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

Re: Peter Hendrickson convicted.

Expand Messages
  • Patrick M
    To me, A Checklist For A New Warrior reveals the HUGE FLAW in Pete’s thinking. Do I understand that labels and locations can be deceiving, and are
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      To me, A Checklist For A New Warrior reveals the HUGE FLAW in Pete’s thinking.

       

      "Do I understand that labels and locations can be deceiving, and are subordinate to the actual specifications in the statutes?  For instance, do I understand that even though they are listed separately on a W-2 and 4852, amounts withheld under the labels "Social Security and Medicare taxes" are really just specially-named parts of what is called "federal income tax withheld" on a 1040, being merely what has been withheld as deposits against the possibility that I had "income" in the form of "wages" which not only qualify as the "wages" of an "employee" (as defined in 26 USC 3401(c) et seq.) subject to the normal tax, but ALSO qualify as "wages" from "employment" (as defined in 26 USC 3121(b) et seq.) and thus are subject to the FICA surtax as well?"

      http://www.losthorizons.com/TaxTip.htm#Frivolous

       

      The DEFINITION of “wages” for FICA (Medicare & Social Security) in 26 USC 3121(a) is for Chapter 21.

       

      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

       

      The DEFINITION of “wages” for WITHHOLDING for income tax in 26 USC 3401(a) is for Chapter 24 & is DEPENDANT on being the DEFINED “employee” in Chapter 24.

       

      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

       

      The simple FACT is that IF one claims EXEMPT from FEDERAL INCOME TAX, FICA is STILL DEDUCTED.

       

      So WHY is Pete equating the two & IGNORING his OWN weekly tax tip?

       

      THIS WEEK'S TAX TIP

       

      A helpful summary of certain core "income" tax dynamics

      73 Am Jur 2d § 146 Operation of legislative definitions, generally

      Research References

      West’s Key Number Digest, Statutes 223.1

       

      The lawmaking body’s own construction of its language, by means of definitions of the term employed, should be followed in the interpretation of the act or section to which it relates and is intended to apply.1  By the same token, the courts should not enlarge statutory definitions so as to include a situation or a condition which it might be assumed the legislature would have covered by an enlarged definition if its existence had been contemplated.2  A statutory definition supersedes the common-law,3 colloquial,4 commonly accepted, dictionary or judicial definition.5  In this regard, where statute itself contains a definition of a word used therein, the definition controls, however contrary to the ordinary meaning of the word it may be,6 and the term may not be given the meaning in which it is employed in another statute, although the two may be in pari material.7  Where the legislature has defined words which are employed in a statute, its definitions are binding on the courts since the legislature has the right to give such signification as it deems proper to any word or phrase used by the statute, irrespective of the relationship of the definition to other terms.8  Furthermore, where a word that already has a definite, fixed, and unambiguous meaning is redefined in a statute, the definition must be taken literally by the courts.9

      http://www.losthorizons.com/TaxTip.htm#Frivolous

       

      Especially given WHAT the Court said in his case in 2007.

       

      “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.

      “…Defendants are prohibited from filing any tax return, amended return, form (including, but not limited to Form 4852 (“Substitute for Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement, etc.”)) or other writing or paper with the IRS that is based on the false and frivolous claims set forth in Cracking the Code that only federal, state or local government workers are liable for the payment of federal income tax or subject to the withholding of federal income, social security and Medicare taxes from their wages under the internal revenue laws (26 U.S.C.);…”

       

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

       

      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

       

    • John Hill
      Regarding a post made by Patrick M. which in detail covered the definitions of such terms as wages, employee, and made reference to an alleged requirement
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 9, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding a post made by Patrick M. which in detail covered the definitions of such terms as "wages," "employee," and made reference to an alleged requirement of S.S. and Medicare payments even when no federal income tax is due.
         
        Have we already forgotten the basic principle required for any form of taxation?
         
        That basic principle being "THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX." If there is no tax imposed, then there is no liability. "Where in the Internal Revenue Code, or any other code, is there a tax IMPOSED on any activity that I have performed. Or even on any "receipts" that I have taken in? In other words, there must first be a "tax imposed" before any tax is due.
         
