Time: Sat Sep 06 21:55:32 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04023;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:49:26 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA20628;
Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:48:35 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 21:48:33 -0700
To: teasr@zipcon.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Withholding; Everything you always wanted to know (fwd)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Terry,
Please help yourself to Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF, also in the Supreme
Law Library, at the URL just below
my name here, in particular the key
discussion of the term "this title".
I am laughing right now, because
I see these ongoing, and raging,
debates about the IRC as further
empirical proof still that it is
null and void for vagueness.
Men of common intelligence are
obviously disagreeing, and each
is saying that HIS interpretation
is the correct one!!
Have you ever noticed this phenomenon?
There is no "correct" interpretation --
when the language is deliberately
ambiguous, circuitous, and duplicitous.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 08:50 PM 9/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Another analysis by David Myrland, Paul.
>
>Terry Anderson
>Renton, Washington State
>teasr@zipcon.net
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>To: teasr@zipcon.net
>Cc: teasr@zipcon.net
>Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:06:52 -0700
>Subject: Withholding; Everything you always wanted to know, but were
> unable to sue for.
>From: t42usc@juno.com (Eldee Connection)
>
>>>From David Myrland:
>
>About Withholding Agent Authorization;
>
>1. The requirement for authorization is aprovision of 26 USC
>3504, and the form granting or proving withholding agent status
>is the Form 2678. (See 26 CFR 31.3504-1(a))
>
>Before you act against any employer, be certain to confirm the
>absence of said form on file with the district Director.
>
>I suggest that nobody involve their employer in anything
>concerning the IRS, unless the job is one that they can do
>without.
>
>IRC º 3402(p) is inapplicable to standard compenstaion for
>services. (See 26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1(a), extra contractual
>compensation only)
>
>Absent a valid Form W-4, the employer can fire the individual, or
>ignore alltogether this fact, and proceed to withhold the maximum
>amount, per the grant of leave to do so that the IRS will surely
>forward.
>
>Did your "complete" analysis of subtitle C include the definition
>of "employee" from FICA under 26 USC 3121(d) and "employment" in
>26 USC 3121(d)? If said analysis did not so include these
>definitions, was it a complete one? No.
>
>Why, in this complete analysis [sic] did you not go straight to
>the DEFINITION of the term "citizen" in 26 USC 3121(e) which DOES
>NOT include the term "includes"? Did you know that the argument
>against the definition of the term "United States" under º
>3121(e) has already been to the Supreme Court without cert.? (See
>U.S. v. Ward, 88-1 USTC pp.9197, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir.1987),
>reh.den. 837 F.2d 1095, cert.den. 485 U.S. 1022 (1988))
>
>You are right about the definition of [U.S.] there, but the trick
>being played is under the term "citizen" in 26 USC 3121(e) and
>DOES NOT apply to chapter Federal Withholding, only chapter 21
>FICA, the chapter where we find the statute.
>
>The definition of citizen does not use the term includes, but its
>implementing regulation does. (See 26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1(b))
>
>The author of the regulations (See 26 USC 7805(a)), for good
>reason, enjoys the term "includes" throroughly. Having placed it
>in the implementing reg. for "citizen", the IRS is free to
>enforce the DEFINITION and if it were an inclusion. The fatal
>flaw in this misenforcement of a "definition" as an inclusion can
>be found in regulations applicable to part 31 of 26 CFR
>(employment taxes, chapters 21-25). Regulation 26 CFR
>31.0-2(a)(1) says that the definition in [part 31, 26 CFR] shall
>have the meaning so assigned to them; THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT
>APPLIES ONLY TO FICA, and NOT to Federal Withholding.
>
>About Federal Withholding, a very strong argument against an
>employer can be found in these facts:
>
>1. On EACH AND EVERY Form 1040, of any series (shedule A, B, C,
>of EZ), the filer is instructed to place the amount of Federal
>Withholding deducted over the yearÆs time.
>
>2. On another line of the Form 1040, one is instructed to consult
>the guide for the amount of taxes owed after taking deductions
>and exemptions from "gross income" received (i.e. 26 USC 63(c),
>151(d) 164(f), etc...).
>
>3. The filer is then instructed to subtract the line with the
>Withholding amount from the line listing the tax imposed (See 26
>USC 1), and the number left is the refund amount, OR, as the form
>instructs, if the Withholding is less than the amount owed, the
>negative balance is the remaining liability, and the filer must
>pay it to the IRS; refund or debt is illustrated at yearÆs end
>through this accounting.
>
>4. While every Form 1040 provides for this credit of Withholding
>against chapter 1 liabilties (See 26 USC 1), and while one who
>has paid Withholding must receive this credit or deduction to
>avoid paying the whole chapter 1 amount imposed, thereÆs a HUGE
>problem, so big that one can park mac trucks in it; ONLY FEDERAL
>PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE ELIGIBLE!!!!!!!!!!
