paying taxes

#1 03-11-2004, 02:43 PM

an interesting quote from sorce190's weekly newsletter:

Please research and verify the information below.
When a worker VOLUNTARILY agrees to have amounts withheld or deducted, and the hiring entity VOLUNTARILY agrees to honor the worker's request, those amounts are then required to be withheld. &The taking from pay must be CONSENSUAL.

The law as it is written, gives workers and entities the OPTION to enter into VOLUNTARY withholding agreements and payroll deduction agreements. &Everything is voluntary in a free society. &Obligations only arise when one volunteers to participate. &We, as a free people, are without an imposition of a duty by law, unless we volunteer to do something.

These federal withholding (W-4 or W-9 back-up withholding) and payroll deduction agreements (Form 2159) apply only to those CONSENTING employees of government agencies, federal employees and retirees, military personnel and Department of Defense employees who VOLUNTARILY consent to participate. &See 26 USC §3402(p)(3)(a), 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1) and http://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/ch01s07.html

Private entities, states and political subdivisions are NOT REQUIRED to participate in federal collection procedures. &See http://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/ch13s10.html &It also extends to their workers.

The term "employee" 31 CFR §215.2(h)(l)(i) does NOT include retires personnel, pensioners, annuitants, or similar beneficiaries of the Federal Government, who are NOT performing active civilian service or persons receiving remuneration for services on a contract-fee basis. &They are not subject to withholding and have not duty to file any form W-4 or W-9, unless they desire to VOLUNTARILY enter into such agreements.
AND FINALLY....
From Eddie Kahn’s Tax Truth Letter...
Earlier this month several people reported to Eddie that they had success dealing with their IRS situation by using an older method...They went to their IRS office in person, laid their checkbook down on the table and said they were there to pay whatever the IRS claimed they owed. &Then they said all they needed to see was the taxing statute and implementing regulation that made them liable for any particular tax. &The agents gave a variety of answers the people told Eddie and just scurried around and shuffled through paperwork, etc. &Yet, when they couldn’t produce the requested information, the agents would tell the people that they would find it later and get back to them. &The never did, of course, because such sections do not &exist.
According to Eddie, these people saw positive results doing this regardless of what stage they were at in the IRS’ collection process...the IRS can legally enforce collection only when a person neglects or refuses to pay a tax liability. &The act of presenting their checkbook can only be construed as an offer to pay.

Ice · #2 03-19-2004, 01:39 AM

Title 26 Sec. 3402(p)(3)(a) deals specifically with "voluntary withholding".& What needs to be dealt with is Title 26 Sec. 3402(a)(1) which states:

"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. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall -<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and<o

></o

>
(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such periods."
&
This is the code that needs to be dealt with when it comes to "withholding".& The question is... how do you "get around" this?& How do you convince your employer that you are "exempt" from any and all withholding when the above cited code is what he believes to be the law he must adhere to?
&
Put your thinking caps on folks...
&
Ice

#3 03-19-2004, 07:11 AM

Sec. 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,

(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.&

Sec. 3402. - Income tax collected at source

(n) Employees incurring no income tax liability

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee -

(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and

(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.

And there's more that could, maybe should be added. Stuff like "wages" that are exempt under section 911 (citizens/Americans earning "wages" overseas), and so forth.

Now, my experience with "employers" is that they loathe being "re-educated" about this stuff. Lots of real-life experiences and stories on this topic....

THIS one little topic and issue has done more to prove to me just how much people fear their own government more than anything else I've encountered, yet, these are the same people who give me that song-and-dance about "love of country," etc. (Sorry 'bout the digression)

So, my answer? Keep it short and simple. "Try" to get prospective "employer" to see the truth, i.e., he's not even an "employer" as defined by code. If that doesn't work, ask employer to check with payroll to see what policies and procedures might be in place for people who prefer to receive 100 per-cent of their pay (under the assumption that employee will settle with IRS at the end of the year). If that fails (and I've never had to go this far), perhaps an affidavit stating "exempt" (as the Secretary allows) and attached to/in place of the W-4 would satisfy the employer's "requirement" of withholding certificate.

When all else fails, take hostages....

Randy

#4 03-19-2004, 09:02 AM

is it fear?& or is it fear & loathing?

i think the latter.& yes, there is fear.& fear of "going against the grain."& fear of "the accountant."& fear of the "IRS AUDIT."& can you really blame them?& kinda hard not to when faced with a system that favors the bully.& gee, when has life NOT been like that?

and loathing.& loathing the inevitable confrontation with the alphabet boys.& loathing the long drawn-out legal battle & cost that will entail.

there's the employer's perspective.& regardless of whether "you" are right or wrong&- they'll view it as an uphill battle, and of course think you are wacko because you are different from the sheep.

and it is extremely difficult to change them.& i used to be a W-2 contractor with a company called Maxim Group.& when i informed them of the mistake in their interpretation of the law, i got a canned Tax Protestor response (at the time, and still, i thought that interesting all by itself).& i simply filled out a W-4 as exempt and bypassed the confrontation.& can't do that with 1099 as the accountants will soldier on and forward that to the IRS who will then come after you...(as i've found out!).

you'd have a better chance of changing a small employer's mind than a large on.& case law would definitely be a big help as you'll get none from any accountant and little if any from a co. lawyer.

is it futile?& i don't think so.& but, 'twill take some concrete evidence to support the case and not just "we say so, and look, the code says so."

jon

Ice · #5 03-19-2004, 09:30 AM

jon,

The key is "employer".& It states "every employer...".