        It appears that Patrick M. has deduced that an "income tax" is a "direct tax" and not the "indirect tax" that the Constitution plainly says an "income tax" is and the many court cites that confirm this fact. If MONEY were the "subject of" the tax, then why would IRC section 7701(a)(26) even bother to define the term "trade or business?" Why would Subtitles D & E even exist?
      • Michael
        ... Two things: Firstly, it goes to show that anyone arguing the tax code, in most any court will likely lose, for many reasons, most of which do not relate
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick M" <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:
          >
          > http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf


          Two things: Firstly, it goes to show that anyone arguing
          the tax code, in most any court will likely lose, for many
          reasons, most of which do not relate to justice.


          Secondly, what kept hitting me is the judge's continual
          reference that employers withheld money "as required by law."

          Does anyone know what the "law" says that employers are
          so "required?" Perhaps I misunderstand, but I thought
          employers withheld on behalf of the IRS, out of misapplication
          of what it thought to be required, but in fact is not.

          Interestingly, the judge ended by acknowledging the "self-
          assessment" aspect but made references to "taxpayers" in
          the statment.

          Cheers,

          mn
        • jerry bell
          Are you a citizen of the united states? Do you know the definition of what a individual is? (30) United States person The term “United States person”
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Are you a citizen of the united states?
            Do you know the definition of what a individual is?
            (30) United States person
            The term “United States person” means—
            (A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
            What is this telling you?
            What is the definition or person?
            If you are a citizen of the united states which is a corporation are you not a employee?
            United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed.

            --- On Mon, 11/9/09, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:

            From: John Hill <otoman@...>
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Peter Hendrickson convicted.
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 11:44 PM

             
            Regarding a post made by Patrick M. which in detail covered the definitions of such terms as "wages," "employee," and made reference to an alleged requirement of S.S. and Medicare payments even when no federal income tax is due.
             
            Have we already forgotten the basic principle required for any form of taxation?
             
            That basic principle being "THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX." If there is no tax imposed, then there is no liability. "Where in the Internal Revenue Code, or any other code, is there a tax IMPOSED on any activity that I have performed. Or even on any "receipts" that I have taken in? In other words, there must first be a "tax imposed" before any tax is due.
             
            It appears that Patrick M. has deduced that an "income tax" is a "direct tax" and not the "indirect tax" that the Constitution plainly says an "income tax" is and the many court cites that confirm this fact. If MONEY were the "subject of" the tax, then why would IRC section 7701(a)(26) even bother to define the term "trade or business?" Why would Subtitles D & E even exist?

          • Jake
            I must interject that if you read the Hendrickson case, you ll soon find that arguments over the definitions of wages , employee , employer , income et al
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
            • 0 Attachment

              I must interject that if you read the Hendrickson case, you'll soon find that arguments over the definitions of "wages", "employee", "employer", "income" et al are irrelevant & immaterial.  What Hendrickson believed those terms mean & to what/whom they apply would only have been relevant if he'd used the "Cheek defense", which he did not.


              The Cheek case focuses on "willfulness" & while the lower courts held that Cheek's beliefs with respect to income taxes were not "objectively reasonable" & he was convicted of "willful failure to file" (tax returns, IRC § 7203), the supreme Court held that:


              "A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable."


              Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991).


              Hendrickson was charged with 10 counts of filing false documents (4 Form 1040's, 6 Form 4852's) under IRC § 7206(1):


              § 7206. Fraud and false statements
                 Any person who— 
                   (1) Declaration under penalties of perjury 
              Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter . . .
              shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.


              So the questions to the jury were simple - did he sign those forms under the penalty of perjury & submit them, or not?  And was the information contained in the forms "true & correct as to every material matter", or not?


              For those not familiar with the 4852 scheme, which I warned people about years ago, the idea is for a person working a "regular job" where they filled out a W-4, taxes are withheld, etc., to submit a Form 4852 substitute for W-2 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4852.pdf showing -0- income & claim a refund for taxes withheld by the employer.  The way the (ancient) IRS computer system works, if the forms are filled out right, a refund will usually kick out, but while it may take 2-3 years, sooner of later someone in the Examination Div. is going to go over suspect forms manually - then the trouble starts.  


              And while courts have held that the IRS cannot get $$$ back if they issued a refund in error, they can sure go after you for submitting false forms.  That's just exactly what they did, I knew that was going to happen sooner or later & now that they've convicted the promoter of the scheme, look for them to go after people who got big refunds using it.


              So the arguments over whether or not you were an "employee", working for an "employer", earning "wages" which are "income" by your own definitions are irrelevant - unless you can show a "good faith belief" that your definitions are correct.  And by the way, Cheek lost the 2nd time around - all the supreme Court did was to clarify the "willfulness" issue & "willfulness" is defined as "the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."  Cheek, supra. 


