PDA

View Full Version : 7th Trump - I Discovered what you were discussing regarding "Wages" and "Employee"



Ares
5th October 2013, 09:51 AM
The TRUTH About
W-4 WITHHOLDING



Now let's check out one of the major areas where you provide the evidence against yourself, that you are liable for a tax. But let's get some terms straight first. First, remember this very important point: If you are not 'liable' for a tax, then you are not subject to withholding. And if you had no corporate taxable "income", as legally defined by the Supreme Court,, then there is no liability for a tax.

Withholding is taken out of your wages, but, what does that 'word of art' "wages" mean in the IRC (Internal Revenue Code), since 'wages' are subject to withholding?

IRC Section 3401 Definitions
(a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, (Ch. 24 - withholding at the source) the term "wages" means all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;
(c) Employee. For purposes of this chapter (Chapter 24 - Collection of Income Tax at Source on wages), the term "employee" includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
(d) Employer. For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person,

Notice that the only word that was really defined here was "employee" and even then they used 'employee' in the definition of 'employee'. Also. notice that the term 'employer' does NOT mean the company that you work for! The 'employer' is the one has "employees". And an employee is someone who is an officer, employee or elected official of the United States government, or an officer of a corporation.

IRC 3401(c) plainly states that corporation officers and government employees are definitely considered employees. This section is talking about withholding, of any tax imposed, at the source. Withholding is ONLY allowed on 'employees' (officers, employees or elected officials of the U.S.) Why? Because of the Public Salary Tax Act.

Let's examine that term "employee". It only "includes" government employees and corporate officers, therefore it would "exclude" all workers not in this category. Are you an officer, employee or elected official of the federal government? If you are not, then is the company you work for an "employer", as defined?

Now look at the definition of "employer". You will see that it means someone who has 'employees'. Remember, an employee, as defined, ONLY works for the government, or is a corporate officer. Therefore an 'employer' could only mean a government employer, since no one else could possibly employ 'employees'. The definition of employer says an employer is a "person" with an 'employee' who performs services for him. An 'employee' works for the government. It is the employee that makes the distinction, not the employer! Since an employee can only be a government employee, then the employer can only be a government employer. The employee definition is the controlling definition.

Now look at the definition of 'wages'. Wages are only, as defined, payment for services performed by a employee (government employee or corporate officer) for his employer (government). 'Employees' receiving 'wages' are subject to withholding, since the wages are received from a privileged occupation (government employment privilege or corporate privilege).

The Public Salary Tax Act applies to government employees, doesn't it? So I would venture to say that withholding only applies to government employees.

When you contract to be a U.S. citizen, you agree to become a voluntary slave to help collect revenue. Similarly, when you agree to work for the government, a privilege, you also agree to be a voluntary slave/employee. After all, for this privilege, you also get to pay a Public Salary Tax and get to have that tax withheld from your wages in advance. The government can dispose of a part of your labor, the tax withheld, and you cannot do anything about it, because you voluntarily chose to work for the government.

Slave. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. (Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition)

Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".
Aliens. Aliens are "persons" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment . . .
Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment . . ." (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition)

According to these definitions, a slave is a 'person', and a person can be an alien or a corporation. The 13th Amendment abolishes 'involuntary' slavery, but not 'voluntary' slavery. A U.S. citizen is a voluntary slave, with no rights to acquire property or income and must "return" a portion of his 'wages' every April 15.


14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.

Since slaves are persons, could this be read all 'slaves' born or naturalized . . .? A U.S. citizen's name is spelled in all caps. A name spelled in all caps indicates a corporation or a corporate citizen (property).

Does the company you work for claim to be the United States or an agency thereof? Then, if he is NOT the United States, you are not an employee and you did NOT receive wages, as defined. And if you did not receive wages, then you are not subject to withholding. Isn't that simple! Give your employer a copy of this chapter and let him decide if he is the United States, or an agency thereof. If he thinks he is not, then he has no obligation to withhold taxes from your paycheck!

Withholding only applies to government employers. Is your employer a government employer?

Where is the statute that authorizes withholding?
IRC Sec. 3402. Income tax collected at source.
(a) Requirement of withholding.
(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon said wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary.

As you can see, withholding only applies to government 'employers' making payments of 'wages'. The IRC defined 'employer' for us: a government employer who has employees (officers, employees and elected officials of the United States).

So if you ARE a government employee, you are required to furnish a W-4 exemption certificate, indicating how much public salary tax you want withheld.

Sec. 3402 (f) (2) Exemption certificates.
(A) On commencement of employment. On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.

This exemption certificate (W-4) section applies only to 'employees', as defined, working for a government 'employer', as defined in Sec. 3401(d).

If you are not an 'employee', then you qualify to be exempt from withholding on the W-4 withholding certificate.

Remember, these statutes only apply to those who are employees and have wages., as defined.

Think about this. If there is a law that allows the government to tax your income directly, do you need to sign a paper giving them permission to do so? No. Then why would you need to sign a paper, under penalty of perjury, for them to withhold a percentage of your wages up front, if they have a law that says they can do it? You say it is to claim an partial exemption from the withholding of tax.

But what if you did not want to claim an exemption? Do you still need to sign the form? After all, the form only applies to 'taxpayers' that want more or less tax withheld from their paycheck. Are you a 'taxpayer'? Only if you have a tax liability.

