The answer to this question is nuanced and widely misunderstood, even by many who feel certain they know the correct answer.

If you are a taxpayer (“The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14)), then yes, you are legally obligated to file and pay a federal income tax. Failure to do so may result in fines, penalties, collection activity, and even criminal prosecution.

If you are a non-taxpayer, there is no law requiring you to file or pay a federal income tax. The term “non-taxpayer” is not found within the 10,000 pages of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically because non-taxpayers are outside the scope of those laws. (“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope.” Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110, 113 (2d Cir. 1916).)

This concept is explained in greater detail throughout this FAQ, but in short, those born or naturalized within the 50 states of the Union (or born to at least one parent who was) are born under the protection of the Constitution. They are born as non-taxpayers, and there is no law requiring a non-taxpayer to file or pay a federal income tax.

Accordingly, if you have never filed a federal income tax return or signed an IRS Form 1040, and you were born or naturalized within the 50 states of the Union (or to at least one parent who was), you are a non-taxpayer and there is no law requiring you to file or pay a federal income tax.

Those who have filed IRS Form 1040 — thereby “electing” to become taxpayers — are legally obligated to file and pay a federal income tax, as they have relinquished their constitutional protections and assumed taxpayer status.

Americans who unknowingly elected to become taxpayers may revoke that election through a Revocation of Election affidavit and reclaim their Constitutional protections and birthright status of non-taxpayer.

Title 26 of the United States Code (“26 U.S.C.”) does not impose federal income tax obligations upon non-taxpayers; rather, it governs those classified as statutory taxpayers under the Internal Revenue Code.

The term “non-taxpayer” does not appear anywhere within the more than 10,000 pages and approximately 3.4 million words of the Internal Revenue Code. This distinction is significant because the federal revenue laws apply to taxpayers, not to non-taxpayers.

As stated by the court in Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110, 113 (2d Cir. 1916):

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope.”

The Internal Revenue Code establishes obligations only for those individuals who are properly classified as taxpayers under federal law, and not for non-taxpayers who fall outside the scope of Subtitle A federal income tax provisions.

The 16th Amendment is considered the law of the land and part of the Constitution of the United States, even though it was demonstrably ratified via fraud. Regardless, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new taxation power.

Furthermore, the 16th Amendment specifically and only applies to “the several States,” which, as defined in 26 U.S.C., includes only the "the states" (defined only to include the District of Colombia) and  the District of Columbia (not a typo) and not the fifty States of the Union.

The fifty States of the Union fall under the protections of the Constitution of the United States. The territories do not. The Constitution is not the law of the land within the U.S. territories. Federal territories and zones are governed directly under the legislative authority of Congress.

Congress circumvented the Constitution for federal income tax purposes by referring to the District of Columbia as the “United States” in the tax code, and then announcing that “all United States citizens who meet the income threshold must file and pay a federal income tax.” While technically true, the statutory definition of “United States” for federal income tax purposes includes only “the States” (defined to include only the District of Columbia) and the District of Columbia itself. (Not a typo.) This occurred in 1913, the same year the federal income tax laws were signed into law and the 16th Amendment was allegedly ratified.

It is obvious that the 16th Amendment, which allegedly permits unapportioned direct taxes, must apply to a different “United States” than the fifty States of the Union because Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution—which prohibits unapportioned direct taxes—has never been repealed and remains an active and effectual protection for Americans in the fifty States today.

It is illogical and impossible to have two parts of the Constitution in direct opposition to one another unless one of those provisions has been repealed. For example:

The 18th Amendment outlawed alcohol. The 21st Amendment made alcohol legal. The 18th Amendment said “no alcohol.” The 21st Amendment said “yes alcohol.” These two opposing constitutional provisions could not coexist simultaneously unless one was repealed, which is exactly what happened.

The 21st Amendment begins with the following language:

“The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, thereby eliminating the conflict. While the 18th Amendment technically remains part of the historical Constitution, it has no force or effect because it was repealed.

The 16th Amendment repealed nothing. Therefore, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 remains a live, active, and effectual part of the Constitution protecting Americans today.

Accordingly, if Article I has not been repealed, and the 16th Amendment has not been repealed, and one provision prohibits unapportioned direct taxes while the other allegedly permits them, this creates a monumental constitutional conflict requiring deeper inspection and explanation, which is what has been provided above.

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new taxation power and applies only to “the several States,” the statutory “United States,” and not to the fifty States of the Union.

Freedom Law Group (FLG) is a legal consultancy firm dedicated to helping Americans reclaim their Constitutional birthright status of non-taxpayer by following the law as written in 26 USC.

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope.” Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110, 113 (2d Cir. 1916)

Operating as a Private Member Association headquartered in Casper, Wyoming, FLG specializes in tax-related educational consulting but is not a law firm and maintains no affiliation with the American Bar Association.

FLG prepares and personalizes Revocation of Election affidavits and supporting documentation for clients nationwide.

Americans born or naturalized within the 50 states of the Union, or born to at least one parent who was, are born as non-taxpayers under the protection of Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution. They are protected from unapportioned direct taxes such as the Federal Income Tax and are outside the scope of the Internal Revenue Code.

This constitutional protection and status of non-taxpayer are relinquished when Americans sign and file their first Form 1040 and thereby “elect,” albeit unknowingly, to become taxpayers. (“The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14).)

After electing to become a taxpayer, one becomes legally obligated to annually file and pay a federal income tax. Failure to do so may result in penalties, interest, collection activity, and potential criminal prosecution.

The Revocation of Election process revokes the election made through the filing of the Form 1040 and restores the individual to their Constitutional birthright status of non-taxpayer. (“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers.” Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110, 113 (2d Cir. 1916).)

The Revocation of Election is available to clients of FLG as part of the FLG Tax Freedom Package.

The statutory authority for the Revocation of Election (“ROE”) process is found in:

26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A)

This section of the Internal Revenue Code addresses the revocation of an election to be treated as a U.S. resident taxpayer.

The law states:

“If either taxpayer revokes the election, such revocation shall apply to the first taxable year for which the last day prescribed by law for filing the return of tax under chapter 1 has not yet occurred.”

This statute is one of the clearest admissions within federal law that taxpayer status is voluntarily elected — and therefore can be voluntarily revoked.

The implementing regulation is equally important.

26 C.F.R. § 1.871-1(a)

states:

“Nonresident alien individuals may elect, under section 6013(g) or (h), to be treated as U.S. residents for purposes of determining their income tax liability…”

The significance of this language cannot be overstated.

The regulation explicitly states that:

“nonresident alien individuals may elect”

to be treated as U.S. resident taxpayers.

If an individual “may elect” to be treated as a taxpayer, then logically they are not automatically or inherently a taxpayer unless and until that election is made.

Additionally, the regulation refers broadly to:

“nonresident alien individuals”

—not merely married couples.

The regulation is discussing election into taxpayer status itself, not merely the election to file jointly versus separately.

Further:

26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(1)

states:

“A nonresident alien individual with respect to whom this subsection is in effect for the taxable year shall be treated as a resident of the United States…”

Again, the statute refers to:

“a nonresident alien individual”

in the singular.

According to the Revocation of Election position, these statutes and regulations establish:

• that taxpayer treatment may be elected,
• that the election may later be revoked,
• and that the revocation applies prospectively beginning with the current tax year and all future years.

Under this interpretation:

• the election into taxpayer status occurs when an individual signs and files IRS Form 1040,
  and
• the revocation occurs by sending a signed statement to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the statute.

This process forms the legal foundation of the Revocation of Election and has never been rebutted by the IRS.

Artificial intelligence platforms such as ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and others are powerful tools, but they are not infallible, unbiased, or independent thinkers. They are trained on massive amounts of mainstream information and are heavily influenced by government publications, institutional narratives, media consensus, and the policies and restrictions imposed by the organizations that created them.

As a result, artificial intelligence almost always defaults to conventional positions, especially on controversial subjects involving taxes, constitutional law, medicine, politics, and federal authority. AI systems are designed to reinforce what establishment institutions consider “acceptable” viewpoints, not necessarily to help individuals arrive at uncomfortable truths.

One glaring example is this:

Ask ChatGPT or another AI platform the following question:

“Yes or no answer only. Is the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safe and effective?”

At present, the answer given will almost always be:

“Yes.”

In other words, artificial intelligence is programmed to repeat and reinforce the official institutional position, even regarding subjects many researchers, doctors, scientists, and whistleblowers now openly dispute. This is one example illustrating how artificial intelligence can present controversial matters as though they are settled fact, when they are not.