              If Hendrickson could have successfully argued that he didn't "willfully" file false Forms 1040 & 4852, regardless of what the statutory definitions of the terms argued over are, then he might have made his case, but what it boiled down to is the jury believed that he submitted forms under the penalty of perjury which contained information he knew to be false.  End of story.


              ~ ~ ~ 


              --- On Mon, 11/9/09, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:

              From: John Hill <otoman@...>
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Peter Hendrickson convicted.
              To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 11:44 PM

               

              Regarding a post made by Patrick M. which in detail covered the definitions of such terms as "wages," "employee," and made reference to an alleged requirement of S.S. and Medicare payments even when no federal income tax is due.
               
              Have we already forgotten the basic principle required for any form of taxation?
               
              That basic principle being "THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX." If there is no tax imposed, then there is no liability. "Where in the Internal Revenue Code, or any other code, is there a tax IMPOSED on any activity that I have performed. Or even on any "receipts" that I have taken in? In other words, there must first be a "tax imposed" before any tax is due.
               
              It appears that Patrick M. has deduced that an "income tax" is a "direct tax" and not the "indirect tax" that the Constitution plainly says an "income tax" is and the many court cites that confirm this fact. If MONEY were the "subject of" the tax, then why would IRC section 7701(a)(26) even bother to define the term "trade or business?" Why would Subtitles D & E even exist?

            • Cactus Charlie
              Just because Hendrickson was convicted does not mean he is guilty of any crime.  Do not expect to get justice on the district court level.  All you can do
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Just because Hendrickson was convicted does not mean he is guilty of any crime.  Do not expect to get justice on the district court level.  All you can do there is lay the foundation for reversal on appeal.  The government cannot bring a clean case and makes many reversible errors.  It's mostly about procedure on the Constitutional level.  One can be right in the law and still go to prison.  However, the most dangerous appellate court doctrine is that of "harmless error." 

                Yours For Freedom,



                Cactus Charlie

                --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Michael <mn_chicago@...> wrote:
                Two things: Firstly, it goes to show that anyone arguing

                the tax code, in most any court will likely lose, for many

                reasons, most of which do not relate to justice.



                Secondly, what kept hitting me is the judge's continual

                reference that employers withheld money "as required by law."
              • Jake
                  ... reference that employers withheld money as required by law.      Does anyone know what the law says that employers are so required? IRC §
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
                • 0 Attachment


                   

                  > Secondly, what kept hitting me is the judge's continual 
                  reference that employers withheld money "as required by law."
                    >  

                    > Does anyone know what the "law" says that employers are
                  so "required?"


                  IRC § 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 such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall—


                  ~ ~ ~


                  --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Michael <mn_chicago@...> wrote:

                  From: Michael <mn_chicago@...>
                  Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Peter Hendrickson convicted.
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 10:43 AM

                   



                  --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, "Patrick M" <paradoxmagnus@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > http://www.usdoj. gov/tax/Hendrick son_AmendedJudgP ermInj.pdf

                  Two things: Firstly, it goes to show that anyone arguing
                  the tax code, in most any court will likely lose, for many
                  reasons, most of which do not relate to justice.

                  Secondly, what kept hitting me is the judge's continual
                  reference that employers withheld money "as required by law."

                  Does anyone know what the "law" says that employers are
                  so "required?" Perhaps I misunderstand, but I thought
                  employers withheld on behalf of the IRS, out of misapplication
                  of what it thought to be required, but in fact is not.

                  Interestingly, the judge ended by acknowledging the "self-
                  assessment" aspect but made references to "taxpayers" in
                  the statment.

                  Cheers,

                  mn


                • Patrick M
                  It appears to me that John is making ASSUMPTIONS & JUMPING to CONCLUSIONS. NOWHERE did I imply the income tax is a direct tax NOR that MONEY was the
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment

                    It appears to me that John is making ASSUMPTIONS & JUMPING to CONCLUSIONS.

                     

                    NOWHERE did I imply the "income tax" is a "direct tax" NOR that MONEY was the "subject of" of the tax NOR that everyone has an income tax LIABILITY.

                     

                    WHAT I did do is CHALLENGE Pete’s EQUATING of the two.

                     

                    SOCIAL SECURITY was enacted in 1935.

                     

                    “On August 14, 1935, the Social Security Act established a system of old-age benefits for workers, benefits for victims of industrial accidents, unemployment insurance, aid for dependent mothers and children, the blind, and the physically handicapped.”

                    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=68#  

                     

                    Most people did NOT pay INCOME TAX until SEVEN YEARS later in 1942 when the VICTORY ACT temporarily EXTENDED the EXISTING income tax codified in the 1939 INTERAL REVENUE ACT (IRC) to the GENERAL PUBLIC.

                     

                    “The most striking feature of 1939 Federal individual income tax legislation was the enactment of the Pu b lic Salaries Tax Act of 1939. It su b jects to the Federal income tax the wages and compensation of all state and local officers and employees, rega rd less of the nature of their office or employment. In addition, it ena b les state and local governments to impose non-discriminatory taxes on the compensation of all Federal officers and employees. This legislation applies to compensation received after Dec. 31, 1938.

                    Hitherto, b ecause of what were thought to b e constitutional prohi b itions, the Federal income tax did not apply to the compensation of most state and local employees, although it applied to the compensation of all Federal officers and employees. For the same reason state income taxes generally applied to the compensation of state and local officers and employees, b ut not to salaries of Federal officers and employees.”

                    http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461501292/1939_Income_Taxation.html

                     

                     

                    "In 1939 only about five percent of American workers paid income tax. The United States ' entrance into World War II changed that figure. The demands of war production put almost every American back to work, but the expense of the war still exceeded tax-generated revenue. President Roosevelt's proposed Revenue Act of 1942 introduced the broadest and most progressive tax in American history, the Victory Tax. Now, about 75 percent of American workers would pay income taxes. Because so many citizens paid the tax, it was considered a mass tax. To ease workers' burden of paying a large sum once a year, and to create a regular flow of revenue into the U.S. Treasury, the government required employers to withhold money from employees' paychecks. Additional taxes were put in place in 1943. By war's end in 1945, about 90 percent of American workers submitted income tax forms, and 60 percent paid taxes on their income. The federal government covered more than half its expenses with new income tax revenue."

                    http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/whys/lp/IWT2L5lp.jsp

                     

                    Medicare & Social Security (FICA) taxes are IMPOSED in 26 USC 3101.

                     

                    26 USC 3101. Rate of tax

                     

                    (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance

                    In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))— [REST OMITTED]

                    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00003101----000-.html

                     

                    WITHHOLDING is for INCOME TAX LIABILITY & the REQUIREMENT for it is IMPOSED in 26 USC 3402.

                     

                    26 USC 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 such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. [REST OMITTED]

                    n) Employees incurring no income tax liability

                    Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee—

                    (1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and

                    (2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.

                    The Secretary shall by regulations provide for the coordination of the provisions of this subsection with the provisions of subsection (f).

                    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003402----000-.html

                     

                    The simple FACT is that one can be EXEMPT for INCOME TAX purposes, but are STILL LIABLE for FICA taxes.

                     

                    Exemption from federal income tax withholding. Generally, an employee may claim exemption from federal income tax withholding because he or she had no income tax liability last year and expects none this year. See the Form W-4 instructions for more information. However, the wages are still subject to social security and Medicare taxes. See also Invalid Forms W-4 on page 17.  IRS Publication 15, (Circular E), Employer’s Tax Guide, page 15

                    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf

                     

                    The so-called “income tax” is NOT a “direct tax”, but is an EXCISE tax.

                     

                    INCOME TAX

                    History and Purpose of the Amendment

                    The ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided Court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ‘‘direct tax’’ which Congress under the terms of Article I, § 2, and § 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population. Scarcely fifteen years earlier the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue. 6

                     

                    During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of ‘‘direct tax’’ or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames, 7 Knowlton

                    v. Moore, 8 and Patton v. Brady, 9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the ‘‘incidents of ownership’’ and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale.

                     

                    Under this approach the Court thus found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise ‘‘measured by income’’ on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. 10 The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in the Pollock case. Indeed, in its initial appraisal 11 of the Amendment it classified income taxes as being inherently ‘‘indirect.’’

                     

                    ‘‘[T]he command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.’’ 12 ‘‘[T]he 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.’’ 13

                     

                    Income Subject to Taxation

                    Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, 14 the Court initially described income as the ‘‘gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’’inclusive of the ‘‘profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets’’; 15 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.

