Do you pay federal income tax?

Freedom Law School says no court has ever ruled against its specific definitions argument. Its position is that the cases people cite involved different arguments — what it calls “patriot mythology” — not the reading of 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9)–(10). It points to Gould v. Gould (1917), where the Supreme Court said statutes levying taxes must be construed strictly and not extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. In the organization’s words: read the definitions themselves, and the law says what it says.

Its answer is step one of its own framework: verify the law for yourself. Get the actual Internal Revenue Code — not summaries, not commentaries — and read the complete definitions in context: § 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), the surrounding definitions, and the contrast sections where Congress wrote explicitly expansive definitions. Then, it says, get educated on the full method — its seminars, books, and courses — before deciding anything.

It says there are none if you follow its method correctly. Its claims: founder Peymon Mottahedeh has not filed or paid federal income tax since 1993; in more than twenty-four years of formally defending people, the IRS has never levied a member’s bank account, paycheck, or home; and membership carries a 100% guarantee — if the IRS takes a member’s assets and it is the organization’s fault, it reimburses the member in full. These are the organization’s claims; verify the current guarantee terms with Freedom Law School directly.

No — according to the Supreme Court, it gave Congress no new taxing power at all. Congress already had, in the Court’s words, the “previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning.” In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112–113 (1916), the Court said it was settled by Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), that “the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.”

What the Amendment did was narrower: it kept an income tax from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which, the Court said, it inherently belonged — and placed into the category of direct taxation, subject to apportionment — simply because of the source the income came from. The Court repeated the point in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920): the Amendment did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, it only removed the need for apportionment for a tax already within Congress’s power. Read the Court’s own words in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.

No. This is an independent guide. It is not operated by, endorsed by, or affiliated with Freedom Law School. Positions described here are the organization’s, presented with links so you can read them in its own words.

It describes a “100% guarantee” on its site: if the IRS takes a member’s assets and it is the organization’s fault, it says it reimburses in full. The wording, conditions, and track record are the organization’s claims — verify the current terms with Freedom Law School directly rather than relying on any summary here.

Freedom Law School says it depends on the state. In the seminar, Peymon notes that many state income taxes piggyback on the federal return, so the state question changes if you are not in the federal system — but states differ, and a few are named by the organization as stricter. Check your own state’s law; nothing here covers it.

You shouldn’t take our word for any of them. Every statute quotation links to the official United States Code published by the Office of Law Revision Counsel, and the one-page cheat sheet lists each citation so you can check every quote yourself.