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

RE: Be very WARY of 'Cracking the Code'

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 4 , Jun 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > 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.