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

W-4, payment for work

Expand Messages
  • Kenny
    I had posted earlier regarding not filling out W-4 s. Now I am wondernig whether it would be worth it to possibly take any action against the company?? I
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 27, 2005
      I had posted earlier regarding not filling out W-4's. Now I am
      wondernig whether it would be worth it to possibly take any action
      against the company?? I have already been theatened with termination
      for not disclosing my SS#. Now I am told I MUST file a W-4 or I will
      get maximum taxes taken out of my pay as withholdings. Do you think
      this would include social security, FICA, etc. ?

      Do you think it would be best just to sign the W-4? If I still do not
      sign a W-4 and exemptions are filled in for me, is this legal/lawful?
      I know there is a difference.

      I did submit a constructive notice on my disclosure of a SS# and how it
      is illegeal to demand one for work.

      Anyway, any input would be appreciated. Of course, payroll wants me to
      fill the W-4 out now, while I have rehearsal, or they will put me down
      for 0 exemptions on the form I will not be signing. Hmmmmm... what to
      do??
    • Balsaman
      There are many solutions to your situation one you can if you are exempt file a W4 and check the exempt at the bottom (companies accounts still doesn t know
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 27, 2005
        There are many solutions to your situation
         
        one you can if you are exempt file a W4 and check the exempt at the bottom
        (companies accounts still doesn't know the law )
         
        you can file a W9
         
        all this is based on your tax liability of course and if you have a liability or not
         
         
        An employer is just a collecting agency for the IRS and has no legal or lawful reason to comply ( See We the People a case in progress)
         
         
         
        SS is a separate issue
        do your due diligence on the SS it has many avenues ( I am still working on it )
        Do you have your 40 quarters in yet?
         
         
         


        From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kenny
        Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:38 PM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] W-4, payment for work

        I had posted earlier regarding not filling out W-4's.  Now I am
        wondernig whether it would be worth it to possibly take any action
        against the company??  I have already been theatened with termination
        for not disclosing my SS#.  Now I am told I MUST file a W-4 or I will
        get maximum taxes taken out of my pay as withholdings. Do you think
        this would include social security, FICA, etc. ? 

        Do you think it would be best just to sign the W-4?  If I still do not
        sign a W-4 and exemptions are filled in for me, is this legal/lawful? 
        I know there is a difference.

        I did submit a constructive notice on my disclosure of a SS# and how it
        is illegeal to demand one for work.

        Anyway, any input would be appreciated.  Of course, payroll wants me to
        fill the W-4 out now, while I have rehearsal, or they will put me down
        for 0 exemptions on the form I will not be signing.  Hmmmmm... what to
        do??
      • Tom LaBrecque
        If your employer requires you to fill out the W4 why not claim 9 and then file a 1040 at the end of the year using a substitute W2 form 4852 and get all of
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 27, 2005
          If your employer requires you to fill out the W4 why not claim 9 and
          then file a 1040 at the end of the year using a substitute W2 form 4852
          and get all of your taxes, SS and medicare that were withheld, back at
          the end of the year. You could be fighting a lengthy battle with your
          employer to prove that you are right. It's up to their company policies
          as to what conditions you have to meet to stay employed. Check out
          http://www.losthorizons.com I personally had a full refund even
          though they applied it towards an amount they say I still owe but the
          amount did include all taxes, SS and medicare. If you haven't filed in
          a while you can only go back three years to get refunds. If there's any
          years that they've assessed you for, the IRS says to file a Substitute
          For Return Protest for those years to a special SFRP Unit in Holtsville NY.

          The form 4852 corrects the assumption that you are a federal employee
          and earn wages. I recommend getting the book at Lost Horizons.