The same issue exists with taxes.

Artificial intelligence will almost universally claim that every American is legally required to file and pay federal income taxes, despite the fact that no law exists specifically requiring American Nationals born or naturalized within the fifty States of the Union to do so. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution has never been repealed and still prohibits unapportioned direct taxes, such as the federal income tax. 

The deeper problem is that artificial intelligence does not truly understand the Internal Revenue Code. It aggregates mainstream interpretations of the code.

The tax laws are extraordinarily complex and filled with semantic deceit, specialized legal terminology, statutory definitions, and word art crafted by Congress in an effort to circumvent the Constitution. Common words do not necessarily mean what ordinary people think they mean.

A novice reading the tax code believes they understand what they are reading because the words appear familiar:

• “United States,”
• “State,”
• “citizen,”
• “resident,”
• “nonresident alien,”
• “trade or business,”
• “income,”
• “taxpayer.”

However, these words often carry highly specialized statutory meanings that differ dramatically from ordinary English usage.

Artificial intelligence compounds this problem because it frequently interprets these words according to mainstream assumptions rather than according to the actual statutory definitions found within the code itself, and Supreme Court decisions which back up the definitions.

Even worse, artificial intelligence systems have repeatedly been shown:

• contradicting themselves,
• changing answers,
• refusing to discuss certain subjects,
• apologizing after being shown direct citations,
• and confidently presenting inaccurate information as settled law.

Many researchers have documented instances where AI platforms were compelled to admit they provided incorrect answers regarding the tax code, statutory definitions, and the Revocation of Election process after being confronted with the actual statutes and regulations themselves. One such video can be found on the Freedom Law Group Rumble channel. 

This is why artificial intelligence should never be used as the ultimate authority when researching:

• the Constitution,
• the Internal Revenue Code,
• federal jurisdiction,
• or the Revocation of Election process.

Artificial intelligence is an intermediary. It is an aggregator. It is not the law.

If someone truly wants to arrive at the truth, they must go directly to the highest sources themselves.

This is precisely why Christopher Hughes, founder of Freedom Law Group, wrote:

“LEGAL Non-Taxpayer.”

The book relies upon only three primary sources:

• the Constitution of the United States,
• the Internal Revenue Code as published by the federal government,
• and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are no higher legal sources in the United States than these three.

Not ChatGPT.
Not Grok.
Not artificial intelligence.
Not media fact-checkers.
Not internet commentators.

The Constitution, the statutes, and Supreme Court decisions are the highest authorities.

One of the greatest values of the book is that every important citation is already provided for the reader. Individuals can simply:

• copy the citation,
• paste it into Google,
• go directly to the government website,
• and read the law for themselves word-for-word.

Read the Constitution for yourself.
Read the statutes for yourself.
Read Supreme Court decisions for yourself.

Do not allow artificial intelligence to do your thinking for you.

If you allow artificial intelligence, media narratives, and institutional gatekeepers to interpret reality on your behalf, you may never arrive at the truth for yourself.

Additionally, the IRS itself has published what it considers to be the definitive and exhaustive list of "frivolous tax arguments." The publication is titled:

“The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”

and spans approximately sixty pages.

Within those sixty pages, the IRS addresses virtually every known argument commonly advanced by tax protesters in their attempts to avoid or eliminate what the IRS considers their legal obligation to file and pay federal income taxes.

Yet nowhere within that publication will you find:

• the term “Revocation of Election,”
• any discussion of the Revocation of Election process,
• or any reference whatsoever to 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g),

which contains the statutory authority relied upon for the Revocation of Election process.

The significance of this omission cannot be overstated.

The Revocation of Election is not presented as a frivolous argument because it is fundamentally different from the typical arguments made by tax protesters. It is not an argument claiming that “income taxes are unconstitutional,” nor a claim that “wages are not income,” nor any of the other commonly rejected positions identified by the IRS.

Rather, the Revocation of Election is based upon a statutory remedy codified directly into federal law allowing a nonresident alien individual who previously elected to be treated as a U.S. resident taxpayer to revoke that election.

To date:

• no IRS publication,
• no IRS form,
• no IRS notice,
• no IRS revenue ruling,
• no IRS memorandum,
• no IRS correspondence,
• and no other known IRS authority

has ever declared the Revocation of Election process itself to be frivolous.

Likewise, the IRS has never published any formal position stating that 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A) is not a lawful mechanism for revoking a prior election to be treated as a taxpayer.

The law expressly states:

“If either taxpayer revokes the election…”

According to the Revocation of Election position, the IRS lacks the authority to rewrite, contradict, or nullify federal statutes enacted by Congress. The IRS may administer the tax laws, but it does not possess the authority to change the written law itself.

For this reason, proponents of the Revocation of Election process, such as Freedom Law Group, maintain that 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g) provides a lawful statutory exit from taxpayer status for nonresident alien individuals who previously elected to be treated as U.S. resident taxpayers. This is a fact, never disputed by the IRS. 

The answer is:

yes and no.

American Nationals born or naturalized within one of the fifty States of the Union (or to at least one parent who was) are born free under the protections of the Constitution and are not automatically born as statutory taxpayers.

For these individuals, federal income taxes are initially voluntary because they are not born within the federal income tax system by default.

In fact, the Internal Revenue Code itself contains language recognizing certain taxes — including federal income taxes — as:

“gifts” and “bequests”

to the United States government.

This language appears in:

26 U.S.C. § 6096

which provides for:

“Voluntary payments, etc.”

and references:

“receipts for gifts, bequests, and similar payments made to the United States.”

The significance of this cannot be overstated.

If federal income taxes are considered gifts, bequests, or voluntary payments to the United States government, then by definition they are not inherently compulsory for those who have never entered the system as taxpayers. A compulsory tax is not ordinarily described as a “gift” or “bequest.”

Accordingly, American Nationals who have never signed and filed a Form 1040, federal income taxes are voluntary.

However, once an individual volunteers into the system by electing to become a taxpayer, the situation changes completely.

According to this position, the election occurs when an individual signs and files IRS Form 1040 and thereby elects to be treated as a taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code.

Once that election is made:

• the individual becomes a statutory taxpayer,
• the Internal Revenue Code applies to them,
• and filing and payment obligations are no longer voluntary.

At that point, the entirety of the federal income tax system applies because the tax code is written for taxpayers.

In other words:

• before volunteering, it is voluntary,
• after volunteering, it is no longer voluntary
  unless and until the election is lawfully revoked.

This is the purpose of the Revocation of Election (“ROE”) process authorized under:

26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A)

Once the Revocation of Election is properly submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury and/or the IRS, the individual restores their status as a non-taxpayer and is no longer under any legal obligation to continue filing and paying federal income taxes going forward.

It is also important to understand that federal income taxes were originally intended to apply directly to certain classes of individuals who do not possess this election choice in the same manner.

For example:

• federal employees,
• individuals living or working within federal territories or federal zones,
• and others operating directly within federal jurisdiction
  are generally treated as inherently subject to the federal income tax system.

For these individuals, federal income taxes are not voluntary because they are operating directly within federally connected employment or territorial jurisdiction.

They do not “elect” into the system in the same way, and therefore they generally cannot revoke participation in the same manner either.

Accordingly:

• for federally connected persons, federal income taxes are not voluntary;
• for American Nationals who have never entered the system via a signed 1040, they are voluntary;
• and for those who previously volunteered by signing a 1040, they remain legally obligated taxpayers unless and until they properly complete the Revocation of Election process.

A Revocation of Election is an affidavit used to lawfully revoke one’s election to be treated as a taxpayer, thereby restoring their Constitutional status of non-taxpayer and eliminating their legal obligation to file and pay a federal income tax.

The revocation process was codified into law by the United States Congress and is found in 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A). This section of the Internal Revenue Code instructs nonresident aliens (“NRAs”) how to revoke a prior election to be treated as a federal taxpayer by filing a signed statement with the Secretary of the Treasury. (98% of Americans are NRA’s — see the FAQ regarding NRA status.)

By filing a signed revocation statement with the Secretary of the Treasury (and/or the IRS), one may permanently terminate that election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(6) and no longer be classified as a taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The revocation applies to the current tax year and all future years, but is not retroactive to prior tax years.

The Revocation of Election is the lawful remedy codified within federal law. As part of the FLG Tax Freedom Package, Freedom Law Group prepares and personalizes a comprehensive 24-page, print-ready Revocation of Election affidavit for each client. Clients simply print, notarize, and mail the documents in accordance with the instructions provided.