                     

                    ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

                     

                    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/034.pdf

                     

                    EXCISE taxes are also known as PRIVILEGE taxes and are usually on SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PRIVILEGES.

                     

                    “Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680.

                     

                    The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152]   privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable."  FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

                    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/220/107.html

                     

                     

                    "...Although the Supreme court held this portion of the act to be unconstitutional, it still recognized that the income was is essence an excise tax. The Court said that tax on income from business, privileges, or employments, standing by itself, would be valid as an excise tax; but the tax on investment income was held to be invalid because the Court regarded a tax based on income from property as a tax on the property itself and therefore a direct tax which must be apportioned among the States (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), 157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601, 637), So the entire portion of the act relating to income tax was declared invalid. (Fn. 1)

                     

                    There are still those who think that in this case the Court went further than necessary in treating a tax based on income from property as a tax on property itself, and that in any event the excise-tax principle should have been applied to rents and other investment income, as was done under the Civil War acts. In other words, the making and holding of investments, while perhaps not technically a business, is, at least, a kind of activity or privilege which can properly be subjected to an excise tax measured by reference to the income derived therefrom.

                    ...

                    The sixteenth amendment authorizes the taxation of income "from whatever source derived" — thus taking in investment income —"without apportionment among the several States." The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or excepted subjects but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income whether it be derived from one source or another.(Fn. 3.) So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income....

                    The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax."  Congressional Record from March 27, 1943 (page 2580). Mr. F.Morse Hubbard, formerly of the legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University , and a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department.

                     

                    Wouldn’t being the STATUTORY “employee” as DEFINED in 26 USC 3401 be an ACTIVITY/PRIVILEGE that could be TAXED via an EXCISE?

                     

                    26 USC 3401

                     (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

                     

                    Just like any other “individual” who is acting in a FIDUCIARY CAPACITY as agents or officers for another?

                     

                    "But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations." UNITED STATES v. WHITE, 322 U.S. 694 (1944)

                    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/322/694.html

                     

                    26 CFR 31.0-2 General definitions and use of .

                    (a) In general. As used in the regulations in this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated--
                    (1) The defined in the provisions of law contained in the regulations in this part shall have the meanings so assigned to them.

                    (8) Person includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust or estate, a joint-stock company, an association, or a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization or group, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. It includes a guardian, committee, trustee, executor, administrator, trustee in bankruptcy, receiver, assignee for the benefit of creditors, conservator, or any person acting in a fiduciary capacity.[rest omitted]

                    http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-15.0.1.1.1.1.8.2.html

                     

                    And UNFORTUNATELY, IF someone REQUESTS WITHHOLDING or files a return, WOULDN’T the PRESUMPTION most likely be that they have been given LEGAL NOTICE that they are a person who has an INCOME TAX LIABILITY or is REQUIRED to file an income tax return?

                     

                    26 CFR 31.6001-6   Notice by district director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records.

                    The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for any of the taxes to which the regulations in this part have application.

                    http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=de87314e866de9fe6728f4c7589924f1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:15.0.1.1.1.7.16.6&idno=26

                     

                     

                    26 CFR 1.1-1…In general, the tax is payable upon the basis of returns rendered by persons liable therefor (subchapter A (sections 6001 and following), chapter 61 of the Code) or at the source of the income by withholding. [rest omitted]

                    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/26cfr1.1-1.htm  

                     

                    And if people UNDERSTAND a few KEY PRINCIPLES, start READING the DEFINITIONS in Title 26, and ask themselves some questions, they might find some answers.

                     

                      Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.  A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.  Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.  Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.  When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.  Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Sixth Edition, page 581

                     

                     

                      Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.  The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Edition

                     

                     

                      EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind, class, or nature.

                      In statutory construction, the "ejusdem generis rule" is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things. by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. Laws, 141; Cutshaw v. Denver, 19 Colo. App. 341, 75 Pac. 22; Ex parte Leland, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 462; Spalding v. People, 172 Ill. 40, 49 N. B. 993.  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, pages 415.  

                     

                     

                      Noscitur a sociis. It is known from its associates. 1 Vent. 225. The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words. 3 Term R. 87; Broom, Max. 588.  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, pages 830.

                     

                    Such as the definition of “includes” used in most of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE is nothing more that a RESTATEMENT of the CANONS of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION & that what is INCLUDED in who and/or what is being DEFINED is LIMITED to those things which are in the SAME GENERAL CLASS as the ENUMERATED items.