          Kenny wrote:

          > I had posted earlier regarding not filling out W-4's. Now I am
          > wondernig whether it would be worth it to possibly take any action
          > against the company?? I have already been theatened with termination
          > for not disclosing my SS#. Now I am told I MUST file a W-4 or I will
        • JOHN INGRESS
          Re You could be fighting a lengthy battle with your employer to prove that you are right. It s up to their company policies as to what conditions you have
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 28, 2005
            Re" You could be fighting a lengthy battle with your
            employer to prove that you are right. It's up to
            their company policies
            as to what conditions you have to meet to stay
            employed." My employer requires compliance with all
            the laws of the "United States". I think this means be
            a good slave and pay "your" taxes. Otherwise you're
            fired. (I'm curious to find out if mine is one of 2000
            companies that illegally did business with Saddam
            through the corrupt oil-for-food program.)
          • Mel Furtado
            Hey Kenny! I m below in RED! ... From: Kenny To: Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:37 AM Subject:
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 29, 2005
              Hey Kenny!
              I'm below in RED!
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Kenny" <skennybird@...>
              Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:37 AM
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] W-4, payment for work

              > I had posted earlier regarding not filling out W-4's.  Now I am
              > wondernig whether it would be worth it to
              possibly take any action
              > against the company??  I have already
              been theatened with termination
              > for not disclosing my SS#.  Now I
              am told I MUST file a W-4 or I will
              > get maximum taxes taken out of my
              pay as withholdings. Do you think
              > this would include social security,
              FICA, etc. ? 
              If you file a W-4, you are admitting to being an "employee" as defined in section 3402 of Subtitlte C Employment Tax, and YOU ARE NOT, wherein it states, "the term employee includes an officer,  employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any subdivision thereof, ... "
               
              > Do you think it would be best just to sign the W-4?  If I still do not
              > sign a W-4 and exemptions
              are filled in for me, is this legal/lawful? 
              > I know there is a
              difference.
              Can you do that and swear under penalty of perjury to being an employee (public official elected/appointed, government employee of state local or fed, or subdivision thereof?), and having income in the form of wages?  Oviously that is a problem for anyone taking their sworn testimony to heart.
               
              If you decide to go the W-4 route, make sure you claim to be exempt, because you ARE EXEMPT (no liability clause or law in subtitle A income tax!)!  If NOT, then you can't sign that form with a good conscience, can you?
               
              > I did submit a constructive notice on my disclosure of a SS# and how it
              > is illegeal to demand one
              for work.
              >
              > Anyway, any input would be appreciated.  Of
              course, payroll wants me to
              > fill the W-4 out now, while I have
              rehearsal, or they will put me down
              > for 0 exemptions on the form I will
              not be signing.  Hmmmmm... what to
              > do??
               
              Start by educating your employer as well as continuing your own education.  If you need help with this, let me know and I can put together a similar packet to the one I just used as described in this email...   
              >
              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               

              Re: "Are you a US citizen?
              Are you, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of...
              the federal mafia... etc...?"

              Mel, your analysis is the same I've been learning
              recently, but if I may add, it seems that the 14th
              amenndment also set the gov't up as a corporation, and
              our SSN makes us their property, and our W-4
              identifies us as "businesses" liable for the income
              tax.

               

              I'm being garnished (I work for a $B corp as a
              machine operator at mediocre pay but decent benefits)
              and don't have a skill that readily allows me to
              obtain work for cash.

               

              I coach high school volleyball at a private school here in Honolulu. Recently, last week some time, I arcvhvgerreceived a Notice of Levy from the IRS. This stems from bogus friv-penalties and a corrupt, lying bastard of a federal judge here in Honolulu, Judge Allen, who I am right now working on filing a complaint law suit for damages as he lied in his ruling regarding the IRS denial of a CDP hearing, and lied about the law. IRS appeals officer turned my right to hearing into a "phaquen" phone call, then told me my asking for the law that made me liable was a frivolous question he wasn't going to answer. He wrote in his determination, I would only be allowed to discuss payment plans, in direct violation of the 1998 restructuring legislation that Congress put in placeto protect against all thos ethousands of illegally seized properties that were reported in the 1997 Senate Finance Committe Hearings on IRS unlawful tactics.