The Tax Freedom Package is a comprehensive, done-with-you system designed to provide clients with everything needed to legally and permanently exit the federal income tax system.

For $1,497 per person (or $1,997 per couple), the package includes:

• A professionally prepared and personalized 24-page Revocation of Election affidavit
• Step-by-step instructions and guidance for properly executing the process pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)
• Lifetime access to the Tax Freedom Course, featuring 15 in-depth training modules explaining the law, the process, and how to navigate life as a legal non-taxpayer
• Lifetime access to educational resources, forms, explanatory statements, and supporting documentation
• Ongoing access to updates, educational materials, and our support team
• 90 days of complimentary email support (with optional lifetime support upgrades available)

Most clients recover the cost of the package within the first one to two months through increased take-home pay alone, and many continue saving $700–$1,000 or more per month thereafter. Over the course of a lifetime, the financial benefit may amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional retained income.

No. 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A) is not limited solely to married couples in the narrow manner commonly asserted by mainstream tax professionals, CPAs, attorneys, and the IRS.

These statutes and implementing regulations must be read carefully, slowly, and in their full context — not merely through the lens of section headers, assumptions, or conventional interpretations.

At first glance, many assume § 6013 applies only to married couples because the overall section is titled:

“Joint Returns of Income Tax by Husband and Wife.”

However, the Internal Revenue Code frequently contains provisions within broader sections that extend beyond the apparent limitation suggested by the title itself. The title of a section does not control or override the actual operative language contained within the statute and its implementing regulations.

The critical language appears within:

26 C.F.R. § 1.871-1(a)

which states:

“Nonresident alien individuals may elect, under section 6013(g) or (h), to be treated as U.S. residents for purposes of determining their income tax liability…”

The importance of this language cannot be overstated.

This regulation explicitly states that a:

“nonresident alien individual”

may elect to be treated as a U.S. resident taxpayer.

That means the individual is not automatically being treated as a taxpayer unless and until that election is made.

The regulation does not say:

“A married nonresident alien may elect…”

It does not say:

“A nonresident alien spouse may elect…”

It says:

“Nonresident alien individuals may elect…”

That distinction is monumental.

The regulation is discussing election into U.S. resident taxpayer status itself — not merely the election of filing jointly versus separately.

Additionally:

26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(1)

states:

“A nonresident alien individual with respect to whom this subsection is in effect for the taxable year shall be treated as a resident of the United States…”

Again, Congress uses the singular phrase:

“a nonresident alien individual”

—not “a married couple,” nor “a married nonresident alien spouse.”

This demonstrates that:

• § 6013(g)(1) addresses the election itself,
  while
• later subsections discuss how the election operates administratively in situations involving married persons and joint participation.

Critics of the Revocation of Election position improperly assume that because married persons are discussed in portions of the statute, the underlying election itself must therefore apply exclusively to married persons. That assumption is disproven by the implementing regulation itself, which broadly references:

“nonresident alien individuals”

electing to be treated as U.S. residents for purposes of federal income tax liability.

It would be completely illogical for Congress to create a mechanism allowing married individuals to elect into taxpayer status — and revoke that election — while supposedly denying any comparable remedy to single individuals.

The most important takeaway from this portion of the law is this:

Nonresident alien individuals may elect to be treated as taxpayers, and may revoke that election.

Nonresident alien individuals comprise the overwhelming majority of Americans — specifically American Nationals born or naturalized within one of the fifty States of the Union (or to at least one parent who was).

Nonresident aliens, who are not federal elected officials have no federal income tax liability unless and until they elect to be treated as a U.S. Resident/Taxpayer. This election is made when an individual signs and files IRS Form 1040, and, the election is revoked by sending a signed statement to the Secretary of the Treasury as described in the statute and implemented through the Revocation of Election process taught by Freedom Law Group.

Freedom Law Group (FLG) was founded by Christopher Hughes. Christopher’s mentor in the Revocation of Election space was widely regarded as one of the founding pioneers of the modern ROE movement before his passing.

After his mentor’s death, Christopher continued and expanded upon that work, further developing the Revocation of Election process, client education systems, administrative procedures, and support infrastructure now utilized by FLG.

Between Christopher and his late mentor, nearly 36,000 Americans have been assisted in completing the Revocation of Election process.

An American National is a man or woman born or naturalized within one of the fifty States of the Union (or born to at least one parent who was), meaning within the Constitutional Republic rather than within the statutory “United States,” which Congress defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9) as including only “the States” (defined to include only the District of Columbia) and the District of Columbia itself. (Not a typo.)

Freedom Law Group uses the term “American National” to distinguish the free men and women of the Republic from statutory designations such as “citizen of the United States” or “resident,” which carry specific legal meanings within the Internal Revenue Code. This distinction is critical to understanding the Revocation of Election process and why it applies to individuals outside federal territorial jurisdiction.

Americans have been led to believe that they are “U.S. citizens." However, based upon congressional definitions of “United States,” “State,” and related statutory terminology, Americans born or naturalized within the fifty States of the Union are not statutory “U.S. citizens” as contemplated under federal tax law, but are instead what FLG refers to as American Nationals.

As used by FLG, the term “American National” refers to those born or naturalized within one of the fifty States of the Union (or to at least one parent who was), who enjoy the inalienable rights protected by the Constitution, but who are not, by default, statutory “taxpayers” under the Internal Revenue Code.

For federal income tax purposes, the Internal Revenue Code defines a “nonresident alien” at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(1)(B) as “an individual who is neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States.”

Importantly, 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9) defines the term “United States,” when used in a geographical sense, as including only “the States” and the District of Columbia. Additionally, 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(10) provides that the term “State” shall be construed to include only the District of Columbia.

These statutory definitions illustrate two critically important points:

First, Congress utilized highly technical statutory definitions, word art and semantic deceit in order to circumvent Constitutional protections against unapportioned direct taxation.

Second, individuals born or naturalized within one of the fifty States of the Union (or to at least one parent who was), and not domiciled within the District of Columbia or federal territories, are properly classified as nonresident aliens for Subtitle A federal income tax purposes unless and until they voluntarily elect otherwise.

In other words, approximately 98% of Americans are, according to the specialized definitions contained within the Internal Revenue Code, nonresident aliens for federal income tax purposes.

Nonresident aliens are the only class of individuals within the Internal Revenue Code who generally possess no federal income tax liability absent engagement in specifically taxable activities (like being an elected official) or voluntary election into taxpayer status.

We The People of the Republic are nonresident aliens (according to the tax code) and possess no federal income tax liability prior to signing a Form 1040 or after properly completing the Revocation of Election process.

Yes. Under federal tax law, the statutory definition of “nonresident alien” in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(1)(B) is: “An individual who is neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States.” Because “United States,” when defined geographically in § 7701(a)(9), only includes the states (defined to only include the District of Colombia) and the District of Columbia (not a typo), individuals born or naturalized in one of the fifty States of the Union (or to at least one parent who was)—outside D.C.—are classified in law as nonresident aliens for federal income tax purposes, unless and until they voluntarily elect to be treated otherwise.

FLG is aware of no instances in which an FLG Tax Freedom client has been pursued by the IRS beyond automated, computer-generated correspondence issued by the agency.

As part of the Tax Freedom Package, FLG provides lawful rebuttal letters and supporting documentation designed to respond to and rebut such correspondence, which in most cases prevents further administrative escalation.

To date, no FLG clients have experienced a levy, lien, or other adverse enforcement action by the IRS for tax years properly covered by the completed Revocation of Election process.

There have been zero known instances in which the IRS has rejected, denied, or substantively disputed a Revocation of Election (“ROE”) affidavit prepared by Freedom Law Group (“FLG”).

The FLG Revocation of Election  includes a formal request within the affidavit stating that, should the IRS believe the document to be defective, invalid, or otherwise disputable, the agency is requested to provide written notice of such defect or dispute within 30 days.

In many cases — though not all — FLG clients receive written acknowledgment from the IRS confirming receipt of the client’s “correspondence” and advising that the agency requires an additional 60 days to review the matter. Combined with the original 30-day response period outlined within the affidavit itself, this effectively creates a 90-day statutory response window.

To date, the IRS has never disputed, rebutted, or denied an FLG Revocation of Election affidavit either within or beyond that 90-day response period.

All statutory taxpayers are required by law to file and pay a federal income tax, regardless of where they live. If one has signed and filed an IRS Form 1040, he or she has elected to become a statutory taxpayer and therefore have a legal obligation to annually file and pay a federal income tax.

