Income tax

jon made this Freedom of Information request to HM Revenue and Customs

The request was successful.

From: jon

8 March 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you please provide written evidence of THE LAW that requires
flesh and blood human beings to pay income tax.
I understand that statutes and acts are defined as legislated rules
of a SOCIETY which have been given the force of law. A society is
defined as a number of people joined BY MUTUAL CONSENT to
deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. So in esscence the
STATUTES only apply to those who give consent ie. are a willing
member of the society. So please provide evidence of the LAW (not
the statute) which states that all humans (NOT PERSONS) are obliged
to pay income tax (including humans who are not willing consenting
members of society).
Please note, that if your response includes the word PERSON or
PERSONS, you have failed to answer my request, as persons are not
flesh and blood humans, they are LEGAL FICTIONS.

Yours faithfully,

jon: of the hallam family.

Link to this

From: Howe, Lucy (LG Corporate Governance)
HM Revenue and Customs

9 March 2009

Attachment FOI 1269 J Hallam.doc
53K Download View as HTML

Message sent on behalf of Michael Armstrong

Regards

Lucy Howe

Freedom of Information Team

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.

HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.

This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Link to this

jon left an annotation ( 9 March 2009)

please note, The term 'individual' will also NOT be accepted as meaning a human being, or man or woman, as it is defined as meaning a PERSON which is a legal fiction. So please take care when providing a suitable response, I wish to know what LAW ( not statute or act) obliges me, a man, or HOMO SAPIENS to pay income tax.

Link to this

From: Sharpe, John (G&S)
HM Revenue and Customs

11 March 2009

Dear Mr Hallam,

Thank you for your request of 8 March 2009 made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) which I see is further qualified by your later
comment of 9 March which I have also taken into account.

Section 1 FOIA provides that when an applicant describes the information
they want a public authority is obliged, subject to other provisions of
the act, to say whether or not it holds that information and, if it does,
provide it.

Your description of the information you want is very precise in the terms
of how you define what you understand to be the law, society and the
conditions that any response from HMRC should meet. Because of that the
strict answer under FOIA is that HMRC does not hold the information as
described and limited by you.

Although not exactly fulfilling your qualified request the Acts that
govern Income Tax are publicly available on our website at this link
[1]http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/legislation/acts.... ; links to The Income Taxes
Acts 2003 and 2005 are towards the bottom of that page.

If you are not happy with this reply you may request a review by writing
to HMRC FOI Team, Room 4/52, 100 Parliament Street London SWIA 2BQ. You
must request a review within 2 months of the date of this letter. It would
assist our review if you set out which aspects of the reply concern you
and why you are dissatisfied.

If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
Information Commissioner will not usually consider a case unless you have
exhausted the internal review procedure provided by HMRC. He can be
contacted at The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water
Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

John Sharpe

Governance & Security

HM Revenue & Customs

Room 4/52

100 Parliament Street

London

SW1A 2BG

[2][email address]

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.

HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.

This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/legislation/acts....
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/legislation/acts....
2. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: jon

11 March 2009

Dear Sharpe, John (G&S),
Thank you for your response to my request. It appears that you
have assumed that a link to 'legislation' and 'acts' (in other
words 'statutes') answers my question, when that could not be the
case. The reason is simple. What is an Act? Which becomes a Statute
by Royal Assent? The Law Dictionary defines this as 'a rule of a
society'. The Law Dictionary also says that, for something to exist
IN LAW, it must have a NAME. What is the NAME of the society that
has created the rules, to which you linked me? The rules at the
other end of the link http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/legislation/acts....
If you cannot NAME the society, DISTINCTLY, so as to distinguish it
from all other societies, then it CANNOT EXIST IN LAW. If that is
the case, then said society's rules are UNLAWFUL, are they not?
They have no 'force of LAW' What I requested was THE LAW that says
a Human Being is capable of being taxed. Please note my words here,
because I am a Human Being. What is a tax on a Human Being that
comes into this world inside its > skin? Is it an arm? A leg? A
finger, A big toe? What is it that can be taxed from Human Being? A
piece of my brain? Please, by the way, refer to the result of a
recent FoI request made by someone called Veronica Chapman. She
asked "How was money created?". The link is this:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th... Please
note the kind response from HM Treasury you will find in the
exchange. Please read not only the original question, but also the
response. In paragrph 5, Sentence 3 HM Treasury say, quite
categorically, 'money has no value'. They subsequently support this
in Sentence 8, where they say (effectively) the best thy can be
done is to change one £20 for two £10s, etc. or four £5s, and so
on. That the BEST that can be done. A banknote is an empty-handed
Promissory Note. I 'promise to pay until the end of time'. An
empty-handed IOU OF NO VALUE. The reason is simple Mr. Sharpe.
'Money' is an illusion. It has 'no value'. Where, therefore, is THE
LAW that says (a) That 'money' is real (contrary to HM Treasury
who, surely, should know), and (b) That a Human Being 'has it' when
they come into the world, and the 'LEGAL FICTION AND NOT EVEN
EXISTENT IN LAW' GOVERNMENT or HMRC Agency always has the right
take its cut? Sincerely without ill-will, vexation or frivolity,
Jon: of the Hallam family

Link to this

From: Sharpe, John (G&S)
HM Revenue and Customs

12 March 2009

Dear Mr Hallam,

Thank you for your e-mail which I note with interest.

Your request under the Freedom of Information Act to which I replied was
for very specific and clearly defined information; as I said, HMRC does
not hold it.

There is nothing more I can usefully add.

Yours sincerely

John Sharpe

Governance & Security

HM Revenue & Customs

Room 4/52

100 Parliament Street

London

SW1A 2BG

Tel 020 7147 2412

Fax 020 7147 0666

[1][email address]

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.

HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.

This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

jon left an annotation (12 March 2009)

There is no LAW requiring human beings to pay income tax. There is however a STATUTE requiring PERSONS known as TAXPAYERS to pay. Statutes are legislated rules of a society given the force of law, by CONSENT of the governed. A society is defined as a group of people joined together by MUTUAL CONSENT to deliberate and act for a common goal. For a society to exist legally it must have a name. PERSONS and TAXPAYERS are not living beings, they are legal fictions, entities which the majority of the population is tricked into believing they actually are. This is done with the clever use of certain words, words which appear to be English, but are in fact, LEGASESE, a language of the law society.
I am not a PERSON, nor am I a TAXPAYER, DRIVER, CUSTOMER, HOMEOWNER, TENANT etc. These are all legal fictions or one man corporations, since they are corporations, they are subject to corporate law (statutes and acts). To find out more visit sites such as TPUC.org, FMOTL.com, FMOTL.com/forum, http://links.veronicachapman.com/LongArm...

Link to this

Veronica Chapman left an annotation (12 March 2009)

Jon: of the Hallam family is perfectly correct. HMRC have managed to dodge the issue here because it is merely an FoI, and not a case in court.

They were given ample opportunity to explain the true position IN LAW, i.e. under the Law-Of-The-Land, which is Common Law. Instead they chose to argue under Commerce Law being the Law-Of-The-Sea, and apply it to dry land. (OwnerSHIP, CitizenSHIP, HardSHIP, LordSHIP, "Your WorSHIP = Your WarSHIP" etc. ... Statute = Act = Commerce Law = Maritime Law)

They would not be able to get away with that sleight-of-hand if jurisdiction were ever challenged in a properly-convened court de jure because 'taxing a Human Being' is a biological impossibility.

Link to this

Nick Peters left an annotation (12 March 2009)

All very interesting as an academic discussion, but utterly pointless. Maybe I am missing something, but who is going to deprive a police officer of their job and home should they taser me after I have wrriten my claim of rights or whatever it's supposed to be called? Do I deserve to be tasered if I have just stabbed someone?

Like it or not, human beings have developed a set of rules by which the majority of people are happy to live. This includes parking rules.

Link to this

jon left an annotation (12 March 2009)

Nick, if you have just stabbed someone, you deserve everything you get, stabbing someone is outside common law, that's not the point we are making. Common Law is a good idea, it is common sense.

Link to this

Nick Peters left an annotation (13 March 2009)

The point you seem to be making is that under common law you believe that you do not have to pay income tax, NI, or have your vehicle/automobile/car registered. Am I correct in this?

Link to this

Veronica Chapman left an annotation (14 March 2009)

Nick, you have already admitted you are missing something.

You are missing the most important & fundamental point. A Claim of Right is a solemn Common Law Oath NOT to cause harm, injury or lass to anyone else FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER and NOT to breach the peace, and THEREFORE to Claim the Right NOT to have it done to you.

If that Oath is ever broken, then of course the full penalty AS PRESCRIBED BY COMMON LAW - WHICH MEANS IT MUST BE BASED ON THE VERDICT OF A JURY - is to be expected.

Before you start an argument - and this is NOT a public forum that - get your facts right, otherwise you just end up with egg on your face.

Link to this

Veronica Chapman left an annotation (14 March 2009)

One other thing, Nick. If you want further information - and are serious about that - you can e-mail me directly via this site. I assume to can find the link to my name?

I'll be quite happy to explain the ins & outs of all this to you, because HAPPILY both Jon & I are real.

Link to this

Alex Skene left an annotation (14 March 2009)

I'd like to remind all posters to this request the rules on annotations, which are designed to help people with their FOI requests:

"Endless, political discussions are not allowed. Post a link to a suitable forum or campaign site elsewhere."
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Any future annotations to this thread not in line with the rules will be removed, along with the current annotations. If you have any questions on this policy, please contact team@whatdotheyknow.com

Thanks

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
HM Revenue and Customs only: