I talked with several people this week that seems to be regurgitating old arguments that are putting people into prison.

The classic argument is the statement “I am not the person”  “I am not the individual”  I agree they are not, however it is the way we argue is the way we lose.

Here is the government’s position on what and how they use the argument against you.  I even taken some of the quotes out of the court cases.

[2] Persons Liable for Title 26 Violations.

[a] Statutory definition of "person."

1. The term "person," as defined by I.R.C. § 7343, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. See also, United States v. Miller, 545 F.2d 1204, 1216 (9th Cir. 1976); Lumetta v. United States, 362 F.2d 644, 647 (8th Cir. 1966); Locke v. United States, 166 F.2d 449, 450-51 (5th Cir. 1948); Currier v. United States, 166 F.2d 346, 348 (1st Cir. 1948); United States v. Berger, 325 F. Supp. 1297, 1303-05 (S.D. N.Y. 1971), aff'd, 456 F.2d 1349 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 892 (1972).

2. Guardians and Executors. A Section 7203 case interpreted the term “person” to include a guardian or executor of estate. United States v. Jenning, 31 A.F.T.R.2d 73- 782 (9th Cir. 1973).

[b] Individuals. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500-01 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981).

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499,

 Mr. Sloan's "freedom from income tax theory" is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a "master" — not "servant" — of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws 501*501 of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. "All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages," regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell, 755 F.2d at 519; cf. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937 (Studley's argument that "she is not a `taxpayer' because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a `person' under the Internal Revenue Code."). Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves," such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan's proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.

United States v. Condo, 741 F. 2d 238 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1984

We affirm the convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud through submission of false withholding forms), 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (willfully aiding the preparation of false W-4 forms), and 26 U.S.C. § 7205 (aiding the submission of fraudulent withholding exemption certificates).

Condo's first challenge to the tax laws derives from his alleged understanding of the constitutional reference to weights and measures and other references leading to his conclusion that current Federal Reserve notes are not valid currency, cannot be taxed, and are merely "debts." The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly rejected this theory as frivolous. United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963, 97 S.Ct. 393, 50 L.Ed.2d 332 (1976); United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 853, 97 S.Ct. 145, 50 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976).  READ THIS CASE, GOOD TO LEARN FROM https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2806578992306164192&q=United+States+v.+Condo,+741+F.2d+238&hl=en&as_sdt=40006  

United States v. Rice, 659 F. 2d 524 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1981

5. Rice Not a "Person"?

Finally, Rice contends that he is not a "person" required to file an income tax return by 26 U.S.C. § 7203, for violation of which he was convicted. He points out that 26 U.S.C. § 7343 provides that a "person", for such purposes, "includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership" (emphasis supplied) who has the duty to file such a return. In a nigh frivolous non-sequitur, Rice concludes from the statutory language that "[o]bviously, Section 7343 does not include the term `natural person'". Def. brief, p. 25. Perhaps so. Even more obviously, however, the statutory provision was not intended to exclude individual or to limit the ordinary meaning of the term "person" so as to exclude individuals or "natural persons", in counsel's phrase, from their responsibility to comply with the tax laws.