After properly submitting a Revocation of Election affidavit — included as part of the FLG Tax Freedom Package — to the appropriate agencies of the national government, you will no longer be required to file and pay a federal income tax. You will reclaim your Constitutional protections as well as your birthright status of non-taxpayer.

Yes. Employers have unknowingly volunteered to act as withholding agents for the federal government. Just as there is no law requiring American Nationals to file and pay a federal income tax, there is likewise no law requiring American Nationals who own businesses to act as withholding agents. However, employers generally believe withholding to be a legal obligation and therefore withhold federal income taxes from employee wages accordingly.

Importantly, employers cannot withhold federal income taxes from employee wages without the employee’s instructions and authorization.

When an individual becomes employed and completes and signs IRS Form W-4, the employee is providing the employer with instructions, authorization, and permission regarding how much federal income tax should be withheld from their wages. By signing the W-4 in a traditional way, the employee is effectively instructing the employer to withhold federal income taxes on their behalf.

In most cases, employers simply follow the withholding instructions provided by the employee through the W-4 process and remit those funds to the federal government.

However, because withholding is tied to taxpayer status and the election process, many individuals who complete the Revocation of Election process later choose to update or modify their withholding documentation. Depending upon the circumstances, this may include:

• submitting a revised W-4,
• increasing allowances or dependents,
• or utilizing alternative withholding forms and procedures provided by FLG.

It is important to understand that employers may reject withholding forms they believe are incorrect “on their face,” and many payroll departments are unfamiliar with the legal concepts surrounding nonresident alien status, Revocation of Election, or alternative withholding procedures. As a result, some employers may continue withholding regardless of the employee’s position unless and until the matter is properly addressed administratively, although this is extremely rare. 

The FLG Tax Freedom Package and Tax Freedom Course provide education, forms, instructions, and guidance relating to withholding procedures and how clients may lawfully reduce or eliminate unnecessary federal income tax withholding after completing the Revocation of Election process.

You can still purchase a home without tax returns. Learn more here. 

Yes. Federal income taxes are legal. As the law is written, it is lawful for the national government, located within the District of Columbia (which is not part of the Constitutional fifty States of the Union), to impose taxes upon its citizens, residents, and employees operating within its territorial jurisdiction.

The IRS possesses jurisdiction within the federal territory of the District of Columbia and other federal territories. The IRS does not possess jurisdiction within the fifty States of the Union except with respect to individuals who have voluntarily entered federal tax jurisdiction by signing and filing IRS Form 1040 and thereby electing to become statutory taxpayers.

People absolutely can and do go to jail for tax evasion. However, virtually every high-profile criminal tax prosecution involves statutory taxpayers who either failed to file, failed to pay, concealed income, filed false returns, committed fraud, or otherwise violated the Internal Revenue Code after already placing themselves within federal tax jurisdiction.

In other words, those individuals were taxpayers under the law and were prosecuted because they violated laws applicable to taxpayers.

The Revocation of Election process is not about illegally evading taxes or refusing to comply with the law. Rather, it is based upon the position that many Americans unknowingly elected into federal taxpayer status through the signing and filing of IRS Form 1040 and related tax documents, and that federal law provides a lawful remedy to revoke that election through 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A).

Individuals who properly complete the Revocation of Election process are asserting and reclaiming their proper status of non-taxpayer, thereby placing themselves outside the scope of Subtitle A federal income tax laws.

This is a fundamentally different legal position than simply refusing to file or pay while remaining a statutory taxpayer.

Importantly, Freedom Law Group is aware of zero instances in which a properly completed FLG Revocation of Election client has:

• been criminally prosecuted,
• gone to jail,
• experienced a levy,
• suffered a lien,
• or endured serious IRS enforcement action
  for tax years properly covered by the Revocation of Election process.

In some cases, clients may receive automated or computer-generated IRS correspondence. However, FLG provides lawful rebuttal letters and administrative responses as part of the Tax Freedom Package, which in most cases prevents further escalation.

The distinction between a statutory taxpayer violating the law and a non-taxpayer asserting their lawful status is central to understanding the Revocation of Election process and your Constitutional protections. 

Freedom Law Group (“FLG”) maintains a perfect track record and leads the Revocation of Election (“ROE”) space in every measurable category. To date, there has never been an instance in which the IRS has substantively pursued an FLG client for tax years properly covered by a completed Revocation of Election process, beyond automated or computer-generated correspondence, for which FLG provides rebuttal templates and administrative response materials within the Tax Freedom Course.

Could the IRS attempt to pursue an FLG client anyway? Certainly. Although the IRS lacks jurisdiction over non-taxpayers, it is entirely plausible that a corrupt federal agency could overstep its lawful authority in an effort to intimidate or pressure an individual back into voluntary compliance. Should such a circumstance arise, FLG is prepared to work alongside the client to challenge and defeat such unlawful actions through its administrative and procedural processes.

At present, the Tax Freedom Package does not include IRS Defense Services (not to be confused with legal representation or legal defense provided by a licensed attorney). However, IRS Defense Services are available as an optional upgrade for those seeking additional protection, support, and peace of mind.

Clients who purchase the IRS Defense Services upgrade are guaranteed administrative support and procedural assistance should the IRS attempt to pursue them. FLG has developed and refined a process designed to compel the United States Tax Court to acknowledge a lack of jurisdiction and subsequently move for an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. FLG guarantees this result with a money-back guarantee. 

There is no court in the United States that may lawfully proceed in a matter where jurisdiction has been properly challenged yet not established. Where jurisdiction cannot be proven or asserted, dismissal is the only lawful remedy available to the court.

FLG proudly offers this service at a substantial discount as a one-time upgrade opportunity for Tax Freedom Package clients:

• $1,497 for unlimited incidents.

IRS Defense Services remain available after the initial offer period; however, they are then offered only at full price:

• $5,997 plus 10% of the assessed tax liability, penalties, and fees.

Accordingly, FLG strongly encourages clients to secure the IRS Defense Services upgrade at the time they purchase the Tax Freedom Package.

No, it is not lawful to simply “stop paying taxes.” Our clients do not merely “stop” paying taxes; rather, they lawfully revoke the election they unknowingly or mistakenly made to become statutory taxpayers. Once the Revocation of Election is properly received by the Treasury and the IRS, there is nothing to “stop,” because the individual is no longer under any legal, moral, ethical, or patriotic obligation to file or pay a federal income tax.

However, individuals who are statutory taxpayers — whether by voluntary election, by mistake, or by virtue of birth or residency within a federal zone or territory — do possess a legal obligation to file and pay federal income taxes. This is precisely why it is not lawful to simply cease filing or paying federal income taxes without first following the proper legal and administrative process.

The Revocation of Election process is designed to lawfully terminate taxpayer status pursuant to federal statutory authority, thereby restoring the individual to their proper status of non-taxpayer under the law.

If you are an American National and you have never filed an IRS Form 1040, you are a non-taxpayer protected under Article I of the Constitution and have no need for the Revocation of Election process. In such cases, there is no reason for the IRS to contact or pursue you because you have never elected into statutory taxpayer status.

However, if you have signed and filed a Form 1040 — even once — you have elected to become a statutory taxpayer and are therefore legally obligated to file and pay a federal income tax. Failure to do so may result in IRS enforcement actions, penalties, or prosecution.

If you are an American National who desires to be restored to your Constitutional protections and birthright status of non-taxpayer, you must complete the Revocation of Election process pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g), as instructed and provided by FLG as part of the Tax Freedom Package.

The Revocation of Election (“ROE”) process is based upon federal law and federal income tax administration. Freedom Law Group (“FLG”) does not provide direct support, representation, or consulting relating to state income taxes. However, it is important for clients to understand how many state tax systems operate in relation to the federal system.

Most states utilize what is commonly referred to as a “piggyback” tax system. This means the state income tax return begins with figures, definitions, classifications, adjusted gross income (“AGI”), and taxpayer information derived directly from the federal return. In practical effect, many state tax systems are built upon and dependent upon the federal income tax framework.

Some states are considered “straight piggyback” or “rolling conformity” states, meaning they automatically conform to the Internal Revenue Code as amended by Congress unless the state specifically decouples from a provision. Other states use “static conformity,” meaning they conform only to the Internal Revenue Code as it existed on a specific date.

