Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
All I can tell you Monty is that social security "wages" (3121(a) "wages" [box 3 on the W2] are 3401(a) "wages" [box 1 on the W2].
So with this..............
Quote:
To elucidate more clearly the 1961 definition, above: ‘includes’ and ‘including’ shall not be deemed to include things not enumerated
3401(a) "wages" does not leave out the enumerated Social Security earnings.
The code is pretty simple once you get the "wrongs" Hendrickson put in your mind from reading his CtC book.
3401(a) is pretty straight forward to are deemed 3401(a) "wages".
Here Monty I'll show you using 3401(a) that all of Social Security "wages" are included in the 3401(a) "wages" definition except what Social Security excludes from 3121(a) "wages".
What you are going to find out is this. What "wages" (its actually occupations) Social Security excludes for the purpose of crediting your SS account are excluded from the 3401(a) "wage" definition.
3401(a) will actually tell you if certain agricultural [3121(g)] earnings are to be considered as 3121(a) "wages" then these 3121(a) "wages" are to be included in the 3401(a) "wage" definition.
Quote:
(a) WagesFor purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) 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; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—
(ok Monty from this point forward..all these are excluded from 3401(a) "wages")
(1) for active service performed in a month for which such employee is entitled to the benefits of section 112 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces of the United States) to the extent remuneration for such service is excludable from gross income under such section; or
(2) for agricultural labor (as defined in section 3121(g)) unless the remuneration paid for such labor is wages (as defined in section 3121(a)
Do you understand what (2) here is telling you?
First off 3401(a)(2) is telling that 3121(g) agricultural labor (occupation) is not included as 3401(a) "wages"....however if such 3121(g) agri labor remuneration is defined (or elected as) as 3121(a) "wages" (Social Security wages; box 3 on the W2) then all bets are off and this agri labor earnings are now deemed as 3401(a) "wages" and thus taxable under the Section 1 imposition.
Hope this helps you Monty because the "employee" and "trade or business" definitions really have no bearing on if you earn 3121(a) "wages". And while I'm at it here SS disqualifies most government employees from participating in SS because they already have another government retirement plan they use...so you cant argue the government employee angle.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
And no Monty I dont use any method....I simply dont participate in SS to generate any "wages".
Ever wondered why box 1 (3401) and box 3 (3121) are always the same amount?
Its because 3121 and 3401 are one in the same.
Dont believe me...check a W2...any W2 that has one source of "employment" income ( as in you work one W4 job all year long and its all straight up hourly wages).....I'll bet 1 silver ounce both are identical.
And you know what stops the IRS dead in their tracks?
This stops the IRS dead in their tracks:
3121(a)
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
Quote:
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) [1]
My wages arent defined as 3121(a) because I'm not employed as defined. The IRS tried, but didnt succeed because they couldnt get around the fact my earning werent SS "wages" that must be in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
I dont participate in SS and thus my earnings arent "wages".
And theres no law on any books that says you must participate. In fact there's a regulation that says SS is voluntary...and I know why.....its because they cant force you to give up your Bill of Rights.
When you sign a W4 you sign it under penalty of Perjury to being a "US citizen"...a second class citizen having only privileges, not Rights.
They tried but when I mentioned to them they were trying to block me from accessing the Bill of Rights by perjury of being a US citizen...they said OK this meeting is over. I said "I know it is".
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
I didn't fell comfortable reading that guys material. I have heard about the Cracking the Code book but I thought that was written by someone else. I thought it was that Mary lady? Not even sure that name is right. How I kicked the butt of every government agency or something. Croft.
yes I would agree that employee / company officer status has little bearing on things. I've heard the story statutes only apply to government employees many times.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
7th trump
All I can tell you Monty is that social security "wages" (3121(a) "wages" [box 3 on the W2] are 3401(a) "wages" [box 1 on the W2].
So with this.............. 3401(a) "wages" does not leave out the enumerated Social Security earnings.
The code is pretty simple once you get the "wrongs" Hendrickson put in your mind from reading his CtC book.
