Learn how you can Legally and Safely Defund the Swamp with Freedom Law School.

Joe first met Peymon in 1997, while Joe was still working as an IRS criminal investigator. Peymon assisted Joe in finding and learning facts and evidence that about the federal income tax that Banister's previous university, CPA, IRS education and training did not provide. Peymon founded Freedom Law School in the 1990s and has been educating the American people about their rights for over 30 years.

Peter Gibbons
‍
Tax Attorney that is partnered
with Freedom Law School.

Peter Gibbons, a key figure in Aaron Russo's documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism," boldly challenges the need for federal income tax to fund the government. He is well-versed in the intricacies of the 16th Amendment, advocating for financial and governmental reform with passion and insight.

He now works along side Peymon Mottahedeh.

Larry BeCraft
‍
Attorney At Law,
Huntsville, Alabama

Larry has centered his interests upon the defense in criminal and civil litigation, especially in cases involving constitutional issues.  Though home-based in Huntsville, Alabama, Larry practices pro hac vice in state and federal courts throughout the nation.

Robert Bernhoft
‍
Attorney At Law,
The Bernhoft Law Firm,
Austin, TX

Robert Bernhoft is a renowned trial attorney known for his expertise in tax defense, famously leading the 2005 trial team that acquitted former IRS Special Agent Joe Banister of all tax fraud and conspiracy charges. In 2007, Bernhoft successfully defended actor Wesley Snipes against tax fraud and conspiracy charges, achieving not guilty verdicts on all felony counts and stunning the national media.

Devvy Kidd
‍
Federal Government
Whistleblower

It was Devvy Kidd's appearance on a talk radio show in December,
1996 that provided Joe with the first clues that there was
something amiss with the federal income tax that he was
enforcing as an IRS criminal investigator. For more than 30 years
Devvy has tirelessly worked to awaken the American people to a
fuller understanding of their rights and the boundaries of
government power.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a collection of rules
created by the federal government, organized into 50 broad
subjects. Updated annually, each subject is divided into chapters,
then parts, and further into sections. Different parts are updated
at different times throughout the year.

Read the laws for yourself at governments official legal websites.

Title 26 is where you will find most laws about federal income
taxes in the United States. We recommend going to section 7701
to read the definitions of the terms in Title 26 before researching.

A coalition of Freedom Movement organizations and patriots dedicated to restoring what they see as the limited federal republic guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. They focus on issues related to taxation, specifically criticizing the IRS's application of income tax to Americans. They argue that there is no law making working Americans liable for income tax, and they advocate for individuals to fight for their economic rights and freedom from what they perceive as overreaching taxation.

Gould v. Gould (1917)

This Supreme Court case unveils how they interpret laws and their terms and definitions regarding taxes.

Go to page 153 and read the first new paragraph.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

This Supreme Court case clears up all of the confusion of how they read laws in the Internal Revenue Code. They make it simple to understand as well.

Go to page 942 and start at "When a statute"... near the end of the page. Read until "...not stated".

Hooven v. Allison (1945)

This Supreme Court case will provide what the 3 senses are of the term "United States" in law.

Start at the last paragraph on page 652 and read until, "...the Constitution".

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916)

This Supreme Court case reveals that the Sixteenth Amendment doesn't give Congress no new taxing power on American People.

Start on page 112 five lines from the bottom and start at "...the Sixteenth" and end at "...taxation".

Fox v. Standard Oil Co. (1935)

This Supreme Court case adds in addition to Stenberg v. Carhart case regarding terms and definitions of those terms in the law.

Start on page 96 and start at "...definition of" and end at "...for ourselves"

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916)

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113]  in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.

Start on page 112 five lines from the bottom and start at "...the Sixteenth" and end at "...taxation".

Southern Pac Co v. Lowe (1918)

We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 … and Hays, Collector, v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co. …, the broad content on submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income,' and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.

Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

​The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 Sup. Ct. 912, under the Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553, c. 349, 27), it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which such income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by article 1, 2, cl. 3, and section 9, cl. 4, of the original Constitution.

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v.
Howbert  (1913)

"for 'income' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from
labor, or from both combined."

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. (1918)

Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities

Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital;
not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain,
a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the
property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed,
and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the
recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal-
that is income derived from property.

Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v.
Smietanka (1921)

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112),
was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income'
was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was
formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from
both combined.' Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S.
399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285).

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
(1926)

After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Ct. 136; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Ct. 467; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , 40 S. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly.

Taft v. Bowers (1929)

Also, this court has declared: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.' Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , 40 S. Ct. 189, 193 (64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A. L. R. 1570). The 'gain derived from capital,' within the definition, is 'not a gain accruing to capital, nor a growth or increment of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested, and coming in, that is, received or drawn by the claimant for his separate use, benefit and disposal.'

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955)

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.

Commissioner v. Kowalski (1977)

In the absence of specific exemption, therefore, respondent’s [Trooper Kowalski’s] meal-allowance payments are income within the meaning of 61 since, like the payments involved in Glenshaw Glass Co., the payments are “undeniabl[y] accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the [respondent has] complete dominion.”