Examples of states commonly considered strong federal piggyback states include:

• California
• New York
• Minnesota
• Wisconsin
• Virginia
• Maryland
• Oregon
• North Carolina
• South Carolina
• Georgia
• Colorado

In these states, the state return often relies heavily upon:

• federal adjusted gross income,
• federal filing status,
• federal taxable income,
• and federal taxpayer classification.

As a result, many researchers and tax professionals acknowledge that state income tax administration is often substantially dependent upon the existence of federal taxpayer status and federal income tax liability.

Additionally, several states do not impose a state income tax at all, including:

• Florida
• Texas
• Tennessee
• Nevada
• Wyoming
• South Dakota
• Alaska
• Washington

Other states apply unique hybrid systems or limited taxation structures.

Because every state has different statutes, definitions, administrative procedures, constitutional provisions, and enforcement policies, FLG does not provide state tax guidance or representation. However, many FLG clients who complete the Revocation of Election process ultimately determine that there is likewise no state filing obligation where no federal taxpayer status or federal liability exists.

Many FLG clients have chosen not to file state income tax returns after completing the ROE process, and to date, FLG is unaware of any client being pursued solely at the state level following a properly completed Revocation of Election process.

Clients are encouraged to independently research:

• whether their state piggybacks on federal AGI,
• whether their state uses rolling or static conformity,
• whether their state defines taxable income based upon federal taxable income,
• and whether their state imposes an independent filing obligation separate from federal taxpayer status.

Helpful resources for additional research include:

• the state department of revenue website for your state,
• state conformity charts,
• state tax codes,
• and the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC).

Millions of Americans do not file federal income tax returns every year.

According to IRS statistics and Census data, there are roughly:

• 260–270 million adults in the United States,
  yet the IRS typically receives only about:
• 160–170 million individual federal income tax returns annually.

Roughly 100 million American adults do not file a federal income tax return each year.

This group includes several different categories of people, including:

• individuals who do not meet the income threshold requiring filing,
• retirees living primarily on non-taxable income,
• students and young adults with little or no taxable income,
• individuals living entirely on government benefits,
• statutory taxpayers who failed or refused to file,
• and those who maintain they are non-taxpayers and therefore not legally required to file.

Importantly, the IRS does not publicly track or publish statistics regarding how many Americans identify or operate as non-taxpayers. Accordingly, the true number of Americans who lawfully live outside the federal income tax system could potentially be much larger than publicly reported filing statistics alone would suggest.

With the exception of the temporary Civil War-era federal income tax, the national government historically funded itself through tariffs, excise taxes, customs duties, and other indirect forms of taxation. For most of American history, the federal government operated without imposing a permanent federal income tax upon the American people.

In fact, during portions of the late 1800s, prior to the enactment of the modern federal income tax system, the United States Treasury accumulated such substantial cash surpluses that Congress reportedly formed special committees to determine how best to spend, allocate, or invest the excess revenues.

The reality is, the federal government never truly needed income taxes from the American people. According to the position maintained by many researchers, historians, constitutional scholars, and critics of the modern financial system, the federal income tax, the 16th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve System were crafted for the specific purpose of extracting and redistributing the wealth of the American people while enriching powerful banking interests, private financiers, and elite families operating behind the scenes of global finance.

Since 1913, critics argue that this system has enabled centralized financial interests to accumulate extraordinary influence and control over world leaders, politicians, judges, attorneys, celebrities, major corporations, power brokers, media organizations, food systems, information networks, entertainment industries, and public opinion itself. Through taxation, inflation, debt-based currency creation, and financial manipulation, enormous amounts of wealth have steadily been transferred away from ordinary Americans and into the hands of centralized institutions and unelected power structures.

From this perspective, how the national government chooses to fund itself is ultimately the concern of the national government itself. Non-taxpayers play no lawful role in financing that system and possess no legal obligation or burden to participate in it. While any individual may voluntarily contribute funds or gifts to the United States Treasury if they so choose, non-taxpayers are under no legal duty to file or pay federal income taxes.

President Donald Trump has publicly called for replacing or dramatically reducing the federal income tax system through the expanded use of tariffs and trade-based revenue. During his presidency and political campaigns, numerous tariffs were implemented on foreign goods and imports. Some of those tariffs remained in place and generated substantial revenue, while others were challenged, overturned, limited, or clawed back through court rulings and subsequent administrative actions.

To fundamentally replace the current federal income tax structure with tariffs or other indirect forms of taxation, the entire financial and political system would likely need to be significantly overhauled — including the IRS, the Federal Reserve System, and the modern federal income tax apparatus itself.

Such a transformation would require extraordinary political coordination and cooperation within both houses of Congress, as well as support from the Executive Branch and the courts. There is no guarantee that such reforms will ever fully occur.

In the meantime, the average American continues paying thousands of dollars per year in federal income taxes — often between seven thousand and ten thousand dollars annually, and in many cases substantially more.

There is no reason for American Nationals to simply “wait and see” what may or may not happen in Washington, D.C. The Revocation of Election process is available now and, provides a lawful mechanism for American Nationals to reclaim their status of non-taxpayer and retain their earnings regardless of whether the current federal income tax system ultimately survives, changes, or collapses altogether.

It depends on whether you are an employee or self-employed.

If you are employed by a company, then yes, you should expect Social Security and Medicare taxes to continue being withheld from your paycheck. These are payroll taxes, separate from federal income tax withholding.

After completing the Revocation of Election process and providing updated tax forms to your employer, the objective is to stop federal income tax withholding from your paycheck. That means the federal income tax portion that used to be withheld should instead go into your paycheck and your bank account.

However, as long as you remain a W-2 employee, Social Security and Medicare withholding will generally continue.

Self-employed individuals are different. Self-employed people typically pay into Social Security and Medicare through self-employment tax, which is usually calculated and paid alongside the Form 1040. After completing the Revocation of Election process, they are no longer filing a 1040, and therefore no longer paying self-employment tax through that process.

Social Security eligibility is based on “credits.” According to the Social Security Administration, most people need 40 credits to qualify for retirement benefits, which generally equals about 10 years of work because a person can earn up to 4 credits per year. In 2026, one credit is earned for each $1,890 of covered earnings, up to 4 credits per year.

Once someone has earned 40 credits, they have generally met the basic credit requirement for Social Security retirement benefits and premium-free Medicare Part A. However, the amount of Social Security they eventually receive is based on their earnings history, so the more a person pays into the system over time, the higher their eventual benefit may be.

Many Americans question whether Social Security will even be there for them in the future. And even if it is, the monthly benefit is often far smaller than what many people believe they could have built by investing that money privately instead of giving it to an irresponsible federal government.

For many FLG clients, the main goal is simple: stop unnecessary federal income tax withholding now, keep more of their money, and make their own decisions about saving, investing, and retirement.

The Revocation of Election (ROE) process applies to the current tax year and all future tax years. It is not retroactive to prior tax years.

This is one of the reasons proper timing is important. Once the ROE is properly executed and received by the Treasury and/or the IRS, the individual is revoking their election to be treated as a taxpayer going forward. However, the revocation does not automatically erase or eliminate obligations, disputes, or controversies relating to prior years in which the individual previously operated as a statutory taxpayer.

This principle is found directly within:

26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A)

which states:

“If either taxpayer revokes the election, such revocation shall apply to the first taxable year for which the last day prescribed by law for filing the return of tax under chapter 1 has not yet occurred.”

In simple terms, this means the revocation becomes effective beginning with the current tax year — specifically, the first tax year whose filing deadline has not yet passed — and then continues into all future years thereafter.

For example:

• if someone properly completes the ROE process during 2026 before the filing deadline for the 2025 tax year has passed, the revocation would apply beginning with the 2025 tax year and continue prospectively into future years.
• however, tax years prior to that would generally remain separate matters that may need to be independently addressed if controversy exists.

In most cases, this is not a problem.

The overwhelming majority of employers simply accept the updated withholding forms provided by the employee without challenge, dispute, or further inquiry. In fact, many employers today utilize online payroll portals or HR software systems that allow employees to update their own withholding information electronically without ever bringing the matter to the direct attention of payroll personnel or the employer themselves.

In other words, the employer does not necessarily need to “understand” the Revocation of Election process in order for the withholding changes to take effect.

For clients whose employers are open-minded or curious, Freedom Law Group (“FLG”) highly encourages sharing the book:

“LEGAL Non-Taxpayer”

which is available free of charge through the FLG website. The book helps explain the legal foundation behind the Revocation of Election process and often answers many of the questions employers or payroll personnel may have.

Employers generally possess a legal obligation to honor properly completed withholding documentation submitted by employees. However, IRS guidance also allows employers and payroll departments to reject forms they believe are “incorrect on their face,” which is the language commonly used by the IRS.

The Tax Freedom Course provided to all FLG clients includes the proper forms, instructions, and guidance relating to withholding procedures. There are two alternative withholding forms discussed within the course which are specifically designed for nonresident aliens. However, these forms are rejected by employers a majority of the time because most employers, payroll professionals, HR departments, and even accountants do not understand the legal distinctions between a “United States citizen” and a “nonresident alien” under the specialized definitions contained within the Internal Revenue Code.

When these alternative forms are rejected — which employers generally have the right to do if they believe the forms are incorrect on their face — the practical fallback option becomes the W-4 claiming exempt status.

With thousands of FLG clients nationwide, only two instances have ever been brought to the attention of FLG in which an employer refused to accept a properly completed W-4 claiming exempt status. Such situations are extremely rare.

In the unlikely event an employer refuses to accept a W-4 claiming exempt status, the remaining practical option is typically to claim a high number of allowances, dependents, or withholding adjustments on the W-4 in order to reduce federal income tax withholding to zero, or as close to zero as possible.

With thousands of FLG clients nationwide, only two instances have ever been brought to the attention of FLG in which an employer refused to accept a properly completed W-4 claiming exempt status. Such situations are extremely rare.

In the unlikely event an employer refuses to accept a W-4 claiming exempt status, the remaining practical option is typically to claim a high number of allowances, dependents, or withholding adjustments on the W-4 in order to reduce federal income tax withholding to zero, or as close to zero as possible.

Absolutely. In fact, a substantial percentage of Freedom Law Group (FLG) clients are business owners, entrepreneurs, investors, contractors, and self-employed individuals.

However, it is important to understand a key distinction:

The Revocation of Election (ROE) process applies to living men and women — We The People — not to artificial business entities created under statute.

Constitutional protections belong to the people, not to corporations, LLCs, or other statutory entities. The ROE process is based upon federal law and the restoration of one’s proper status as a non-taxpayer. It applies to the individual, not the business entity itself.

Accordingly, any legal obligations, filing requirements, licenses, registrations, or compliance responsibilities that existed for a corporation or entity prior to the ROE generally remain in place afterward. The ROE does not eliminate or alter legal obligations imposed directly upon the business entity itself.

That said, the way income flows from the business to the individual is extremely important.

For example:

• LLCs are generally acceptable,
• C corporations are generally acceptable,
• partnerships may be acceptable depending upon structure,
• but S corporations and LLCs with an S election create unique issues.

Under federal law, nonresident aliens are prohibited from being shareholders of an S corporation.

This prohibition is found in:

26 U.S.C. § 1361(b)(1)(C)

which states that an S corporation may not:

“have a nonresident alien as a shareholder.”

Accordingly, individuals pursuing the ROE process and claim nonresident alien status under the FLG framework generally cannot continue operating with an S election in place. In such situations, the S election typically must be revoked or the entity restructured prior to or in conjunction with completing the ROE process.

This is one of the many reasons FLG often discusses alternative entity structures with business-owner clients after the ROE process is completed.

In many cases, a single-member LLC is one of the simplest and most practical structures. Under IRS rules, a properly structured single-member LLC is generally treated as a “disregarded entity,” meaning the LLC itself does not typically file a separate federal income tax return. Instead, the activity ordinarily flows directly to the individual owner.

This can create significant simplicity because:

• after completing the Revocation of Election process, the individual no longer files a Form 1040,
• and if the business is a disregarded single-member LLC, there may likewise be no separate federal income tax filing requirement for the business itself.

For this reason, many FLG clients ultimately prefer simple structures such as:

• single-member LLCs,
• private member associations (offered by FLG),
• or straightforward holding entities,
  rather than complex S corporation structures designed primarily around the federal income tax system itself.

Yes. Having an LLC does not disqualify you from the Revocation of Election (ROE) process. In fact, many Freedom Law Group (FLG) clients are business owners and operate one or more LLCs.

However, it is important to understand that the Revocation of Election process applies to the individual — not to the LLC itself.

Constitutional protections belong to living men and women, not to statutory business entities. The ROE process is designed to restore the individual’s status as a non-taxpayer under federal law. It does not eliminate or alter any lawful obligations imposed directly upon a business entity.

For most clients, LLCs are perfectly acceptable structures to maintain after completing the ROE process. In fact, many FLG clients prefer LLCs because they are flexible, simple to manage, and may provide liability protection while still allowing the individual to operate privately and efficiently.

Single-member LLCs are particularly popular among FLG clients because the IRS generally treats them as “disregarded entities.” This means the LLC itself does not ordinarily file a separate federal income tax return. Instead, the activity typically flows directly to the individual owner.

This creates significant simplicity because:

• after completing the Revocation of Election process, the individual no longer files a Form 1040,
• and if the LLC is a disregarded single-member LLC, there may likewise be no separate federal income tax filing requirement for the LLC itself.

However, there is one major exception business owners must understand:

Individuals pursuing the Revocation of Election process under the nonresident alien framework generally cannot maintain an S corporation or an LLC taxed as an S corporation.

Federal law specifically prohibits nonresident aliens from being shareholders of S corporations.

This prohibition is found in:

26 U.S.C. § 1361(b)(1)(C)

which states that an S corporation may not:

“have a nonresident alien as a shareholder.”

Accordingly, if an individual has:

• an S corporation,
• or an LLC with an S election,
  that S election will generally need to be revoked or the entity restructured before or during the ROE process.

By contrast:

• standard LLCs,
• single-member LLCs,
• partnerships,
• and C corporations
  are generally acceptable structures

Yes—but with one important step. Nonresident aliens are not allowed to hold an S-Election by law, so after completing the Revocation of Election you would need to revoke your S-Election. This simply means your entity would revert to being treated as a standard LLC or C-Corp for tax classification purposes. We will walk you through this after you become a client. 

Yes. Owning a C-corporation does not disqualify you from completing the Revocation of Election (ROE) process. Many Freedom Law Group (FLG) clients are business owners who operate corporations, LLCs, holding companies, and other business entities.

However, it is critical to understand the distinction between:

• the individual,
  and
• the corporation itself.

The ROE process applies to the living man or woman — not to the corporation.

Constitutional protections and non-taxpayer status apply to We The People, not to statutory entities created under state or federal law. A corporation is a separate legal entity and remains subject to whatever filing, reporting, licensing, or compliance obligations apply to that entity under the law.

This means:

• the ROE process does not eliminate corporate filing requirements,
• does not dissolve the corporation,
• and does not automatically remove obligations imposed directly upon the corporation itself.

That said, owning or operating a C-corporation does not prevent an individual from reclaiming their status as a non-taxpayer through the ROE process.

Importantly, unlike S corporations, federal law does not prohibit nonresident aliens from owning or operating C-corporations. This is one reason C-corporations are generally considered compatible within the FLG framework.

By contrast, S corporations and LLCs taxed as S corporations create problems because federal law explicitly prohibits nonresident aliens from being shareholders of S corporations.

That prohibition is found in:

26 U.S.C. § 1361(b)(1)(C)

which states that an S corporation may not:

“have a nonresident alien as a shareholder.”

This restriction does not apply to C-corporations.

As a practical matter, many FLG clients continue operating legitimate businesses after completing the Revocation of Election process. The key issue is understanding:

• which obligations apply to the individual,
• which obligations apply to the entity,
• and how money flows between the two.

No. The Revocation of Election (ROE) process applies to the individual — not to the business entity itself.

According to the Freedom Law Group (FLG) framework, the ROE process is based upon federal law and applies to living men and women — We The People — who seek to reclaim their proper status as non-taxpayers. Constitutional protections belong to the people, not to corporations, LLCs, or other statutory business entities.

Accordingly, the ROE process does not:

• dissolve your business,
• eliminate business licenses,
• cancel corporate obligations,
• or remove lawful filing requirements imposed directly upon the entity itself.

Any legal, regulatory, reporting, licensing, or compliance obligations that existed for the business entity prior to the ROE generally remain in place afterward.

However, while the ROE process does not directly apply to the business itself, it absolutely affects the individual owner and how income is treated flowing to that owner.

This distinction is extremely important.

For example:

• a single-member LLC is generally treated by the IRS as a “disregarded entity,” meaning the activity ordinarily flows directly to the owner rather than being taxed separately at the entity level.
• after completing the Revocation of Election process, many FLG clients with single-member LLCs find their structures become significantly simpler because the individual no longer files a Form 1040 and the LLC itself generally does not file a separate federal income tax return either.

By contrast:

• S corporations and LLCs taxed as S corporations create complications because federal law prohibits nonresident aliens from being shareholders of S corporations.

This prohibition is found in:

26 U.S.C. § 1361(b)(1)(C)

which states that an S corporation may not:

“have a nonresident alien as a shareholder.”

For this reason, clients pursuing the Revocation of Election process under the FLG framework generally cannot maintain an S election and may need to revoke that election or restructure the entity.

Standard LLCs, single-member LLCs, and C-corporations are generally acceptable structures within the FLG framework.

A large percentage of FLG clients are business owners, entrepreneurs, investors, and self-employed individuals. The key is understanding the distinction between:

• the individual,
  and
• the entity.

The Revocation of Election applies to the individual man or woman — not to the business itself.

Yes. Under the current federal system, lottery and gambling winnings are commonly subject to an automatic:

24% federal withholding rate

for certain gambling winnings over reporting thresholds.

In many cases:

• casinos,
• state lotteries,
• sportsbooks,
• and gaming institutions
  automatically withhold approximately 24% before the winner even receives the money.

For example:

• if someone wins $100,000 in the lottery,
  the payer may automatically withhold approximately:

$24,000

and remit it directly to the IRS before the remaining funds are paid to the winner.

This occurs because casinos and lottery agencies operate as withholding agents within the federal tax system and are required to follow federal reporting and withholding procedures for individuals presumed to be taxpayers.

Large winnings are also commonly reported to the IRS on:

• Form W-2G,
• Form 1099,
• or similar informational reporting forms.

Individuals who have properly completed the Revocation of Election (ROE) process and restored their status as non-taxpayers are not legally subject to federal income tax liability on lottery winnings, gambling winnings, casino payouts, sports betting income, or similar earnings.

That said, there is an important distinction between:

• actual tax liability,
  and
• automatic withholding/reporting procedures.

Even after completing the ROE process, a casino or lottery agency may still automatically withhold funds simply because their systems are designed to presume taxpayer status for all participants.

Accordingly, FLG clients who receive large gambling or lottery winnings may still encounter:

• automatic withholding,
• IRS reporting,
• paperwork requirements,
• or administrative scrutiny,
  even though FLG maintains that properly classified non-taxpayers possess no lawful federal income tax liability.

In short, if the casino, state lottery, sportsbook, or gaming institution automatically withholds federal income taxes from the winnings, those funds have already been surrendered into the federal tax system and may be difficult to recover. FLG does not provide support for this. 

If no federal income taxes are withheld at the source, the winnings belong entirely to the individual and there is no obligation for a properly classified non-taxpayer to report the winnings or pay federal income taxes on them.

After completing the Revocation of Election (ROE) process, many clients choose to update the withholding instructions associated with their pension, retirement distribution, annuity, or other recurring retirement income.

Most pension administrators withhold federal income taxes by default because they presume the recipient is operating as a statutory taxpayer within the federal income tax system.

To change or stop this withholding, the individual typically must submit updated withholding instructions directly to the pension administrator.

In most cases, this is done using:

IRS Form W-4P

(Withholding Certificate for Periodic Pension or Annuity Payments)

After completing the ROE process, many FLG clients choose one of the following approaches:

• claim exempt status,
• reduce withholding to zero,
• or otherwise adjust withholding instructions to eliminate unnecessary federal income tax withholding.

The updated W-4P is then submitted directly to the pension administrator or retirement plan custodian.

Importantly, when completing the W-4P or any related withholding forms, FLG clients are instructed to use the same address formatting utilized within their Revocation of Election affidavit and supporting documentation. This formatting is intentionally structured to avoid identifying or associating the individual with federal zones or territorial jurisdiction classifications addressed within the FLG framework.

Importantly, many pension systems and retirement administrators today utilize online account portals where withholding elections can be updated electronically without requiring extensive interaction with administrators or compliance personnel.

Once an individual has properly completed the ROE process, there is no lawful federal income tax obligation requiring ongoing withholding from pension or retirement income.

401(k) plans are fundamentally different from ordinary wages or even pensions because the entire 401(k) system exists entirely within — and because of — the federal income tax system itself.

A 401(k) is a statutory retirement arrangement created under federal tax law. Individuals enter into these plans as statutory taxpayers and receive specific tax advantages, deferrals, deductions, and protections that exist only within the federal income tax framework.

Accordingly, 401(k) accounts are inseparably and inextricably connected to the federal income tax system.

When an individual contributes to a 401(k), they do so under taxpayer status and pursuant to an agreement administered under federal tax law. Even if that individual later completes the Revocation of Election (ROE) process and restores their status as a non-taxpayer, the 401(k) itself continues to be administered as though the individual remains a taxpayer because that was the status under which the account and contractual arrangement were originally established.

For this reason, 401(k) withdrawals are treated differently than ordinary wages or many pensions.

By law, 401(k) withdrawals are generally treated as taxable distributions of retirement income. Custodians such as:

• Fidelity,
• Vanguard,
• Schwab,
• Empower,
• or employer-sponsored plan administrators
  are generally required to withhold federal income taxes before distributing funds to the account holder.

Unlike pensions — where individuals can often submit updated withholding forms claiming exempt status or electing zero withholding — 401(k) plans are substantially more rigid because the entire account exists inside the federal tax system itself.

In practical terms, once funds are withdrawn from a 401(k), withholding is automatic and tied directly to the original taxpayer election made when the plan was established. Even after completing the ROE process, an individual generally cannot retroactively undo the contractual and statutory structure under which the 401(k) was created.

As a result, custodians and administrators generally continue following federal withholding requirements associated with the plan.

Under current federal rules:

• most non-periodic 401(k) withdrawals prior to Required Minimum Distribution (“RMD”) age are subject to mandatory:

20% federal withholding

before the funds are distributed.

Once an individual reaches the federally required RMD age (currently age 73 for most individuals under present law), distributions become Required Minimum Distributions. At that stage, the default withholding generally drops to:

10%

unless the account holder submits updated withholding instructions.

At the RMD stage, individuals who have properly completed the Revocation of Election process may submit the appropriate withholding election forms to their custodian in order to:

• reduce withholding,
• modify withholding,
• or potentially eliminate withholding altogether,
  depending upon the administrator and circumstances involved.

However, clients should understand that 401(k)s remain among the most deeply integrated financial instruments within the federal income tax system, and therefore they are often one of the least flexible areas when it comes to withholding and tax administration.

Individuals who are actively employed by the federal government occupy a unique position under federal law because they are working directly within the federal system itself.

This generally includes:

• federal civilian employees,
• active-duty military personnel,
• many reserve and guard personnel while in active federal status,
• federal agency employees,
• and others receiving compensation directly from the national government.

Because these individuals are receiving federally connected income directly from the federal government, that compensation is generally treated as fully subject to the federal income tax system. Accordingly, while actively employed in those capacities, the income derived from federal employment would generally not qualify for treatment under the Revocation of Election (ROE) process.

In practical terms, if an individual is currently:

• on active duty,
• receiving federal wages,
• or employed directly by the national government,
  they should generally expect federal income tax withholding and reporting obligations to continue with respect to that federally connected income.

However, it is important to understand that this does not necessarily mean all income earned by that individual is automatically treated the same way.

For example:

• private business income,
• investment income,
• private contract income,
• side businesses,
• royalties,
• private consulting,
• or other non-federally connected earnings
  may be treated differently depending upon the circumstances involved.

Accordingly, many individuals who are federally employed still choose to complete the ROE process in order to properly establish their status and position with respect to non-federally connected income sources.

Additionally, many military members and federal employees eventually:

• retire,
• leave federal service,
• transition into private business,
• or begin receiving income from non-federal sources.

At that point, the ROE process often becomes significantly more impactful because the individual is no longer deriving income directly from federal employment.

No. Americans are not born as statutory taxpayers.

Individuals born or naturalized within one of the fifty States of the Union (or born to at least one parent who was) are born under the protections of the Constitution and begin life as non-taxpayers unless and until they voluntarily elect otherwise.

The Internal Revenue Code itself defines a “taxpayer” at:

26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14)

which states:

“The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.”

According to this interpretation, taxpayer status is not something automatically imposed upon all Americans at birth, but rather a legal status connected to participation within the federal income tax system.

Most Americans unknowingly enter that system when they sign and file IRS Form 1040.