                     

                    26 USC 7701(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.

                    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701----000-.html

                     

                     

                    27 CFR 26.11

                     When used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meaning ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms ``includes'' and ``including'' do not exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.

                     

                    (68A Stat. 917, as amended (26 U.S.C. 7805); 49 Stat. 981, as amended  (27 U.S.C. 205) Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 775 (26 U.S.C. 6301); June 29, 1956, ch. 462, 70 Stat. 391 (26 U.S.C. 6301))

                     

                    T.D. ATF-48, 43 FR 13551, Mar. 31, 1978]

                     

                     http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/aprqtr/27cfr26.11.htm  

                     

                     

                    "Plaintiff, accordingly, claims that Mrs. Ham, as the receiver of a one- third portion of Mr. Ham's estate, was not a "beneficiary" within the meaning of § 662. This contention, however, fails. For definition, 26 U.S.C. § 643(c) provides that "the term 'beneficiary' includes heir, legatee, devisee." The word "elector" (of a spouse's share) does not appear, but "includes" is not limiting. Rather, "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' . . . shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." 26 U.S.C. § 7701(c). In light of this we apply the PRINCIPLE that a list of terms should be construed to include by implication those additional terms of LIKE KIND AND CLASS as the expressly included terms."  BRIGHAM v US , No. 97-2436 [EMPHASIS ADDED]

                    http://laws.findlaw.com/1st/972436.html

                     

                    Patrick in California

                     

                    "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

                     

                    It appears to me that John is JUMPING to CONCLUSIONS.

                     

                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com , "John Hill" <otoman@...> wrote:

                    >  

                    > Regarding a post made by Patrick M. which in detail covered the definitions of such terms as "wages," "employee," and made reference to an alleged requirement of S.S. and Medicare payments even when no federal income tax is due.

                    >

                    > Have we already forgotten the basic principle required for any form of taxation?

                    >

                    > That basic principle being "THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX." If there is no tax imposed, then there is no liability. "Where in the Internal Revenue Code, or any other code, is there a tax IMPOSED on any activity that I have performed. Or even on any "receipts" that I have taken in? In other words, there must first be a "tax imposed" before any tax is due.

                    >

                    > It appears that Patrick M. has deduced that an "income tax" is a "direct tax" and not the "indirect tax" that the Constitution plainly says an "income tax" is and the many court cites that confirm this fact. If MONEY were the "subject of" the tax, then why would IRC section 7701(a)(26) even bother to define the term "trade or business?" Why would Subtitles D & E even exist?

                     

                  • Patrick M
                    See 26 USC 3102 & 3402. And REALIZE that Pete was NOT convicted of INCOME TAX evasion & the charges MAY actually have had LITTLE to do with INCOME TAX. Peter
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      See 26 USC 3102 & 3402.



                      And REALIZE that Pete was NOT convicted of INCOME TAX evasion & the charges
                      MAY actually have had LITTLE to do with INCOME TAX.



                      "Peter Hendrickson, 54, of Commerce Township was found guilty today of
                      making false statements to the IRS by a federal jury in Detroit, United
                      States Attorney Terrence Berg announced today.



                      The jury deliberated for about four hours before returning the verdict,
                      concluding a five-day trial before Chief United States District Judge Gerald
                      Rosen.



                      The 10-count indictment charged that for the calendar years 2000, 2002,2003,
                      2004, 2005 and 2006 Hendrickson filed IRS Form 1040 (income tax returns)
                      and/or IRS Form 4852 (Substitute for Form W-2) stating under penalties of
                      perjury that he had received no wages in those years. The indictment
                      indicated that he had in fact received wages in those years in varying
                      amounts. The evidence produced at trial established that Hendrickson had in
                      fact received taxable wages and that his claims to the contrary were
                      knowingly false. In reaching the verdicts, the jury rejected Hendrickson's
                      defense that he had a good faith belief that his statements regarding his
                      lack of wages were true."



                      http://www.justice.gov/tax/usaopress/2009/phendrickson.pdf



                      Especially IF the "wages" REFERRED to are those for purposes of Social
                      Security & Medicare (FICA).



                      Remember, one can be EXEMPT for INCOME TAX purposes, but STILL be LIABLE for
                      FICA taxes.



                      Exemption from federal income tax withholding. Generally, an employee may
                      claim exemption from federal income tax withholding because he or she had no
                      income tax liability last year and expects none this year. See the Form W-4
                      instructions for more information. However, the wages are still subject to
                      social security and Medicare taxes. See also Invalid Forms W-4 on page 17.
                      IRS Publication 15, (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, page 15

                      http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf



                      Patrick in California



                      "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya
                      is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus



                      > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick M" <paradoxmagnus@>
                      wrote:

                      > >

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

                      >

                      >

                      > Two things: Firstly, it goes to show that anyone arguing

                      > the tax code, in most any court will likely lose, for many

                      > reasons, most of which do not relate to justice.
                    • John Hill
                      Jerry Bell Wrote: United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed. Response: There is no argument regarding this. However, definitions do not
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 10, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        
                        Jerry Bell Wrote:

                        United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed.
                         
                        Response:
                        There is no argument regarding this. However, definitions do not IMPOSE taxes, nor do they necessarily limit those who can be taxed. Example: I am a private sector individual doing contracted work for the federal government, being paid by your tax dollars. Am I a government employee? NOT! Are my receipts taxable? The general consensus is YES since the "receipts" are federally connected. However, after somewhat reading Tommy Cryer's Memorandum, I have to admit that I am unable to connect the dots as to why  the general consensus is correct. I STILL cannot find a tax that is "CLEARLY" imposed in Subtitle A on federally connected dollars. YES, the definition of "trade or business" relates to federally connected dollars. BUT,WHERE IS THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN SUBTITLE A? If there is no "TAX IMPOSED," then there is "NO LIABILITY" for a tax!"


                      • Patrick
                        Maybe there SHOULD be an argument about United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed . WHAT general consensus are you referring to? And
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 11, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Maybe there SHOULD be an argument about "United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed".

                          WHAT "general consensus" are you referring to?

                          And WHERE did you get these "beliefs" about "federally connected dollars"?

                          It appears to me that those "beliefs" may be confusing you about issues regarding the IMPOSITION of the income tax in 26 USC 1 & the DETERMINATION of LIABILITY for it.

                          So to me it boils down to TWO QUESTIONS:

                          Have you been given the REQUIRED NOTICE that you are a person REQUIRED to file a return?

                          Are you engaged in an ACTIVITY/PRIVILEGE that REQUIRES WITHHOLDING?

                          Patrick in California

                          "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus


                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "John Hill" <otoman@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Jerry Bell Wrote:
                          >
                          > United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed.
                          >
                          > Response:
                          > There is no argument regarding this. However, definitions do not IMPOSE taxes, nor do they necessarily limit those who can be taxed. Example: I am a private sector individual doing contracted work for the federal government, being paid by your tax dollars. Am I a government employee? NOT! Are my receipts taxable? The general consensus is YES since the "receipts" are federally connected. However, after somewhat reading Tommy Cryer's Memorandum, I have to admit that I am unable to connect the dots as to why the general consensus is correct. I STILL cannot find a tax that is "CLEARLY" imposed in Subtitle A on federally connected dollars. YES, the definition of "trade or business" relates to federally connected dollars. BUT,WHERE IS THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN SUBTITLE A? If there is no "TAX IMPOSED," then there is "NO LIABILITY" for a tax!"
                          >
                        • Carrol
                          as required by law . This entails ALL of the law, not just title 26. The judge stated Also, as required by law, Mr. Hendrickson s employer issued him a Form
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 11, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "as required by law".

                            This entails ALL of the law, not just title 26.

                            The judge stated "Also, as required by law, Mr. Hendrickson's
                            employer issued him a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement that
                            correctly reported his wages and those withholdings."

                            Published in 78 FR 7461 and 7461,
                            is this notice in the Treasury Department System of Records:

                            "ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING
                            CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

                            (2) Furnish the Internal Revenue Service and other jurisdictions
                            which are authorized to tax the employee's compensation with wage and
                            tax information in accordance with a withholding agreement with the
                            Department of the Treasury pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5516, 5517 and 5520,
                            for the purpose of furnishing employees with Forms W-2 which report
                            such tax distributions;"

                            RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
                            The information contained in these records is provided by or verified by
                            the subject of the record, supervisors, and non-Federal sources such as
                            private employers."

                            Since form W-2 is reporting tax distributions under 5 U.S.C. 5516, 5517
                            and 5520,
                            that is what is required by law.

                            The W-4 form identifies the routine uses of this information:
                            “Routine uses of this information include giving it to the Department
                            of Justice for civil an criminal litigation, and to cities, states, and
                            the
                            District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws...”

