Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
Correct.
Economic: Taxes: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.
- Thread starter Wheeljack
- Start date
Correct.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
Also do not forget that to do so is a crime under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7205(a) Withholding on wages
“Any individual required to supply information to his employer under section 3402 who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information, or who willfully fails to supply information thereunder which would require an increase in the tax to be withheld under section 3402, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7205?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8
“Any individual required to supply information to his employer under section 3402 who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information, or who willfully fails to supply information thereunder which would require an increase in the tax to be withheld under section 3402, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7205?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8
Weston,
As for the judges, a tax is not a diminishment of their earnings, therefore it was not unconstitutional to apply the tax to them.
The worker quote is a prime example of the misuse of the word "service".
It should have been worded as follows;
The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for performing service.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
As to the terms themselves, this is a bit gravy:
Many of the pertinent terms used within the Internal Revenue Code, that including its manuals, publications, and forms derives from H.R. 8928, the ‘Classification Act of 1923’ [CHAP. 265, 42 Stat. 1488, March 4, 1923, Public, No. 516].
Specifically, for 26 USC § 61(a)(1) – ‘Compensation for services’ and 26 USC § 32(c)(2)(A) – ‘Earned income’: “The term “compensation” means any salary, wage, fee, allowance, or other emolument paid to an employee for service in a position.”.
Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(c) – ‘Employee’: “The term “employee” means any person temporarily or permanently in a position.”.
Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(a) – ‘Wages’: “The term “service” means the broadest division of related offices and employments.”.
“The term “position” means a specific civilian office or employment, whether occupied or vacant, in a department other than the following: Offices or employments in the Postal Service; teachers, librarians, school attendance officers, and employees of the community center department under the Board of Education of the District of Columbia; officers and members of the Metropolitan police, the fire department of the District of Columbia, and the United States park police; and the commissioned personnel of the Coast Guard, the Pubic Health Service, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey.”
“The term “department” means an executive department of the United States Government, a governmental establishment in the executive branch of the United States Government which is not a part of an executive department, the municipal government of the District of Columbia, the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, Library Building and Grounds, Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution.”
Many of the pertinent terms used within the Internal Revenue Code, that including its manuals, publications, and forms derives from H.R. 8928, the ‘Classification Act of 1923’ [CHAP. 265, 42 Stat. 1488, March 4, 1923, Public, No. 516].
Specifically, for 26 USC § 61(a)(1) – ‘Compensation for services’ and 26 USC § 32(c)(2)(A) – ‘Earned income’: “The term “compensation” means any salary, wage, fee, allowance, or other emolument paid to an employee for service in a position.”.
Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(c) – ‘Employee’: “The term “employee” means any person temporarily or permanently in a position.”.
Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(a) – ‘Wages’: “The term “service” means the broadest division of related offices and employments.”.
“The term “position” means a specific civilian office or employment, whether occupied or vacant, in a department other than the following: Offices or employments in the Postal Service; teachers, librarians, school attendance officers, and employees of the community center department under the Board of Education of the District of Columbia; officers and members of the Metropolitan police, the fire department of the District of Columbia, and the United States park police; and the commissioned personnel of the Coast Guard, the Pubic Health Service, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey.”
“The term “department” means an executive department of the United States Government, a governmental establishment in the executive branch of the United States Government which is not a part of an executive department, the municipal government of the District of Columbia, the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, Library Building and Grounds, Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution.”
Sorry to hear about this. I have to ask this, Are you filing using Henderickson's method?
The IRS is not being unlawful in calling these frivolous return filings.
What we need to do is correct how these individuals present their info to the IRS.
To increase the number is simply to send more sheep to be slaughtered. I will not be a party to that.
We do need to call out the employers, but to do so we need to be clear on what they are doing.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
Oh absolutely, one has to wonder why such arguments are even brought forth in the first place and of the impartiality of the courts as a reflection upon their own (self-serving) interests. It was not after all as if the tax in question was specifically imposed upon jurists and nobody else, which then there may be a valid constitutional issue to debate.
