Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tips_and_tricks] RE: Be very WARY of 'Cracking the Code'

Expand Messages
  • Cliff Bass
    And, It [is argued that] the word including means moreover , or as well as ; but if this was the meaning of the legislature, it was a very embarrassing
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
      And, "It [is argued that] the
      word "including" means "moreover", or "as
      well as"; but if this was the meaning of the legislature, it was
      a very embarrassing mode of expressing the idea." 
      Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, United
      States v. The Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, 8 U.S. 443 (1808). 
      Marshall proceeds to observe that the proposition that "moreover"
      or "as well as" is, in fact, what is meant by
      the legislative use of "including" (or, by extension,
      includes) is nonsense.


      This is the response from a friend who is well versed on, and a
      participant in, the "Cracking the Code" premise.
       




      Subject:
      RE: Be very WARY of 'Cracking
      the Code'

      Date:
      6/2/2009 4:50:20 P.M. Central Daylight
      Time
      From:




      To:
      gwbinsat@aol. com
       
      Glen,

      I really appreciate you sending those briefs.  In reading
      them, there are several problematic areas.  Number one, the DOJ claims that
      proponents of CtC believe that wages do not constitute income.  Nobody
      makes it more clear than Hendrickson that wages DO CONSTITUTE income.
    • Patrick M
      So there is NO POSSIBILITY that there is a PROBLEM with the METHOD used? So it s the USER, NOT the SYSTEM? Per Rich It s not that CtC is wrong, it s that
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
        So there is NO POSSIBILITY that there is a PROBLEM with the METHOD used?



        So it's the USER, NOT the SYSTEM?



        Per Rich "It's not that CtC is wrong, it's that these people opened their
        mouths or wrote a letter that exposed their less than 100% comprehension of
        the tax, and the DOJ is rolling in on them."



        Oh really???



        So WHAT is Peter Hendrickson's (the AUTHOR of "Cracking the Code) "excuse",
        since it appears that he got NAILED for the SAME thing too?



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



        Could it REMOTELY be POSSIBLE that the PROBLEM may relate to the FACT that
        the DEFINITION of "wages" for WITHHOLDING for income tax in 26 USC 3401(a) &
        that for Medicare & Social Security in 26 USC 3121(a) are DIFFERENT, so that
        while one MAY NOT owe income tax they could still OWE Medicare & Social
        Security taxes?



        26 USC 3401

        (a) Wages

        For 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-

        .

        (c) Employee

        For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer,
        employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any
        political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
        instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee"
        also includes an officer of a corporation.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00003401----000-.html



        26 USC 3121

        a) Wages

        For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration for
        employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including
        benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall
        not include-[rest omitted]

        http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003121----000-
        .html



        WHICH would EXPLAIN WHY the Court said "Defendants were not entitled to a
        refund, under any circumstances, of the social security and Medicare taxes
        that had been withheld from Defendant Peter Hendrickson's wages during
        2002", WOULDN'T it?



        Patrick in California

        "We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, for my part, I am
        willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst & to provide for it."--
        Patrick Henry

        _____


        This is the response from a friend who is well versed on, and a participant
        in, the "Cracking the Code" premise.



        Glen,

        I really appreciate you sending those briefs. In reading them, there are
        several problematic areas. Number one, the DOJ claims that proponents of
        CtC believe that wages do not constitute income. Nobody makes it more clear
        than Hendrickson that wages DO CONSTITUTE income.
      • gimesumodat
        ... Not so. The legal determination of wages paid rests squarely on the application of the relevant definitions of section 3401 to the facts at hand and has
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
          > Of course an unrebutted or unchallenged W-4 on file constitutes "voluntary
          > compliance," and of course, the resulting pay would be "treated as if it
          > were wages paid to an employee by an employer" in accordance with 26 USC
          > 3402(p)(3). It's not that CtC is wrong, it's that these people opened their
          > mouths or wrote a letter that exposed their less than 100% comprehension of
          > the tax, and the DOJ is rolling in on them.
          >
          > That IS the truth of the matter here.
          >
          > Rich

          Not so. The legal determination of wages paid rests squarely on the application of the relevant definitions of section 3401 to the facts at hand and has nothing whatsoever to do with a Form W-4. The fact of the matter is you can't change the character of what was paid to you simply by signing a form because you don't get to change the law with your signature.

          You're right about CtCers walking into a semantic trap when they don't know how to use the language in a precise fashion. Many don't know how to identify the relevant presumptions or issues, and otherwise stumble around the process with half baked notions about which voodoo trick might work next.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.