Now, the definition for employee means that "(n) employess incurring no tax liability" would not apply to anyone that does not fit the definition of "employee".

Can't have it both ways!& If a person is not an employee in the first place then the cannot fall back on any code that makes an "employee" exempt.

The trick is to convince your "employer" that he does not fit the description of "employer" and that you are not an "employee".

&

#6 03-19-2004, 09:38 AM

actually, ice, i think the real trick is to show the "employer" that it won't face any detrimental hardship by actually reading, understanding, then following the law...which is why i suggested finding case law, etc., to support them.

because, and you know this to be true, the IRS WILL hound them as they do everyone they think "owes" them.

jon

Ice · #7 03-19-2004, 03:19 PM

I tried to demonstrate those facts to my last employer... and that is one tough nut to crack!& They don't seem to care that the law will back them up and that within the law they are completely untouchable... they still believe that the IRS will get them.

And the truth is -- the IRS can.& The IRS could basically CLOSE THEM DOWN and DESTROY most of their business BEFORE THEY STOP AND SAY -- OH GEE SORRY... WE MADE A MISTAKE... YOUR BOOKS ARE FINE. YOU ACTUALLY HAVE OVERPAID.

It has been done before... and they do it with the assistance of the courts and politicians.

This is why it is so important for us to clean house at the voting booth.& ANY lawyer or attorney needs to be voted out by voting in Farmer John or Bob the Grocer.& Let's get the a-holes out of office and some real people into office.

&

#8 03-19-2004, 04:37 PM

shoot, heck, i'd be happy to be pres and get it all done.& but, it would take a beneficial dictatorship to do it at this point.& read piers anthony's sci-fi triad on that...

at any rate, because the IRS wastes no time in libel - disseminating inaccurate press releases, news stories/casts, etc., no company can survive their crappola.& even if they do own up, notice of such may get a three-liner (if that) on page 75 of whatever section in ultra-fine print...who'll notice that?!?

jon

#9 03-19-2004, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice

I tried to demonstrate those facts to my last employer... and that is one tough nut to crack!& They don't seem to care that the law will back them up and that within the law they are completely untouchable... they still believe that the IRS will get them.

LONG story, short version:

Date: late&'99. Have decided to "unvolunteer" myself. Working at same employer for almost 13 years.

01/02/00: Approach employer. Request new W-4. Claim exempt. They accept. No questions. (I was doing this only as a temporary measure. And all along the way, I was in constast contact with VP of company, letting him know what was going on.)

03/28/00: Request new W-4.& Claim 9 (magic number, no "red flags.) Simultaneously submit information such as Ice is discussing in order to "educate" employer.

Begin having "meeting" with VP. Warnings about "taking too much of his time," "lawyers have reviewed documents and say company MUST withhold," blah blah& Told to "back off" or I would be fired.

04/12/00: Request another W-4. Figure I'll go with "exempt." Easier to fight IRS than employer.

Monday, 04/15/00: Called into office and terminated.

NOW it gets to be fun:

Unemployment approved by ex-employer. Collect for 2 months. THEN get a notice that employer is "challenging" my eligibility.

I go to hearings at VA Employment Commission armed with all the facts I have, which are:

1) Employer has said it MUST withhold taxes. Employer therefor violated law by either accepting an 'exempt' withholding statement OR by refusing to grant me a new one when I asked. AND

2) VA Code forbids an employer from challenging eligiblity when it, the employer, has given approval.

VA Employment Commission told me, in so many words, to go straight to hell. Kept it in appeals for almost 2 years. Still lost, of course, 'cause truth and law doesn't mean anything to these people.

Employer had sworn I wound never, ever work in this valley again. Now, I've had 41 jobs in my lifetime. Suddenly I can't find work. Only thing I could find was OTR-trucking. Company based in Wisconsin.

Yes. My phones were tapped. Yes, lawyers knew of me before I would contact them and as soon as I mentioned my name, or employer, they would refuse to talk to me. And so and so on.

Documented EVERYTHING. Put it on disks, mailed out 3 dozen discs to every sort of "media" you could imagine, his customer base, everthing. NO ONE is gonna touch this stuff.

We're in this "together," but completely individually. That's what's great about this site. I've not encountered anyone here who has refused to help someone else. Hell, every one of us here might end up losing everything and spending the rest of our lives in jail, but I just gotta believe that we're each doing the only "right" thing there is. And maybe, just maybe, even those unreasonable bastard-agents will one day admit, if behind closed doors only, "Damn. These people aren't going away, are they?"

THAT would be "victory" for me.

Gotta run. Just got a letter from the Governor of Virginia. Can't wait to see how patronizing and condescending HE'S gonna be.

Thanks, y'all. Sorry for taking up so much time. NOW you know from whence dometh all my anger and rage about this stuff.

For the record: The ex-employer behind all this? Let's just say he recently held a fund-raiser for **** Cheney as his "house." That's the kind of "power" I was fighting.&(That "house" has SIXTEEN bedrooms, 5 floors, 250 acres of land, heated driveway, full-time wait-staff, etc. The irony? Dumb SOB lives there all alone 'cause his wives leave him as fast as he marries 'em and his kids hate 'em. So, moral of story: He's wealthy. I'm rich. Wouldn't trade places with him for anything.)

Randy

#10 03-19-2004, 07:04 PM

Randy,
Send one of his X's my way. Old, bald, fat, could't see it if it did work and ONE bedroom. It would still be a step up for her. Then I could teach her how to rape him!

Jim