'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
(ambiguous but clearly stating Congressional jurisdiction in legislating how this prospective income tax would be collected)
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
(later defined by the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. § 61)
and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
(no matter from how many or how few we collect income)

This amendment, contained within the supreme governing document of our land, coupled with the codification of federal law, makes this a baseless battle. If you don't want to file, don't do so. But to say that you legally can do so (with some degree of faith in the U.S. government even remotely caring about what is good and legal) will not hold up in court.

pro2A,

The tax code is law. It was passed into law by Congress in 1954. Courts can't act as if the 16th wasn't ratified. That's something other branches of government must deal with.

Even though it pretty much conflicts with the 5th Amendment and the fact that the founding fathers said there is to be no income tax except to pay down national debt and for the common defense of our nation.

The federal government has found the loopholes to tax our income.

It gets too detailed to explain bit by bit. This book was almost banned... yes BANNED by the government because they didnt want the public to know about the loopholes. If you have time read it, it explains the tax law hoax in greater detail. More so then I can type in a paragraph.

http://www.paynoincometax.com/hoax/index.htm

pro2A,

The United States Constitution is actually an illegal document. The Articles of Confederation cannot be changed unless the members of the Continental Congress vote unanimously to do so. They never did. The Constitution was written by a group of the social elite in a meeting held behind locked doors. A group who's stated purpose was simply to draft some amendments to the Articles. That's right, the United States Constitution was the result of a conspiracy. In fact, there's some evidence that many of the states would never have approved of it if they hadn't of been threatened or bribed.

I guess that invalidates the Second Amendment.

I imagine the Courts could rule that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. Certainly I think there are several State Courts which could force their ratification rescinded on the grounds that they violated State laws (i.e. that votes on ratification of Federal Amendments only take place after an election has passed). It won't happen, though, since such a ruling would be unimagineably harmful.

The members of Congress voted unanimously to send it to the States, and all 13 States did eventually vote to ratify the Constitution, even if it took until 1790.

The income tax is not illegal as written. It's perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional BUT IT IS A DECEPTION as it's being applied to most American citizens. The reason the tax code is so insanely complicated is to hide this deception. See, we're all being classified as federal employees for the purpose of the tax, and the supreme court rulings only allow federal employees to be taxed in this manner. The IRS is keeping secret files on everyone which uphold this classification (as well as listing everyone who has ever filed an income tax return as a resident of the Virgin Islands), and using those in court. If you don't rebut that information prior to going into court, you lose based on that deception:

"Government prevails in challenge to individual’s appeals hearing in which master file transcripts were considered at hearing instead of tax returns."
- Stanifird v. Wilcox et al. 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-1058 June 12, 2001.

You can do a freedom of information act request to the IRS to look at your master file. I recommend everyone do so. You will find some disturbing information. You will definitely find to your surprise that you are a resident of the Virgin Islands no matter where you actually live. Don't believe me? Then take the challenge and do it. There is no cost for doing a Freedom of Information Act request.

Let's look at the real groundbreaking case is one in which the government dismissed its own case WITH PREJUDICE - meaning the government can NEVER try the case again:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UP...2006-06-09.htm

Now why would they dismiss their own case and NEVER allow it to be tried again? I think the reason is as stated:

"Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect."

It exposes the fraud...that under the legal technicalities, the IRS really doesn't have any authority to collect the tax if you rebut their allegations about your legal status...

And check out the following ruling - and THINK about it:

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws".

Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

What does this mean? Well, simply put, it means the Supreme Court legally recognizes an entity known as a nontaxpayer. The first logical question that should pop into anyone's mind is "How can there be a nontaxpayer if everyone is required to pay?" Once you understand the fraud and deception involved, then you understand precisely why the Supreme Court used this wording in the ruling.


And check out these quotes - again, they each reveal a piece of the deception:

"If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you." -- Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in U.S. v. Lloyd

"Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." -- United States Supreme Court, in Flora v. United States

"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS agents ... Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights." -- U.S. Federal Judge Cummings, in U.S. v. Dickerson (7th Circuit 1969)


The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the 16th Amendment did not change the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself. The Court also said that the 16th Amendment merely prevented the "income duty" from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation (See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 11(1916), page 16.)

After the Supreme Court decision, the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Treasury Decision [Order] 2313 (dated March 21, 1916; Vol. 18, January-December, 1916, page 53.) It states in part; "...it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic change corporations[federal] is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913." 16

In another Supreme Court decision in 1916, the Court, in clear language settled the application of the 16th Amendment. By the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth conferred no new power of taxation. Rather it simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary [full] 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... (See Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916))

The IRS is also deceptively using the word "income":

"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability." Boath v. Terry, 713 F 2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)

Do you have "income?" Many are discovering the word “income” has been wrongfully used by the IRS, as including the wages, compensation, or earnings, when not engaged as a corporate enterprise. In 1921, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the definition of the word “income” in MERCHANTS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509 (1921): “The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word ‘income’ was so necessary in its administration.”

"Income" Means the Same

“It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word ‘income’ has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific v Lowe, where it was assumed for the purpose of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When we add to this, Eisner v Macomber - the definition of ‘income’ which was applied was adopted from Stratton’s Independence v Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 - there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”

The High Court, in SMIETANKA, seemed as if it had become exasperated that the question of the definition of the word “income” had repeatedly been raised.

The U.S. Supreme Court made the clear and unequivocal statement: "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.” DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918).

The general public, being unaware of the legal definition of “income”, has been misled into a wrongful use of the word and has been also misled into believing that they had “income’, although not participating in a government conferred corporate benefit. "


Actually, the Founding Fathers never intended for there to be any permanent internal taxes, income or otherwise. Madison spells it out clearly in Federalist #45:

"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawA...rsDoctrine.htm

Here's the quote from Federalist #45:

"If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."

Link

What he said

Seriously though, you said it better then what I ever could. It's not necessarily "illegal" but there are some crazy loopholes involved with tax law. It’s a tangled mess of barbed wire and razors that you could find your way through if you wanted to, but you don’t because it seems too intimidating. The average Joe would have no clue about it, and would pay the tax just to avoid problems.

There are actually groups that are pursuing income tax freedom.

http://nossn.blogspot.com/2004/06/inside-tax-honesty-movement-interview.html

Exactly. Most people CAN'T or would NEVER even bother to read through the tax code. That's precisely why it's so insanely complex. To prevent this type of scrunity. However, the truth is hidden in there.

The Income Tax is not illegal if you sign all the forms and waive your rights, but it is a deception as applied to most Americans. It was hard to believe that the earth was round for people at one point on this planet, yet the truth eventually came out. Our government has lied numerous times, why should it surprise anyone that it would lie again? Consider the following - there is NOTHING in the Constitution that forbids or prevents Congress from making deceptive, misleading laws. And THAT'S why the income tax fraud works.


Yes, IRS and DOJ officials had originally agreed to meet with the We The People Foundation and answer their very simple, straight forward questions. BUT...they backed out at the last minute. They could have settled this once and for all, but they saw those questions and KNEW they couldn't weasel out of it in a public forum with other people who were very knowledgeable about the law.

To really understand this fraud, you have to go back to the very first income tax which was temporarily passed during the Civil War. Here's an introductory explanation:

"First Income Tax Act Revealing

Some government documents I obtained in 1994 shows that the first income tax of 1861 had to have certain sections amended, specifically section 210 of the first Income Tax Act This was due to the fact Lincoln wanted to tax the people and those living were incensed that what they fought for in 1776 was again about to be placed on the people. So the second income tax act removed the people and only taxed government employees for the privilege of working for government from which the Treasury paid them.

For this they needed to pay a kick back or a return of money for that privilege. Frank Kowalik stated this in his book IRS Humbug, and this is the proof to support his book. All my research has proven this to be so in my books and other writings. Rather than go into explanation, which you will draw from the following, I let you come to your own conclusions. I will put in bold what I think you need to dwell on and hopefully some myths will be dispelled.

This takes careful reading to understand. The pages following, were the results of the clerks of the Postmaster asking why they were paying a tax when the clerks of the IRS were not. Now remember the "clerks" are today's IRS agents, revenuers, and the like. So the Postmaster drafted a letter to find out why his people were paying taxes and certain IRS people were not. In the case of Diversified Metals the Justice Department admitted on the record that IRS employees are NOT U.S. Government employees. The following proves it beyond any shadow of doubt. Now you might ask why did I not bring this out before? I have but only two people that asked. There was no need to as most people are readers and not doers. I only gave it to doers. Now I decided to let it out and see how many people are doers. By that I mean take this and use it. There is so much info here that it boggles the mind. You will learn why it is called an "internal tax", why only no others are mentioned in section 165 to have the income tax collected from and why mechanics and laborers were not taxed. You will also see that when IRS employees did not pay the tax , neither did any American not working for government.
39th Congress---2d Session---Ex. Doc. No. 99
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SALARY TAX UPON CLERKS TO POSTMASTERS

Letter from the Secretary of Treasury
IN ANSWER TO

A resolution of the House of the 12th of February, relative to salary tax upon clerks to postmasters, with the regulations of the department, & c.

February 20, 1867.--Referred to the Committee of Ways and Means and ordered to be Printed

TREASURY DEPARTMENT February 15, 1867

Sir: The Secretary of the Treasury has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the following resolution of the House of Representatives, viz: "February 12, 1867.

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, requested to inform this house whether the various postmasters throughout the United States are required to account for and pay a salary tax upon the salaries of clerks employed by them where such salary is not fixed by law, but is paid out of funds furnished by the government; also, that he be requested to furnish a copy of the regulations and circulars of said department, if any such exist, requiring such payment; also, whether any such tax is collected or required to be accounted for from clerks of assessors of internal revenue, and, if any discrimination is made between said two classes of clerks in respect to said tax, why such discrimination is made.

In obedience thereto he has the honor to submit the following report:

Postmasters' clerks are appointed by postmasters, and take the oaths of office prescribed in the 2d section of the act of July 2,1862, and in the 2d section of March 3, 1863.

Their salaries are not fixed in amount by law, but from time to time the Postmaster General fixes the amount allotted to each postmaster for clerk hire, under the authority conferred upon him by the ninth section of the act of June 5, 1836, and then the postmaster , as an agent for and in behalf of the United States, determines the salary to be paid to each of his clerks. These salaries are paid by the postmasters, acting as disbursing agents, from United States moneys advanced to them for this purpose, either directly from the Post Office Department in pursuance of appropriations made by law, or from the accruing revenues of their offices, under the instructions of the Post Master General.

SALARY TAX UPON CLERK TO POSTMASTER

The receipts of such clerks constitute vouchers in the accounts of the postmaster acting as disbursing agents and in the settlements made with them by the Sixth Auditor. In all the foregoing transactions the postmaster acts not as a principal, but as an agent of the United States, and the clerks are not in his private employment, but in the public employment of the United States. Such being the facts, these clerks are subjected to and required to account for and pay the salary tax, imposed by the one hundred and twenty-third section of the internal revenue act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the ninth section of the internal revenue act of July 13, 1866, upon payments for services to persons in the civil employment or service of the United States.

Copies of the regulations under which such salary taxes are withheld and paid into the treasury to the credit of internal revenue collection account are herewith transmitted, marked A, B, and C. Clerks to assessors of internal revenue are appointed by the assessors. Neither law nor regulations require them to take an oath of office, because, as the law at present stands, they are not in the public service of the United States, through the agency of the assessor, but are in the private personal service of the assessor, as a principal, who employs them.

The salaries of such clerks are neither fixed in amount by law, nor are they regulated by any officer of the Treasury Department, except by the assessors by whom they are employed.

The only control exercised by the Treasury Department over the clerk hire of assessors is to prescribe a necessary and reasonable amount which shall not be exceeded in reimbursing the assessors for this item of their expenses.

No money is advanced by the United States for the payment of such salaries, nor do the assessors perform the duties of disbursing agents of the United States in paying their clerks. The entire amount allowed is paid directly to the assessor, and he is not accountable to the United States for its payment to his clerks, for the reason that he has paid them in advance, out of his own funds, and this is a reimbursement to him of such amount as the department decides to be reasonable. No salary tax is therefore collected, or required by the Treasury Department to be accounted for, or paid, on account of payments to assessors clerks, as the United States pays no such clerks nor has them in its employ or service, and they do not come within the provisions of existing laws imposing such a tax.

Perhaps no better illustration of the difference between the status of Postmasters' clerks and that of assessors' clerks can be given than the following: A postmaster became a defaulter, without paying his clerks; his successor received from the Postmaster General a new remittance for paying them; and if, at any time, the clerks in a post office do not receive their salaries, by reason of the death, resignation or removal of a postmaster, the new appointee authorized by the regulations of the Post Office Department to pay them out of the proceeds of the office; and should there be no funds in his hands belonging to the department, a draft is issued to place money in his hands for that purpose. If an assessor had not paid his clerks, they would have no legal claim the treasury for their salaries. A discrimination is made between postmasters' clerks and assessors' clerks to the extent and for the reasons hereinbefore set forth.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the treasury

Hon. Schuyler Colfax, Speaker of the House of Representatives
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, JULY 16, 1866.

Whereas the second section of the act of Congress approved September 2, 1789, entitled "An act to establish the Treasury Department," devolves upon the Secretary of the Treasury the duty of superintending the collection of revenue, and of deciding on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns; and whereas the third section of the internal revenue act of Congress, approved March 8, 1866, devolves upon the Secretary of the Treasury the duty of making and issuing instructions upon the specific subject of collecting and paying into the treasury all moneys derived from the acts of Congress providing revenue: It is therefore ordered, that hereafter all duties by the 123d section of the internal revenue act of Congress, approved June 30, 1864, or any other provision of law or regulations, upon the salary, compensation, or payment for services of each and every officer or person in the service or employment of the United States, shall be collected, returned, and paid into the treasury of the United States, in the following manner, to wit: Every paymaster or disbursing agent, however known or styled, who shall withhold such duties upon payments required to be paid by him, shall render a true statement of the amount and details thereof, and shall return said statement with his accounts, as now required by law or regulation. He will, however, make no deposits of the amounts of said statements, but will as at present required by law retain the amount thereof from his disbursements.

In lieu of depositing these amounts by the officer himself, it is hereby made the duty of the First and Second Comptrollers, the Commissioner of Customs, and the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post Office Department, respectively, at the end of each month to properly consolidate the amount of said payments, under each head of appropriation; and from said appropriation to cause to be drawn, by requisition and warrant, (or otherwise, as may be most conducive to the public interests,) the proper amount of money due the United States for such duties under the internal revenue laws, and deposit the same in the treasury of the United States, to the credit of the Treasurer thereof, as a receipt on account of such duties from the parties, and composed of the amounts as specified on the list to be by these accounting officers furnished to accompany the covering warrants; and to furnish also the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with information of the amount thus drawn from each appropriation and deposit on account of such duties; and the record, of the covering warrants issued in pursuance of this order, should be good and sufficient evidence of the fact of such payment by the parties interested in the settlement of their accounts. This order to take effect on and after the 1st day of September 1866, except in cases of disbursing officers or agents upon the Pacific coast of the United States, in which cases, should it become necessary, it will take effect as soon as they can be advised of its provisions; And the aforesaid Comptrollers, Commissioner of Customs, and the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post Office Department, are hereby required to prepare and issue, after having obtained the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury thereon, the requisite instructions to carry this order into effect.