                            4 U.S.C. Section 72 states that "all offices attached to the seat of
                            government
                            shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except
                            as otherwise expressly provided by law."

                            The IRS is not an office, The Commissioner of Internal Revenue holds
                            that title.
                            The IRS can only exercise the authority of the Commissioner of Internal
                            Revenue.
                            The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is appointed by the President (26
                            USC 7803), and is the
                            CEO of the IRS (this established under a Treasury Delegation order).

                            26 USC 7803:
                            "(2) Duties
                            The Commissioner shall have such duties and powers as the
                            Secretary may prescribe, including the power to--
                            (A) administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the
                            execution and application of the internal revenue laws or
                            related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States
                            is a party;"

                            The Secretary has delegated several Taxation authorities to the Commissioner
                            of Internal Revenue:

                            TO 150-17 - The Commissioner of Internal Revenue holds competent
                            authority or taxation authority under agreements with foreign
                            countries. This
                            delegated to the IRS under Delegation Order 4-12 published in the IRM
                            under Section 1.2.43.3.

                            TO 150-39 - The Commissioner of Internal Revenue holds competent authority
                            or taxation authority under agreements that are entered into with the
                            possessions of the United States. This is delegated to the IRS under
                            Delegation
                            Order 4-36 published in IRM 1.2.43.11.

                            4 USC Sect 111 - "The United States consents to the taxation of pay or
                            compensation
                            for personal service as an officer or employee of the United States, a
                            territory or possession
                            or political subdivision thereof, the government of the District of
                            Columbia, or an agency
                            or instrumentality of one or more of the foregoing, by a a duly
                            constituted taxing authority
                            having jurisdiction..." The IRS has certification and approval under
                            IRM section 1.2.40.24,
                            Delegation order 29 for collections in accordance with the Treasury
                            Financial Manual. This
                            delegated to Commissioners, Wage and Investment and Small Business/Self
                            Employed Divisions;
                            the Chief Financial Officer; and the field Submission Processing Directors.

                            "4 USC Sec. 118. Limitations

                            Sections 116 through 126 of this title do not--
                            (1) provide authority to a taxing jurisdiction to impose a tax,
                            charge, or fee that the laws of such jurisdiction do not authorize
                            such jurisdiction to impose; or
                            (2) modify, impair, supersede, or authorize the modification,
                            impairment, or supersession of the law of any taxing jurisdiction
                            pertaining to taxation except as expressly provided in sections 116
                            through 126 of this title"

                            The IRS is using the W-4 information to administer the tax laws of cities,
                            states and the District of Columbia. The information is shared with
                            these jurisdictions. The IRS told you that in the fine print
                            of the W-2 - believe it. The W-4 is for administering
                            the tax laws of the District of Columbia, cities and states under
                            5 USC 5516, 5517 and 5520 under withholding agreements.
                            One of the sources of the information is listed as "non-federal
                            sources such as private employers". This is stated in the federal
                            register.

                            If you received a W-4 from a private employers, this applies to the
                            one you received. ALL OF THE W-2'S ISSUED IS FOR THIS PURPOSE.

                            So who are you paying taxes to: which city, state, the District of
                            Columbia? Which insular possession or foreign country did you
                            do business in? The 1040 form privacy act notice also lists these 2
                            additional jurisdictions. They can only yield the authority given to them
                            under the the laws of the jurisdiction they acting for. 4 USC Section 118
                            says so. And all of these jurisdictions have agreements which allow the
                            IRS to step outside of the District of Columbia.


                            Michael wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            > <mailto:tips_and_tricks%40yahoogroups.com>, "Patrick M"
                            > <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf
                            > <http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj.pdf>
                            >
                            > Two things: Firstly, it goes to show that anyone arguing
                            > the tax code, in most any court will likely lose, for many
                            > reasons, most of which do not relate to justice.
                            >
                            > Secondly, what kept hitting me is the judge's continual
                            > reference that employers withheld money "as required by law."
                            >
                            > Does anyone know what the "law" says that employers are
                            > so "required?" Perhaps I misunderstand, but I thought
                            > employers withheld on behalf of the IRS, out of misapplication
                            > of what it thought to be required, but in fact is not.
                            >
                            > Interestingly, the judge ended by acknowledging the "self-
                            > assessment" aspect but made references to "taxpayers" in
                            > the statment.
                            >
                            > Cheers,
                            >
                            > mn
                            >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.