And yes, for clearly the writings of major legists in economy Turgot, Smith, and Gallatin, et al, undoubtedly crystallized that the ignoble, the bourgeois, etc., earn merely a livelihood, nothing more. Alexander Hamilton himself had clarified the concepts of one’s whole income (gross receipts) as only a direct tax and of the exemption of income-capital as personalty.
Here again we have the word service used in two different contexts and you are equating them. They do not mean the same.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
For my first few years filling, I filed very similar to CtC, though have recently amended my prior filings to reflect my present understanding and knowledge as to the federal income tax.
I now follow the procedures set forth within 26 CFR (26 CFR §§ 301.6401-1(b), 301.6402-(1-4), 601.102(b)(3), 601.103(c)(3), 601.105(a),(b), et seq.); including a IRS Forms 1040EZ, 4852, a notice of governmental duty, and a verified affidavit, I include only as taxable income the portions of me and my wife’s income that was received outside of our regular bi-weekly pay, e.g., holiday, vacation, sick, bonuses, etc.
I would have to disagree with you on the unlawfulness comment, under 26 U.S.C. § 6702(c) filing claims of refund are specifically excluded from inclusion on the IRS’ frivolous listing, being addressed instead within 26 U.S.C. §§ 6662, 6676.
More pointedly, being ‘frivolous’ requires a minimum of two conditions to first be met, the IRS can ever only quote the statute and never is able to identify one let alone two of the requirements for imposing penalties under that provision. In filing for a claim of refund it may only be ‘erroneous’, unless there is also the qualification of it being frivolous as well (but the mere fact that one has filed such a claim does not in itself render it frivolous); the IRS is simply to approve, adjust, deny, or dialog for further clarification concerning the claim, they are not to pretend that it was never filed, issue frivolous penalties (on officially non-existent tax documents), and then bury the filer in an entirely arbitrary process. Furthermore, it is a statutory requirement to first file such claims and to exhaust administrative remedy prior to filing an action against the IRS for any related tax matters, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); thus, the IRS cannot constitutionally forge what is a judicial requirement into a penalizing venture so as to circumvent whatever ramifications that may come about publicly.
I myself used to feel that the issue centered primarily on the employers, though have come to realize that it is well within an employers own right to impose withholding as part of their business model or contracting for employment so as to protect their own interests (especially with consideration to employee bargaining, etc.) Then the employees simply need to file for their appropriate refund at the close of each year, though it should also be noted that withholding costs employees the loss of interest bearing possession of whatever portion withheld (i.e. http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?p=1151#p1151).
For more on frivolity, please see (a law review conducted by the Utah State Bar): http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?p=630#p630
I now follow the procedures set forth within 26 CFR (26 CFR §§ 301.6401-1(b), 301.6402-(1-4), 601.102(b)(3), 601.103(c)(3), 601.105(a),(b), et seq.); including a IRS Forms 1040EZ, 4852, a notice of governmental duty, and a verified affidavit, I include only as taxable income the portions of me and my wife’s income that was received outside of our regular bi-weekly pay, e.g., holiday, vacation, sick, bonuses, etc.
I would have to disagree with you on the unlawfulness comment, under 26 U.S.C. § 6702(c) filing claims of refund are specifically excluded from inclusion on the IRS’ frivolous listing, being addressed instead within 26 U.S.C. §§ 6662, 6676.
More pointedly, being ‘frivolous’ requires a minimum of two conditions to first be met, the IRS can ever only quote the statute and never is able to identify one let alone two of the requirements for imposing penalties under that provision. In filing for a claim of refund it may only be ‘erroneous’, unless there is also the qualification of it being frivolous as well (but the mere fact that one has filed such a claim does not in itself render it frivolous); the IRS is simply to approve, adjust, deny, or dialog for further clarification concerning the claim, they are not to pretend that it was never filed, issue frivolous penalties (on officially non-existent tax documents), and then bury the filer in an entirely arbitrary process. Furthermore, it is a statutory requirement to first file such claims and to exhaust administrative remedy prior to filing an action against the IRS for any related tax matters, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); thus, the IRS cannot constitutionally forge what is a judicial requirement into a penalizing venture so as to circumvent whatever ramifications that may come about publicly.
I myself used to feel that the issue centered primarily on the employers, though have come to realize that it is well within an employers own right to impose withholding as part of their business model or contracting for employment so as to protect their own interests (especially with consideration to employee bargaining, etc.) Then the employees simply need to file for their appropriate refund at the close of each year, though it should also be noted that withholding costs employees the loss of interest bearing possession of whatever portion withheld (i.e. http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?p=1151#p1151).
For more on frivolity, please see (a law review conducted by the Utah State Bar): http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?p=630#p630
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
Not sure what you mean; that is a quote from a statute, it is not something that I wrote myself.
What the IRS is attacking you on is the 4852.
What I want you to tell me is how did you come to the realization that your regular bi-weekly pay is outside the taxing authority and that your holiday, vacation, and sick pay as well as bonuses and such is what the tax is truly targeting.
Did you include this information as an attachment to the 4852?
Did you support this information with a case law citation of the government's position.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
I actually have (what I consider to be) an admission of willful culpability and wrongdoing from the Brookhaven IRS office out of New York; as one of the few personal responses we have actually ever received from the IRS, concerning our attempt at appealing the unsubstantiated charges (while having been denied all attempts at an in office interview, or to even have our case reviewed locally within our regional office in CA, as 26 CFR mandates), in the letter we received, being in answer to one of our many questions posed (with most questions entirely ignored), as to what legally validates the charges of 26 USC Sec. 6702 being imposed against us, the IRS caseworker stated (paraphrasing), “you wrote down zero income on your tax return, while your W-2 indicates that you did have income, thus a frivolous termination was made against you.” That was the only reason given; thus, even presuming that is a valid cause to impose the above penalty (which it is not, i.e., a claim of refund is not a “zero return” as described by Mr. Schiff), only one of the two returned ‘AND’ conditions had been met and thus it has no legal standing.
These are relatable facts: the IRS cannot render an individual tax advice (they are not licensed attorneys) and in fact hold no legal background in most all cases (CPA’ do not even qualify as possessing a legal background), nor may an individuals employer render tax advice, neither does an individuals employer dictate the taxable liabilities of their employees to the IRS that including the IRS W-3 and W-2 receipt forms that they forward to the SSA (who then passes along the W-2 information to the IRS). A W-2 does not establish one’s tax liabilities, only their tax return achieves this; a W-2 is merely an informational receipt depicting the related sums withheld for the various classes of individual income tax (including SSI and FICA) during a specific tax-year with respect to an aggregate sum (e.g., just because one has a receipt for a blender does not necessarily mean they own the described blender).
The IRS is authorized only to process and assess tax returns as submitted by the filer, 26 USC Sec. 6201(a)(1), if there are concerns about math errors, fraud, etc., then the IRS is really to dialog with the filer or otherwise submit the matter to CID or DOJ for legal review.
The truth is that IRS employees do not know one way or the other; they are merely doing what they have been instructed to do within their training meetings, internal memos, etc. Most IRS employees have never even seen an IRS regulation let alone know what the hell it is. And I am willing to bet that I myself have spent so much more time reading the IRS’ own Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) than even the most veteran of IRS employees. All IRS employees really understand it what forms and schedule are for what, how they should be filed out, where they should be filed at and by what date, where to look for the newest processing policy revision and tax table, what computer or routing code means what, etc.; that is really the extent of their knowledge.
I began realizing during the course of my researching that contracted benefits, perks, fringe benefits, and the like are justly a gain acquired from my laboring, being that such meets the burden of having positively derived from a source. While, clearly the core of my bi-weekly pay is itself not taxable as it is the source being described by the XVI Amendment; however, any gain I happen take in through the prudent or enterprising application of my bi-weekly pay is taxable, be it interest from a saving account, profit from an earlier investment in precious metal purchases, stocks or dividend returns, the selling of earlier purchased realty that has increased in value, etc.
Within my included affidavit (being verified) I numerate all aspects of what was withheld and what amounts of that are legally taxable as gross income, identifying each taxable category (I request a copy of my pay history from my work’s payroll department so that I have accurate information).
The whole of my understanding is run through the gauntlet fairly well in the following (PDF’):
The Crux of Federal ‘Taxation’ (CFT) [PDF]
Points in Further Support of the CFT [PDF]
These are relatable facts: the IRS cannot render an individual tax advice (they are not licensed attorneys) and in fact hold no legal background in most all cases (CPA’ do not even qualify as possessing a legal background), nor may an individuals employer render tax advice, neither does an individuals employer dictate the taxable liabilities of their employees to the IRS that including the IRS W-3 and W-2 receipt forms that they forward to the SSA (who then passes along the W-2 information to the IRS). A W-2 does not establish one’s tax liabilities, only their tax return achieves this; a W-2 is merely an informational receipt depicting the related sums withheld for the various classes of individual income tax (including SSI and FICA) during a specific tax-year with respect to an aggregate sum (e.g., just because one has a receipt for a blender does not necessarily mean they own the described blender).
The IRS is authorized only to process and assess tax returns as submitted by the filer, 26 USC Sec. 6201(a)(1), if there are concerns about math errors, fraud, etc., then the IRS is really to dialog with the filer or otherwise submit the matter to CID or DOJ for legal review.
The truth is that IRS employees do not know one way or the other; they are merely doing what they have been instructed to do within their training meetings, internal memos, etc. Most IRS employees have never even seen an IRS regulation let alone know what the hell it is. And I am willing to bet that I myself have spent so much more time reading the IRS’ own Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) than even the most veteran of IRS employees. All IRS employees really understand it what forms and schedule are for what, how they should be filed out, where they should be filed at and by what date, where to look for the newest processing policy revision and tax table, what computer or routing code means what, etc.; that is really the extent of their knowledge.
I began realizing during the course of my researching that contracted benefits, perks, fringe benefits, and the like are justly a gain acquired from my laboring, being that such meets the burden of having positively derived from a source. While, clearly the core of my bi-weekly pay is itself not taxable as it is the source being described by the XVI Amendment; however, any gain I happen take in through the prudent or enterprising application of my bi-weekly pay is taxable, be it interest from a saving account, profit from an earlier investment in precious metal purchases, stocks or dividend returns, the selling of earlier purchased realty that has increased in value, etc.
Within my included affidavit (being verified) I numerate all aspects of what was withheld and what amounts of that are legally taxable as gross income, identifying each taxable category (I request a copy of my pay history from my work’s payroll department so that I have accurate information).
The whole of my understanding is run through the gauntlet fairly well in the following (PDF’):
The Crux of Federal ‘Taxation’ (CFT) [PDF]
Points in Further Support of the CFT [PDF]
Weston,
As I stated in my 2nd post, sending in your W-2 with your return is your validation that what is stated on that document is true and correct. If you enter zero on your return and submit a W-2 stating otherwise, then you are being frivolous.
If you submit a 4852 in place of the W-2, then you need to have documentation that supports it.
Specifically, you have to be able to dismantle this argument.
The issue presented in Rev. Ruling 2007-19 is;
"Whether Taxpayer A may avoid federal income tax liability by maintaining that the Internal Revenue Code does not tax wages or other compensation received in exchange for personal services."
I have read your PDF's and in the 28 pages you have compiled you have nothing that will dismantle this argument.
However, I will let you and anyone else try before I show you.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
QUOTING: “If you enter zero on your return and submit a W-2 stating otherwise, then you are being frivolous.”
No that is not what frivolity is, such would only be either intentionally erroneous or fraudulent. To be frivolous is to meet the statutory requirements of having been frivolous, while also making arguments that have zero basis in law (e.g., claiming a complete exemption from all taxes under the “freeman on the land deduction”, “sovereign Creator tax deduction”, Bill of Rights doctrine, etc.) or are otherwise intended to threaten, harass, intimate, impersonate, etc., under the Omnibus Clause, 26 USC Sec. 7212 (see: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?p=324#p324).
QUOTING: “If you submit a 4852 in place of the W-2, then you need to have documentation that supports it.”
I don’t submit a W-2 with my returns, to do so would serve only to cause confusion and conflict. Additionally, (1) the IRS already has everybody’s W-2 data so providing it to them is merely a courtesy on the part of the filer (personally I still wonder why it is that the IRS pretends they do not already have access to that data), and (2) a 4852 serves to correct the W-2 and thereby serves to replace the W-2. The verified affidavit provides the purpose of substantiating the claim being made by the tax filing (1040 and 4852 Forms), if the claims laid therein fail to do so then the IRS is only to make the necessary adjustments or to correspond with the filer for clarification; this entire process is clearly set forth and prescribed within 26 CFR, the parts thereto I had cited in an earlier post and also within the PDF’. The problem is that the IRS is simply not training on this point, they are only taught that if the refund claim is larger than what the computer displays, then ACS-FRP the filer, end of story, period.
* On a related note, I was actually kicked out of my local IRS office last week by the manager, who had frivolously set off the duress alarm calling in their office security guards to remove me, all because I made the demand to speak her manager due to her utter disrespect and obtuseness of law for refusing to accept my tax filing because they did not include a W-2, first she told me it was the law, then after I demanded that she show me the statute for that “requirement”, she then said it was her office policy; I retorted that her interoffice policies cannot conflict with the very regulations she was charged with enforcing by the authority of Secretary of the Treasury for which she is subordinate to and that she was now acting entirely outside of all law and was suppressing my rights to hand in my return at my local IRS office and to file a complaint against her (I ended up mailing them certified which cost me $25), needless to say this did not make her happy at all. I plan on filing against her with TIGTA now and am seriously considering petitioning for mandamus against her personally and also include the IRS as a party to the action.
QUOTING: “The issue presented in Rev. Ruling 2007-19 is;”
See ref. http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-14_IRB/ar12.html
Self-serving Revenue Rulings are not valid evidence in court; such rulings depend largely upon ineffectual trial court and tax court cases, along with a smattering of outer circuit appellate cases (which may serve to be advisory upon the courts). Revenue Rulings are primarily a concern only for the internal operations of IRS employees, but cannot ever trump federal statutes, regulations, or valid case law.
The context of that quote is a common misconception made by those that clearly do not possess a valid understanding of the IRC or hold a desire to ensconce the truth; such is a Subtitle C withholding argument, having only to do with ‘stoppage at the source’ and nothing to do with the lawful assessment of Subtitle A tax liabilities (with certain exemption to SSI and FICA, which are dependent upon both voluntary participation in such federal entitlements and/or Subtitle A taxable liabilities). Gross income is not a tax upon wages or salaries, but is rather a tax upon gains and provides emanating from wages or salaries, etc.
QUOTING: “I have read your PDF's and in the 28 pages you have compiled you have nothing that will dismantle this argument.”
Nor are they intended to, for if you are subject to federal income tax liabilities then whatever specified exemptions (including loopholes, etc.) provided for within the IRC itself are one’s only recourse in “avoiding federal income tax liability”. However, the mere fact that a worker has agreed to withholdings in the course of their occupation does not subjugate that worker to the automatic forfeiture of those monies withheld throughout the course of a respective tax period.
If you are looking for a SCOTUS case directly addressing the common laborer as to federal income taxation, you will not find it; SCOTUS ‘cert. denies’ all such cases, as to why exactly that is for you judge.
The objective is not to enigmatically “avoid federal income tax liability”; rather it is to address axiomatic principles concerning the federal government’s true authority and constraint of national taxation.
QUOTING: “However, I will let you and anyone else try before I show you.”
Sorry, what do you mean by: try what and before you show me what?
No that is not what frivolity is, such would only be either intentionally erroneous or fraudulent. To be frivolous is to meet the statutory requirements of having been frivolous, while also making arguments that have zero basis in law (e.g., claiming a complete exemption from all taxes under the “freeman on the land deduction”, “sovereign Creator tax deduction”, Bill of Rights doctrine, etc.) or are otherwise intended to threaten, harass, intimate, impersonate, etc., under the Omnibus Clause, 26 USC Sec. 7212 (see: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/viewtopic.php?p=324#p324).
QUOTING: “If you submit a 4852 in place of the W-2, then you need to have documentation that supports it.”
I don’t submit a W-2 with my returns, to do so would serve only to cause confusion and conflict. Additionally, (1) the IRS already has everybody’s W-2 data so providing it to them is merely a courtesy on the part of the filer (personally I still wonder why it is that the IRS pretends they do not already have access to that data), and (2) a 4852 serves to correct the W-2 and thereby serves to replace the W-2. The verified affidavit provides the purpose of substantiating the claim being made by the tax filing (1040 and 4852 Forms), if the claims laid therein fail to do so then the IRS is only to make the necessary adjustments or to correspond with the filer for clarification; this entire process is clearly set forth and prescribed within 26 CFR, the parts thereto I had cited in an earlier post and also within the PDF’. The problem is that the IRS is simply not training on this point, they are only taught that if the refund claim is larger than what the computer displays, then ACS-FRP the filer, end of story, period.
* On a related note, I was actually kicked out of my local IRS office last week by the manager, who had frivolously set off the duress alarm calling in their office security guards to remove me, all because I made the demand to speak her manager due to her utter disrespect and obtuseness of law for refusing to accept my tax filing because they did not include a W-2, first she told me it was the law, then after I demanded that she show me the statute for that “requirement”, she then said it was her office policy; I retorted that her interoffice policies cannot conflict with the very regulations she was charged with enforcing by the authority of Secretary of the Treasury for which she is subordinate to and that she was now acting entirely outside of all law and was suppressing my rights to hand in my return at my local IRS office and to file a complaint against her (I ended up mailing them certified which cost me $25), needless to say this did not make her happy at all. I plan on filing against her with TIGTA now and am seriously considering petitioning for mandamus against her personally and also include the IRS as a party to the action.
QUOTING: “The issue presented in Rev. Ruling 2007-19 is;”
See ref. http://www.irs.gov/irb/2007-14_IRB/ar12.html
Self-serving Revenue Rulings are not valid evidence in court; such rulings depend largely upon ineffectual trial court and tax court cases, along with a smattering of outer circuit appellate cases (which may serve to be advisory upon the courts). Revenue Rulings are primarily a concern only for the internal operations of IRS employees, but cannot ever trump federal statutes, regulations, or valid case law.
The context of that quote is a common misconception made by those that clearly do not possess a valid understanding of the IRC or hold a desire to ensconce the truth; such is a Subtitle C withholding argument, having only to do with ‘stoppage at the source’ and nothing to do with the lawful assessment of Subtitle A tax liabilities (with certain exemption to SSI and FICA, which are dependent upon both voluntary participation in such federal entitlements and/or Subtitle A taxable liabilities). Gross income is not a tax upon wages or salaries, but is rather a tax upon gains and provides emanating from wages or salaries, etc.
QUOTING: “I have read your PDF's and in the 28 pages you have compiled you have nothing that will dismantle this argument.”
Nor are they intended to, for if you are subject to federal income tax liabilities then whatever specified exemptions (including loopholes, etc.) provided for within the IRC itself are one’s only recourse in “avoiding federal income tax liability”. However, the mere fact that a worker has agreed to withholdings in the course of their occupation does not subjugate that worker to the automatic forfeiture of those monies withheld throughout the course of a respective tax period.
If you are looking for a SCOTUS case directly addressing the common laborer as to federal income taxation, you will not find it; SCOTUS ‘cert. denies’ all such cases, as to why exactly that is for you judge.
The objective is not to enigmatically “avoid federal income tax liability”; rather it is to address axiomatic principles concerning the federal government’s true authority and constraint of national taxation.
QUOTING: “However, I will let you and anyone else try before I show you.”
Sorry, what do you mean by: try what and before you show me what?
anaconda
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 19,403
No, it is not a courtesy on the part of the filer. You are submitting a self-assessment. The W-2 is presented to you by the employer for your validation. The IRS in turn requires that you send them a copy to verify that you have seen what the employer reported and that by this submission you validate that it is true and correct.
Why didn't you simply say to her what you wrote in (2) above - The 4852 is a government form that serves as a substitute W-2.
You Lose. We just had a discussion about judges being taxed on their salaries. The Executive and Legislative branches are also taxed on their salaries.
If you give me the line that the tax falls on all federal workers, then I will throw the B.S. card on you. The janitor in the Pentagon has the same protection as the janitor in a Mcdonald's.
The tax also falls on the salaries of executives of all corporations. It applies to the salaries of all small business owners.
You can not make the blanket statement that gross income does not include wages or salaries.
I do not need a SCOTUS case
So, you can present the position of the IRS, but if we present you with a RULING by the United States Supreme Court, it is essentially invalid?
May I draw you an analogy?
A few years ago, as a foster parent, I tried to report abuse of children at the hands of another foster care worker. DFACS would not act. I went to the police. They said they had no jurisdiction. I went to the Family Court judge who said he could not do anything. So, what I deduced from it all was that the judges (the executive branch) could only be a referee between DFACS and those in the system. The executive branch has no real authority in cases involving these private corporations that spring up at the government's behest. Both DFACS and the IRS are private corporations whose only client happens to be the government.
So, essentially, despite the intent of the legislatures and the words of the Constitution, etc. if you are a 14th Amendment citizen, you are subject to the POWER of the Federal / Legislative Democracy that is owned and controlled by a few, elite, multinational corporations.
That is not what i said.
If you look at what you responded to you will see that the first sentence was a reply to one question and the second sentence was a reply to a totally different question.
I believe that is because the reply function of this forum only pulls up what the previous poster wrote and not the quote I responded to.
Otherwise I would think that maybe you work for NBC and have a problem with editing.
I will take a shot in the dark. The DFACS is a state function. If you went to the local police I can see that they would say they don't have jurisdiction.
The Family Court Judge (the judicial branch) is just a referee. I am surprised that they could not send you in the direction of those who do have jurisdiction, such as the State Police or State Attorney General's office.
In the above instance I did contact the State Atty. Gen., but those letters fell on blind eyes since no response was forthcoming.
Back to the taxes for a moment. You and I know what the United States Supreme Court has stated relative to income tax. I'd like to point out something to all of you. Here is the alleged logic of those who say you have to pay an income tax:
The Tax Scam Artist's Lie: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income.
This argument asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income, because there is allegedly no taxable gain when a person "exchanges" labor for money. Under this theory, wages are not taxable income because people have basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive; thus, there is no gain to be taxed.
Some take a different approach and argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries, but only on gain or profit.
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/meaning_of_income.htm
Whatever the attraction of this economic theory of wages, Congress has taken a different view. Section 63 of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines your taxable income to be “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by the tax code. Section 61 of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 61 which defines “gross income,” provides:
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; . . .
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/wages.htm
In order for anything to be a lie, it must be false and it must be stated with the intent to deceive. MOST of the time, the powers that be allege something and it is accepted as fact, only because the average guy fears the POWER of big government.