HUGH McMULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 18,1866
Sir: Herewith I transmit, for your information and guidance, a copy of an order of the Secretary of the Treasury, dated July 16,1866; regulating the

SALARY TAX UPON CLERKS TO POSTMASTERS

manner of collecting and paying into the treasury internal revenue taxes on salaries.

You will please prepare and submit, for the Secretary's approval, the instructions necessary for carrying this order into effect so far as the officers whose accounts are under your supervision are concerned.

The provisions of this order are so far modified as to the consolidation of these amounts by your office as that the time allowed for so doing will be extended to three months, instead of one to correspond with your quarterly settlements.

Respectfully, yours,

J. F. HARTLEY, Assistant Secretary, Hon. ISAAC N. ARNOLD Auditor of the Treasury for the Post Office Department

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR OF THE TREASURY FOR THE POST OFFICE 1866
Sir: An order from the Secretary of the Treasury, under date of July 17, 1866, changes entirely the present system of collecting the revenue tax upon the salaries of postmasters and other employees of the Post Office Department.

Your careful attention is therefore invited to the following regulations, and a strict compliance with the same is earnestly requested.

1. From and after the 1st day of October, 1866, the tax upon the salary or compensation of postmasters and other employees will be charged to the postmaster in the settlement of his quarterly account current.
2. Postmasters will withhold the tax quarterly upon their own salaries and the salaries and such of their employees as are liable for the tax, as heretofore instructed; but instead of depositing the amount of such tax, they will include in it the amount due the United States, and pay it over as other revenues of the department.
3. In rendering the quarterly account current, the postmaster will enter the amount of internal revenue tax on the debit side of the account, immediately below Article 24.
4. Printed forms of pay-rolls for clerks, containing a column for amount of internal revenue tax, will be furnished on application to the Post Office Department. Postmasters are requested to obtain these forms and use them in taking receipts from clerks and other employees.
5. At offices where the free delivery system is in operation, the tax on the carriers' salaries must be deducted as heretofore, and the amount will be charged to the postmaster on his general account.
6. As these regulations go into effect on the 1st day of October next, postmasters are particularly cautioned against making deposits on account of revenue tax for any part of the quarter ending December 31, 1866. The tax for the quarter ending September 30 must be deposited as instructed by Circular No.8.

Respectfully, I.N. ARNOLD, Auditor

SALARY TAX UPON CLERKS TO POSTMASTERS
The following section of the act approved July 13, 1866, provides for the payment on the salaries of persons in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, when exceeding six hundred dollars per annum, of a tax of 5 percent, on the excess above said six hundred dollars.

No deductions whatever are authorized.

Section 165. That there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all salaries of officers, or payment for services to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress, when exceeding the rate of six hundred dollars per annum, a tax of five per centum on the excess above the said six hundred dollars, and a tax of ten per centum on the excess over five thousand dollars; and it shall be the duty of all paymasters and all disbursing officers under the government of the United States, or persons in the employ thereof, when making any payment to any officers or persons aforesaid, or upon settling and adjusting the accounts of such officers or persons, to deduct and withhold the aforesaid tax; and they shall, at the same time, make a certificate stating the name of the officer or person from whom such deduction was made, and the amount thereof, which shall be transmitted to the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and entered as part of the internal tax; and the pay-roll receipts, or account of officers or persons paying such tax as aforesaid be made to exhibit the fact of such payment. And it shall be the duty of the several Auditors of the Treasury Department, when auditing the accounts of any paymaster or disbursing officer, or any officer withholding his salary from moneys received by him, or when settling or adjusting the accounts of any such officer, to require evidence that the taxes mentioned in this section have been deducted and paid over to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or other officer authorized to receive the same: Provided, That payments of prize money shall be regarded as income from salaries, and the tax thereon shall be adjusted and collected in like manner: Provided further, That this section shall not apply to payments made to mechanics or laborers employed upon, public work."