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

turn around is fair play

Expand Messages
  • nickster97@yahoo.com
    I have in the past month stated how the United States is working in Corporate capacity in applying social security to extract a tax from you and I. I have
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 1 1:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I have in the past month stated how the United States is working in
      Corporate capacity in applying social security to extract a tax from
      you and I.

      I have never stated that this is a good thing, I never stated that
      this is even legal in all respects, I have only stated this for the
      simple fact that you needed to understand how the United States was
      applying the law so that you can see the illegalities in the
      application in the proper perspectives. It has nothing to do with
      861, the definition of income or the word includes or including.

      Lets start at Chapter C where there is a withholding of wages making
      taxable income and therfore making a tax on taxable income in
      chapter A possible.

      Regulations in section 3121 and 3402 have exclusions to wages. This
      means that if you work in agriculture, in the home or in any of the
      excluded areas of Social Security, you don't have wages subject to
      taxation and therefore there is no withholding. What does this
      suggest? That Social Security is the nexus is one conclusion, but
      there is another conclusion.

      What happened to the private sector employer? Why is a so called
      private sector employer giving you a w-4? Social Security is purely
      jurisdictional in nature and that jurisdiction applies only to
      Federal Jurisdiction. Social Security is NOT required for employment
      within the 50 states and the Social Security Administration will
      tell you as such. Yet there are regulations at section 1.6011-(b)
      that says that it is YOUR OBLIGATION to get a social security number
      for the employer. But that is only for territorial jurisdictional
      employers. There is NOTHING to suggest that you have to fill out the
      w-4 form or any federal form to subjigate oneself to the federal
      jurisdiction.

      The United States for all practical purposes has wiped out the
      private sector employer by over stepping it's constitutional bounds.
      Social Security is probably a good idea but it should have been
      unconstitional as applied in the first place. Now we are paying for
      it. When you accept the number, be it employee or employer, you have
      accepted jurisdiction into the corporation. You have the ability to
      give the number back. EMPLOYERS are entities. They do not have the
      same ability to give the number back.

      If the employer gives you a W-4, you have the right to question.
      What is this form for? "It is for withholding of income taxes"

      Why are you giving me this form, aren't you not a private
      employer? "Yes"

      Are you a Federal Employer? "No"

      Is this form Mandatory or Permissive? "Mandatory"

      Then why are you giving me a federal form? "Look, this is what my
      bookeeper tells me that I need to give to you"

      "Look, we don't have to do this, there are other people that need a
      job"

      You are preety much forced into territorial jurisdiction because NO
      ONE wants to know or understand the real law.

      And while Clyde has a point about the abrogation of common law, the
      wage earner who should have a choice of whether to pay into social
      security is not given that opportunity. The reason? Because Social
      Security would collapse. And when he does find out that he has been
      duped, he has a choice of taking the employer to court, which the
      employer has been exempted by statute from liability, or keeping his
      mouth shut.

      Here is what needs to be understood.

      The party to sue here is the United States. The Employer is acting
      under Federal law contrary to the takings clause of the Constitution
      of the United States in both Amendement 4 and amendment 5. The
      Employee has been forced to give up his constitutional PROTECTIONS
      in the exchange of his property for income that is his property.
      THIS is what needs to be litigated in Federal Court. Nothing else.

      For everyone else that is subjected to income taxes, especially
      those self employed, Clyde pointed out the answer to that one in
      that that is a total fraud. The authority for substitutes for
      returns has no basis in Federal regulations which the statute at 6020
      (b) says that only by REGULATION shows which forms they can file.

      There are no regulations that apply to the 1040. There are
      regulations for all the other forms that are in the IRM. You can see
      these regulations at 26 CFR 31.6011.


      PROPER LITIGATION OF THESE 2 ISSUES WILL GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX
      ON CITIZENS OF THE 50 STATES.
    • Nilbux@aol.com
      In a message dated 2/1/2004 10:54:13 PM Central Standard Time, ... NILBUX REPLY: THEY CANNOT GET MONEY FROM US WHEN THE FED SAID OUR BANK ACCOUNTS ARE MERELY
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 1 10:02 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/1/2004 10:54:13 PM Central Standard Time, nickster97@... writes:

        I have in the past month stated how the United States is working in
        Corporate capacity in applying social security to
        extract a tax from
        you and I.

             NILBUX REPLY:
            THEY CANNOT GET MONEY FROM US  WHEN THE FED SAID OUR BANK
            ACCOUNTS ARE "MERELY BOOK ENTRIES" AND THAT THEIR SYSTEM
            "WORKS ONLY WITH CREDIT" THAT WOULD KEEP ITS VALUE "IF THERE
            WERE FEWER PEOPLE BIDDING AGAINST EACH OTHER." ( I have the
            documents).

             They do not want money or ask for money. I have a fresh letter here from   the county prosecutor who said in bold, underlined capitals:
             "THIS OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT CASH".  In my trial, the judge took
             judicial notice that "cash" means money and I told her that the pros-
             ecutor does not want money. 
        Ask for the other details already posted.

        Credit exists only in the mind. When they said their system "works only with  credit" they must control the minds
        of most to work all of us with credit, and THEY DO!  Don't most believe the lie that government spends money?  WHY would they spend money when all of us will risk our lives and some lose their lives for weightless, intangible credit or for dollar bills that the IRS said:
        "are not dollars?"  (they are bills ofcredit)

        The IRS has three functions, none of which is collecting money OR collecting
          the paper that we all call "money."  One function the these "thought police" is  to intimidate us with fear of jail and property confiscation, another is to collect data and the third is to REGULATE OUR CONSUMPTION.

        "If governments should refrain from REGULATION (by taxation, extermin-ation,  etc.) the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer,"--Economic Consequences of The Peace  by John Mayard Keynes.

        When you send the
        Imaginary Revenue Scum a check that only authorizes your bank to reduce your credit and change the numbers in your account,  your consumption then will be limited to what any remaining credit permits.  If the numbers are taxed away from us, we don't bid those numbers against each other and expose the fraud of modern money. If we are exterm-inated before birth, or at retirement, we won't be bidding against each other or have parents bidding in our behalf.

        We should expect any thieves to lie anf kill to prevent detection and retri-
        bution, shouldn't we?  Counterfeiters are thieves and Nobrel Laureate, Paul Samuelson in Economics, Fourth Edition said the Fed is "omnipotent count-erfeiter."

        Don't pass the nonsense that the Fed is not "part of government!"
        When they are "omnipotent" THEY ARE GOVERNMENT! Congress IS
        their slaves as the rest of us are. Would you second guess Samuelson?

        Mass mind control was an art in old testament times, it is not a lost art!

        We will make no progress until many learn and teach Monetary Realism as
        taught by the late Merrill Jenkins, inventor of the dollar bill changer, and
        other devices.  I knew him well and published his 7th and last book for him
        posthumously.  His first book was: "Money," The Greatest Hoax On Earth.
        I can email an audio tape of a standing ovation speech that he gave to a
        group in Sacramento, that has since impressed many including Governor
        Reagan's ex pilot, Ed Condon of Encino CA, who said he wanted to buy
        everything that I sell.  A Ph.D. in Ottawa said the same thing.  A few bought
        100 copies and many bought a dozen copies which I offer for 25 bux a dozen.
        By email, one is free.

        See these sites if you believe our misleaders want us healthy:

        www.notmilk.com           www.dorway.com         www.trufax.org 

        http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

        http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

        LEARN AND TEACH MONETARY REALISM----PLEASE

        Who will tell me why $1000 from a laborer benefits
        government more than $2000 from a millionaire?

        There is a clue above.   Ask for the tape by email.  nilbux@...

            

      • Dave Miner
        Nickster -- You are pretty much correct in most of your assertions. But there is an inaccuracy that the perfectionist in me has to comment on. You said: Lets
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 2 2:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Nickster --
           
          You are pretty much correct in most of your assertions.  But there is an inaccuracy that the perfectionist in me has to comment on.
           
          You said: "Lets start at Chapter C where there is a withholding of wages making taxable income and therfore making a tax on taxable income in chapter A possible."
           
          The Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or 26 USC) is broken down into subtitles.  Subtitle A relates to the income tax.  Subtitle B relates to estate taxes.  Subtitle C relates to employment taxes.  Wages, employee, employer, etc. are not defined until Subtitle C and only apply to subtitle C.  And subtitle C has nothing to do with subtitle A income taxes.
           
          Further, withholding is required for subtitle C employment taxes and not allowed for any other subtitle or tax. 
           
          Still further, the income tax was passed much earlier than the SS or employment taxes.  The Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 created an indirect excise tax called the income tax.  This was the first income tax that withstood Supreme Court scrutiny, and it was actually the 4th income tax in America.  The Income Tax Act of 1913 extended the income tax to individuals, and was the 5th income tax passed in America.  The Social Security Act of (I think it was) 1933 created the SS tax, which ultimately became the employment tax.  In 1939, all the taxes were "canonized" into the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (26 USC).  This was further refined into the 1954 IRC (26 USC).  What we use now is the 1954 IRC plus modifications.
           
          But the subtitle C employment taxes did not authorize or make possible anything concerning the income tax.
           
          Further, what is withheld from your paychecks is subtitle C employment taxes. Then, on or before April 15 of each year, you complete a Form 1040, which declares that everything you earned in subtitle C wages is income subject to subtitle A income taxation.  The IRS calculates (or recalculates) your taxes due.  It then takes your employment taxes collected all year, cancels your subtitle C employment tax bill, and applies those funds to your subtitle A income tax bill.  Out of the many different taxes defined in the seven different subtitles in the IRC, this practice is absolutely illegal.  Yet the IRS does this every year for more than 110 million Americans.  It takes money collected under one subtitle for a tax in that subtitle, and applies those funds to another tax in another subtitle.
           
          Just wanted to clarify a few issues in your otherwise excellent post.
           
          Yours in freedom,
           
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 4:33 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] turn around is fair play

          I have in the past month stated how the United States is working in
          Corporate capacity in applying social security to extract a tax from
          you and I.

          I have never stated that this is a good thing, I never stated that
          this is even legal in all respects, I have only stated this for the
          simple fact that you needed to understand how the United States was
          applying the law so that you can see the illegalities in the
          application in the proper perspectives. It has nothing to do with
          861, the definition of income or the word includes or including.

          Lets start at Chapter C where there is a withholding of wages making
          taxable income and therfore making a tax on taxable income in
          chapter A possible.
           
          [snip]
        • rac
          Here is my take on all this IRS stuff... Most times you can not win regardless of what the titles, subtitles and all such says. The reason being is simple -
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 3 3:06 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Here is my take on all this IRS stuff...
             
            Most times you can not win regardless of what the titles, subtitles and all such says.  The reason being is simple - all the people in power pay taxes and if they pay, you pay.  Expecting them to rule for fairness is bordering on insane.  The only way to win this fight is to find a judge that has ruled in favor of the defendant against the IRS and continue to have THAT judge continue to rule against the IRS creating case after case after case....  Bombard that court with case after case after case.  
             
            rac
          • Dave Miner
            RAC -- I appreciate your take, but it is somewhat limited. First, I have not filed or paid in 14 years, this April. The IRS hasn t bothered me in 7 years, so
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 3 10:23 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              RAC --
               
              I appreciate your take, but it is somewhat limited.
               
              First, I have not filed or paid in 14 years, this April.  The IRS hasn't bothered me in 7 years, so I must be doing something right.
               
              Second, I have helped hundreds to stop filing successfully.
               
              Third, the IRS admitted last February to Congress that 63 million Americans did not file for 2001.  And the IRS only got half a dozen convictions for Willful Failure to File.
               
              Fourth, no one has any real control over what judge he/she will get.  Even if you get a bunch of individuals to file suit in a particular judge's district, there is no assurance any of them will get that particular judge. 
               
              On the other hand, you can use a judge's decision in any case in any district in State or fed court.  (with varying success, of course...)
               
              So we ARE winning the battles, except when nonfilers argue stupid issues and lose in court.  This happens more often than not, and hurts our cause more than they will ever know.
              But there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of court cases where individuals win against the IRS in all sorts of ways.
               
              Yours in freedom,
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: rac
              Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:06 PM
              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] turn around is fair play

              Here is my take on all this IRS stuff...
               
              Most times you can not win regardless of what the titles, subtitles and all such says.  The reason being is simple - all the people in power pay taxes and if they pay, you pay.  Expecting them to rule for fairness is bordering on insane.  The only way to win this fight is to find a judge that has ruled in favor of the defendant against the IRS and continue to have THAT judge continue to rule against the IRS creating case after case after case....  Bombard that court with case after case after case.  
               
              rac



              Yahoo! Groups Links

            • nickster97@yahoo.com
              SO, then let me correct your perfection Dave, then we can all be happy. ... This is where you have a little problem. Section 3402 tells the employer that he
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 3 11:28 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                SO, then let me correct your perfection Dave, then we can all be
                happy.

                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Miner" <dminer@f...>
                wrote:
                > The Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or 26 USC) is broken down into
                >subtitles. And subtitle C has nothing to do with subtitle A income
                >taxes.

                This is where you have a little problem. Section 3402 tells the
                employer that he has to take out a tax that has its origin in
                Subtitle A. This is other than SS taxes. So this makes your next
                sentance a moot point.

                > Further, withholding is required for subtitle C employment taxes
                >and not allowed for any other subtitle or tax.

                > Still further, the income tax was passed much earlier than the SS
                >or employment taxes.

                Actually not. The income tax that we are paying on was the Victory
                tax act of 1942 which was made easier by the current payment tax act
                (which was called withholding at the source) of 1943 and then the
                tax itself was abolished in 1944 making withholding of a nonexistent
                tax. SS tax came in 1935.

                The Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 created an indirect excise
                tax called the income tax. This was the first income tax that
                withstood Supreme Court scrutiny, and it was actually the 4th income
                tax in America. The Income Tax Act of 1913 extended the income tax
                to individuals,

                Maybe, but very few people actually filed an income tax up until
                1943.

                >The Social Security Act of (I think it was) 1933 created the SS
                >tax, which ultimately became the employment tax. In 1939, all the
                >taxes were "canonized" into the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (26
                USC).

                Very important, 1939 was the codification of the public Salary tax
                act. Either we are paying that one or the non existant victory tax
                act. Which one it is, the goverment is not telling us.

