS that are contrary to those cited, ruling that:

"…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not ‘income’…Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised".

    Therefore, the fact that the IRS these days routinely refers to wages and salary as ‘income’ doesn’t make it so, and in fact constitutes a blatant attempt to demand taxes that are not owed. Furthermore, even soliciting information on wages and salaries is improper. That information serves no purpose in calculating taxes, for even if an individual has sources of receipts from which income can be derived, those income producing receipts have no connection or relationship to non income sources. A tax return is not a general search warrant with the authority to poke through all of anyone’s financial affairs, including those involving nothing taxable. When you have a tax on apples you don’t administer it by requiring each citizen to reveal all the fruit they have and then officially exempt the oranges, bananas, etc., (or encourage well-meaning citizens to take your word for it that bananas are apples and assess taxes on those too).

    The perfect clarity of the rulings cited above and earlier, as well as the simple common sense and logic of an analysis of trade and time/labor notwithstanding, conventional wisdom would seem to be that there must be something hidden in those rulings, or that analysis, because surely we could not all have been illegally taxed for all these years! Unfortunately, that is just what has happened, and the Supreme Court’s language has no hidden meaning. The following rulings of various lower courts establish that outrageous reality quite clearly:

"…’income, as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words ‘gains’ and ‘profits’ is to limit the meaning of the word ‘income’."

So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847 (US Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y., 1917); 247 U.S. 330 (1918). (The statute uses the following language, "…gain, profits, and income derived from…").

Staples v. U.S., 21F. Supp. 737 (US Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937)

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858 (1955)

Laureldale Cemetary Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 PA. 239; 47 A.2d 277, 280, (1946).

    Of course, many courts have ruled many times against citizens making arguments similar to those that I am offering here, and contrary to the rulings cited. It is a sad reality that we have no treatment conferring wisdom which we are able to administer to those elevated to the bench, and judges are as subject to ignorance, misunderstanding, and the natural instinct to pay respect to the familiar and common as anyone else.

    The common subtext of rulings by such jurists is the mere assertion that, "of course wages are income, everybody knows that", as if the saying so makes it so, or the words are interchangeable. Such pronouncements are made without the benefit of any analysis of the terms, and are worth no more than the effort devoted to them. They disregard entirely the Supreme Court’s distinction between ‘gross income’ and ‘net income’, and become party to the confusion that the Sixteenth Amendment authorized a tax on receipts, or dollars, rather than only dollars having the distinct character of profit. Or they rest on the indefensible proposition that labor is uniquely distinct as a tradable good, having the quality of value to the buyer, but none to the seller. Just for good measure, let me point out that what is really being said in that subtext is, "of course dollars are income…".

    Let’s remember, what one is paid by an employer is not wages (or salaries). One is paid dollars. We use the convention of referring to the agreed upon quantity of dollars per unit of time/labor traded for, and frequency of payment, etc., as wages, but personally, I don’t get a check for ‘x’ number of wages every other Thursday. I don’t expect to hear any argument seriously advanced that dollars are income when the obscuring term ‘wages’ has been cleared away, but if I am wrong, then I would like to know the tax rate on a dollar. Your situation might be different, but I get paid in individual dollars, conveyed in bulk, but measured one by one. I don’t have an annual ‘income’, I have a weekly salary, and it’s prorated by the fraction of a day. I suspect that each of my dollars of compensation fails to rise to the minimum amount of ‘income’ requiring the filing of a return.

    There is no logical consistency available to the proposition that ‘dollars’ and ‘income’ are interchangeable terms. If they were, then the income tax would be a tax on wealth, and would authorize a raiding of static holdings such as bank accounts, and any other liquid asset. This, as we have seen, is not at all the character of ‘income’. Once more…INCOME CONSISTS OF A SPECIALIZED CLASS OF RECEIPTS DISTINGUISHED BY BEING DERIVED FROM THE LARGER CLASS OF GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER DEDUCTIONS FOR EXPENDITURES AND POSSESSING THE STATUS OF PROFIT, OR RECEIPTS ACQUIRED WITHOUT EXPENDITURE, SUCH AS INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS!

    Obviously, the vast majority of the population should immediately modify the W-4 status on file with their employers to EXEMPT and stop assessing themselves for taxes that they do not owe. The benefit to the economy, saving the 54 billion or so dollars annually expended in compliance with an illegally administered law will supplement the ‘peace dividend’ which has so significantly contributed to our recent prosperity, and will go on in perpetuity. The benefits of a restoration of respect for the general rule of law, so eroded and compromised by the imposition of this act which is widely recognized as incomprehensible even to professional specialists and is so intuitively recognizable as unconstitutional is less easily quantified but even more significant. Every American knows, if only subconsciously, that being required to file a return violates the Fifth Amendment freedom from self-incrimination; that demanding the information on a return or at an audit violates the Fourth Amendment freedom from warrantless and unfounded search and seizure; that having to argue your case in a tax court violates your right to an independent judiciary; that no magic quality excuses tax administration from such basic common law elements as the presumption of the innocence of the target of State law enforcement; that a free people are not properly subject to an atmosphere of intimidation by an agency of their own government. And please, spare me the various versions of "the innocent have nothing to fear". Research consistently shows a near universal fear of the IRS, even in the ranks of Congress and the judiciary.

    There will inevitably be those who will protest the loss of revenue allegedly attendant upon the withdrawal by the citizenry of the funds heretofore coerced from them by fraud and deceit. Such Cassandras will remind us all of the slaveholding voices of another time, decrying the impending economic ruin sure to follow the end of another Peculiar Institution. I offer to them a reminder: in America, we do what is right and lawful under the Constitution, regardless of the cost. (To those disengaged from the debate I will point out that the medieval serfs, properly considered as indistinguishable from slaves, were tapped for a maximum of 30% by their masters, and the typical taxpayer is now tapped for 38% or more).

    Happily, in this case there is nothing but upside. The income tax, as applied to wages and salaries, has never netted much revenue for the public purse, especially after accounting for the enormous costs of administration, compliance and enforcement. This cost of compliance is of a somewhat different character than some, as the burden represents a pure waste of public wealth in the time/labor diverted from productive tasks to negotiating the maze of the tax code, litigating disputes, attempting to assert rights, etc.. Astonishingly, 50% of American taxpayers now hire a professional to assist them in complying with the income tax.

    While it is common to disregard the loss to the taxpayers’ wealth when accounting for the costs of a tax, (paying lip service to the hoary and idiotic notion that we’re all one happy family and the diversion of wealth from our private pockets to the public pocket is a static phenomenon, though still somehow registering as a measurable revenue gain for Congress), this view relies on the idea that compliance costs only the price of the postage stamp and some routine administration and enforcement, meaning that the only loss to the GDP is a little overhead. In the case of the income tax, more hours of time/labor are devoted to compliance than are expended on ALL vehicle manufacturing activities in the United States annually. Think of the benefit of having all that time/labor spent on wealth production!

    While the general and inadvertent participation by the public at large in this massive fraud must be forgiven as a product of ignorance and deception, some careful thought, and public debate, will have to precede any forgiveness of the IRS employees, tax attorneys, CPAs, and others who deliberately helped maintain the fraud and profited from it. We’ll see.

ã Copyright 1999 by Peter Eric Hendrickson.