3401(a) is pretty straight forward to are deemed 3401(a) "wages".
Here Monty I'll show you using 3401(a) that all of Social Security "wages" are included in the 3401(a) "wages" definition except what Social Security excludes from 3121(a) "wages".
What you are going to find out is this. What "wages" (its actually occupations) Social Security excludes for the purpose of crediting your SS account are excluded from the 3401(a) "wage" definition.
3401(a) will actually tell you if certain agricultural [3121(g)] earnings are to be considered as 3121(a) "wages" then these 3121(a) "wages" are to be included in the 3401(a) "wage" definition.
Do you understand what (2) here is telling you?
First off 3401(a)(2) is telling that 3121(g) agricultural labor (occupation) is not included as 3401(a) "wages"....however if such 3121(g) agri labor remuneration is defined (or elected as) as 3121(a) "wages" (Social Security wages; box 3 on the W2) then all bets are off and this agri labor earnings are now deemed as 3401(a) "wages" and thus taxable under the Section 1 imposition.
Hope this helps you Monty because the "employee" and "trade or business" definitions really have no bearing on if you earn 3121(a) "wages". And while I'm at it here SS disqualifies most government employees from participating in SS because they already have another government retirement plan they use...so you cant argue the government employee angle.
I have not signed a form W-4 since 2003. So I don't have any "wages". I don't sign W-9 forms.
I did however file Forms 1040 for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007,thinking I was required to. When I learned that W-4 and W-9 obligated me to pay Social Security I filed amended returns. They refunded my money.
edit: I still receive my Social Security pension.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
7th trump
And no Monty I dont use any method....I simply dont participate in SS to generate any "wages".
Ever wondered why box 1 (3401) and box 3 (3121) are always the same amount?
Its because 3121 and 3401 are one in the same.
Dont believe me...check a W2...any W2 that has one source of "employment" income ( as in you work one W4 job all year long and its all straight up hourly wages).....I'll bet 1 silver ounce both are identical.
And you know what stops the IRS dead in their tracks?
This stops the IRS dead in their tracks:
3121(a)
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
My wages arent defined as 3121(a) because I'm not employed as defined. The IRS tried, but didnt succeed because they couldnt get around the fact my earning werent SS "wages" that must be in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
I dont participate in SS and thus my earnings arent "wages".
And theres no law on any books that says you must participate. In fact there's a regulation that says SS is voluntary...and I know why.....its because they cant force you to give up your Bill of Rights.
When you sign a W4 you sign it under penalty of Perjury to being a "US citizen"...a second class citizen having only privileges, not Rights.
See my post #134.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
I have not signed a form W-4 since 2003. So I don't have any "wages". I don't sign W-9 forms.
I did however file Forms 1040 for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007,thinking I was required to. When I learned that W-4 and W-9 obligated me to pay Social Security I filed amended returns. They refunded my money.
edit: I still receive my Social Security pension.
They refunded your money because they didnt have any transmittal W3 info from the employer stating how much you contributed into SS. And those years you did file even though you didnt have a W4 active you weren't covered under SS like W4 people are.
The IRS will not fuck with you once you understand their game.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
7th trump
They refunded your money because they didnt have any transmittal W3 info from the employer stating how much you contributed into SS. And those years you did file even though you didnt have a W4 active you weren't covered under SS like W4 people are.
The IRS will not fuck with you once you understand their game.
I understand all of that. I don't receive "wages". My Social Security account show $0.00 contributions for every year since 2005.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
I understand all of that. I don't receive "wages". My Social Security account show $0.00 contributions for every year since 2005.
Yeah I understand and they are probably giving you SS based on what you had already contributed into SS.
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
7th trump
Yeah I understand and they are probably giving you SS based on what you had already contributed into SS.
Yes, they are paying me based on 1956 - 2004. I get about $1600 dollars a month
Re: Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
monty
Yes, they are paying me based on 1956 - 2004. I get about $1600 dollars a month
Fuck I could live large on that now!