Okay, well, I can see you didn't bother to read and understand any of my post linked above.
From its inception the income tax has been an excise that applies only to gains from the profitable exercise of federal privileges (and therefore needn’t be apportioned), as the Pollock court itself noted (here in Justice Field’s separate concurring opinion):
"...in Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 , it was held that a tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional."
~Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
So, yes, Section 61 lays out all the various types of "income" but without the exercise of FEDERAL PRIVILEGE by definition there is no "income" to tax.
Because the income tax is an indirect tax, which means it can be avoided as long as you are not participating in earning "income" by exercising any privilege, the tax is not on the "income" itself but on the ACTIVITY and the "income" is how the amount of the tax is calculated.
This is Taxation 101, but CPAs pretend not to know this.
So it would appear your research is lacking with respect on what is actually SUBJECT to the tax.
Moving on to "wages" as you've missed the boat on this one as well. As the FICA definitions in 3121 are more convoluted let's look at Section 3401, the analysis is the same regardless, and which is more applicable to the gato post as it applies specifically to withholding.
[My comments are in brackets and specifically defined terms per the code are in quotes.]
3401(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" ..."
[so by definition, ONLY the remuneration paid by an "employer" to an "employee" is defined as "wages" and therefore EXCLUDES all other remuneration]
3401(d) "employer"
"For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person..."
[this one is pretty clear that an employer is defined as the person for whom an "employee" works]
3401(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."
[are you an officer, employee or elected official of the "United States" (note this term also has a specific definition), a "State" (ditto), or any political subdivision thereof, or DC, or any agency of any of these? no? how about an officer of a "corporation" (also a specifically defined term)? so how are you an employee exactly?]
Because the term "employee" is specifically defined in the code it CANNOT also mean the common usage of the word. So if you're hung up on the word 'includes' and think it does also mean the same as the commonly used word, let the Supreme Court disillusion you:
"[T]he verb "includes" imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition." ~Helvering v Morgan's Inc, 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1 (1934)
"[I]ncluding ... connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle." ~Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 62 S.Ct. 1 U.S. (1941)
So, it's pretty clear that withholding only applies to "employees" as specifically defined in the code and if you do not meet that specific definition, which are specific instances of a general class of Federal Employees, YOU ARE NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" AND YOU DO NOT EARN "WAGES." As is perfectly clear from the definition, only those who are paid as a result of the exercise of federal privilege are included.
So, if you received a W-2 alleging you received "wages" when in fact you did not, you simply have to refute the allegations on Form 4852, and correctly reflect $0 as your "wages" on your Form 1040, which is the correct form to request a refund of the amount erroneously withheld.
This is getting long, so I'll show you how you are misled on "trade or business" in a separate reply.
Dawnfrench: have you ever done this? (reported $0 as your "wages" on form 1040) Did you actually receive a refund? I looked up your references (thank you for linking), and they check out. I'm skeptical this actually works.
You’ll wind up with the IRS taking everything you have if you have significant tax liability if you listen to her. Ask a tax attorney what happens in court and what a “frivolous” tax case is. I don’t have time to address this fully right now because I’m busy, but I will after October 15th.
Here, the "licensed CPA" is resorting to threats in an effort to continue the fraud. He's all in because his income is almost entirely derived from the fraud. This is the problem we face as Americans, there are MANY OTHER AMERICANS WHO ARE PROFITING FROM THE FRAUD AGAINST YOU.
Also, notice he has no comment regarding what the LAW ACTUALLY SAYS. Specifically regarding the definition of "frivolous." Once you read and understand that definition and what constitutes frivolous, you will see this is just another tactic to keep you fearful and complicit in the fraud against you.
Also, to add, I told you that I’m busy right now, but just you wait. I will address each of your points after the tax deadline - it will be fairly easy- the IRS has a giant webpage devoted to this stupidity that lists all the court cases and legal statutes. All in one place. We will have so much fun with that.
On the bright side, maybe for anyone naive enough to follow your advice, the tax court is pretty lenient with first time frivolous claims. They usually just give a warning. Unlike for these poor dummies, five years in federal prison tsk tsk:
You are completely ignoring the extensive list of court cases that I posted above showing that you are full of it.
I also do assurance work, which actually has higher profit margins than tax. I just enjoy tax because I am very good at keeping my clients out of trouble and maximizing the amount of income they retain. You are advocating something that has been completely discredited by the courts, which multiple people have gone to jail for (see the above link), and you seem to think it’s cute or something.
Again, those court cases apply to TAXPAYERS. And if you are not, by the definition in the code, a "taxpayer" then all the statutes and court cases do not apply to you. Only if you insist, against the literal definition in the code, on labeling yourself as a "taxpayer" does any of this apply.
Remember folks, Mr. "licensed CPA" has never once addressed the elephant in the room: the income tax is an INDIRECT TAX. "Income" is and only is the result of the exercise of privilege. He has no answer for this. He cannot account for it because he is conveniently not seeing it because his paycheck depends on him not seeing it. Just like everyone paid to push "safe and effective."
