Cracking the Code_ The Truth About Taxation in America
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 14 minutes
Words per Minute
139.75685
Summary
Peter Henriksen is the author of Cracking the Code, a book that explains how the U.S. tax code works, why it exists, and why it's one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history.
Transcript
00:00:29.800
This is Radio 314 on the Red Ice Radio Network.
00:00:47.220
I'm super thrilled to introduce you to my next guest, Peter Henriksen, the author of Cracking the Code.
00:00:52.920
If you want to crush and tear down the Matrix a whole lot more, keep listening.
00:00:56.300
You're about to hear about a complex combo of craft, bureaucratic incoherence and corruption
00:01:01.660
that has led the masses to inadvertently allow and participate in the legal transformation
00:01:06.120
of their untaxable earnings into taxable income.
00:01:09.800
You are being tricked into signing your money away.
00:01:12.740
The U.S. tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance.
00:01:18.080
The government will, of course, accept your money unless you inform it every year
00:01:21.680
that you are entitled to non-payment or to a refund of what you have paid.
00:01:26.480
Tens of thousands of readers of Cracking the Code have taken control of their own resources
00:01:35.500
Welcome, Peter. I've really been looking forward to this interview, so thank you for being here today.
00:01:41.380
First off, tell us a bit about your background and how you first began digging into the mythical beast
00:01:48.360
Well, I don't have a background specifically in law, although at this point in my life I'm pretty thoroughly self-educated.
00:01:56.080
But the origin of my interest arose in 1976, which was the bicentennial of the American Revolution.
00:02:03.960
And in that year, in keeping with the spirit of the occasion, I re-read the Constitution,
00:02:12.760
something I hadn't done in a number of years at that point, nor viewed as something necessary to be real familiar with.
00:02:22.320
I was a young man at the time, and probably not a whole lot more interested in that sort of subject than anyone else of my age.
00:02:31.440
But I did read it then, and I was struck by an anomaly.
00:02:35.900
The Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution has a specification, a tax-related specification,
00:02:42.260
and it says that capitations and other direct taxes shall be apportioned.
00:02:47.080
And that's actually repeated in another spot in the Constitution.
00:02:50.200
It's the only thing that's actually in there twice.
00:02:54.440
And I looked up capitations, discovered what the mean of the constitutional meaning of capitations was,
00:03:01.780
which is, by the way, not what most people would imagine.
00:03:04.740
And people tend to think of that as a head tax and translate that into a poll tax.
00:03:15.540
Constitutionally, a capitation is a tax on undistinguished revenue.
00:03:21.540
And looking at that definition and looking at the income tax as it appears to be being administered,
00:03:28.280
it seemed to me that the income tax is a capitation.
00:03:35.340
So I was struck by that, and it bothered me, and I began looking further into the subject of the income tax
00:03:44.260
I mean, not a big subject in the sense of a massive study, although it is that too,
00:03:50.560
but it's a big subject in terms of its importance.
00:03:53.200
If you look at the significance of the income tax in American life,
00:04:00.120
it absorbs something on the order of maybe 35% to 45% of all the earnings of most every working American,
00:04:14.680
It's far and away the biggest single financial factor in anybody's life,
00:04:21.820
in any American's life, at least any American, until the last 10 years.
00:04:29.420
So it's the 800-pound gorilla in the living room.
00:04:32.360
It's a really big subject in that sense, in the sense of its importance.
00:04:37.540
It's also a big subject in the sense of being a grueling study.
00:04:40.800
And back in 1976 and in the years from there up through the turn of the century,
00:04:46.760
it was an impossible subject because the tax code alone is about 3.5 million words.
00:04:55.700
And that's intended to be a helpful condensation of the actual statutory language
00:05:02.100
that is reflected in the code, which is much larger, perhaps twice as big,
00:05:07.860
And on top of that, there is a regulatory body of associated material that's bigger still.
00:05:15.280
So if you add the volume necessary to pour through to really get an accurate understanding
00:05:23.320
of this subject of the law, you're talking perhaps 15 million words,
00:05:31.720
And not easy text, but the typical, confused, legalese jumble of apparent gibberish
00:05:40.420
requiring a lot of study and teasing out of meaning and so forth.
00:05:45.640
And during that period from 1976 to the turn of the century,
00:05:50.960
it was virtually impossible to make any sense of it.
00:05:53.420
If you think about that volume of material, you're talking about, you know,
00:05:58.660
not perhaps an entire library's worth of material, but a big chunk of a library.
00:06:02.900
And to study it and read through it, by the time anyone got any meaningful fraction,
00:06:09.800
or not even a meaningful fraction, just a slight fraction of the way through that volume,
00:06:16.580
And it would be impossible to remember what you'd started seeing when you began the study.
00:06:20.500
So it's just impossible to really make proper sense of.
00:06:24.100
And no wonder then that, you know, everyone has always just kind of taken their accountant's word
00:06:29.000
for the obligations imposed by the code or the law or their tax attorneys or, you know, the IRS.
00:06:36.420
Most people just do what their mother or father told them to do in terms of activities.
00:06:45.160
So, again, up till the turn of the century, 2001 actually in my case,
00:06:54.600
However, at that time, I was compelled to begin a new study of the subject,
00:07:00.820
having kind of prior to that decided that the best I could do was presume that the tax was simply being imposed
00:07:09.960
in defiance of the constitutional rules, in defiance of that portion of the rule that I referred to earlier,
00:07:15.860
which is, by the way, the distribution of an established tax total amongst the state governments.
00:07:24.420
And the portion tax is remitted by the state governments, not remitted by the citizens.
00:07:29.100
And the founders set things up so that the federal government never has direct access to citizens' resources.
00:07:37.060
There is no such thing as a tax structure under our federal system
00:07:42.060
in which the federal government can actually reach directly into a citizen's pocket.
00:07:46.140
So, in 2001, I was compelled to renew my study.
00:07:56.040
It had become kind of a relaxed take on the subject.
00:08:02.420
I was compelled to renew my study because, at that time, contrary to past practices,
00:08:07.960
an IRS official decided that the return that my wife and I had filed for the year 2000,
00:08:15.580
which had on it a disclaimer that was the same as what we had been putting on our returns
00:08:21.180
for all the time we had been filing them, which says that we stand by the numbers on the form
00:08:26.740
in terms of representative of our earnings, but we refused to declare those earnings
00:08:31.140
to qualify as income, as that term is meant in the context of the form.
00:08:38.880
No one had ever raised an eyebrow or taken any issue with it, but this time somebody did.
00:08:45.000
And they said that they'd be happy to process our form as long as we would remove that disclaimer.
00:08:53.040
And they said, we have to endorse, my wife and I have to endorse, the characterization of our earnings
00:09:00.900
as income for the service to be able to process the return.
00:09:08.700
Suddenly, you know, maybe as a consequence of the things I'd learned previously,
00:09:12.780
what little I'd been able to glean from looking at the hard copy material
00:09:19.780
The light bulb went off and said, and I said to myself, why does it matter whether we say
00:09:31.160
If it does qualify, it wouldn't matter whether we said so or not.
00:09:35.020
We could disagree all day long, we could agree all day long, it wouldn't make any difference.
00:09:38.100
If it's an objective truth, it's objectively the case, then it doesn't matter what we say.
00:09:44.900
And they said, well, we've got to have you guys say that it's income.
00:09:48.140
And so, you know, the conclusion was fairly obvious.
00:09:52.600
There was something, it was not objectively income, or at least couldn't be taken to be
00:09:56.480
objectively income, and there was something really critical in the application of the tax
00:10:00.780
in the fashion that it is administered to our saying that our income qualified.
00:10:07.380
And that renewed my study, my interest, because I wasn't going to back down on this subject,
00:10:13.140
and the IRS indicated they weren't going to either.