Maybe we better check another statute.

IRC Sec. 3401(e) Number of withholding exemptions claimed. For purposes of this chapter, the term 'number of withholding exemptions claimed' means the number of withholding exemptions claimed in a withholding exemption certificate in effect under section 3402(f), or in effect under the corresponding section of prior law, except that if no such certificate is in effect, the number of withholding exemptions claimed shall be considered to be zero.

Wait a second! I thought your employer told you that you had to file the form before you went to work. Then why the exception, that if no such certificate is in effect? If it is required, how could a certificate not be in effect? Because you chose not to sign one! After all, the exemption is a benefit granted by Congress to 'taxpayers'. Are you required to decline a benefit, under penalty of perjury, if you do not want the benefit? What if you do not want welfare or food stamps, do you need to sign a paper declining the benefit, before you don't get it? Why not? Because you cannot be forced to engage in a privileged activity or receive a privileged benefit, just so you can be taxed.

Since the government takes the tax out of your paycheck before you get it, they already have your money. And it is very difficult to get the money back once they have it. The best route is to keep them from taking it out of your paycheck in the first place! There is one situation in which you can stop withholding on your income.

26 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 31.3402(n) Employees incurring no tax liability. An employer shall not deduct and withhold any tax under chapter 24 upon a payment of wages . . . if there is in effect, with respect to the payment, a withholding exemption certificate furnished by the employee which contains the statements that
(a) the employee incurred no liability for the income tax imposed under subtitle A of the Code for his preceding taxable year;
(b) the employee anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed by subtitle A for his current year.

What is the withholding exemption certificate? It is just the W-4 form. You can claim exempt if you meet the two conditions listed above.

Now I ask you, if you had no corporate income, or if you were an American Citizen and not a U.S, citizen, then did you have a tax liability for last year? No. But remember, the W-4 form is a withholding authorization form. It merely states that you ARE subject to withholding, but are exempt in this particular situation. The form is for taxpayers.

You should also question your "employer's" status as "withholding agent". Ask him if he is an authorized withholding agent. He will tell you yes. Only withholding agents are authorized to withhold tax from your paycheck. What is the definition of withholding agent? The IRC tells us.

IRC 7701(a)(16) Withholding agent. The term "withholding agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

Oh really? Well, just what do sections 1441 - 1443 pertain to? In the IRC, Chapter 3 Subchapter A, is where these sections are found. What is the title of this Subchapter A? Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations!

1441. Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens.

1442. Withholding of tax on foreign corporations.

1443. Foreign tax exempt organizations.

1461. Liability for withheld tax. Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Is your employer required to withhold tax from your paycheck? Only if you are a nonresident alien or foreign corporation, working for him! Are you either? If you are not, then send an affidavit to your employer titled, "Notice of Withdrawal of Authorization to Withhold Tax". Make a copy of the above sections from 26 USC (United States Code - found in your local law library) and attach them to your letter. You simply state that you are NOT a foreign person earning income in the U.S., and that you want all withholding to cease immediately. Claim that they are not withholding agents, as defined by law, and that there is no legal requirement to withhold tax from your pay. If you employer refuses to honor your request, then you may have to get more aggressive and demand that they prove that you are a foreigner, and that they are withholding agents, as defined by law, OR stop withholding. Do not fall for filling out the W-4 form as exempt, since this form is the form that authorizes withholding and provides evidence that you think you are liable for a tax, and want less tax withheld.

If you are not an 'employee', and your 'income' is not legally defined as "wages", and your employer is not the government, then how does your employer get away with having you fill out a W-4 in the first place? The IRC tells us again!

IRC 3402(p) Voluntary withholding agreements.

(3) Authority for other voluntary withholding. The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding -- (A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which does not constitute wages, . . . if the employer and employee, . . . agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee . . ."

So if you both agree to withholding, then you can have the tax withheld and 'treated as' a tax on wages, even if it is not. The W-4 is simply your voluntary agreement! You are signing a contract.

SELF EMPLOYED

OK. Now what if you are self-employed as an independent contractor? First we must find out what the meaning of self-employed is. Let's check the IRC. (Internal Revenue Code)

IRC Section 217(f) Self-employed individual. For purposes of this section (deduction for moving expenses), the term "self-employed individual" means an individual who performs personal services --
(1) as the owner of the entire interest in an unincorporated trade or business, or
(2) as a partner in a partnership carrying on a trade or business.

A self-employed individual has his/her own 'trade or business'.

Sec 1401. Rate of tax. (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance. In addition to other taxes, there shall be imposed for each taxable year, on the self-employment income of every individual, a tax equal to the following percent of the amount of self-employment income for such taxable year.
Sec. 1402 Definitions. (b) Self-employment income. The term "self-employment income" means the net earnings from self-employment derived by an individual during any taxable year;

Sec. 1402. Definitions.
(a) Net earnings from self-employment. The term "net earnings from self-employment" means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by the individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such trade or business, . . .

OK, now let's review 'trade or business' to see who it applies to.

Sec. 1402(c) Trade or business. The term "trade or business", when used with reference to self-employment income or net earnings from self-employment, shall have the same meaning as when used in section 162 (relating to trade or business expenses) except . . .

Notice this definition does not use 'includes' or 'means', because it is not a definition. It is a reference. In checking section 162, there is no definition of trade or business listed either. Therefore, by default, the general definition for the whole IRC comes into play.

IRC 7701(26) Trade or business. The term 'trade or business' includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

IRC 7701(10)(c) Includes and including. The terms '"includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

"Includes" means that ONLY terms in the same category that the definition applies to the term. It 'includes' ANY function of a public office, but EXCLUDES anything not within the term "performing the functions of a public office". i.e. The definition: "Fruit includes apples", would 'include' oranges, but would exclude corn. Even though only the term 'apples' was in the definition of fruit, it does not exclude other 'types' of fruit.

What is a 'trade or business'? The definition 'includes the performance of the functions of a public office'. That's all! If you are not performing the functions of a public office, then you are not self-employed! If you are a CPA, is that performing the function of a public office? Not the last time I checked. What if you were a CPA with a contract with the IRS or the Dept. of Agriculture? Would you then be performing the functions of a public office? Yes. WHY? Because you are technically working for the public office of the IRS, and performing their functions.

You are not an 'employee' working for an 'employer', but you ARE 'self-employed' by the government when you are contracting your services to them. If you don't contract with the government, then you are just a private entrepreneur. Private individuals contracting with other private individuals are never 'self-employed'. BUT, you can volunteer to be in that category if you like paying income tax. Just file a return, and confirm the presumption.

Remember, these are called 'words of art' in the legal profession. They are used to make special definitions for words that apply only to certain statutes. That's partly why they call the government regulations 'codes'. The words have special meanings that only those within the circle know the meaning to. The words do not mean the same as those found in the dictionary.




SUMMARY

"Employees" are defined as officers, employees, or elected officials of the United States. Only employees have wages.

Only wages, as defined, are subject to withholding of tax at the source.

If you are an "employer", defined as one who has employees, then you employee officers, employees and elected officials of the federal government, and therefore you must be the government. If you are not the government, you cannot have employees, as defined.

W-4's are only for 'taxpayers', who presume they are liable for a tax.

W-4's are voluntary consent forms (contracts) you file agreeing to the withholding of public salary tax.

Withholding agents are only REQUIRED to withhold from foreign persons or corporations.

Withholding only applies to government employers and their employees, and to corporate officers, who are subject to an income tax.

Only (government) employees and corporate officers receive 'wages'.

You are engaged in a 'trade or business' only when contracting with the government.

You are 'self-employed' only when you contract your services to the government as an independent contractor.

The W-4 withholding form is for 'employees', as legally defined, working for 'employers', as legally defined, when such employees are receiving 'wages' as legally defined, upon which a tax has been imposed.

The W-4 withholding exemption is a benefit granted by Congress to 'taxpayers'. You are not required to accept a benefit.

There are two conditions to meet to be exempt from withholding. That you had no tax liability last year, and that you expect no liability this year.

Also, if your employer is NOT a government employer, and you ARE a U.S. citizen, then you did NOT receive wages subject to withholding.

Remember, if you don't owe any tax, or did not receive 'wages', or are not a foreign person, then you are not subject to withholding of tax! But you can volunteer!

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap11.html

Nomoss
5th October 2013, 01:08 PM
Hmm.. thanks for the link.

StreetsOfGold
5th October 2013, 01:45 PM
Hmm.. thanks for the link.

Thanks button on lower left side of post

Ares
5th October 2013, 04:26 PM
Looks like the IRS already has a counter argument for this type of exemption.


4. Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government.

This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities to withhold tax from “wages.” That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .” This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens. The IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743.
Relevant Case Law:

Montero v. Commissioner, 354 F. App’x 173 (5th Cir. 2009) – the court affirmed a $20,000 section 6673(a) penalty against the petitioner for advancing frivolous arguments that he is not an employee earning wages as defined by sections 3121 and 3401.

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986) – the court imposed sanctions on the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal and rejected his attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating “to the extent [he] argues that he received no ‘wages’. . . because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) – calling the instructions the taxpayer wanted given to the jury “inane,” the court said, “[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

United States v. Hendrickson, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-5395, 2007 WL 2385071 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2007) – the court permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, who filed tax returns on which they falsely reported their income as zero, from filing tax returns and forms based on frivolous claims in Hendrickson’s book, “Cracking the Code,” that only federal, state, or local government workers are liable for federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal taxes.

Other Cases:

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985); Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994).

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I

7th trump
5th October 2013, 06:33 PM
Looks like the IRS already has a counter argument for this type of exemption.


4. Contention: The only “employees” subject to federal income tax are employees of the federal government.

This contention asserts that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities to withhold tax from “wages.” That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”

The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .” This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens. The IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument. Rev. Rul. 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743.
Relevant Case Law:

Montero v. Commissioner, 354 F. App’x 173 (5th Cir. 2009) – the court affirmed a $20,000 section 6673(a) penalty against the petitioner for advancing frivolous arguments that he is not an employee earning wages as defined by sections 3121 and 3401.

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986) – the court imposed sanctions on the taxpayer for bringing a frivolous appeal and rejected his attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating “to the extent [he] argues that he received no ‘wages’. . . because he was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.”

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) – calling the instructions the taxpayer wanted given to the jury “inane,” the court said, “[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”

United States v. Hendrickson, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-5395, 2007 WL 2385071 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2007) – the court permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson, who filed tax returns on which they falsely reported their income as zero, from filing tax returns and forms based on frivolous claims in Hendrickson’s book, “Cracking the Code,” that only federal, state, or local government workers are liable for federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal taxes.