>
>5. Knowing that every Form 1040 instructs that this credit be
>conducted, and that one must follow the instructions on the tax
>form to be filed, any one not eligible for the credit must
>refrain from filing any form that prescribes that the credit be
>taken, right?
>
>6. The definition of the term "employeee" for the purposes of
>chapter 24 Federal Withholding is found in 26 USC 3401(c) and is
>new to absolutely nobody, and the use of the term "includes"
>found therein is the IRSÆ excuse to enforce the "definition" as
>an "inclusion", we find great validity to the argument against
>such enforcement when we see exactly who is eligible for the
>chapter 24 credit against a chapter 1 liability.
>
>Poceed to 26 USC 31(a), in chapter 1, which says that the tax
>withheld at the source on wages under chapter 24 shall be allowed
>as a credit to the rtecipient of the income against the tax
>imposed by this subtitle.
>
>Now proceed to regulations UNDER 26 USC 31(a), like 26 CFR
>1.31-2(b) and youÆll find that only those employees defined in
>chapter 24 are eligible; Federal Public Servants!!!!!!!!
>
>"The provisions of this section shall apply to the special refund
>or credit allowable to any officer, employee, or elected official
>of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof,
>or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
>foregoing."
>
>THATÆS NOT ME, AND THATÆS NOT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>What this spells is that any form instructing you to place upon
>it any amount(s) of Withholding paid out over the year, is a form
>for only those eligible under 26 USC 31(a) for a credit of said
>tax against a chapter 1 liability (See 26 CFR 1.31-2(b) again).
>
>THIS is the wringer into which you place the employerÆs tit(s).
>"If I canÆt erceive credit for amounts withheld with the Form
>W-4, IÆll be forced to pay the whole chapter 1 amount imposed. If
>I canÆt do that, and such loss of property is reflected in
>securities paid to me by an employer, it can be shown to be
>securities fraud (See 15 USC 77q.), and it violates due process.
>
>I won this argument in oral argument, but I could not get the
>"judge" to wrote it down; go for it, itÆs ripe.
>
>To Brad,
>
>The employer will always hide behind IRS mandate and the word of
>legal and inept "professionals", but when you ask the tough
>questions, like the ones leaping from the issue outlied above,
>they must shut up; sue them.
>
>All of this is briefed FOR you already; just ask. (E-mail
>freebie)
>
>The Tax Code is PERFECT; I can prove it!
>
>
>You said:
>The withholding agent is liable for any
>taxes withheld, but they are liable to
>the United States, not to the worker.
>
>If a company is acting as a withholding
>agent withOUT authorization, they become
>liable for fraud and conversion, to the
>worker.
>
>To hold them harmless, as against the latter
>liability, would constitute a waiver
>of your right to sue them for this tort.
>
>I would recommend against it, frankly.
>
>Absent a valid W-4, the only other
>authorization which sanctions withholding,
>is a court order, which comes at the end
>of due process of law, pursuant to the
>Fifth Amendment. See IRC 3402(p), and
>the regulations promulgated pursuant to
>this whole section.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>
>
>
>At 09:29 PM 9/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>>
>>> I have just sent a complete analysis to my (non-statutory) employer
>>> picking
>>> apart Subtitle C and showing that he is not an "employer" as defined
>>> in the
>>> code, and my compensation is not "employment" as defined in the code.
>>> I just
>>> got his return letter (and will post it this weekend) and he thinks
>>> that the
>>> definition for "United States" at 3121(e)(2) should be read to "also
>>> include" the federal states that it lists. I phoned him and asked him
>>> to
>>> compare this to the definition of "United States" in
>>> 7701(a)(whatever). He
>>> will get back to me. I am wearing him down, and soon he will have
>>> nowhere to
>>> hide.
>>>
>>> This series of letters can be found at:
>>> http://www.mindspring.com/~bradbva/freedom/fontaine.htm
>>>
>>> B
>>
>>Brad,
>>
>>I did all of the same things that you are doing and the legal counsel
>>for the company I work for has stated, "Yeah, sure, we'll stop
>>withholding if you sign a hold harmless agreement and post a bond
>>so our client isn't liable". I asked them where I was liable or where
>>their client was liable. "Liable for what", I asked in my letter (much
>>more
>>substantive than this but this is the general idea). To which the only
>>reply has been, "Mr. Martin the 'Circular E' publication states that the
>>
>>'employer' has to withhold taxes". I find it interesting that this law
>>firm
>>would base their client's entire position on a lawfully unenforceable
>>document. Do you have any ideas on this offer to sign a hold harmless
>>agreement and post a bond? I see potential problems with this route.
>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>>Brooks Martin
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>"Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly
>>invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or
>>Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?"
>> -Albert Einstein 1934-
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>>
>>
>
>=================================================================
>======= Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law,
>federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public
>Administration, U.C. Irvine
>
>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256:
>24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using
>Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com :
>visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell,
>#1776 : this is free speech, at its best
> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the
> federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays
> first class w/o this
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail