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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Peter Hendrickson convicted.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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:


      (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;"

      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
      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
      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
      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

      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
      Order 4-36 published in IRM

      4 USC Sect 111 - "The United States consents to the taxation of pay or
      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,
      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

      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.