If your employer tells you they MUST withhold taxes... \ stacker news ~libertarian

If your employer tells you they MUST withhold taxes...

1158 sats \ 26 comments \ @kytt 1 Jan libertarian

... they will likely cite that they are required by law pursuant to by section 3402 of the US tax code. Let's take a look.

26 USC § 3402 - Income tax collected at source (a) REQUIREMENT OF WITHHOLDING (1) IN GENERAL Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. ...

What are "wages"? More than likely, your company's HR or hiring official has not read the code themselves OR the definitions.

26 USC § 3401 - Definitions (a) WAGES For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash ...

What is an "employee"?

26 USC § 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.

I can guarantee that your employer has just been doing what they were told and have not read a lick of the US tax code. Sure seems like you don't fall within the definition of an "employee" within that code. But won't the IRS get 'em!?

If they truly believe that they weren't required to withhold income taxes from your paycheck (hint: they're not required), then they have this as ammunition:

26 USC § 6724 - Waiver; definitions and special rules (a) REASONABLE CAUSE WAIVER No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

Remember: there is always a man/woman behind those three letters that, just like you and most other people, do not know the tax code themselves and do not know how to read statutory law. They are, however, able to be informed - just like you.

view all related items

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Bitcoinity 1 Jan

Why would I want to do this? Stack sats for a year for the gains and sell as needed for tax season?

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan

No. The point is that BY LAW your employer is not required to withhold any taxes from your paycheck. In fact, them saying you are required to sign a W4 (under penalty of perjury) and refusing to pay you otherwise is EXTORTION and can be prosecuted. BY LAW you are not required to file a 1040 or any other tax form EVER.

Those that know the law do not end up made an example by the IRS. People who get in trouble with the IRS typically believe that they are taxpayers, but for one reason or another, just decide not to pay.

Then there are those that know they do not meet definition of taxpayer by the IRS's own definitions NOR do they have any requirement to file any forms.

But that requires reading - and reading properly.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bitcoinity 5 Jan

Ah yeah I haven't got the balls to go sovereign citizen yet

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @kytt OP 5 Jan

It is literally the law. Sorry you can't read.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bitcoinity 5 Jan

You might be right but I'm not about to risk that

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kytt OP 5 Jan

You don't have anything to do with that. Your employer does.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bitcoinity 7 Jan

I was focused on this part "BY LAW you are not required to file a 1040 or any other tax form EVER"

0 sats \ 17 replies \ @Undisciplined 1 Jan

That's fascinating. So, anyone employed by the government or a corporate officer has to have taxes withheld, but even a normal employee of a corporation does not.

Do you have any idea why it was written that way? I assume it has something to do with legal challenges.

383 sats \ 16 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan

So, anyone employed by the government or a corporate officer has to have taxes withheld, but even a normal employee of a corporation does not.

I think it gets even deeper than that. That's just a minimum requirement.

Do you have any idea why it was written that way?

Deception. Plain and simple. The BAR has ruined liberty in America. It's up to The People to learn how to beat them at their own game.

293 sats \ 6 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan

@Undisciplined here are a few more examples:

Legal definitions matter.

26 USC § 7701 - Definitions (a)(1) PERSON The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

With this definition, we must apply ejusdem generis. "Individual" in this definition refers to a single entity within the same class of commercial entities in the definition - NOT a human being.

26 USC § 7701 - Definitions (a)(14) TAXPAYER The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

See (a)(1) above.

26 CFR 1.441-1(b)(8) Taxpayer. Taxpayer has the same meaning as the term person as defined in section 7701(a)(1) (e.g., an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, or corporation) rather than the meaning of the term taxpayer as defined in section 7701(a)(14) (any person subject to tax).

26 USC § 7343 - Definition of term “person” The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

I hope things are becoming clear.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 1 Jan

When these decisions end up being sealed, is there a public explanation for why it was sealed?

283 sats \ 4 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan

The public typically isn't aware that it's sealed AFAIK. The only reason we know about the case with Steve Emerson is because Alphonse Faggiolo is a friend of his and has taught him. He's using what he's been taught from Steve in his own property tax suit, as well as teaching others the same.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 1 Jan

Is there also a gag order or is Alphonse free to discuss it?

283 sats \ 2 replies \ @kytt OP 1 Jan

I'm not sure if he has the specific details of Steve's motions/complaint (I think Steve had to sign an NDA) if that's what you mean. I'm not sure he needs it. Alphonse is very good at this stuff too.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 1 Jan

An NDA would usually be something that was agreed to, so it's different than a gag order, which is just the court telling you that you can't discuss something.

I was just thinking about what a racket it is that courts can seal a case that's inconvenient for the state and there's not much recourse that the public has.

If there really have been cases that determined that normal people have no obligation to pay various types of taxes, then being able to prevent that knowledge from getting out is a big advantage for the regime.

view replies

10 sats \ 8 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 20 Mar

I just started reading about this and am planning on acting once I have enough information. I work for a large corporation. Can anyone share their experience on stopping withholding?

231 sats \ 7 replies \ @kytt OP 20 Mar

It depends.

Some people start filing EXEMPT on their withholding and start learning how to sue the IRS in case they ever try to give them a notice of deficiency.

I use Kelly with www.mytaxremedy.com. Some people think it's sovereign citizen nonsense, but what she does is 100% legit and I've encountered many people over who've used the same statute (12 USC 411) for their taxes without ever a peep from the IRS.

Apparently there are other ways to deal with them too.

31 sats \ 6 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 22 Mar

Ok I just read Dave Champion, Income Tax: Shattering the Myths.

He comes at this from a completely different angle.

He simply eliminates generating an information return to the IRS by not signing a w-4

Can you explain the strategy about redeeming in lawful money?

310 sats \ 5 replies \ @kytt OP 22 Mar

He is correct, but good luck getting your employer to NOT let you sign one.

Kelly can explain the lawful money thing better. No charge just to talk to her.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 22 Mar

So if I already signed one 10 years ago, there no way to un do it?

My employer has an option to change status to “exempt”

300 sats \ 3 replies \ @kytt OP 22 Mar

What you could try to do is have them remove the W4 on file and, if they won't, offer to sign a waiver of liability for them regarding the IRS. I think technically a W4 must be renewed every year or every few years, but I'm not sure about that one.

What Kelly does is easier (except that you still pay into SS/Medicare) - there is no need to try to remove the W4. You will just be sent a refund from the IRS of any unfiled taxes within the past 3 years. You can then start filing EXEMPT. I take home ~85% of my check and it will be ~90% once my state gets rid of its income tax laws in a few years. Some states honor lawful money, some don't. But in federal it always applies.

To be very brief, lawful money is not taxable, so you are using 12 USC 411 to demand lawful money for your FRNs. Nothing changes physically, because the cash in your pocket can be used as both. But on paper, and in your bank account, is where things "change". What is changed is how they money is viewed/treated.

view replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 2 Jan freebie

I guess you did the affidavit of status or common law ID?

They are acting under statutory color of law treating americans like corporate agents of the franchise (known as strawman, person) in all caps which is a (citizen) office - franchise owned by the municipal corporation. This is why they tax income, wich is defined as (corporate) profits. I love what Faggiolo is doing and I am learning a lot. Keep up the work, I'm really interested. P.S. I'm not american