Why would they take everything you have? wouldn’t they just not pay in the first place? Or if they did pay, demand the money back with a penalty or something?
I mean that the IRS can take anything and everything you have to satisfy your tax liability. They will garnish your wages, empty your bank accounts, and foreclose on your property, IF you refuse to pay.
If you want proof- this link at the IRS website has an entire list of frivolous arguments and the court cases that go with them. They have put people in jail for promoting and profiting off such schemes, I promise you, if you owe money, the IRS can and will take whatever they are owed and if they want to make an example of you, they will put you in prison - https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-introduction
I read through that, we’ll see what dawnfrench responds with. My BS meter is high, but I’m investigating because I’ve long believed the government cannot legally tax me, i just lack the power to fight back.
You might want to look up the judge’s opinion in TC Memo 2014-35. It’s a very interesting read. The case is Steven T. Waltner v. Commissioner. The judge goes through each point in that book in his legal opinion. The bottom line is this: making up your own definition of words contrary to their common law (and common sense) definitions doesn’t a case make.
Btw, you can apparently be fined up to $25,000 for taking one of the positions that is in the book. That’s a little more than $5,000. Caveat emptor.
You just need curiosity and diligence. And courage. They know they are committing fraud and they don't like losing their tax slaves, but we have and have always had the power to remove our own chains. And those chains are around our minds.
Mr. Research here isn't paying attention to the slippery language being used to accuse a filer of submitting a "frivolous" return. However, as is very clear from a reading of the code Section 6702, following the law is NOT FRIVOLOUS by definition.
And again, notice he is resorting to scare tactics and threats versus an educated understanding about what is SUBJECT to the tax and what isn't, and what the tax law says and what it doesn't.
That's how you and he has been propagandized. Just like "safe and effective" they think if they repeat the lie often enough, you'll believe it. (And they're right.)
The FEAR of an IRS audit is used to shut down your critical thinking skills and make you easier to control. That's their job. And Mr. Researcher here is PROFITING from your fear and ignorance.
The thing is, I was one of those who was expected to promote "safe and effective" but fortunately I work in a dermatology office, not an office offering vaccinations. I spoke openly with patients about my concerns and that I chose not to be vaccinated, but I do know about them trying to instill fear, my office manager threatened to write me up but I'm the sole source of revenue for our independent practice (along with two other providers) so I knew I was too valuable to fire. The whole COVID vaccine ordeal was so eye-opening to me, I'm surprised I'm even entertaining the idea that you are presenting. However, I could afford a $5000 bet to call the government's bluff, so I'll look more into it.
1/2
Okay, well, I can see you didn't bother to read and understand any of my post linked above.
From its inception the income tax has been an excise that applies only to gains from the profitable exercise of federal privileges (and therefore needn’t be apportioned), as the Pollock court itself noted (here in Justice Field’s separate concurring opinion):
"...in Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 , it was held that a tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional."
~Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
So, yes, Section 61 lays out all the various types of "income" but without the exercise of FEDERAL PRIVILEGE by definition there is no "income" to tax.
Because the income tax is an indirect tax, which means it can be avoided as long as you are not participating in earning "income" by exercising any privilege, the tax is not on the "income" itself but on the ACTIVITY and the "income" is how the amount of the tax is calculated.
This is Taxation 101, but CPAs pretend not to know this.
So it would appear your research is lacking with respect on what is actually SUBJECT to the tax.
Moving on to "wages" as you've missed the boat on this one as well. As the FICA definitions in 3121 are more convoluted let's look at Section 3401, the analysis is the same regardless, and which is more applicable to the gato post as it applies specifically to withholding.
[My comments are in brackets and specifically defined terms per the code are in quotes.]
3401(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" ..."
[so by definition, ONLY the remuneration paid by an "employer" to an "employee" is defined as "wages" and therefore EXCLUDES all other remuneration]
3401(d) "employer"
"For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person..."
[this one is pretty clear that an employer is defined as the person for whom an "employee" works]
3401(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."
[are you an officer, employee or elected official of the "United States" (note this term also has a specific definition), a "State" (ditto), or any political subdivision thereof, or DC, or any agency of any of these? no? how about an officer of a "corporation" (also a specifically defined term)? so how are you an employee exactly?]
Because the term "employee" is specifically defined in the code it CANNOT also mean the common usage of the word. So if you're hung up on the word 'includes' and think it does also mean the same as the commonly used word, let the Supreme Court disillusion you:
"[T]he verb "includes" imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition." ~Helvering v Morgan's Inc, 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1 (1934)
"[I]ncluding ... connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle." ~Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 62 S.Ct. 1 U.S. (1941)
So, it's pretty clear that withholding only applies to "employees" as specifically defined in the code and if you do not meet that specific definition, which are specific instances of a general class of Federal Employees, YOU ARE NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" AND YOU DO NOT EARN "WAGES." As is perfectly clear from the definition, only those who are paid as a result of the exercise of federal privilege are included.
So, if you received a W-2 alleging you received "wages" when in fact you did not, you simply have to refute the allegations on Form 4852, and correctly reflect $0 as your "wages" on your Form 1040, which is the correct form to request a refund of the amount erroneously withheld.
