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

Re: Why "Cracking the Code" is WRONG!

Expand Messages
  • Patrick M
    All that information is great, but WHY would an INDIVIDUAL file an income tax return in the FIRST PLACE, UNLESS they FIRST received the LEGAL NOTICE that they
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 19, 2010

      All that information is great, but WHY would an INDIVIDUAL file an income tax return in the FIRST PLACE, UNLESS they FIRST received the LEGAL NOTICE that they were REQUIRED to do so?

      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.


      And WHY would INDIVIDUALS who have NEVER been given LEGAL NOTICE that are PERSONS who have an INCOME TAX LIABILITY request WITHHOLDING if the FIRST PLACE ?

      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]



      And that makes sense, DOESN’T it?  After all, WITHHOLDING is for income tax LIABILITY, ISN’T it? 

      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).



      That is WHY one can be EXEMPT for INCOME TAX purposes but STILL be LIABLE for FICA taxes, ISN’T it?.


      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



      Now if either and/or both of the above have been done in ERROR, maybe we should DOCUMENT the FACT that they have NOT given US the REQUIRED legal notice that WE are NOT an INDIVIDUAL REQUIRED to do so & give the IRS LEGAL NOTICE of the TRUE FACTS?


      He who does not deny, admits.

      Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

      It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.

      Fraud lies hid in general expressions.

      A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.

      He who does not prevent what he can prevent, is viewed as assenting.

      The truth that is not sufficiently defended is frequently overpowered; and he who does not disapprove, approves.

      Suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of what is false.

      Ignorance of facts excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse.

      The multitude of those who err is no excuse for error.

      An error not resisted is approved.

      Suppression of fact, which should be disclosed, is the same in effect as willful misrepresentation.

      Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights.

      Remove the foundation, the structure or work fall.

      Ignorance of the Law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.

      Remove the cause and the effect will cease.

      A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved.

      The presumption is always in favor of the one who denies.

      All things are presumed to be lawfully done and duly performed until the contrary is proved.

      It is in the nature of things, that he who denies a fact is not bound to prove it.

      What is not proved and what does not exist are the same; it is not a defect of the law, but of proof.

      That way we give them an opportunity to correct their ERROR & WE have EVIDENCE to DENY/DISPUTE/REBUT the PRESUMPTION/INFERENCE that

      we have already RECEIVED notice.

      "Full and conclusive proof is not required where a party has the burden of proving a negative, but it is necessary that the proof be at least sufficient to render the existence of the negative probable, or to create a fair and reasonable presumption of the negative until the contrary is shown. (Footnotes omitted.) 30 Am. Jur. 2d EVIDENCE 1163, at 338 (1967). ACCORD, 31A C.J.S. EVIDENCE 112, at 190 (1964); E. Cleary, MCCORMICK'S HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 337, at 786 (2d ed. 1972).  Although the procedures here employed are not to be commended, measured by the test just stated, the plaintiffs' proof of lack of implementing city legislation was sufficient. In so holding, we note particularly that the City was given an adequate opportunity, both at trial and in post-trial proceedings, to produce any implementing city ordinances, charter provisions or regulations, but did not do so."  HIGGINS v. SALEWSKY, 17 Wn. App. 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 562 P.2d 655 (March 28, 1977).



      Patrick in California


      "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." -- Mark Twain



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.