00:10:17.160
And so I began studying again, and this time I had the benefit of the fact that the tax law
00:10:21.900
had been digitized, and I could actually tear into it with a computer.
00:10:25.400
Suddenly, that seven million words or more was searchable, you know, in seconds.
00:10:35.200
One of the key things about the tax, the way the law is set up, it uses many terms of art,
00:10:42.200
which are homonyms for common words, but that have special statutorily provided meanings.
00:10:50.360
And in the study of the law, it's very critical to understand these things,
00:10:54.600
and when looking at the hard copy, this is one of the things that was most impossible
00:10:57.440
about trying to do this prior to digitalization.
00:11:00.440
One would encounter a term, not necessarily know it's a term, first of all,
00:11:05.440
because the definition would not appear at the same place as the term first appeared.
00:11:11.620
And maybe as many as 400,000 words later, you would come across the meaning that that term has
00:11:17.840
in the place that you first found it 400,000 words earlier.
00:11:25.140
In the intervening time, until you got to the definition,
00:11:27.720
you would have been presuming and letting, you know, percolate into your head
00:11:31.480
and, you know, become sort of a fixed picture, that the term has its normal meaning,
00:11:38.960
Because, again, it will not have been presented as special at that point.
00:11:43.140
And when you finally learn it, it just becomes, it's impossible to integrate
00:11:49.860
But having the digital version, suddenly these things can be addressed
00:11:56.440
And once I discovered that these special terms were in use,
00:12:00.760
which was, you know, part of the light bulb moment when they said,
00:12:03.760
we have to use this term, we have to apply this term to our earnings
00:12:09.340
That told me that, you know, income is not the all that comes in
00:12:14.700
And it isn't, you know, a casual word or term in the law.
00:12:22.540
So my study then began focusing on these terms of art.
00:12:27.660
And once those were sorted out and known, reading through the law,
00:12:37.040
And it all was coherent and harmonious and fully constitutional as well.
00:12:45.860
one of the world's most vehement opponents of the income tax
00:12:51.140
and critics of it as an unconstitutional, you know, rogue government affair
00:12:58.260
and the one best able to explain how and why it is indeed a fully constitutional tax,
00:13:06.080
not only fully constitutional, but a benign and actually beneficial tax.
00:13:10.440
It's a tax I would not be without at this point.
00:13:13.260
As much as I had disliked it, denounced it, and condemned it in the past,
00:13:31.900
what do you know about the origins of the income tax?
00:13:34.440
Well, it's quite different than the mythology that people are led to imagine.
00:13:44.720
Its origin has nothing whatsoever to do with the 16th Amendment.
00:13:51.520
but was replaced in its entirety the following year.
00:13:54.700
So 1862 is the actual birth date of the income tax we know and loathe today.
00:13:59.900
It was a tax born during the war between the states.
00:14:24.660
King's Revenue Version No. 9 from the English system,
00:14:31.240
in which the king taxes privileged beneficiaries,
00:14:42.020
those are actually synonymous terms in tax law.
00:14:49.160
It's a piece of the action on gains made from the use of federal stuff.
00:14:59.920
And, you know, the name actually says the whole story.
00:15:03.520
The name describes exactly the nature of the income tax.
00:15:14.420
and not income in the common sense of the word,
00:15:21.920
hope that it will be understood going forward in this conversation
00:15:28.660
And I'm referring exclusively to the subclass of all that comes in
00:15:37.040
or what might come in in any given budget or household
00:15:40.820
of the part from the use of the beneficial use of federal stuff.
00:15:45.820
And in most people's budgets and households, that's nothing.
00:15:51.200
Most people don't have anything that qualifies as income
00:15:57.080
because most people don't use federal privileges
00:16:05.700
The law is pretty explicit about what qualifies.
00:16:14.120
And really, it is within the range of what qualifies.
00:16:21.520
although not literally all of it is actually taxed.
00:16:24.080
So, but while perhaps 30, maybe 40 million Americans
00:16:32.040
do have a taxable amount of this quote-unquote income,
00:16:43.920
really very important to anybody and everybody.
00:16:53.260
Yeah, there's been complete consistency on the subject.
00:17:02.720
that are actually brought up by the litigators.
00:17:10.160
that may seem a little bit strange at first glance
00:17:13.580
until it's, the actual underlying cases are looked into
00:17:17.740
and it's discovered what actually is being argued about
00:17:25.260
But yet complying with the law is much different
00:17:29.140
Well, you know, the fact is the IRS doesn't cross the line,
00:17:34.140
or rarely anyway, crosses the line into violating
00:17:41.800
They nurture a reputation of being this, you know, junkyard dog agency
00:17:50.300
and they like, I think, for people to imagine them
00:17:54.640
to skirt the law, to operate kind of outside the law,
00:18:05.880
just as was revealed in that light bulb moment that I had,
00:18:09.420
people are brought to impose the tax on themselves
00:18:24.300
They readily and happily exploit ignorance on any of these subjects
00:18:29.840
and they will, they will operate like a junkyard dog
00:18:32.940
when they are given a plausible reason to do so,
00:18:46.440
and this is also the way that it misoperates, so to speak.
00:19:15.460
But the conditioning is that this is what you do
00:19:18.060
and it's sort of a path of least resistance affair.
00:19:21.720
You know, your accountant will tell you that this is true,
00:19:23.860
your tax attorney will tell you that this is true,
00:19:40.040
If you pay anybody wages, you have to report it.
00:19:46.440
What they don't tell you is that all of those things
00:20:02.140
by the way, these are all specially defined terms.
00:20:03.760
Go look them up before you do what I just told you.
00:20:09.300
you report all the trade or business payments made,
00:20:15.120
what they actually are doing when they do that,
00:20:32.320
and they declare a legal status of that amount.
00:20:35.560
There's an assertion made by the creator of the form
00:20:44.720
Those forms are only to be used for that kind of payment,
00:20:52.840
a copy of it gets sent to the taxing authorities,
00:21:09.780
it does not say report how much you paid a worker.
00:21:13.760
What it does say is report how much was paid to a worker
00:21:36.300
And if they did look, and even if they read that part,
00:21:40.580
that they would find if they went to the trouble
00:21:59.200
it is taken as an allegation, a formal allegation,
00:22:02.540
that that worker, Joe Smith, whatever his name is,
00:22:06.560
was paid in connection with a federally privileged activity.
00:22:17.980
and it was not sent to him in order to help him
00:22:20.580
write the correct numbers down on his tax forms.
00:22:26.680
putting him on notice that an allegation was made,
00:22:49.460
maybe because he doesn't know any better either,
00:22:56.780
but it was not in connection with the federal privilege,
00:22:59.480
so, you know, there actually were no wages paid at all,
00:23:02.980
meaning wages as defined in those sections of law.
00:23:08.180
in the legal transformation of their untaxable earnings
00:23:14.720
does not cross the line into doing something illegal.
00:23:16.960
In this case, they're not going to tell somebody,
00:23:57.660
or keep whatever was withheld or what have you.
01:07:07.580
things and become responsible grown-up Americans
01:07:16.340
It seems like the relationship between government
01:07:18.040
and citizen today is much different than perhaps
01:07:22.960
Maybe they weren't such bad guys after all, huh?
01:07:29.480
tax code was brilliantly cunning, deceitful, and
01:07:31.660
deliberately confusing, but you, Peter, are even
01:07:33.940
more brilliant and victorious for cracking this
01:07:35.700
code and deconstructing the lie, so I thank you
01:07:37.680
for all your hard work and your courage to come
01:07:42.320
Well, thank you very much, and it's been a great
01:07:45.540
I encourage all of you listening to visit Peter's
01:08:15.000
One more thing. Some fear that if enough people
01:08:19.480
be would simply change constitutional law since
01:08:21.980
they already disregard it and do what they want
01:08:43.740
whether done by law or outside of it. Take care.