Other Cases:

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985); Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994).

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I

This government employee theory telling you that only government employees only earn "wages" has been proven wrong.
The reason is because if you look at 26usc 3401(a) "wages" most of that definition is reciting 3121(b) "employment" and 3121(a) "wages".
Now if you carefully read 3121(b) "employment" and 3121(a) "wages" most career government employee are excluded from participating in Social Security. Reason being is career government employees cannot participate in Social Security is because they participate in a different government welfare program.....one being the canteena program.
If they did participate in Social Security they would be double dipping in two pensions at the expense of tax payors so they are excluded from Social Security.
So as reasoning goes if "wages" are believed to be only what government employees earn then why do you see Social Security in 3401(a) when Social security excludes career government employees?
Cant have it both ways.....but there are some folks out there who try really hard to make you believe in this theory....Pete Hendrickson is one such scammer who still believes this theory and has been to prison because of it.

monty
5th October 2013, 08:48 PM
.Pete Hendrickson is one such scammer who still believes this theory and has been to prison because of it.

I wouldn't call him a "scammer" if he believes what he is writing. Maybe misguided or misinformed would be a better term.

Ares
5th October 2013, 08:54 PM
This government employee theory telling you that only government employees only earn "wages" has been proven wrong.
The reason is because if you look at 26usc 3401(a) "wages" most of that definition is reciting 3121(b) "employment" and 3121(a) "wages".
Now if you carefully read 3121(b) "employment" and 3121(a) "wages" most career government employee are excluded from participating in Social Security. Reason being is career government employees cannot participate in Social Security is because they participate in a different government welfare program.....one being the canteena program.
If they did participate in Social Security they would be double dipping in two pensions at the expense of tax payors so they are excluded from Social Security.
So as reasoning goes if "wages" are believed to be only what government employees earn then why do you see Social Security in 3401(a) when Social security excludes career government employees?
Cant have it both ways.....but there are some folks out there who try really hard to make you believe in this theory....Pete Hendrickson is one such scammer who still believes this theory and has been to prison because of it.

They cited a few court cases including Pete Hendrickson, but didn't give much detail. I haven't researched each individual case. But I would wager that most of them signed a W-4. If the original post is correct. The key is to not sign a W-4 to begin with.

My guess is that Pete signed a W-4 then tried to file an amended return attempting to say that he wasn't an "employee" and didn't earn "wages" but since he had a W-4 already signed with the employer the IRS called him a liar and drug him to court for it. They had evidence of a signed W-4 to prove it.

That correct on my guess as to how Pete got busted? I haven't signed any paperwork with my employer yet. Still been researching this most of the day. Was interesting to see the IRS call this a "frivolous argument".

7th trump
6th October 2013, 07:59 AM
They cited a few court cases including Pete Hendrickson, but didn't give much detail. I haven't researched each individual case. But I would wager that most of them signed a W-4. If the original post is correct. The key is to not sign a W-4 to begin with.

My guess is that Pete signed a W-4 then tried to file an amended return attempting to say that he wasn't an "employee" and didn't earn "wages" but since he had a W-4 already signed with the employer the IRS called him a liar and drug him to court for it. They had evidence of a signed W-4 to prove it.

That correct on my guess as to how Pete got busted? I haven't signed any paperwork with my employer yet. Still been researching this most of the day. Was interesting to see the IRS call this a "frivolous argument".

Yep...that's exactly correct Ares. Pete Hendrickson was convicted because the DoJ produced the signed W4 at the trial.
They used this W4 to say he earned "wages". And of course Hendrickson kept his stance that he wasn't a government employee which the courts said was frivolous.....as it should be because he wasn't a government employee and he did earn 3121(a) "wages" because he signed the W2 authorizing the employer to treat his earnings as wages to credit his SS account.
I read some of his trial and was watching it some what closely as it happened. I was on his website until I was booted off because I told everyone there he was going to be convicted and his theory was wrong.
The term "employee" isn't really an issue as much as you earning term "wages" as defined for the purpose of Title 26.
If you look at 26usc 3402(f) under exemption certificate.


(f) Withholding exemptions
(1) In general
An employee receiving wages shall on any day be entitled to the following withholding exemptions:

(A) an exemption for himself unless he is an individual described in section 151 (d)(2);

(B) if the employee is married, any exemption to which his spouse is entitled, or would be entitled if such spouse were an employee receiving wages, under subparagraph (A) or (D), but only if such spouse does not have in effect a withholding exemption certificate claiming such exemption;

(C) an exemption for each individual with respect to whom, on the basis of facts existing at the beginning of such day, there may reasonably be expected to be allowable an exemption under section 151 (c) for the taxable year under subtitle A in respect of which amounts deducted and withheld under this chapter in the calendar year in which such day falls are allowed as a credit;

(D) any allowance to which he is entitled under subsection (m), but only if his spouse does not have in effect a withholding exemption certificate claiming such allowance; and

(E) a standard deduction allowance which shall be an amount equal to one exemption (or more than one exemption if so prescribed by the Secretary) unless
(i) he is married (as determined under section 7703) and his spouse is an employee receiving wages subject to withholding or

(ii) he has withholding exemption certificates in effect with respect to more than one employer.

For purposes of this title, any standard deduction allowance under subparagraph (E) shall be treated as if it were denominated a withholding exemption.

(2) Exemption certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.

Nothing in 3402(f) points to this government "employee" theory.
What it says is any employee earning "wages" is required to sign an exemption certificate.
I bolded the word "wages" here because once you sign a W4 a resulting W3, because of the W4, is sent to the SSA listing 3121(a), 3401(a) and medicare wages.

7th trump
6th October 2013, 08:11 AM
.Pete Hendrickson is one such scammer who still believes this theory and has been to prison because of it.

I wouldn't call him a "scammer" if he believes what he is writing. Maybe misguided or misinformed would be a better term.
Monty...... Pete Hendrickson has been shown the errors of his ways and continues to lure people into filing the way he filed (yes, he files traditionally now) his taxes that landed him in the grey bar hotel.
I consider Pete Hendrickson a snake oil salesmen because he refuses to take corrective action even though he been shown why his theory logically doesn't work.
Pete doesn't have a problem watching anyone taking his theory get destroyed financially by the IRS.
Pete has left up pictures of refund checks on his website after these people asked him to take them down in fear of retaliation.
So far the IRS has went after each and everyone of these people and financially wiped them out........................Pete is not a team player if you know what I mean.

Ares
6th October 2013, 08:16 AM
Monty...... Pete Hendrickson has been shown the errors of his ways and continues to lure people into filing the way he filed (yes, he files traditionally now) his taxes that landed him in the grey bar hotel.
I consider Pete Hendrickson a snake oil salesmen because he refuses to take corrective action even though he been shown why his theory logically doesn't work.
Pete doesn't have a problem watching anyone taking his theory get destroyed financially by the IRS.
Pete has left up pictures of refund checks on his website after these people asked him to take them down in fear of retaliation.
So far the IRS has went after each and everyone of these people and financially wiped them out........................Pete is not a team player if you know what I mean.

I've been going over the Hendrickson judgement, and it looks like he was attempting to do what the original article I posted said, and what you're doing with your own personal finances, I'm sure differently since you're not in jail and Pete was gone through the IRS extortion "court".

http://www.justice.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf

Did Pete not do the process correctly? It appears he tried to withdraw from the process of having "wages" taxed with his "employer". According to the judgement that is.

7th trump
6th October 2013, 03:16 PM
I've been going over the Hendrickson judgement, and it looks like he was attempting to do what the original article I posted said, and what you're doing with your own personal finances, I'm sure differently since you're not in jail and Pete was gone through the IRS extortion "court".

http://www.justice.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf

Did Pete not do the process correctly? It appears he tried to withdraw from the process of having "wages" taxed with his "employer". According to the judgement that is.


No, Pete's problem is he cannot take the benefits of Social Security and then in the end not want to pay for them. He wants something for free!
Participating in Social Security is a lot like paying car insurance premiums.
Social Security has a shit ton of benefits, some immediate and some deferred. The immediate for example is "unemployment". You have to earn 3121(a) "wages" to rack up quarterly credits to claim "unemployment". Another is "food stamps. You have to show you are enrolled in Social Security to get them.
When you make 3121(a) "wages" you are also earning 3401(a) "wages"...so what Pete is trying to do is say he didn't earn 3401(a) "wages" because he believes he's not a government employee and should get a full refund.
Well all I can say is nobody gets a refund from the car insurance because you didn't file a claim. The insurance company's don't give your money back because you didn't file a claim.
They keep the money because you pay for the insurance just incase you are in an accident, you are covered.
Same goes with the IRS you cant claim a full refund because you didn't file for unemployment or any other benefit of SS.
You cannot file for a full refund of 3401(a) "wages" (1040) when you were covered by SS through out the year if you didn't file for unemployment or file for any other SS benefit.
If you earn 3121(a) "wages" you earn 3401(a) "wages" and you cannot claim a refund of one and at the same time want to participate in SS.
3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" are one in the same......hence why box 1 on the W2 and box 3 are usually same amounts.

What Pete doesn't understand is that he's personally redefining the definition to "wages" to go inline with his premise (theory) that "wages" are earned only by government employees.
If government employees were the only individuals who earned "wages" then why do I see 11 exclusions out of 13 to 3401(a) "wages" that come directly from Social Security?
And Social Security is not an option for career government employees so that right there says Pete is wrong.
Pete cant see the nose in front of his face.

Ares
6th October 2013, 04:05 PM
Reading through his judgement it's becoming pretty clear that he did exactly that. He was earning "wages" yet was disputing his "employee" status. So the court rightfully called it frivolous because it didn't matter what his contention was. His signed W-4 stating he was accepting "wages" as defined in 3121(a) was all the evidence the IRS needed to have Pete convict himself.

So yep I see that now, it helped with the car insurance premium analogy. You can't pay the premium accepting the benefit yet ask for the funds to be returned at the end of the year. The key is to never buy the premium in the first place.

7th trump
6th October 2013, 06:44 PM
Reading through his judgement it's becoming pretty clear that he did exactly that. He was earning "wages" yet was disputing his "employee" status. So the court rightfully called it frivolous because it didn't matter what his contention was. His signed W-4 stating he was accepting "wages" as defined in 3121(a) was all the evidence the IRS needed to have Pete convict himself.

So yep I see that now, it helped with the car insurance premium analogy. You can't pay the premium accepting the benefit yet ask for the funds to be returned at the end of the year. The key is to never buy the premium in the first place.

Yes, exactly Ares.
You cant participate in Social Security who tally up the 3121(a) "wages" into the system and expect to file your 1040 purporting "0" income to receive the full amount of taxes withheld (refund).
Being imposed the federal income tax starts with participating in Social Security. Here's the first clue....and its right in front of each and every one of our eyes in black and white. Its not hidden from view and there is no conspiracy about it.
All it takes to see it is a set of eyes not looking for a conspiracy.


26 USC § 3101 - Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed.........

Once you understand the "who, what's, where's and why's" to the imposition of the federal income tax the next thing to do is research the item that causes the imposition to see if it is voluntary or not.....and guess what?
Social Security is completely voluntary!
So yes, the federal income tax is Constitutional because participating in Social Security is 100% voluntary....its not mandatory!

7th trump
6th October 2013, 07:14 PM
Here's something I've been saying the whole time about obamacare and social security.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/u-s-struggles-health-reform-amish-go-their-own-way-8C11345954


A little-known provision of the law with its roots in a 1950s battle over Social Security exempts these communities from the individual mandate, an element of the Affordable Care Act that requires most Americans to purchase health insurance in some form.

Obamacare is fangless and cant be mandated first without voluntary participation in Social Security.
They can only mandate healthcare IF you are participating in Social Security.
Remember how snooty they were about obamacare being constitutional?
Well its only constitutional if you volunteer yourself up some government benefits.

Ares
6th October 2013, 07:30 PM
Here's something I've been saying the whole time about obamacare and social security.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/u-s-struggles-health-reform-amish-go-their-own-way-8C11345954



Obamacare is fangless and cant be mandated first without voluntary participation in Social Security.
They can only mandate healthcare IF you are participating in Social Security.
Remember how snooty they were about obamacare being constitutional?
Well its only constitutional if you volunteer yourself up some government benefits.

Reading through that article reminded me of being back in Indiana. They have a pretty large Amish population and always knew that the Amish never participated in SS, or paid Income Taxes. Now I have a clearer understanding why. If they never sign a W-4 (using their Mennonite religion as the reason) they never voluntarily participate in the benefit.

7th trump
6th October 2013, 07:43 PM
Reading through that article reminded me of being back in Indiana. They have a pretty large Amish population and always knew that the Amish never participated in SS, or paid Income Taxes. Now I have a clearer understanding why. If they never sign a W-4 (using their Mennonite religion as the reason) they never voluntarily participate in the benefit.

People who know me know my distaste towards the federal income tax and large centralized government. I get the dam nest looks from some of them when I tell them that the government absolutely follows the Constitution to the fullest. The Constitution is in high regard with law makers.....and it is!
They obey the Constitution so much that they have to devise tax laws that appear to be in disregard to the Constitution.

7th trump
6th October 2013, 07:54 PM
Reading through that article reminded me of being back in Indiana. They have a pretty large Amish population and always knew that the Amish never participated in SS, or paid Income Taxes. Now I have a clearer understanding why. If they never sign a W-4 (using their Mennonite religion as the reason) they never voluntarily participate in the benefit.

You don't have to be a member of the amish to not participate in Social Security.
Now you know that Social Security is 100% voluntary, causes the imposition of the federal income tax, lets move onto why it must be voluntary to be constitutional.
Lets start out by saying if SS was mandated it would violate the "Bill of Rights" which is to say violating the first ten amendments of the US Constitution.

Congress can pass any law it so chooses even if its unconstitutional. However, being unconstitutional it cannot be forced onto the People.

Ares
6th October 2013, 08:07 PM
You don't have to be a member of the amish to not participate in Social Security.
Now you know that Social Security is 100% voluntary, causes the imposition of the federal income tax, lets move onto why it must be voluntary to be constitutional.
Lets start out by saying if SS was mandated it would violate the "Bill of Rights" which is to say violating the first ten amendments of the US Constitution.

Congress can pass any law it so chooses even if its unconstitutional. However, being unconstitutional it cannot be forced onto the People.

Reading through other cases, and evidence the Government definitely does follow the Constitution. They are taking advantage of your unlimited right to contract. They aren't exactly clear on what you are signing, volunteering or associating yourself with when you sign paper work with the government or an agency of the government.

The 16th Amendment never conferred any new taxing power to the government is what the Supreme Court ruled in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged..."

But if you volunteer, they will hold you to it. To them it's a "valid contract" even though that area gets a little grey as there is no full disclosure on the W-4 or even Social Security regarding the obligation for opting out.

7th trump
6th October 2013, 09:06 PM
Reading through other cases, and evidence the Government definitely does follow the Constitution. They are taking advantage of your unlimited right to contract. They aren't exactly clear on what you are signing, volunteering or associating yourself with when you sign paper work with the government or an agency of the government.

The 16th Amendment never conferred any new taxing power to the government is what the Supreme Court ruled in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged..."

But if you volunteer, they will hold you to it. To them it's a "valid contract" even though that area gets a little grey as there is no full disclosure on the W-4 or even Social Security regarding the obligation for opting out.
Well its a no brainer if you decide to participate in Social Security you will be imposed numerous taxes because of it. You must pay these taxes as a condition to gain welfare benefits.
If you don't pay these taxes then hefty fines plus interest will be assessed and collected upon. I wouldn't go as far as saying its a "contract". I'd say its more akin to an agreement over a contract.
You can stop the W4 agreement at any time you wish, but contracts are usually fulfilled by set rules. Contract don't end without a fulfillment of the contract terms.
They know exactly what we are signing, its the joesixpack who doesn't know what he is signing.

What gets me is they attach taxes to the very legislature that everyone is appealed to when in tuff times. They are taking advantage of welfare to fund wars and out of control spending.
They are using scare tactics to get you to voluntary apply for a ssn to extract revenue from you...all completely constitutional, but nonetheless deceiving.
I compare this to whistling to a dog to pet him and instead of petting him you hit him with a hammer instead. And to top it all off they don't tell you anything about this and go along with keeping the employers in the dark about the voluntary nature of SS.
There's nothing on the SSA website or the IRS website that says signing a W4 to go to work is mandatory. The public is fooled into believing "wages" means earnings when in fact "wages" means 3121(a) "wages" and thus they make everyone sign a W4.
Mean while the politicians are spending like a drunken sailor by telling us we must pay our fare share.
Fare share of what?
A fare share of their drunken spending habit of nation building?

When God said to come out of Babylon He meant it. By saying that, to me it said I have a choice to come out of her or not.
Well you can come out of mystery Babylon if you stop participating in Social Security and stop funding this beast with seven heads.

By the way, the 16th doesn't say "who" or "how" they can impose taxes. All the 16th says is the government is given the green light to impose taxes unapportionately.
The "who's" and "how's" the government can collect unapportionately is controlled by the constitution...and they obey the constitution to the letter.
Also the 16th didn't nullify the apportionment section of the original Constitution. Its still intact and used to this day!
A lot of people don't realize what the 16th did and believe its a taxing amendment when in fact its not.....they are so focused on someone conspiracy that they over look what the 16th actually says.

Ares
6th October 2013, 09:20 PM
The "who's" and "how's" the government can collect unapportionately is controlled by the constitution...and they obey the constitution to the letter.
Also the 16th didn't nullify the apportionment section of the original Constitution. Its still intact and used to this day!
A lot of people don't realize what the 16th did and believe its a taxing amendment when in fact its not.....they are so focused on someone conspiracy that they over look what the 16th actually says.

Easy, it's an excise tax on a corporate profit.

Glass
6th October 2013, 10:30 PM
do we have an inkling of a solution yet for people signed up to SS?

I think the use of the term "agreement" instead of "contract" is interesting. I have always comprehended that agreeements carry more force at law than contracts do. Not sure I grasp why this is exactly.

But the question remains is there anyway to exit the SS system or are you simply stuck once you are in?

7th trump
7th October 2013, 04:10 AM
do we have an inkling of a solution yet for people signed up to SS?

I think the use of the term "agreement" instead of "contract" is interesting. I have always comprehended that agreeements carry more force at law than contracts do. Not sure I grasp why this is exactly.

But the question remains is there anyway to exit the SS system or are you simply stuck once you are in?

The SS system is one that breaches your ability to attain most of the Bill of Rights, so yes, you can get out of participating at any time. Knowing this is your silver bullet against the government....this is why its a very well hidden secret. The government doesn't want you to realize this and therefore very seldom does it talk about it.
I was actually very surprised by the Amish article to even mention SS as a requirement of obamacare to force everyone to purchase healthcare.
They like milking their cash cow to nation build and spend like drunken sailors. All of course being perfectly legal as US citizens are not to question the national debt via the 14th amendment.

Once you have a SS number its always going to be assigned to you. However, that doesn't mean you have to disclose it all the time and every time. It like having a credit card....you can have one, but its up to you to use it and when to use it.

Ares
7th October 2013, 06:15 AM
The SS system is one that breaches your ability to attain most of the Bill of Rights, so yes, you can get out of participating at any time. Knowing this is your silver bullet against the government....this is why its a very well hidden secret. The government doesn't want you to realize this and therefore very seldom does it talk about it.
I was actually very surprised by the Amish article to even mention SS as a requirement of obamacare to force everyone to purchase healthcare.
They like milking their cash cow to nation build and spend like drunken sailors. All of course being perfectly legal as US citizens are not to question the national debt via the 14th amendment.

Once you have a SS number its always going to be assigned to you. However, that doesn't mean you have to disclose it all the time and every time. It like having a credit card....you can have one, but its up to you to use it and when to use it.

http://www.usa-the-republic.com is a treasure trove of information. Someone somehow was able to obtain an IRS "Pink Paper" basically backing this argument up entirely that hardly anyone earns "wages" including themselves(IRS Staff).

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/IRS_Pink_Papers.pdf

It's a long read, but it is eye opening to say the least.

7th trump
7th October 2013, 08:02 AM
http://www.usa-the-republic.com is a treasure trove of information. Someone somehow was able to obtain an IRS "Pink Paper" basically backing this argument up entirely that hardly anyone earns "wages" including themselves(IRS Staff).

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/IRS_Pink_Papers.pdf

It's a long read, but it is eye opening to say the least.


Be skeptical about what you read in cyber land.
The law is quite straight forward about what is "wages" and what is not.

The IRS is an agancy of the federal government so therefore they earn 3401(a) "wages" and are required to file tax forms.
If you go and read 26usc 6051 you'll notice it says:


a) Requirement
Every person required to deduct and withhold from an employee a tax under section 3101 or 3402, or who would have been required to deduct and withhold a tax under section 3402 (determined without regard to subsection (n)) if the employee had claimed no more than one withholding exemption, or every employer engaged in a trade or business who pays remuneration for services performed by an employee, including the cash value of such remuneration paid in any medium other than cash, shall furnish to each such employee in respect of the remuneration paid by such person to such employee during the calendar year, on or before January 31 of the succeeding year, or, if his employment is terminated before the close of such calendar year, within 30 days after the date of receipt of a written request from the employee if such 30-day period ends before January 31, a written statement showing the following:
Now you heard me say that if you earn 3121(a) "wages" you also earn 3401(a) "wages" at the same time so why are we seeing an "or" in between 3101 and 3402 if these two "wages' are the same?

The answer is because some career government employees cannot participate in Social Security (they have a different welfare program) so they dont earn 3121(a) "wages" but earn 3401(a) "wages" for the requirement to withhold and deduction.
Be careful of what you read on the net.....dont allow yourself get confused by reading something a freind who has a freind who said this and that.
Read the law and keep an eye for detail and ask the right questions.

Glass
7th October 2013, 08:43 PM
The SS system is one that breaches your ability to attain most of the Bill of Rights, so yes, you can get out of participating at any time. Knowing this is your silver bullet against the government....this is why its a very well hidden secret. The government doesn't want you to realize this and therefore very seldom does it talk about it.
I was actually very surprised by the Amish article to even mention SS as a requirement of obamacare to force everyone to purchase healthcare.
They like milking their cash cow to nation build and spend like drunken sailors. All of course being perfectly legal as US citizens are not to question the national debt via the 14th amendment.

Once you have a SS number its always going to be assigned to you. However, that doesn't mean you have to disclose it all the time and every time. It like having a credit card....you can have one, but its up to you to use it and when to use it.

ok so basically there is no out, once you are in. I can refrain quoting my TFN which is the Australian version of the SSN. If I do withhold the TFN, this does not resolve anything with regard to filing Tax Returns. You still need to file regardless of what happened in the year. The other thing is, if you fail to provide a TFN for employment your withholding is automatically 50% and tax returns are still required but no deductions are permitted.

If you are a contractor working as a business you have to provide an ABN (australian business number) which is the company equivelant of a TFN. Otherwise 50% of the invoice is withheld and remitted to the tax man directly by the client/customer.

the best I have seen, i.e.e the closest I have seen someone to being out of the system, and it makes more sense to me know was Prince Leonard of Hutt River. He is very proud of his Tax Assessments showing $0 tax obligation. Now technically he does not live in Australia any longer, he lives on a mico nation but he still files tax returns. I could not work out why he would bother.

BUT it is clear because he was originally a tax payer he must always remains a tax payer and this means he must submit a return annually even if it is ZERO. Because he lives outside of Australia for > 6 months of the year he does not have to report any income. So why he does is unclear to me, unless it's part of his PR campaign against the Govt that he can show the people..... "See I don't pay any god damn taxes".

My understanding was that you don't need to file at all if you live outside of Australia. I know people who left australia 10+ years ago and they don't file any longer. They sent a notice saying "not in Australia" for taxation purposes when they left.

so in any event, there does not seem to be any solution. Once you are signed up, that is it, you are stuck with it until death.

Ares
8th October 2013, 05:50 AM
ok so basically there is no out, once you are in. I can refrain quoting my TFN which is the Australian version of the SSN. If I do withhold the TFN, this does not resolve anything with regard to filing Tax Returns. You still need to file regardless of what happened in the year. The other thing is, if you fail to provide a TFN for employment your withholding is automatically 50% and tax returns are still required but no deductions are permitted.

If you are a contractor working as a business you have to provide an ABN (australian business number) which is the company equivelant of a TFN. Otherwise 50% of the invoice is withheld and remitted to the tax man directly by the client/customer.

the best I have seen, i.e.e the closest I have seen someone to being out of the system, and it makes more sense to me know was Prince Leonard of Hutt River. He is very proud of his Tax Assessments showing $0 tax obligation. Now technically he does not live in Australia any longer, he lives on a mico nation but he still files tax returns. I could not work out why he would bother.

BUT it is clear because he was originally a tax payer he must always remains a tax payer and this means he must submit a return annually even if it is ZERO. Because he lives outside of Australia for > 6 months of the year he does not have to report any income. So why he does is unclear to me, unless it's part of his PR campaign against the Govt that he can show the people..... "See I don't pay any god damn taxes".

My understanding was that you don't need to file at all if you live outside of Australia. I know people who left australia 10+ years ago and they don't file any longer. They sent a notice saying "not in Australia" for taxation purposes when they left.

so in any event, there does not seem to be any solution. Once you are signed up, that is it, you are stuck with it until death.

I'm learning more, so maybe 7th Trump can chime in. But that doesn't appear to be the case. At least not here in the states. As with all agreements you can walk away at any time. But you have to do it amicably. If you try what Pete Hendrickson did and just send an amended return asking for everything back without rescinding your signed W-4 you are in dishonor of the agreement and will be held accountable. Not sure if the same holds true in Australia.