The United States Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiters of what the law is. All I can do is tell you what they said. IF the IRS and their supporters want to disagree, they need more than name calling in order to prevail.
First off, what is income?
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113
"Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor." Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739.
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..." Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. 1883
Wheeljack, let me explain something to you:
In a famous court case in the early 1800s, Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court decided to hold itself out as the greatest branch of government... overruling the intent of the legislators and the will of the people. Their rulings are supposed to be the final word. The statutory law is supposed to be subject to the interpretations of the United States Supreme Court. Now, the courts DID rule as they did above and I've even highlighted the appropriate sections of the law.
I've noticed that those who profess to be exposing the alleged tax scamsters are using Tax Code Memos as if they carried the same weight as court rulings. In addition, I've noticed that these wannabe IRS groupies quote a lot of laws out of context. In order to figure out what the proper context is, we must ask ourselves IF I quoted the courts right and IF I did, what does it mean?
Additionally, the pro - IRS position asks us a very poignant question and I'd like to reproduce it here with an answer. They asked:
"If wages are not income because they are just an "equal exchange" -- if you really get zero gain or profit from your wages because what you give up is equal in value to what you get -- then why do you work? Why does anybody work?
No one works for the pure fun of it. No one would work for zero gain or profit. If people really believed that they were getting zero from working, they would stop. People work because they get income from working. That income is taxable."
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/meaning_of_income.htm
Here is my RESPONSE:
The overwhelming majority of the people work in order pay required taxes and insurance plus to have necessities. There is no profit in it. I cannot sell the tv I bought at a price higher than what I paid... ditto for my clothes, food, or car. That's why I work. This is in complete contradistinction to the guy I work for who trades me a set number of dollars for a portion of my time and then makes a profit off my time. In other words, he not only is the recipient of my time, but makes money off the mere fact that I generated more in value than the money he pays me.
If I invest in a house, that is mine. There is no profit there unless I sell that house and then the almighty state gets a portion of the difference between what I bought the house for and what I sold it for. If I sell for more than I bought the house for, then yes, there is a profit.
There is no profit in labor. Corporate interests generate wealth by virtue of what they will give you for your time and what they can charge an end user for the time you worked. WHEN the worker generates wealth, then they are fairly taxed. For instance, that portion of my wages used to pay for the basic necessities of life is not profit by any stretch of the imagination; however, that portion of my money put into investments or interest bearing accounts is making a profit and can be legitimately taxed.
The defenders of the income tax aren't honest with themselves much less those they attempt to deceive. The income tax does not fund government; it redistributes the wealth. Half of the American people do not pay and the other half carry those that don't. End it and you eliminate the IRS. The government still operates because profits are taxed. Today, the government has the POWER to enforce unjust laws. The government lacks the legitimate AUTHORITY to enforce a plank taken from the Communist Manifesto against us. So, one day a significant number of people are going to look this over and scrutinize it carefully. You and I know that an illegally ratified amendment that changes our form of government will not stand in the grand scheme of things.
I only hope that we will see the dismantling of the IRS and the evil it stands for in my life time.
As I stated in an earlier post, the 16th amendment, regardless of being ratified, legally or illegally, changed absolutely nothing about our form of government, let alone what the government could tax, this is what the Supreme Court set forth in the Brushaber decision.
According to the court, the 16th Amendment simply keeps the income tax in the realm of indirect taxation where it inherently belongs. The 16th Amendment was put forth to detail a protection for the people, it granted no new power to the government.
You are correct in your analogy of working for someone else, but you fall short in asking that, if your employer provides you with money for time in which you do not work (vacation and holiday pay) or provides a year-end bonus; this money is paid to you in the form of a wage or salary, this money is taken from the wealth generated by your employer, thus you are sharing in the wealth generated and are receiving taxable income.
This is one of the reasons why you can not make the blanket statement that gross income does not include wages and salaries.
Similar threads