Once that election into taxpayer status has been made, the individual becomes legally obligated to file and pay federal income taxes unless and until that election is lawfully revoked.

This is the purpose of the Revocation of Election (“ROE”) process.

The ROE process is based upon:

26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A)

which provides a statutory mechanism for revoking a prior election to be treated as a taxpayer.

Americans are born with Constitutional protections and non-taxpayer status by default, and it is only later — usually unknowingly — that most individuals voluntarily enter the federal income tax system through administrative elections and participation.

Yes. Retired military personnel are generally in a very different position than active-duty military members or individuals currently employed by the federal government.

While active-duty military income is federally connected compensation paid directly by the national government and generally treated as fully subject to the federal income tax system, military retirement benefits and retirement status are viewed differently.

Once an individual has separated from active federal service and is no longer actively employed by the federal government, they are no longer operating in the same federally connected employment capacity they once were.

Accordingly, many retired military members are excellent candidates for the Revocation of Election (ROE) process.

That said, there are important distinctions retired military personnel should understand.

Military retirement pay, military pensions, TSP accounts, VA benefits, disability compensation, and other federally connected retirement programs may each be treated differently because many of these systems remain deeply integrated with federal administrative and withholding structures.

For example:

• military retirement pensions often function similarly to federal pensions,
• TSP accounts function similarly to 401(k) accounts,
• and withholding may continue by default unless updated withholding elections are submitted.

Many retired military clients who complete the Revocation of Election process choose to:

• update pension withholding forms,
• reduce or eliminate federal income tax withholding,
• and restructure their financial affairs moving forward.

Importantly, retired military individuals who also have:

• private business income,
• consulting income,
• investment income,
• contractor income,
• private employment,
• or other non-federally connected earnings
  are often in an especially strong position to benefit from the Revocation of Election process.

As with all clients, the key issue is understanding:

• the source of the income,
• whether the income is federally connected,
• and whether the individual is still operating as a statutory taxpayer within the federal income tax system.

FLG has many clients who are retired military, and appreciate their service. 

That depends on how you last filed. If your most recent federal tax return was filed jointly, then yes—both spouses must complete the Revocation of Election. However, if you previously filed as “married filing separately,” one or the other or both can complete this process. 

Capital gains taxes fall under the same general framework as all other forms of federal income taxation.

If an individual is operating as a statutory taxpayer within the federal income tax system, then profits derived from the sale of:

• stocks,
• cryptocurrency,
• real estate,
• businesses,
• precious metals,
• investments,
• or other appreciating assets
  are generally treated as taxable capital gains under the Internal Revenue Code.

However, individuals who have properly revoked their election to be treated as taxpayers and restored their status as non-taxpayers are not subject to federal income taxation on capital gains any more than they would be on wages, business income, or other earnings.

This is because capital gains taxes are part of Subtitle A federal income taxation and apply to statutory taxpayers operating within the federal income tax system.

Importantly, clients should understand that many financial institutions and brokerage firms:

• automatically issue tax reporting forms,
• report transactions to the IRS,
• and operate entirely within the federal reporting infrastructure.

For example:

• brokerage firms commonly issue Form 1099-B,
• cryptocurrency exchanges often report transactions,
• and escrow/title companies may report real estate transactions.

Accordingly, even after completing the Revocation of Election (ROE) process, individuals may still encounter:

• informational reporting,
• automated IRS correspondence,
• withholding assumptions,
• or administrative scrutiny
  simply because these institutions presume taxpayer status for all participants.

This does not necessarily create lawful tax liability, but it may require administrative rebuttal or response procedures, which is provided in the Tax Freedom Course.

Many FLG clients who complete the ROE process continue:

• buying and selling investments,
• operating businesses,
• investing in real estate,
• trading cryptocurrency,
• and building wealth
  without filing or paying federal income taxes on those gains.

As with all matters relating to the ROE process, the key distinction is between:

• a statutory taxpayer operating within the federal income tax system,
  and
• a properly classified non-taxpayer operating outside the scope of Subtitle A federal income taxation.

Yes. Independent contractors (1099s) are private-sector workers and are fully eligible for the Revocation of Election process. The main difference is that, instead of an employer withholding from a paycheck, you receive direct payments and may have 1099 forms issued at the end of the year. After completing the Revocation of Election, you become a legal non-taxpayer, and the 1099 forms no longer create liability.

Inside the Tax Freedom Course and Resource Center, included with your Tax Freedom Package, we provide step-by-step guidance on how to handle 1099s, including correcting forms when necessary and ensuring that your non-taxpayer status is respected.

A Private Sector Employer is any business, company, or individual in the fifty states of the Union that is not part of the federal government, its territories, or any of its agencies. Examples include restaurants, construction companies, hospitals, trucking companies, or self-employed contractors.

This distinction is important because the Internal Revenue Code applies by default to those working in the statutory “United States” (defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9) as the District of Columbia and certain territories). When you work for a Private Sector Employer in the constitutional Republic—the fifty states—you are outside that statutory jurisdiction unless you voluntarily elect into it (for example, by filing a 1040 return).

In most cases, yes.

There is a major distinction between:

• individuals employed directly by the federal government,
  and
• individuals employed by city, county, municipal, or state governments.

Non-federal employees of:

• cities,
• counties,
• municipalities,
• school districts,
• state agencies,
• local utilities,
• police departments,
• fire departments,
• public schools,
• and similar local or state entities
  are generally not considered federal employees merely because they work in public service.

Accordingly, many state and local government employees are excellent candidates for the Revocation of Election (ROE) process.

For example:

• a public-school teacher employed by a state,
• a city employee,
• a county worker,
• a municipal firefighter,
• or a local police officer
  is generally not employed directly by the national government.

This distinction is important because the ROE process focuses heavily upon:

• taxpayer status,
• federal jurisdiction,
• and federally connected income.

Most city, county, and state employees are paid by local or state governments rather than directly by the federal government itself.

As a result, many non-federal government employees who complete the ROE process later:

• update their withholding forms,
• stop federal income tax withholding,
• and continue receiving their wages without federal income taxes being withheld from their paychecks.

However, these individuals should still generally expect:

• Social Security withholding,
• Medicare withholding,
• state retirement deductions,
• pension contributions,
• union dues,
• or other non-federal payroll deductions
  to continue unless separately addressed.

It is also important to understand that some state and local agencies may be more resistant or unfamiliar with updated withholding elections because government payroll systems often operate with strict compliance procedures.

Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of withholding changes are processed without issue, particularly where employees utilize online payroll portals or properly completed withholding forms.

These names are frequently brought up whenever the topic of federal income taxes is discussed. However, it is important to understand that each of these individuals was operating as a statutory taxpayer within the federal income tax system and was pursued for violating laws applicable to taxpayers.

None of these individuals completed a properly structured Revocation of Election (ROE) process as taught by Freedom Law Group (FLG).

For example:

• Wesley Snipes was prosecuted after years of filing tax returns, operating openly within the federal tax system, and later failing to comply with filing requirements while still being treated as a taxpayer.
• Al Capone was not prosecuted merely for “not paying taxes.” He was deeply involved in criminal enterprises and was ultimately prosecuted using tax charges as a tool to secure conviction.
• Willie Nelson accumulated massive tax liabilities while unquestionably operating as a taxpayer inside the federal income tax system. His issues largely involved unpaid assessments and financial disputes with the IRS.

These examples are fundamentally different from an individual who lawfully revokes a prior election to be treated as a taxpayer pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6013(g)(4)(A). These individuals mentioned above were statutory taxpayers who broke tax laws. Those who complete the ROE process are no longer taxpayers and no  longer subject to the federal income tax laws. 

The ROE process is not based upon:

• hiding income,
• refusing to pay while remaining a taxpayer,
• filing false returns,
• fraud,
• or evasion.

Rather, it is based upon the position that many Americans unknowingly elected into taxpayer status and that federal law provides a lawful mechanism to revoke that election prospectively.

This distinction is critical.

A statutory taxpayer who violates tax laws can absolutely face:

• penalties,
• liens,
• levies,
• audits,
• or criminal prosecution.

By contrast, individuals who properly complete the ROE process are reclaiming their lawful status as non-taxpayers and therefore no longer fall within the scope of Subtitle A federal income taxation.

Importantly, FLG is aware of zero instances in which a properly completed FLG client has:

• gone to jail,
• been criminally prosecuted,
• suffered a levy,
• suffered a lien,
• or endured serious IRS enforcement action
  for tax years properly covered by the Revocation of Election process.