This is getting long, so I'll show you how you are misled on "trade or business" in a separate reply.
Dawnfrench: have you ever done this? (reported $0 as your "wages" on form 1040) Did you actually receive a refund? I looked up your references (thank you for linking), and they check out. I'm skeptical this actually works.
You’ll wind up with the IRS taking everything you have if you have significant tax liability if you listen to her. Ask a tax attorney what happens in court and what a “frivolous” tax case is. I don’t have time to address this fully right now because I’m busy, but I will after October 15th.
Here, the "licensed CPA" is resorting to threats in an effort to continue the fraud. He's all in because his income is almost entirely derived from the fraud. This is the problem we face as Americans, there are MANY OTHER AMERICANS WHO ARE PROFITING FROM THE FRAUD AGAINST YOU.
Also, notice he has no comment regarding what the LAW ACTUALLY SAYS. Specifically regarding the definition of "frivolous." Once you read and understand that definition and what constitutes frivolous, you will see this is just another tactic to keep you fearful and complicit in the fraud against you.
Also, to add, I told you that I’m busy right now, but just you wait. I will address each of your points after the tax deadline - it will be fairly easy- the IRS has a giant webpage devoted to this stupidity that lists all the court cases and legal statutes. All in one place. We will have so much fun with that.
On the bright side, maybe for anyone naive enough to follow your advice, the tax court is pretty lenient with first time frivolous claims. They usually just give a warning. Unlike for these poor dummies, five years in federal prison tsk tsk:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/February/06_tax_098.html
You are completely ignoring the extensive list of court cases that I posted above showing that you are full of it.
I also do assurance work, which actually has higher profit margins than tax. I just enjoy tax because I am very good at keeping my clients out of trouble and maximizing the amount of income they retain. You are advocating something that has been completely discredited by the courts, which multiple people have gone to jail for (see the above link), and you seem to think it’s cute or something.
Again, those court cases apply to TAXPAYERS. And if you are not, by the definition in the code, a "taxpayer" then all the statutes and court cases do not apply to you. Only if you insist, against the literal definition in the code, on labeling yourself as a "taxpayer" does any of this apply.
Remember folks, Mr. "licensed CPA" has never once addressed the elephant in the room: the income tax is an INDIRECT TAX. "Income" is and only is the result of the exercise of privilege. He has no answer for this. He cannot account for it because he is conveniently not seeing it because his paycheck depends on him not seeing it. Just like everyone paid to push "safe and effective."
Why would they take everything you have? wouldn’t they just not pay in the first place? Or if they did pay, demand the money back with a penalty or something?
I mean that the IRS can take anything and everything you have to satisfy your tax liability. They will garnish your wages, empty your bank accounts, and foreclose on your property, IF you refuse to pay.
If you want proof- this link at the IRS website has an entire list of frivolous arguments and the court cases that go with them. They have put people in jail for promoting and profiting off such schemes, I promise you, if you owe money, the IRS can and will take whatever they are owed and if they want to make an example of you, they will put you in prison - https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-introduction
I read through that, we’ll see what dawnfrench responds with. My BS meter is high, but I’m investigating because I’ve long believed the government cannot legally tax me, i just lack the power to fight back.
You might want to look up the judge’s opinion in TC Memo 2014-35. It’s a very interesting read. The case is Steven T. Waltner v. Commissioner. The judge goes through each point in that book in his legal opinion. The bottom line is this: making up your own definition of words contrary to their common law (and common sense) definitions doesn’t a case make.
Btw, you can apparently be fined up to $25,000 for taking one of the positions that is in the book. That’s a little more than $5,000. Caveat emptor.
You just need curiosity and diligence. And courage. They know they are committing fraud and they don't like losing their tax slaves, but we have and have always had the power to remove our own chains. And those chains are around our minds.
I’d be careful what I promote if I were her - https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/February/06_tax_098.html
Mr. Research here isn't paying attention to the slippery language being used to accuse a filer of submitting a "frivolous" return. However, as is very clear from a reading of the code Section 6702, following the law is NOT FRIVOLOUS by definition.
And again, notice he is resorting to scare tactics and threats versus an educated understanding about what is SUBJECT to the tax and what isn't, and what the tax law says and what it doesn't.
That's how you and he has been propagandized. Just like "safe and effective" they think if they repeat the lie often enough, you'll believe it. (And they're right.)
The FEAR of an IRS audit is used to shut down your critical thinking skills and make you easier to control. That's their job. And Mr. Researcher here is PROFITING from your fear and ignorance.
The thing is, I was one of those who was expected to promote "safe and effective" but fortunately I work in a dermatology office, not an office offering vaccinations. I spoke openly with patients about my concerns and that I chose not to be vaccinated, but I do know about them trying to instill fear, my office manager threatened to write me up but I'm the sole source of revenue for our independent practice (along with two other providers) so I knew I was too valuable to fire. The whole COVID vaccine ordeal was so eye-opening to me, I'm surprised I'm even entertaining the idea that you are presenting. However, I could afford a $5000 bet to call the government's bluff, so I'll look more into it.