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

Re: Peter Hendrickson convicted.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.