                >This was further refined into the 1954 IRC (26 USC). What we use
                >now is the 1954 IRC plus modifications.
                >But the subtitle C employment taxes did not authorize or make
                possible anything concerning the income tax.

                Once again, read section 3402 carefully. also read 26 CFR 31.6011
                that gives them employers duties of withholding at the source and
                the employees duties of supplying the SS#. IT says it is an
                OBLIGATION.

                > Further, what is withheld from your paychecks is subtitle C
                employment taxes.

                Only if you can and do claim exempt.


                >Then, on or before April 15 of each year, you complete a Form 1040,
                >which declares that everything you earned in subtitle C wages is
                >income subject to subtitle A income taxation.

                Again wrong. Everything you pay into Social Security is used as a
                credit for Social Security Taxes and the only thing that you can do
                is ask for a credit of excess taxes taken out for social security
                purposes.

                >The IRS calculates (or recalculates) your taxes due. It then takes
                >your employment taxes collected all year, cancels your subtitle C
                >employment tax bill, and applies those funds to your subtitle A
                >income tax bill. Out of the many different taxes defined in the
                >seven different subtitles in the IRC, this practice is absolutely
                >illegal. Yet the IRS does this every year for more than 110
                >million Americans. It takes money collected under one subtitle for
                >a tax in that subtitle, and applies those funds to another tax in
                >another subtitle.



                Boy, you sure have a lopsided understanding of how we are taxed.
                There are two different and distinct taxes. One is a SS tax and the
                other is a subtitle A tax. Subtitle A tax is a tax on TAXABLE
                INCOME. Look that one up in section 1. Social Security creates a
                taxable income on wages in 3121. Section 3402 taxes that taxable
                income according to tables in section 1. The IRS cannot cancel the
                employement tax, that is sent to Social Security trust fund which
                some senator steals and you are given credits in quarter units.

                Just thought I would clarify your clarification.
              • nickster97@yahoo.com
                Actually, Proper litigation will do the trick, But as I am finding out, patriots don t know how to litigate and no one wants to learn. So, they keep getting
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 3 11:32 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Actually,

                  Proper litigation will do the trick, But as I am finding out,
                  patriots don't know how to litigate and no one wants to learn. So,
                  they keep getting beat up and the US knows this.

                  Se la vee


                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "rac" <ezine@r...> wrote:
                  > Here is my take on all this IRS stuff...
                  >
                  > Most times you can not win regardless of what the titles,
                  subtitles and all such says. The reason being is simple - all the
                  people in power pay taxes and if they pay, you pay. Expecting them
                  to rule for fairness is bordering on insane. The only way to win
                  this fight is to find a judge that has ruled in favor of the
                  defendant against the IRS and continue to have THAT judge continue
                  to rule against the IRS creating case after case after case....
                  Bombard that court with case after case after case.
                  >
                  > rac
                • John
                  Dave and Nick - Each of you are correct to a point. Dave is correct in his minor corrections to Nicks post. However, there are a few other things that jump
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 4 12:18 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave and Nick - Each of you are correct to a point. Dave is correct
                    in his minor corrections to Nicks post. However, there are a few
                    other things that jump out at me. There are over 100 regulations
                    and situtations that require the filing of a 1040. Most of them do
                    not apply to a citizen of the United States. As far as I can tell
                    there is only TWO regulations that requires citizens of the United
                    States to file a 1040. They are section 911 [foreign earned income]
                    and the key section as far as im concerned is section 931 and its
                    regulations. The regulation under section 931 [26 CFR 1.931-1] is
                    very revealing and, as far as Im concerned, is the regulation that
                    the IRS is using to cause the 1040 to be created in the substitute
                    for return program.
                    The 931 regulation specifically says "in the case of a citizen of
                    the United States" on several occasions. The Secretary knows how to
                    specify who the law applies to. Because the term "individual" is
                    defined at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c)(3) as a resident or nonresident alien
                    then we can rest assured that every time we see the
                    word "individual" it means foreigner. This regulation supports that
                    rational even more. There are several places in the regulations
                    that say specifically "in the case of a citizen of the United
                    States". I believe that those are the regs that apply to citizns of
                    the United States.
                    Now in the case of §931 & its regs we can see a requirement for a
                    citizen of the United States to file a 1040 if the citizen has
                    income from within a possession of the United States. You can also
                    see that "in the case of a citizen of the United States" gross
                    income from sources within the United States means income from
                    within possessions of the United States. Now you understand why the
                    courts have ruled against folks trying to use the 861 argument.
                    Section 931 refers to section 861 in the regulation. When you go to
                    section 861 with the proper definition of "sources from within the
                    United States" in the case of a citizen of the United States you
                    understand how 861 applies to citizen of the United States.
                    Regs under §931 gives the filing requirements of a citizen of the
                    United States and it also explains when a citizen of the United
                    States DOES NOT have to file. These regs require a citizen of the
                    United States to file a 1040 depending on where they recieve the
                    payments.
                    So you can see that you must know your citizenship - you must
                    know how the money you recieve effects your tax liability - you must
                    know that where you recieve the payment also effects your reporting
                    requirements - and finally you must know to report your "total
                    income" in order to break any presumption by the government as to
                    where you recieved the money and your citizenship and all other
                    circumstances that surround the receipt of the money. That way when
                    you fail to file a 1040 you have refuted all ways the government can
                    presume that the money came from a reportable source or circumstance.
                    So the sum and substance of a citizen of the United States filing
                    a 1040 creates the presumtion that the citizen had possession or
                    foreign earned income, both of which are includable in gross income
                    and taxable under under Subtitle A.
                    The long and the short of these taxes is this - SS taxes have
                    nothing to do with Subtitle A income taxes. They have no
                    connection. Even the definition of the SS wages and the Subtitle A
                    taxes are different. Payments from companies to citizens of the
                    United States are exempt from the Subtitle A income taxes by being
                    exempt from the definition of wages under 3401(a)(8)(A)(i). The
                    conditions that qualify a citizen of the United States to have the
                    payments to be exempt are - be a citizen of the United States - do
                    not work for the Federal Government or any instrumentalty thereof -
                    and the money must be excludable from gross income under section
                    911. Section 911 is foreign earned income, so if you did not earn
                    the money in a foreign country then it will be excludable under
                    section 911.
                    The reason the IRS wants to charge you a Subtitle A income tax
                    is the presumption that is made when your employer files your W-2.
                    Box 1 on the W-2 causes the IRS to presume that you do not qualify
                    for the deduction mentioned in the preceding paragraph. If you do
                    not qualify then the "wages" are taxable. If they are not wages
                    then they are not taxable as such. The problem is compounded by the
                    fact that your employer forces you to file a W-4 before you go to
                    work. If you do file a W-4 all your earnings will be deemed to be
                    wages and you will be charged like they were. There are simple ways
                    to stop this presumption but that is another post which I will post
                    soon.
                    John
                  • Kevin C. Hart
                    John, I d like to inform everyone that the regulations found in your post are Treasury Decisions citing. These regulations are the interruptions of the Chief
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 4 6:50 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      John,
                       
                      I'd like to inform everyone that the regulations found in your post are Treasury Decisions citing. These regulations are the interruptions of the Chief Legal Cousel of the IRS and they are not published in the Federal Register. It therefore doesn't have the force and effect of law to comply with it. Remember, just because it has a regulation doesn't mean that everyone must comply with it. Only Legislative Implementing Regulations have the force and effect of law. My citing authority is found in 1 CFR 1.1, 1 CFR 21.40, and in 44 USC 1506.
                       
                      I suggest that everyone review or get Schiff Report Series 3 and 4 to explain how regulations work and their effect on the public. Eddie Kahn also puts out an excellent report about how federal regulations work as well.
                       
                      The main problem is with the government's ability to fool the public that all regulations they cite have the force and effect of the law. They do so by throwing out all the regulations to see if anyone is paying any attention to what they are saying. I check them out by asking them, if it has the force and effect of law and wait for their answer. When they say that they are not sure, I give them an education they never forget. By that time they will be so intimated with me, that they end the meeting and go on to a much easier target. 
                       
                      As always, have an income tax-free day and life,
                      Kevin Hart
                      General Manager
                      Truth in Taxation Ministries
                      (216) 253-5965 

                      John <genman_2000@...> wrote:
                      Dave and Nick - Each of you are correct to a point.  Dave is correct
                      in his minor corrections to Nicks post.  However, there are a few
                      other things that jump out at me.  There are over 100 regulations
                      and situtations that require the filing of a 1040.  Most of them do
                      not apply to a citizen of the United States.  As far as I can tell
                      there is only TWO regulations that requires citizens of the United
                      States to file a 1040.  They are section 911 [foreign earned income]
                      and the key section as far as im concerned is section 931 and its
                      regulations.  The regulation under section 931 [26 CFR 1.931-1] is
                      very revealing and, as far as Im concerned, is the regulation that
                      the IRS is using to cause the 1040 to be created in the substitute
                      for return program. 
                         The 931 regulation specifically says "in the case of a citizen of
                      the United States" on several occasions.  The Secretary knows how to
                      specify who the law applies to.  Because the term "individual" is
                      defined at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c)(3) as a resident or nonresident alien
                      then we can rest assured that every time we see the
                      word "individual" it means foreigner.  This regulation supports that
                      rational even more.  There are several places in the regulations
                      that say specifically "in the case of a citizen of the United
                      States".  I believe that those are the regs that apply to citizns of
                      the United States.
                         Now in the case of �931 & its regs we can see a requirement for a
                      citizen of the United States to file a 1040 if the citizen has
                      income from within a possession of the United States.  You can also
                      see that "in the case of a citizen of the United States" gross
                      income from sources within the United States means income from
                      within possessions of the United States.  Now you understand why the
                      courts have ruled against folks trying to use the 861 argument. 
                      Section 931 refers to section 861 in the regulation.  When you go to
                      section 861 with the proper definition of "sources from within the
                      United States" in the case of a citizen of the United States you
                      understand how 861 applies to citizen of the United States.
                         Regs under �931 gives the filing requirements of a citizen of the
                      United States and it also explains when a citizen of the United
                      States DOES NOT have to file.  These regs require a citizen of the
                      United States to file a 1040 depending on where they recieve the
                      payments.
                         So you can see that you must know your citizenship - you must
                      know how the money you recieve effects your tax liability - you must
                      know that where you recieve the payment also effects your reporting
                      requirements - and finally you must know to report your "total
                      income" in order to break any presumption by the government as to
                      where you recieved the money and your citizenship and all other
                      circumstances that surround the receipt of the money.  That way when
                      you fail to file a 1040 you have refuted all ways the government can
                      presume that the money came from a reportable source or circumstance.
                         So the sum and substance of a citizen of the United States filing
                      a 1040 creates the presumtion that the citizen had possession or
                      foreign earned income, both of which are includable in gross income
                      and taxable under under Subtitle A. 
                         The long and the short of these taxes is this - SS taxes have
                      nothing to do with Subtitle A income taxes.  They have no
                      connection.  Even the definition of the SS wages and the Subtitle A
                      taxes are different.  Payments from companies to citizens of the
                      United States are exempt from the Subtitle A income taxes by being
                      exempt from the definition of wages under 3401(a)(8)(A)(i).  The
                      conditions that qualify a citizen of the United States to have the
                      payments to be exempt are - be a citizen of the United States - do
                      not work for the Federal Government or any instrumentalty thereof -
                      and the money must be excludable from gross income under section
                      911.  Section 911 is foreign earned income, so if you did not earn
                      the money in a foreign country then it will be excludable under
                      section 911.
                          The reason the IRS wants to charge you a Subtitle A income tax
                      is the presumption that is made when your employer files your W-2. 
                      Box 1 on the W-2 causes the IRS to presume that you do not qualify
                      for the deduction mentioned in the preceding paragraph.  If you do
                      not qualify then the "wages" are taxable.  If they are not wages
                      then they are not taxable as such.  The problem is compounded by the
                      fact that your employer forces you to file a W-4 before you go to
                      work.  If you do file a W-4 all your earnings will be deemed to be
                      wages and you will be charged like they were.  There are simple ways
                      to stop this presumption but that is another post which I will post
                      soon.
                      John
                          







                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                    • Robert Riggins
                      What one must remember is that Title 26, Chapters 61 - 80 relate to ATF. The Enforcement regulations are found in Title 27 again ATF. So persons are being
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 4 7:03 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What one must remember is that Title 26, Chapters 61 - 80 relate to ATF.  The Enforcement regulations are found in Title 27 again ATF. So persons are being charged with violation of Title 27 not Title 26!
                         
                        -------Original Message-------
                         
                        Date: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 05:10:35 AM
                        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: turn around is fair play
                         
                        ____________________________________________________
                          IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
                      • Bob law
                        Nickster, I must refer you to the fact that there is no so called Trust fund for Social Security. It is only a ledger entry into the National/Federal Budget
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 4 7:52 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Nickster,
                          I must refer you to the fact that there is no so
                          called "Trust fund" for Social Security. It is only a
                          ledger entry into the National/Federal Budget each
                          year and exist only at the will and pleasure of
                          Congress, i.e. it could disappear next you if they so
                          wished.
                          It was (more than likely) intended to be so, but
                          somehow the trust was not established. It was then
                          passed off as an insurance policy which was later
                          found by trial, not to be an insurance policy
                          (O.A.S.D.I;)either. Therefore, if one must judge by
                          the evidence of presentments made to the public, then
                          we can smell something rotten.
                          In closing, there is no "trust fund" to which an
                          "account number" is responsive, and there is no
                          insurance policy upon which you can collect. It is
                          nothing more than an accounting issues with the
                          Congress holding the pen.
                          Later,
                          Bob L.
                          P.S. You are correct however, that you must ascertain
                          what tax are you subject to or made liable for, is it
                          the 1939 Public Salaries tax act, or the victory tax
                          of 1943. Are you subject to either of these??


                          --- nickster97@... wrote:
                          > SO, then let me correct your perfection Dave, then
                          > we can all be
                          > happy.

                          ".....cancel the
                          > employement tax, that is sent to Social Security
                          > trust fund which
                          > some senator steals and you are given credits in
                          > quarter units.
                          >
                          > Just thought I would clarify your clarification."



                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
                          http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
                        • nickster97@yahoo.com
                          John, While there are some conclusions you make because of some wromg presumptions, they are not important. What is important is the facts you laid out in the
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 4 8:34 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            John,

                            While there are some conclusions you make because of some wromg
                            presumptions, they are not important. What is important is the facts
                            you laid out in the following.

                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "John" <genman_2000@y...>
                            wrote:
                            > The reason the IRS wants to charge you a Subtitle A income tax
                            > is the presumption that is made when your employer files your W-
                            2.
                            > Box 1 on the W-2 causes the IRS to presume that you do not qualify
                            > for the deduction mentioned in the preceding paragraph. If you do
                            > not qualify then the "wages" are taxable. If they are not wages
                            > then they are not taxable as such. The problem is compounded by
                            the
                            > fact that your employer forces you to file a W-4 before you go to
                            > work. If you do file a W-4 all your earnings will be deemed to be
                            > wages and you will be charged like they were. There are simple
                            ways
                            > to stop this presumption but that is another post which I will
                            post
                            > soon.
                            > John

                            This is the crux for those who are employed. Rebutting this is not
                            hard, but to change the corporate policy will take litigation.
                          • Dave Miner
                            Nickster -- Thanks for taking so much of your time to create a long response to my post. If I may, I shall respond item by item. You said: SO, then let me
                            Message 13 of 22 , Feb 4 11:52 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Nickster --
                               
                              Thanks for taking so much of your time to create a long response to my post.  If I may, I shall respond item by item.
                               
                              You said:"SO, then let me correct your perfection Dave, then we can all be happy."
                               
                              Come on, Nickster, you know that you cannot correct perfection. [grin]
                               
                              You said: "Section 3402 tells the employer that he has to take out a tax that has its origin in Subtitle A. "
                               
                              Section 3402 is one of the longest sections in the Code.  I just scanned it again and couldn't find the statement you referenced.  I am not saying it is not there, I am just saying that I have lots of work and very little time.  Could you give me a specific subsection so I can respond?  I would guess that the subsection to which you refer would be subsection (a) Requirement of withholding.  But this subsection does not state what you referenced, so I must be wrong.
                               
                              You said: "Actually not. The income tax that we are paying on was the Victory tax act of 1942 which was made easier by the current payment tax act (which was called withholding at the source) of 1943 and then the tax itself was abolished in 1944 making withholding of a nonexistent tax. SS tax came in 1935."
                               
                              So, you are saying that the Acts of 1909 and of 1913 were repealed by Congress without any federal records, and 16th Amendment connected with both of them was overturned without telling the States, and the SS Tax instituted 6 years before the war was dispensed with and the old folks were never informed., all so that Congress could create a new tax and call it a Victory Tax.  And then you are saying that the Victory Tax was eliminated, but somehow the American people kept on paying it for the last 60 years without knowing it was eliminated all those years ago.  So Americans have been paying a huge portion of their money to the fed govt to pay a tax that doesn't exist.
                               
                              I didn't know that. 
                               
                              In fact, it strikes me as being possible ONLY if 100% of Americans, every last one of them, were either dumber than rocks or bought and paid for by the fed govt.  But how could the govt pay Americans off except by returning some of the money it unlawfully stole through a tax that no longer existed?  So I take it back.  The only way for this scenario as you describe it could possibly exist is if ALL AMERICANS down to the very last one were dumber than rocks. 
                               
                              Truth is, despite your understanding of it, the Victory Tax Act added a small amount to the existing income tax.  The only thing that was a real addition with the Victory Tax Act was the element of withholding, or payroll deduction, which was totally voluntary.  When the Victory Tax was enacted, it was declared in the Act to be dispensed with 6 months after the war.  It was, in spite of so many Patriots claiming otherwise.  What DID hold on, however, was the concept of withholding.  This was not part of the IRC or 1939 and earlier.  But the fed govt liked the idea of withholding so much that it was adopted for employment taxes, and made it mandatory (but with some caveats and loopholes).  It was SORT OF stretched to include Subtitle A income taxes, but not in law, only in practice.
                               
                              You said: "Very important, 1939 was the codification of the public Salary tax act. Either we are paying that one or the non existant victory tax act. Which one it is, the goverment is not telling us."
                               
                              No, Nickster, the govt hasn't told YOU.  The govt has, however, told every other American that we are NOT paying the Victory Tax and we are NOT paying the Public Salary Tax (unless we are govt employees), but that WE ARE paying the so-called income tax based on the combination of the Acts of 1909 and 1913.
                               
                              You know, I probably never should have told you that.  Now I bet the fed govt is going to be upset with me that I finally told you what they had refused to tell you all these years.  Well, leave it to me to spill the beans.  I guess I am just insensitive.  Sorry, Nickster.
                               
                              You said: "Once again, read section 3402 carefully. also read 26 CFR 31.6011 that gives them employers duties of withholding at the source and the employees duties of supplying the SS#. IT says it is an OBLIGATION."
                               
                              Again, what subsection out of the 13 pages of small print are you referring to.  The subsection that seems to cover what you are alleging is 3402(a) requirement of withholding.  This subsection states: "Except as otherwise provided for in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..."  In that incomplete sentence just quoted, there are at least 4 caveats or loopholes built in by the lawmakers who wrote this law.  First, read the entire section 3402 and you will see a whole pile of exclusions, exemptions and just plain excuses for reducing or not withholding this tax.  Second, look up the definitions of employer and employee (found in 3401) to see if you are really employed by an employer.  And fourth, the tax referenced here is not defined here but left to the Secretary to prescribe or describe.  A detailed study of these four items just might reveal some very interesting things.  Like who is required by law to have withholding from their paychecks.
                               
                              Further, the obligation you reference from the CFR is for the employer to request the SSN of the employee.  There is absolutely no obligation stated for the individual to turn over the SSN to the employer.  Further, if you continue reading the very next sentence, it says that if the employer requests the SSN and the individual refuses to give it, then the employer is under no further obligation concerning the SSN.  The employer merely needs to inform the IRS that it cannot get the SSN from the individual.  "We tried, but we couldn't do it," sings the employer, and the IRS accepts that.
                               
                              You said: "Boy, you sure have a lopsided understanding of how we are taxed."
                               
                              I think we can agree that my understanding is substantially different that your understanding.  Which one of us (or both) are lopsided depends on how much one's head is tilted when looking at the issues.
                               
                              You said: "There are two different and distinct taxes. One is a SS tax and the other is a subtitle A tax."
                               
                              Again, you really need to be more specific. If you are talking about the IRC, there are many different taxes.  If you are talking about withholding, there are several taxes, each one spelled out in Subtitle C employment taxes.  That includes more than just SS.  But if you are just including subtitle C, Section 3402, then the subtitle A tax is not included in this section.
                               
                              You said: "Subtitle A tax is a tax on TAXABLE INCOME. Look that one up in section 1. Social Security creates a
                              taxable income on wages in 3121. Section 3402 taxes that taxable income according to tables in section 1.
                              "
                               
                              Nickster, you really need to write your posts in a word processor, organize your thoughts, assure they make sense, and then cut and paste your wording into your email software.  Had you done that, then maybe we could all understand your paragraph above.
                               
                              Let me try to sort this out for everyone reading this fascinating and invigorating exchange between us.  And please make any comments or corrections, Nick, in case I am not accurate in representing what you really meant when you wrote the above.
                               
                              You are saying that subtitle A imposes a tax on taxable income, and that there are tables in subtitle A that specify the amount of tax.  So far so good?  Of course, I must note that the tax is only imposed on THOSE WHO FILE A RETURN.  (Go ahead and read it -- right there in the very first sentence of the IRC.)
                               
                              Next, you are trying to say that section 3402 imposes a tax on wages, and that you somehow believe that section 3121 defines wages for section 3402, rather than 3401 defining wages for 3402.  If this is what you are saying, you are wrong.  Section 3121 Definitions states in subsection (a) "for purposes of this chapter..." and then goes on to give a number of definitions, all of which apply only to "this chapter." 
                               
                              So what is "this chapter"?
                               
                              Well, Chapter 21 covers the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, and includes Sections 3101 through 3128.   So the definitions in 3121 only apply to Chapter 21, including sections 3101 through 3128.  It is chapter 24 that covers Collection of Income Tax at the Source, and includes sections 3401 through 3406.  And Section 3401 starts out with a similar statement, "For purposes of this chapter..."  and then provides the definitions that apply to Section 3402.  So, does 3121 define wages, employee or employer differently than 3401?  I would think that is an important assignment.
                               
                              And you said: "The IRS cannot cancel the employement tax, that is sent to Social Security trust fund which some senator steals and you are given credits in quarter units."
                               
                              You are correct insofar as you suggest my statement was incomplete.  When the IRS completes its "chinese accounting" and takes tax money it collected for Subtitle C taxes and applies those funds to Subtitle A taxes, it only transfers the monies not first used to cover the several small employment taxes.  The money left after first paying the SS taxes, the Medicare taxes, the Medicaid taxes, the fed unemployment taxes, and other employment taxes is then shunted over to pay an income tax bill generated in subtitle A.  (Yes, Nickster, there a more employment taxes than just SS taxes.)
                               
                              So, yes, the entire amount collected through withholding in subtitle C is not used to pay an income tax bill generated by subtitle A.  But about three-fourths of it is.
                               
                              I trust this clears things up a little.  Thanks, Nickster, for making me clarify certain statements I made.
                               
                              Yours in freedom,
                               
                               
                               
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:28 AM
                              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: turn around is fair play


                              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Miner" <dminer@f...>
                              wrote:
                              > The Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or 26 USC) is broken down into
                              >subtitles. And subtitle C has nothing to do with subtitle A income
                              >taxes.
                              [snip]
                            • rac
                              ... True! BUT unless you are all winning on the same ground you are not gaining. The object is to win the simple argument where this can be applied to
                              Message 14 of 22 , Feb 4 3:52 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >>But there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of court cases where individuals win against the IRS in all sorts of ways.<<
                                 
                                True!  BUT unless you are all winning on the same ground you are not gaining.  The object is to win the simple argument where this can be applied to everyone.  Winning on a case by case on this point or that is not the objective as my understanding.
                                 
                                Please understand I think every victory is a win and applaud those of you that are bearing the brunt of this. 
                                 
                                rac
                              • Mr Klon Shugart
                                We did have such a judge. However, the IRS went after him with a vengence and had him removed. Remember Judge Harry Claibourne, he was removed in the early
                                Message 15 of 22 , Feb 4 4:15 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  We did have such a judge.
                                  However, the IRS went after him with a vengence and
                                  had him removed.

                                  Remember> Judge Harry Claibourne, he was removed in
                                  the early '80s



                                  --- rac <ezine@...> wrote:
                                  > Here is my take on all this IRS stuff...
                                  >
                                  > Most times you can not win regardless of what the
                                  > titles, subtitles and all such says. The reason
                                  > being is simple - all the people in power pay taxes
                                  > and if they pay, you pay. Expecting them to rule
                                  > for fairness is bordering on insane. The only way
                                  > to win this fight is to find a judge that has ruled
                                  > in favor of the defendant against the IRS and
                                  > continue to have THAT judge continue to rule against
                                  > the IRS creating case after case after case....
                                  > Bombard that court with case after case after case.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > rac


                                  __________________________________
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
                                  http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
                                • conecuhdan@wmconnect.com
                                  Do I understand you correctly...Treasury Decisions do not have the force and effect of law? Thanks, Dan The Beast has a name!
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Feb 5 9:20 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Do I understand you correctly...Treasury Decisions do not have the force and effect of law?

                                    Thanks,
                                    Dan

                                    The Beast has a name!
                                  • nickster97@yahoo.com
                                    Ok Dave, (Man, one can t help but like this guy eh??) here we go, ... a tax that has its origin in Subtitle A. ... scanned it again and couldn t find the
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Feb 5 10:30 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Ok Dave,

                                      (Man, one can't help but like this guy eh??)

                                      here we go,

                                      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Miner" <dminer@f...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > You said: "Section 3402 tells the employer that he has to take out
                                      a tax that has its origin in Subtitle A. "
                                      >
                                      > Section 3402 is one of the longest sections in the Code. I just
                                      scanned it again and couldn't find the statement you referenced. I
                                      am not saying it is not there, I am just saying that I have lots of
                                      work and very little time. Could you give me a specific subsection
                                      so I can respond?

                                      26 Section 3402
                                      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 -
                                      (A)apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such
                                      periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
                                      (B)be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and
                                      withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to
                                      carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions
                                      of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.

                                      There is your application to section 1 income taxes. The employer
                                      withholds according to tables by the secretary. When was the last
                                      time you had a job? Did they not hold SS taxes AND Income taxes?

                                      > So, you are saying that the Acts of 1909 and of 1913 were repealed
                                      by Congress without any federal records, and 16th Amendment
                                      connected with both of them was overturned without telling the
                                      States, and the SS Tax instituted 6 years before the war was
                                      dispensed with and the old folks were never informed.,

                                      I never said that. I only said that the income tax was made possible
                                      finally by the 1943 current payments tax act. Which of course, is
                                      withholding. Now, what tax are they withholding?? that is the
                                      question.

                                      >
                                      > In fact, it strikes me as being possible ONLY if 100% of
                                      >Americans, every last one of them, were either dumber than rocks or
                                      >bought and paid for by the fed govt.

                                      Isnt it a fact that the Government will not tell you what tax you
                                      are paying? Do we know for a fact what tax it is to this day? Are we
                                      as dumb as rocks? Give our parents SOME credit. We still don't get
                                      it.


                                      > Truth is, despite your understanding of it, the Victory Tax Act
                                      added a small amount to the existing income tax. The only thing that
                                      was a real addition with the Victory Tax Act was the element of
                                      withholding, or payroll deduction, which was totally voluntary.
                                      When the Victory Tax was enacted, it was declared in the Act to be
                                      dispensed with 6 months after the war. It was, in spite of so many
                                      Patriots claiming otherwise.

                                      Actually, all the patriots know it was repealed. The question is
                                      then why is there a tax? See, up until 1939 the tax was not on wages
                                      but FROM wages. Compensation for labor was not taxed. Compensation
                                      for labor is STILL not taxed. I can prove it. Under social security
                                      regulations, you do not tax wages for social security purposes if
                                      you work in agriculture. If you have no taxable income for social
                                      security purposes, you have no taxable income and therefore there is
                                      no withholding at all.


                                      > No, Nickster, the govt hasn't told YOU. The govt has, however,
                                      >told every other American that we are NOT paying the Victory Tax
                                      >and we are NOT paying the Public Salary Tax (unless we are govt
                                      >employees), but that WE ARE paying the so-called income tax based
                                      >on the combination of the Acts of 1909 and 1913.

                                      Where have they told you this? I missed that one! If that was true,
                                      we are all as dumb as rocks cause we still can't figure it out.


                                      > You said: "Once again, read section 3402 carefully. also read 26
                                      CFR 31.6011 that gives them employers duties of withholding at the
                                      source and the employees duties of supplying the SS#. IT says it is
                                      an OBLIGATION."
                                      >
                                      First, read the entire section 3402 and you will see a whole pile
                                      of exclusions, exemptions and just plain excuses for reducing or not
                                      withholding this tax. Second, look up the definitions of employer
                                      and employee (found in 3401) to see if you are really employed by an
                                      employer.

                                      This is another thing you don't get. You seem to feel that one is a
                                      private sector employee. Dont be silly. You fill out a W-4 which is
                                      a federal form for the public sector, you are taxed on social
                                      security which is Federal Jurisdiction, you get sent a W-2 which
                                      says that you have federal taxable income and you keep thinking that
                                      the employee is private sector. What else do you need to convince
                                      you that your presumptions are in error?

                                      > Further, the obligation you reference from the CFR is for the
                                      employer to request the SSN of the employee. There is absolutely no
                                      obligation stated for the individual to turn over the SSN to the
                                      employer. Further, if you continue reading the very next sentence,
                                      it says that if the employer requests the SSN and the individual
                                      refuses to give it, then the employer is under no further obligation
                                      concerning the SSN. The employer merely needs to inform the IRS
                                      that it cannot get the SSN from the individual. "We tried, but we
                                      couldn't do it," sings the employer, and the IRS accepts that.


                                      Here Dave, try this. Look for the word obligation

                                      26 CFR 31.6011(b)(2)
                                      (b) Duties of employee with respect to his account number--(1)
                                      An employee shall, on the day on which he enters the employ of any
                                      employer for wages (SOCIAL SECURITY), comply with the provisions of
                                      paragraph (b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section,
                                      except that, if the employee's services for the employer consist
                                      solely of agricultural labor, domestic service in a private home of
                                      the employer not on a farm operated for profit, or service not in
                                      the course of the employer's trade or business, the employee shall
                                      comply with such provisions on the first day on which wages are paid
                                      to him by such employer, within the meaning of Sec. 31.3121(a)-2.
                                      (iv) Employee who is unable to furnish number or receipt. If an
                                      employee is unable to comply with the requirement of paragraph
                                      (b)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, the employee shall
                                      furnish to the employer a statement in writing, signed by the
                                      employee, setting forth the date of the statement, the employee's
                                      full name, present address, date and place of birth, father's full
                                      name, mother's full name before marriage, and the employee's sex,
                                      including a statement as to whether the employee has previously
                                      filed an application on Form SS-5 and, if so, the date and place of
                                      such filing. The information required by this subdivision shall be
                                      furnished on Form SS-5, if a copy of Form SS-5 is available. The
                                      furnishing of such a Form SS-5 or other statement by the employee to
                                      the employer does not relieve the employee of his obligation to make
                                      an application on Form SS-5 and file it with a district office of
                                      the Social Security Administration as required by paragraph (a) of
                                      this section.

                                      >
                                      > You said: "Boy, you sure have a lopsided understanding of how we
                                      are taxed."
                                      >
                                      > I think we can agree that my understanding is substantially
                                      different that your understanding. Which one of us (or both) are
                                      lopsided depends on how much one's head is tilted when looking at
                                      the issues.
                                      >
                                      > You said: "There are two different and distinct taxes. One is a SS
                                      tax and the other is a subtitle A tax."
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > You said: "Subtitle A tax is a tax on TAXABLE INCOME. Look that
                                      one up in section 1. Social Security creates a
                                      > taxable income on wages in 3121. Section 3402 taxes that taxable
                                      income according to tables in section 1. "
                                      >
                                      > Nickster, you really need to write your posts in a word processor,
                                      >organize your thoughts, assure they make sense, and then cut and
                                      >paste your wording into your email software. Had you done that,
                                      >then maybe we could all understand your paragraph above.

                                      I did not say this was easy to understand Dave. But Section 1 income
                                      tax is a tax on TAXABLE INCOME.

                                      Social Security creates a taxable income on a defined term called
                                      wages. Now you have taxable income according to Social Security.
                                      Section 1 taxes income on TAXABLE INCOME. The taxable income of
                                      social security. Remember, taxing income is different than taxing
                                      taxable income. read this last sentance and I think it will pop.


                                      > You are saying that subtitle A imposes a tax on taxable income,
                                      and that there are tables in subtitle A that specify the amount of
                                      tax. So far so good? Of course, I must note that the tax is only
                                      imposed on THOSE WHO FILE A RETURN. (Go ahead and read it -- right
                                      there in the very first sentence of the IRC.)
                                      >
                                      > Next, you are trying to say that section 3402 imposes a tax on
                                      >wages, and that you somehow believe that section 3121 defines wages
                                      >for section 3402, rather than 3401 defining wages for 3402.

                                      No, but they are defined the same for both chapters. The reason
                                      being is that one is for withholding at the source and one is for SS
                                      taxes. Different applications, but one definition. Check it for
                                      yourself.

                                      > So, does 3121 define wages, employee or employer differently than
                                      >3401? I would think that is an important assignment.

                                      No, they dont

                                      > And you said: "The IRS cannot cancel the employement tax, that is
                                      sent to Social Security trust fund which some senator steals and you
                                      are given credits in quarter units."
                                      >
                                      > You are correct insofar as you suggest my statement was
                                      >incomplete. When the IRS completes its "chinese accounting" and
                                      >takes tax money it collected for Subtitle C taxes and applies those
                                      >funds to Subtitle A taxes,

                                      Cmon Dave, they don't do that. You can see that if you file exempt,
                                      they don't take out income taxes, but take out social security. That
                                      is money that belongs to social security and the income tax goes to
                                      the general fund.

                                      (Yes, Nickster, there a more employment taxes than just SS taxes.)

                                      Yes, but they are all part of the social security scheme.


                                      I showed you mine, you show me yours :)
                                    • Mr Klon Shugart
                                      nickster, nickster! You are still trying to integrate Subtitle C taxes with Subtitle A taxes. you said: The reason the IRS wants to charge you a Subtitle A
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Feb 7 1:56 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        nickster, nickster!

                                        You are still trying to integrate Subtitle C taxes
                                        with Subtitle A taxes.

                                        you said: The reason the IRS wants to charge you a
                                        Subtitle A income tax is the presumption that is made
                                        when your employer files your W-2.

                                        W-2 is a Subtitle C form, not a Subtitle A form.







                                        __________________________________
                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
                                        http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
                                      • nickster97@yahoo.com
                                        read 3402 carefully. It directs the employer to withhold a tax based on the tables in section 1, how much more clearer can this get?
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Feb 10 1:59 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          read 3402 carefully. It directs the employer to withhold a tax based
                                          on the tables in section 1, how much more clearer can this get?


                                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Mr Klon Shugart
                                          <keshugart@y...> wrote:
                                          > nickster, nickster!
                                          >
                                          > You are still trying to integrate Subtitle C taxes
                                          > with Subtitle A taxes.
                                          >
                                        • Dave Miner
                                          Nickster -- In the original post to which I responded, you said Section 3402 tells the employer that he has to take out a tax that has its origin in Subtitle
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Feb 10 2:22 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Message
                                            Nickster --
                                             
                                            In the original post to which I responded, you said "Section 3402 tells the employer that he has to take out
                                            a tax that has its origin in Subtitle A.
                                            "
                                             
                                            Then you referenced Section 3402a when I challenged the accuracy of your claim.  Let's take a closer look at the section you referenced.
                                             
                                            26 Section 3402
                                            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 -
                                            (A)apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such
                                            periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
                                            (B)be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and
                                            withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to
                                            carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions
                                            of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.

                                            If you look closely at this section, it does not say what you claimed. 
                                             
                                            First, the tax to be withheld in subtitle C is a tax based on tables or computations prescribed by the Secretary.  The tax collected in subtitle A is a tax based on tables established by Congress and printed in the IRC.
                                             
                                            Second, the tax was not incorporated into subtitle C, the PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PERIODS were incorporated into subtitle C.  In other words, the provisions related to pay periods for the subtitle A tax are to be used relative to pay periods for the subtitle C tax.  In your defense, the confusion was planned.  This type of deception is intentional on the part of whoever is writing the IRC.  In other words, it was written to look like the tax was incorporated into subtitle C, but instead the law actually reads that the pay period provisions for the subtitle C tax being withheld must be consistent with the pay period provisions of the subtitle A tax.
                                             
                                            Specifically, the subtitle C tax being withheld is not the subtitle A tax, but instead the provisions relative to pay periods for the subtitle C tax must be consistent with the provisions relative to the pay periods for the subtitle A tax.
                                             
                                            The two taxes themselves are totally different.
                                             
                                            You said: "I never said that. I only said that the income tax was made possible finally by the 1943 current payments tax act. Which of course, is withholding. "
                                             
                                            I am still confused.  How can a tax passed in 1909 and a second tax passed in 1913 be made possible by a tax passed in 1943?  You are correct that the withholding provision came in with the 1943 Act, but that was only the withholding provision, and not the tax
                                             
                                            You said: "Isnt it a fact that the Government will not tell you what tax you are paying?"
                                             
                                            No, it is not a fact.  The govt tells you in dozens of different ways that the tax you are paying is the income tax.  It is written in your 1040 Forms and Instructions, on the top of your Form 1040, on the collections notices you receive from the IRS when you don't file and don't pay, on the Form 941 the employer completes and mails in every month, and on many other forms.  It is true that you have to actually read these forms before the govt can be said to actually tell you.  But if you picked up the phone and called the IRS, the agent will "tell" you over the phone that the tax being withheld is the income tax.
                                             
                                            On the other hand, they are lying to you.  The tax actually being withheld is an employment tax, one of many.
                                             
                                            As I said, the confusion is intentional.  If we all understood the laws, we would not be filing or paying.
                                             
                                            The bottom line is simple--the taxes removed from people's paychecks fall into two general categories.  There is federal withholding taxes and SS taxes.  In truth, the SS taxes are multiple, but all part of the same scam, er program, as you noted.  But the largest tax withheld is not called federal income tax, but federal withholding tax.  As you noted, sign your Form W-4 exempt and the tax that is no longer withheld is noted as FWT or federal withholding tax.  I have never seen it referred to as FIT or federal income tax in any corporate payroll software system (and I have installed and/or supported hundreds over 25 years in computer consulting.  Not have I seen it referred to as FIT or federal income tax any IRS document.  It is always referred to as FWT or federal withholding tax.  Yet the Form 1040 calls is federal income tax.
                                             
                                            According to the IRC, there is a difference between a subtitle C FWT and a subtitle A FIT.
                                             
                                            You said: "See, up until 1939 the tax was not on wages but FROM wages. Compensation for labor was not taxed. Compensation for labor is STILL not taxed."
                                             
                                            You are absolutely correct.  And the tax is STILL NOT on wages but from wages.
                                             
                                            "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.
                                            (House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580)
                                             
                                            Yours in freedom,
                                             
                                            David L. Miner
                                            www.FreedomSite.net

                                             

                                          • Dave Miner
                                            Dan -- Allow me to offer a couple (out of many) court cases that address your question. We sympathize with the taxpayer who in fact relies upon what he
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Feb 10 6:35 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dan --
                                               
                                              Allow me to offer a couple (out of many) court cases that address your question.
                                              "We sympathize with the taxpayer who in fact relies upon what he accepts as an authoritative interpretation of the laws and of the Treasury publications.  But nonetheless it is for the Congress and the courts and not the Treasury to declare the law applicable to a given situation."  (Carpenter v. United States, 495 F.2d 175)
                                               
                                               "It is hornbook law that informal publications all the way up to revenue rulings are simply guides to taxpayers, and a taxpayer relies on them at his peril." (Catipillar Tractor Co. v. United  States,  589 F.2d 1040)
                                              Yours in freedom,
                                               
                                               
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:20 AM
                                              Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Turn Around is Fair Play

                                              Do I understand you correctly...Treasury Decisions do not have the force and effect of law?

                                              Thanks,
                                              Dan

                                              The Beast has a name!
                                            • nickster97@yahoo.com
                                              Let me make this perfectly clear. SS is a withholding tax and the other tax is a wittholding tax. I have excluded the legalese of the statute. But the
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Feb 12 12:07 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Let me make this perfectly clear. SS is a withholding tax and the
                                                other tax is a wittholding tax. I have excluded the legalese of the
                                                statute. But the withholding tax reflects that of chapter 1


                                                26 Section 3402
                                                a) Requirement of withholding
                                                (1) In general
                                                every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold
                                                upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables
                                                prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables shall -
                                                (A)apply to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the
                                                Secretary may prescribe, and
                                                (B)provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the
                                                Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the
                                                purposes of this chapter and the provisions of chapter 1.

                                                You said that congress set up the tables in section 1. It seems you
                                                still do not do your homework. Here is what the regs in 1.1 say.

                                                Taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1970 as amended by the Tax
                                                Reform Act of 1969). The tax reform act provided that the secretary
                                                change the tables to reflect the will of congress.


                                                What happens to the monies extracted?

                                                31.3402(a)
                                                (f) The amount of any tax withheld and collected by the employer is
                                                a special fund in trust for the United States. See section 7501.

                                                it all gets mixed in anyway.

                                                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Miner" <dminer@f...>
                                                wrote:
                                                > Nickster --
                                                >
                                                > In the original post to which I responded, you said "Section 3402
                                                tells
                                                > the employer that he has to take out
                                                > a tax that has its origin in Subtitle A."
                                                >
                                                > Then you referenced Section 3402a when I challenged the accuracy
                                                of your
                                                > claim. Let's take a closer look at the section you referenced.
                                                >
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.