W-4 and the need to fill one out?

[StarTet]

Thanks BOBT12:

I was at the other thread regarding non-filers and saw that you had posted some inforas well on the Hedrickson material. I also read Weishaupt1776's remarks on giveing the IRS jurisdiction by using their documents.

I'm really torn.......On the one hand I do not have enough time to fight the tyrany by educating myself, and on the other hand I must fill out a W-4 soon that will have repercusions as to how I can or if I can proceed with remedies.

I do not have Weis's level of knowledge or understanding yet, so starting a new job and refusing to use W-4, W-2 and 1040 does not seem like an avenue that I can understand enough to navigate usefully at this time.

And he had completely cast doubt on the efficacy of using the CtC method since I would be using these same documents.

In your post in that other thread, the famguard website showed concern also about hendrickson's use of the 1040 instead of the 1040NR. It did n't even occur to me that I should use a form to show that I am neither resident or citizen. However, I have no idea how this changes the effectiveness of the Hendrickson's system by using the 1040NR.

I will have to post over at his website to see what they say. Of course, I will keep everybody posted but as TommyGun and Weis said, they can come after your ass later.

Given my current lack of knowledge and needing to begin employment this coming week, I am now rather unsure of what action I CAN take that will limit my withholdings or prevent the IRS from believing I am a person subject to taxation.

Regards,

StarTet

[scottinalaska]

Some damage control can be had by a seemingly innocuous ARR under your signature. (All Rights Reserved).

You'd sign that for you and your 8 kids of course. Then if it takes a couple of years to get the confidence and papersupport together, the IRS has taken more minimally.

My wife claims that many, yet neither of us have filed for 5 years. The IRS seems hell bent on me with nastygrams every month, but the wife gets a mere one or two a year.

Now being self employed, they are only going after me for the 2,3,4, and 5 years I had a Wform on file with them.

s

[StarTet]

Some damage control can be had by a seemingly innocuous ARR under your signature. (All Rights Reserved)

undefinedHow is signing ARR going to help me? Why would this matter to an IRS examiner?

You'd sign that for you and your 8 kids of course. Then if it takes a couple of years to get the confidence and papersupport together, the IRS has taken more minimally.
undefined Could you clarify what you mean by this?

My wife claims that many, yet neither of us have filed for 5 years. The IRS seems hell bent on me with nastygrams every month, but the wife gets a mere one or two a year.
undefinedHow can you claim dependants and not file? If you're not filing, why even bother to claim dependants? How do you handle the presentments from the IRS? Why do they not come after you or your wife?

Now being self employed, they are only going after me for the 2,3,4, and 5 years I had a Wform on file with them.
undefined Sorry, what is a Wform? How are you approaching their attacks for payment? What's your strategy?

Thanks scott

StarTet

[weishaupt1776]

If one absolutely has to go "in the box", the lost horizons guy seems to have a sensible approach.

However, The IRS let's a huge school of fish swim in one direction only to cast a net out and snare them.

They are a slow agency, and I am sure they are working on a frivolous penalty thing or a demand back for the refund they gave you

I suggest you bite the bullet on this one, but save up toward establishing a pure trust w/LLC's. Study, Study, Study

The only way I know out of this is correcting one's status from U.S. citizen to a national of their state. This is an admin procedure which must be done PRIOR to an action against you.

Another solution is to have a whole bunch of people suing the employers and tying them up w/attorney fees, to where the employers start standing up to the FEDS

[scottinalaska]

Startet,

I guess I opened the can, so I'll disect the worms a bit!
The All Rights Reserved inclusion "could" come into play later down the road if you are ready to rescind your W4(Wform, Lord knows how many W's they have made for us!) The inclusion has never directly benefitted me yet, but it doesn't hurt to have it stated there.
Oh, and very little matters to an IRS examiner. Whatever you tell him, he will ignore or defeat, so you must simply request things that he cannot produce such as evidence of the debt or if he has personal knowledge or other things that I cannot go into here in this thread. Marc Stevens (Adventures in Legal Land) nails these basics well.
By going ahead and filling out their silly form and signing on 9 dependents, your company will send LESS to the IRS. At least during this study time, you are minimizing your monetary loss. OK?
My wife claims the dependents, not me. She works for a school district that thinks they double as IRS withholding agents and she does not want me to make waves. Why the IRS pursues me for past nonfiling and not her so hot and heavy is beyond me! I have friends who haven't filed in years and NEVER hear from the IRS. Lucky dogs!
I handle their presentments always by certified mail return receipt. I don't think they ever care. No one is obligated to sign. THey just stamp the green card. I have a whole deck of them! My responses have evolved over the years though.
Presently, I clarify that I am in the process of correcting my IMF(individual master file) and that I am not a Virgin Islands citizen and I am not a business earning more than 10 million a year(Yes, both of those are listed on my file) and continued harassment could result in legal action being taken.
Oh, and I let them know that their own code disallows "intents to levy" letters to be sent unsigned(they always are unsigned) or even signed illegibly!
I also keep minimal money in the bank. That's easy pickin's that I don't need to tempt some swaggering agent with an IRS template to give to the bank. The banks have open account policies with the IRS, so don't think the bank will call you to let you know that the IRS is asking questions or considering getting your money. You'll find out too late.
There's enough for now. You indeed have tasted a red pill. Be careful if you swallow!
scottinalaska

[KaosTheory]

Here is a bit of an interview with Pete that I thought interesting enough to post here.

KT


SUNNI: I know of many tax resisters who think that the whole idea of being in touch with the IRS -- asking them to show us the law requiring us to pay income taxes -- is a bad idea. Their strategy is to just drop out -- stop filing, or never start filing -- and to count on the IRS' ineptitude to keep them from being discovered. And I'll admit that approach has a lot of appeal to me, along the same lines as not poking a stick into a hornet's nest. What are your reasons for not choosing and advocating that strategy?

PETE: First of all, it hardly needs to be said that an approach of that sort is inherently unreliable. It is also perpetually unresolved-- a Sword of Damocles hanging over one's head. That's no way for anyone to live. More significantly, it's no way for an American to behave. I don't mean to sound harsh, but crouching in the shadows hoping to be overlooked by a lawless, stalking government is to abandon the field to corruption. Furthermore, even on its own terms that approach reflects a sort of moral cognitive dissonance. It says, "I know that I'm not properly or lawfully subject to this protocol, but I'm not willing to declare that fact on paper," which is all that filing an accurate and truthful 1040 actually amounts to for most Americans. There is a perverse expression of this dissonance which is worth mentioning. Many of those who most vocally declare themselves not properly subject to the tax have embraced the notion that by filing a 1040 one who otherwise would not have been becomes legally subject to the income tax. This particular example of the distracting flights of fancy we discussed earlier has origins too involved to detail here, but the irony is that under its influence, these vigorous opponents of the misapplication of the tax staunchly refuse to do the one thing that would legally establish that they are not subject to the tax. If I had more respect for the IRS's imagination (and were more conspiratorial-minded than I am), I would have to entertain the suspicion that this particular misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of a 1040 was deliberately cultivated by the agency. Where it takes hold, it leads the very people the government most hopes to find vulnerable to legal sanction to adamantly refuse the one means provided by law for them to make themselves invulnerable.


SUNNI: In addition to the state-generated FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), there are a lot of other tax activists who add to it, with their emphasis on whether the U.S. flag in a courtroom has fringe on it, using ZIP codes, and stuff like that. How much of a problem is that for you in getting out your message?

PETE: A considerable problem, I'm afraid. It's human nature to just not see something which looms too large. This is the "elephant in the living room" syndrome. The income tax is already plenty pachydermic to most people without the sort of complicating flights of fancy to which you refer. The pleasing reality is that the tax structure is actually quite simple once it is understood, but these fanciful conspiracy-based notions can give it such a daunting (or lunatic fringe) aspect that many who are exposed to them can be discouraged from making any real study of the subject. In fact, these notions are even discouraging to many who embrace them. Why bother to meaningfully research something which you imagine is the product of a far-reaching conspiracy, or a mutated legal system? You'd not be permitted to make use of anything you might learn anyway ... So, many of the adherents of these fancies do little except complain about the evil conspirators.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

If one absolutely has to go "in the box", the lost horizons guy seems to have a sensible approach.

However, The IRS let's a huge school of fish swim in one direction only to cast a net out and snare them.

They are a slow agency, and I am sure they are working on a frivolous penalty thing or a demand back for the refund they gave you

I suggest you bite the bullet on this one, but save up toward establishing a pure trust w/LLC's. Study, Study, Study

The only way I know out of this is correcting one's status from U.S. citizen to a national of their state. This is an admin procedure which must be done PRIOR to an action against you.

Another solution is to have a whole bunch of people suing the employers and tying them up w/attorney fees, to where the employers start standing up to the FEDS

[weishaupt1776]

K.T, I'll be looking for your success with this.

All this is is a band-aid, even if it does work.

The cause of the problem is the U.S. citizen presumption no matter how much Marc Stevens or Hendrickson, or anyone else says that it's patriot crap.

People in America are correcting their status, getting formal recognition concerning their own state nationality, and getting remedy.

The problem people have with the latter approach is that it takes hard work
which includes a heavy duty admin proc & possible litigation

People like the Hendrickson approach, because they can still use the IRS forms w/o making any waves and they seemingly don't have to fight, even though the IRS comes up w/ ways of dealing w/"alternative" filing.

The best way to go first off is establishing a pure trust w/ LLC's.

You must take preventitive measures to prevent civil seizures of your property BEFORE they come after you.

I'll tell you what, you think the U.S. Citizen/ State Nationality status correction is non-sensical; then when you have a National I.D. card & I don't, but am still able to travel by plane or car, or receive wages w/o withholding; I'll be here with open arms waiting for you like in the Prodigal Son parable

Kill The Fatted Calf

[KaosTheory]

Weis,

I am in the process of filing correcting w-2's. Be patient. It may take a while. Prayers are welcomed and much appreciated.

I am also interested in the citizenship process you are doing.

I am also interested in learning about irrevocable trusts.

From what I'm reading through the IRC, citizenship is not what is used to determine who pays the income tax.

Here is something from the site on the topic of w-4's that I found most interesting.




QUOTE:

Something to know about W-4's

From: Bob
Date: 25 Jul 2005
Time: 01:26:21

Comments:

This is off of the IRS website, I used it to prevent my employer's accountant from
sending in my Exempt W-4.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...137840,00.html

IRS Strengthens Withholding Compliance Program; Reduces Paperwork for Employers
IR-2005-45, April 13, 2005

WASHINGTON — Employers will no longer be required to send copies of potentially
questionable W-4 withholding forms to the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS announced
today.

At the same time, the IRS will step up its withholding compliance program by making more
effective use of information reported on W-2 wage statements to ensure that employees
have enough federal income tax withheld from their paychecks.

“We can eliminate this reporting requirement without hurting our enforcement efforts,”
said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “Wherever we can, we try to reduce burden.”

Temporary and proposed regulations, issued today by the Treasury Department, eliminate
the requirement that employers send copies of potentially questionable Forms W-4,
Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, to the IRS. The new regulations take
effect on April 14, 2005.

In the past, employers had to send to the IRS any Form W-4 claiming more than 10
allowances or claiming complete exemption from withholding if $200 or more in weekly
wages was expected.

Forms W-4 are still subject to review by the IRS. However, employers will no longer have
to submit them to the tax agency, unless directed to do so in a written notice to the
employer or pursuant to specified criteria set forth in future published guidance, the
IRS said.

Read the rest of the story at the link above...

[scottinalaska]

KT,

that is a great link to "assist" our payroll people. Maybe they will be relieved that they don't have to take on such a gratis task to such degree anymore.
Now you see why I have always had my wife claim NINE dependents. It's as close as I wanted to get to the red flag! Maybe I'll switch to 15 next month after I let payroll know. If I count my dog team, which is very dependent on me, it's da' truth!
scottinalaska

[weishaupt1776]

Good Stuff KT.

Citizenship / Status is a factor regarding being subject to the entire U.S. Code.

Nationaliy is different from ciizenship IN LAW.

Maryland is a seperate nation from DC

Also the 14th Amendment Sec 4. If you are an insurgent rebel, you are liable for paying off the national debt.