              This meant I never had the chance to "challenge the underlying liability," never got to see that the appeals officer had verification from the Secretary that "all relevant laws and procedures had been met," yada, yada, yada (etc. etc. etc.)

              I met with the school's headmaster, HR representative, and a rep from accounting office last Tuesday. I provided a formal notice 3 days later at their request. At the meeting, I went in ther with a Form 668-B Levy, the actual form used that, when served, required a commencing of action (I believe a court order is still be required, but if you've seen Irwin's case, don't depend on the court for justice). I asked if they had ever received a "notice" before. They said they had. I then asked what the outcome was. They said they garnished wages. I asked if they knew that a "notice" was nothing more than a "notice" that an actual "levy" was forthcoming, and that a notice had no legal teeth, and that the biting that took place was done by them, the "employer", andd not the IRS.

              They had no idea what I was talking about. Then I gave them each a copy of a Form 668-B Levy, hopefully for future reference. They were in shock, and in unison, asked, "Can we keep this?"

              I then asked if they had copies of the notice they received. They only had one, so I provided them each with another, this one highlighted with points that I then covered. I also handed them each their own little packet that included the Privacy and Paper Reduction Act Notice (Notice 609) also highlighted, and pointed out that this can be found in every 1040 booklet for the last 23 years or so. Their packet also included two copies of letters that spanned a 20 year period, the first from Congressman Dennis Hertel, a 1985 letter to a constituent responding to concerns about the missing "part a" from the back of the "notice" they received, and the second, a letter from 2005 Congresman E. Clay Shaw from Boca Raton, Florida, addressing the same issue. These two CON-gressmen said almost the exact same thing... "It does not appear that this levy applies to private citizens", and "I can see how this could be misleading...' yada, yada, yada, ...

              Neither of them made any kind of committment to "look into it," despite the fact that they were both members of House Ways and Means, and Senate Finance respectively, and had some oversight power over the IRS. Needless to say, these two clowns did nothing about it, and the problem continues today, with full congressiional complicity. I addressed the fact that Congress will do nothing, that the IRS is their ticket to lifetime shopping sprees like that of the rich and famous, then asked the 3-panel group if they were going to demand that a levy be provided before any seizure? They weren't sure, and voiced fear of IRS affecting their "non-profit tax exempt status." I pointed out the missing paragraph and they were dumbfounded, and even asked, is this real, holding up their new copy of Form 668-B that I provided them with; they seemed unwilling to believe that the IRS would attempt such a blatantly deceptive tactic. I further explained that "It is NOT deceptive unless and until it deceives," pointing out my earlier reference to the "employer" allowing the IRS to bite with THEIR (employer's) teeth!

              I pointed out that the IRS, in court, would merely state that they served the notice, and the money came flying into their laps. No judge was going to argue that point!

              The headmaster, a really nice guy, is scared shitless of the IRS. This guy is from Australia, brought in to run this new private school here in Honolulu, a school for the very rich. His fears of this affecting the school's future was stifling his feeling for "justice". I reminded him that he need not challenge the IRS, just merely wait for the Form 668-B Levy to arrive, and if the IRS comes calling, asking where's the money, show them the copy of your form, and ask them to explain how you can seize private property with a notice? Ask them, "Well, aren't you guys planning on sending me one of these first?"

              Another prize in their manilla packet was a copy of Sec. 6331 with BIG LARGE LETTERS highlighted in HOT PINK, "..."IT WILL BE LAWFUL FOR THE SECRETARY... TO LEVY..." and a copy of Sec. 7701 Definitions for "Secretary". I explained that an order of delegation is required or these IRS guys have no more authority to seize property than I do to drive off campus behind the wheel "of your new rangerover", smiling at the nice guy Headmaster.

              And if they still have trouble doing the right and just thing... I then pointed out that they were formally noticed, and that I would seek them out personally, though civilly, for any damages. They had it in their minds,and it came out their mouths, that filling a suit against them was fine, and actually encouraged me to do so, believing that the school itself, or the IRS, could be held accountable. I reiterated the reference to my ass being chomped by the three of them who were going to decide, and not the IRS or the school.

              My point was that, although I'd probably never win in the corrupt courts, i've been there enough to know how to litigate an extremely drawn out case, appeals all the way through to the Supreme's (Hawaii), and stretching it out to some three years of litigation would be costly for them. My fees would be NONE. I''m "pro per," and their attorney's were going to have to file a shitload of responses, since I'd file some 20 motions in the process.

              What's it cost to get an attorney to write a Motion for Summary Judgment these days, or to repond to a motion for reconsideration, appeals? etc. etc. etc...

              It was going to cost them, personally I'd imagine. i don't think the school would step in on a civil case, though i may be wrong. But it would still be dcostly for them. Attorney fees to file every single document, for motions to dismiss, summary, etc... It would cost them each (or the school as a whole) at least a couple thousand, and court time.

              We'll see what happens. I'm filing my complaint against Judge Allen the Liar!

               

              He wrote in the opening line, giving summary judgment to the IRS to dismiss, "A duly authorized delegate of the United states Secretary of Treasury, determined..." And he wrote that even after I demanded to see that he was authorized, and Judge Allen refused to force the appeals officer to provide such evidence. Allen further went on to write, "Wages and salaries are income under Section 61...". Another blatant lie.

              In court, Allen had a typical tax protester attitude... "Mr. Furtado, don't you feel you have a duty to support your government and pay taxes for services that you use...?" I almost burst into laughter with that one. "My government? My government your honor? This is not my government. My Republic has been hijacked by socialistic democrats, and if you want to contribute to this democracy, by volunteering, shouldn't that be up to you? My duty is simple. My duty is to obey the law, as written. I have no other duty your honor."

              I offerred to pay the friv-pen right there, on the spot in court. Got my checkbook out, "Just make the government show me the law that makes me liable... Show me the other penalty that I have that allows this penalty, since it states that it, "shall be in addition to any other lawful penalty, I'm prepared to write thecheck right here and now..." And I asked the judge, "If I show the court where the law states a levy may be made upon the accrued salary and wages of government officials, etc., will the court make the government show me where the law states a levy may be made upon the wages and salaries of a me, a private, non-federal, State Citizen?"

              Judge Allen knew he had nothing on me. If he had threatened contempt, I was ready to use Irwin's line, "This court is BELOW contempt!", or ... "Was I showing contempt your honor? I'm sorry, I thought I was hiding it!"

              Here's my "formal notice" to Le Jardin Academy regarding their bogus "notice" of levy.
              ______________________________________________________________________________

              Le Jardin Academy

              917 Kalanianaole Hwy,

              Kailua, 96734 - (808) 261-0707

              Tuesday, October 25, 2005

              To:

              Le Jardin Academy's Human Resources, Accounting Departments, and Administration

              Attention:

              Jodi Lewis - Accounting Office, and representatives of LJA in attendance in Tuesday, October 17 meeting

              From:

              Mel Furtado - Boys Intermediate Volleyball Coach

              Re:

              "Notice of Levy", Form 668-W(c)

               

              Jodi,

              I am writing this letter to provide Le Jardin Academy with a written, Formal Notice that the

              Form 668-W(c) Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary, and Other Income that the IRS has sent you is merely a notice, and its intended use is to forewarn businesses that an actual Levy, Form 668-B, is forthcoming. You have no legal authority, nor duty, to treat "an uncertified notice" as if it were an actual, lawful Levy Form 668-B.

              The law does not permit any seizure action of property to be taken until a

              Form 668-B Levy has been sent by the "Secretary," a legal term defined in section 7701 Definitiions of the IRC (Internal Revenue Code).

              Section 7701 Definitiions

              (B) Secretary

              The term ''Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate.

              (12) Delegate

              (A) In general

              The term ''or his delegate'' -

              (i) when used with reference to the Secretary of the Treasury, means any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in the context; ...

              At a meeting at Le Jardin Academy with several department representatives, on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, I brought to your attention that the

              Notice of Levy, Form 668-W(c) recently received by your office was a fraud. It was not certified as it was not signed by the Secretary of the United States Treasury, or a duly authorized delegate of the Secretary, as required by law, found in Section 6331, part a.

              Misrepresentation of Law and Authority, Under Color of Law and Office

              At the meeting referenced above, I brought to the attention of the LJA representatives in attendance that the

              Notice of Levy Form 668-W(c) misrepresented the law through omission by deviously appearing to cite the law on the reverse side of the notice. I presented two (2) copies of Section 6331 Levy and Distraint to LJA representatives as evidence (attached Exhibit D), pointing out that the reverse side of the notice they received cites the law beginning with part b, Seizure and Sale of Property and not part a, Authority of the Secretary, intentionally omitting the part of the section that provides two important facts of the lawful authority to levy:

              1) Who is authorized to determine levy action... and

              2) Who may a levy be served upon.

              Section 6331 Levy and Distraint

              (a) Authority of Secretary

              If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

              So the omission of

              part a on the back of a Form 668-W(c) Notice of Levy makes this form potentially fraudulent, however, ONLY IF IT IS TO BE MISUSED AS A FORM 668-B LEVY TO SIEZE PROPERTY!

              Office of Management and Budget and the OMB Number

              Furthermore, a note attached to the document I received from LJA (copy of the notice) pointed my attention to the last page of the document where information of a private nature (information NOT unattainable by the IRS or LJA) was being requested from me, along with a signature affirming that I was "swearing under penalty of perjury" to the forms content, acknowledging the information that I provided was, to the best of my knowledge, accurate, true and correct.

              The form itself,

              Form 668-W(c) Notice of Levy, has not been assigned an OMB number by the Office of Management and Budget (the federal agency with direct oversight of all government forms wherein the government asks for private information disclosure), and is therefore considered a "bootleg form" by this office, .

              A "bootleg form" is the term used for any government document that ask for information, but does not display a valid OMB number.

              Found in every Form 1040 Information Booklet is Notice 609, better known as the Privacy and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, wherein, for the past 20 years, as part of the Privacy and Paper Reductions Act Notice 609

              (attached Exhibit A). The OMB (office) assigns an OMB number to every "CERTIFIED" form, thereby notifying the public that the form has been "certified" and is legitimate insofar as its right to ask for information. A Notice of Levy Form 668-W(c) is a form that would require certification, since it asks for private information, and then asks for a signature "made under penalty of perjury." However, this form, for obvious reasons shown below, has NEVER EVEN BEEN SUBMITTED for certification.

              The reason this form has never been submitted by the IRS for an OMB certification and number should be quite obvious, since it is most often used, and rather effectively, to illegally "SIEZE" private property, absent lawful authority. The law found in

              Section 6331 of the IRC clearly states that such authority to make determinations for levy action, and to seize private property, has been granted to the "Secretary," or his duly delegated representative by way of a delegation order, a legal fact that the IRS doesn't want to discuss.

               

              Congressional Complicity - The Criminal Culpability and Nature of Federal Legislators

              Attached as Exhibit B & C

              are two letters, one from previous congressman Dennis M. Hertel, tha dates backto 1985. and the second letter from 2005 Congressman, Clay Shaw of the 22nd District of Florida. I have letters from nearly every state of the union. These two however, show that Conress I chose because they show that for years Congress has been aware of the fraud, but has done nothing to stop it.

              Le Jardin Academy is hereby NOTICED that the

              Notice of Levy Form 668-W(c) IS NOT the legal form required for levy action to be taken. At the abovementioned hearing, LJA fgjm vrepresentatives were provided a copy of Form 668-B Levy, the lawful form required for levy action, including garnishment of wages, may begin. This form dOES NOT NEED ANY INFORMATION, and therefore REQUIRES NO OMB NUMBER.

              By using a notice of Levy to seize property, the IRS agents involved are committing a felony. Though they are often perceived as omnipotent as they are rarely held accountable, and often are assisted in their unlawful tactics by the courts, recent news of IRS agents being convicted of tax crimes has turned the table on that notion.

              IRS agents are public servants. They have no more authority than the clerk at the federal courthouse to issuenoticesand sieze property. They DO NOT HAVE A REQUIRED "ENFORCEMENT POCKET COMMISSION," as only CID (Criminal Investigation Division) agents carry such authority. IRS agents aren't authorized to carry a sidearm, or to enforce revenue laws. The IRS agent (this includes appeals, hearings, and collections offficers and agents) have no authority to enforce anything as they are strictly adminnistrative in nature, and therefore have never been delegated such authority by the Secretary.

              Obviously, the IRS has grown accustomed to having private property of Americans tossed into their lap by third parties only too willing to TURN OVER PROPERTY THEY HOLD (earnings, wages, salary), BUT DO NOT OWN, AND DOING SO WITHOUT COURT ORDER, AND WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION THAT THE AGENT SENDING SUCH NOTICE, AND MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

               

              At the end of this correspondence, I provide very important evidence of the fraud that is the IRS. Please review it carefully, and confirm that what I have presented is accurate and complete. Only then can you some to really understand why Americans have been the recipient of the largest fraud known to mankind. I have done my best to investigate this subject-matter thoroughly, and even objectively. It is not my intention to decieve anyone, nor am I against paying taxes. I only object to unlawfully siezing property and imprisoning innocent Americans, in clear violation of the law itself, and in violation of the United States Constitution.

              In closing, I'd like to point out that, although LJA may have permitted such seizures in the past out of ignorance of the law (which, by the way, the courts have consistently ruled, "... is no excuse and does not relieve one of their lawful duty"), these questions remain:

              1) "Will LJA continue to allow seizure of their employee's property despite having been Formally Noticed with very damaging evidence to any possible notion that the Form 668-W(c) Notice of Levy is ANYTHING BUT A FRAUD.

              2) OR, "Will LJA demand that the agent sending the notice physically present his signed delegation of authority thereby verifying such authority by the secretary has been delegated?"

              and,

              3) "Will LJA demand that, before seizing the private property of one of their employees, the IRS must provide the legally required Levy Form 668-B, or will LJA allow the IRS to continue its terror-tactics of unlawfully seizing private property KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY, by misrepresentation of authority under color of law and office?

               

               

              Sincerely, ______________________

              Mel Furtado

               

               

               

              Points for Consideration and Concern,

              -The Internal Revenue Code has nearly 10,000 pages. Subtitle A Income tax makes up 5,000 pages of the IRC. Yet nowhere in the 5,000 pages that make up the income tax (Subtitlte A), will you find the words "Internal Revenue Service" or "Commissioner". They have absolutely no lawful authority to even ask your name, let alone seize your property, especially in regards to "income tax". And unless duly authorized by a signed delegation of authority ("Delegation Order") by the Secretary of the Treasury, an IRS agent is no more an "agent" than is the clerk at the local courthouse. Only the Secretary is given any kind of authority in regards to Income Tax, and it is my finding that he HAS NEVER authorized ANYONE to do anything in regards to enforcement of the income tax. And this makes perfect sense, since the tax is based on "voluntary-compliance,"and that can can only mean that compliance is voluntary.

              -The 1040 booklet instructs that we pay,

              "any tax for which you are liable." This can be found in the Privacy and Paper Reduction Act Notice found in every1040 booklet for the last 30 plus years. There, we are directed to three code sections, 6001, 6011 and 6012. There you will find language like this:

              § 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns

              Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title,

              or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe.

              6011

              § 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list

              (a) General rule

              When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary

              any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement

              § 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

              (a) General rule

              Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:

              (1)

              (A)

              Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual-

              So if you thought you would find the law that makes you liable in one of the three code sections that the government specifically points you towards, in the 1040 booklet, you'd be wrong. There is no liability within these sections, although,

              any person made liable for any tax is instructed time and again to do certain things, like fill out returns, etc...

              What is liability?

              What does liability look like? In the IRC, Congress has written tax law with a using a very consistent pattern. First, there is always an imposition clause, where the tax is

              "imposed." Soon after that, there is a section that states who is "liable for the tax," or who "shall pay the tax." Specifying who "is liable," or who "shall pay" the tax removes all doubts as to who is "legally required under the law." Here are some samples of "liability" from the IRC for other taxes.

              Insurance and indemnity tax

              Section 4371 Imposition of tax.

              There is hereby imposed on each policy of insurance, indemnity, ...

              Section 4374 Liability for tax

              The tax imposed by this chapter shal be paid on the basis ofa return, ...

              Tobacco tax

              Section 5701 Rate of tax

              The tax imposed by this chapter...

              Section 5703 Liability for tax

              The manufacturer or importer... shall be liable for the taxes imposed...

              This pattern is consistent within the IRc, however, no such liability clause exist for the income tax. As a matter of fact, a quick look into the index of the IRC will really help to understand the issue at hand. Under "liability" in the index, you will find a list of more than 50 assorted taxes. However, there is no "income tax" to be found in the list under "liability" in the index.

              In 5,000 pages of income tax legalese, a quick search of the CDROM version ofthe IRC renders one section of law that uses the term, "... is hereby made liable..." That language is used in Section 1461, and it makes a" Withholding Agent" liable for taxes withheld...

              § 1461. Liability for withheld tax

              Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

              A "liability" for a tax determines the legal duty to pay the tax. The language used throughout the IRC where they make mention of "every person liable...", but then don't say what person they are referring to. There is a long lundery list of evidence the Congress has intentionally tried to obfuscte the It is a long

              § 7701 Definitions

              (16) Withholding agent

              The term "withholding agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

              So as you can see here, the only one made liable for the income tax is "any person required to withhold." But who is required to withhold? And from who is this agent withholding?

              And to get a really good look at the the big picture, here are the titles of the referenced Sections 1441, 1442, and 1443, respectively:

              § 1441. Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens

              § 1442. Withholding of tax on foreign corporations

              § 1443. Foreign tax-exempt organizations

              Clearly, the income tax is required of foreign corporations, non-resident aliens, and forieign tax exempt organizations. Therefore, since there are no other sections that make any American liable for the income tax, then income taxes must be voluntary for Americans. And the fact of the matter is that IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY, or it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

              -An IRS agent has very limited authority for good reason. A few months prior to his employment with the IRS, this agent could have been flipping burgers or cleaning the neighbors cesspool. And in a few months from now, he could be back doing his old job. The point being made is that the seizure of private property in "the land of the free," where the "Rule of Law" is supposedly the "Law of the Land," the determination of such seizure needs to be made by someone in a position who can make responsible and accountable decisions.

              -Worth mentioning is the fact that since 1954, the words "wages, salary and compensation for personal services" were removed from Section 61's predacessor, section 22, which defines taxable income. Since the 1939 code, there exists no code section making the wages, earnings or salaries of americans taxable!

              -I am not the "employee" defined in the law!

              United States Code - TITLE 26 - Subtitle C - CHAPTER 24 (Employment Tax)

              § 3401. Definitions

              (c) Employee

              For purposes of this chapter,

              the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

              (By the way, LJA is not an "employer" as that term is defined, and I am not required to submit a Form W-4)

            • lookin2c@juno.com
              Hey people... What ever happened to being foreign to the US and stating such with their own form? A Form W-8BEN ... Certificate of Foreign Status! Deo
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 30, 2005
                Hey people...
                 
                What ever happened to being "foreign" to the US
                and stating such with their own form?
                A Form W-8BEN ... Certificate of Foreign Status!

                Deo volente,
                Jim
                 
                When someone who is honestly mistaken hears the truth,
                They will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest!
                 
                On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:40:52 -1000 "Mel Furtado" <res1a4ck@...> writes:
                Hey Kenny!
                I'm below in RED!
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Kenny" <skennybird@...>
                Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:37 AM
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] W-4, payment for work
                 
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.