IRS tells wife's employer to screw her W4

[scottinalaska]

Rot,
Fortunately, I have until the February payday to possibly "lose" my/my wife's property. It was nice of the lucIfeRS to give me notice. I understand, with bank accounts, you get notice when your checks bounce!
David Merril has referred me to the Lost at Sea link in my above post about the ole 90 day letter that I responded to. I have been reading it, but man is it heavy. And sure, I'll know more than the accountant, but that won't change her self-protecting statement, "Hey, that's between you and the IRS, not me or the district."
Uh, sorry. WHO sent the money in? Me, or the IRS? I'd like to tackle this preemptively, that is why my creative juices are flowing.
scottinalaska

[cdsea10]

i am new to the truth when one reads the definitions in 26usc7701 and then all the info one finds uncovering the constructive fraud on the net. i have be reading information from family guardian in volumes. they appear to be most informed on the process of notification to irs, employer, etc. not that they will listen but setting up one's protection with prima facia evidence. “ instructions 3.14 - changing your filing status to nonresident alien and denumbering yourself’ is one of the things i am reading. also – ‘INSTRUCTIONS: 3.13. Change Your U.S. Citizenship Status’ – not that you’re changing citizenship – but from all i’ve read – there is a process to protect oneself and family.]

i am wondering if you send preemptive info [legal info on social security, withholding, etc.] to the school system. i will be facing this with my own employer [large coporation] and my wife who is also a school teacher. by sending certified, notarized, constructive notice they are then put into a legal position of having been formally made aware of the law. they will pass the information to their city/county lawyers ... now they are all ‘noticed’ of the law and are now liable.... from the payroll clerk, to the superintendent, to the city attorney. then the employer is not shocked cold by the irs.

[scottinalaska]

One of the members PM'ed me with the following tactic.
1)Ask the school board, after the accountant won't come up with it, what statute or law permits the taking of funds involuntarily from an employee and sending to an organization that sends an unsigned letter with no court order.

When no statute is forthcoming(or what will they really say? - gotta be prepared), I offer this:

2)Since you(the School Board) has been asked to produce a statute or law permitting this, and you have not, yet you are planning on commencing in this taking, you need to be aware, you will be sued. It certainly would not be in our fine District's best interest to be sued and I am sure that other companies have found themselves in similar predicaments with the IRS. So, before I sue, perhaps you could do due diligence and mail a request to the IRS to indemnify you for this "mailing of one of your worker's money" to them because of a letter received. If the IRS writes back with that letter, then you can be assured that your actions are within the law, and you will prevail in a lawsuit. If you get no response, then you will need to make your own ministerial decision as whether to proceed and make the District liable.

I like the above idea, and would give the poster credit, but he PM'ed me, so until he speaks up, it'll be here for others to share their thoughts.
Scottinalaska

PS: What would that statute say anyways? "If you receive any communication from us, obey!"
And unfortunately, using this tactic makes it appear that I am under the IRS statute jurisdiction too. But in reality, I just know that is who and what the School District will look at, hence my thoughts on giving them another anonymous note from the viPeRs.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

One of the members PM'ed me with the following tactic.
1)Ask the school board, after the accountant won't come up with it, what statute or law permits the taking of funds involuntarily from an employee and sending to an organization that sends an unsigned letter with no court order.

When no statute is forthcoming(or what will they really say? - gotta be prepared), I offer this:

2)Since you(the School Board) has been asked to produce a statute or law permitting this, and you have not, yet you are planning on commencing in this taking, you need to be aware, you will be sued. It certainly would not be in our fine District's best interest to be sued and I am sure that other companies have found themselves in similar predicaments with the IRS. So, before I sue, perhaps you could do due diligence and mail a request to the IRS to indemnify you for this "mailing of one of your worker's money" to them because of a letter received. If the IRS writes back with that letter, then you can be assured that your actions are within the law, and you will prevail in a lawsuit. If you get no response, then you will need to make your own ministerial decision as whether to proceed and make the District liable.

I like the above idea, and would give the poster credit, but he PM'ed me, so until he speaks up, it'll be here for others to share their thoughts.
Scottinalaska

PS: What would that statute say anyways? "If you receive any communication from us, obey!"
And unfortunately, using this tactic makes it appear that I am under the IRS statute jurisdiction too. But in reality, I just know that is who and what the School District will look at, hence my thoughts on giving them another anonymous note from the viPeRs.

With all due respect to the elected? people on the school board, unless one or more of them KNOWS the truth that we know here, you're not likely to get an answer unless they speak to a lawye, wait, that won't work. they're scrood

oh well.

[scottinalaska]

I got a couple things to consider here.
I can't scare the poor lady when I meet her and have her wet her pants and run away. I need to be nice and professional.
Of the defects in the letter sent to the School District, I see a few. There may naturally be others and please chime in, but here are a couple glaring ones.
First, under the District's letter's third page titled: HOW DOES THE LAW SUPPORT THESE ACTIONS?
The IRS refers to IRC section 3402 and 3403. Simply stated, if you look a bit more at the definitions in 3401, 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.
This doesn't sound like my wife!
But I am afraid the accountant will freak when she reads that and so I need to keep calm and assuring. But reality is, when you read any of the other codes, because she doesn't fit the definition of Employee, there doesn't seem any reason to go further, but I will.
And I am not sure about this one, but apparently, only the Secretary of the IRS can tell an employer how many withholdings a person can have:
If on any day during the calendar year the number of withholding exemptions to which the employee will be, or may reasonably be expected to be, entitled at the beginning of his next taxable year under subtitle A is different from the number to which the employee is entitled on such day, the employee shall, in such cases and at such times as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, furnish the employer with a withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims with respect to such next taxable year...(3402(f)(2)(c) (The IRS letter even references this very section).
Some lady named "Maureen Judge, Operations Manager, Collection" does not sound like the Secretary to me! And heck, is a photocopy signature enough?
Thus, I will suggest that the School District write a request to the IRS for a letter of indemnification before they proceed to take 28% or my wife's paycheck. Perhaps even put away what they think they might be liable for in a seperate fund until they receive their letter or NO answer so that they can relax.
Any more thoughts on this?
Scott

[idknow]

well, from the definition section, an employee is clearly either a civil servant or an officer of a corporation

I realise they mean the same thing, but to the woman you're going to meet with, she wont understand that difference.

so, saying "civil servant or corporate officer" should be easier on the woman

[Libertarian]

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.

If your wife works for a public school district, isn't she an "employee" of an "agency" of a State or "political subdivision" of a state?

[scottinalaska]

That is an excellent point, Libertarian.
I am still not sure how to answer that.
The State of Alaska pays her indirectly, I guess. Does that mean she is an employee of the State of Alaska? Thus qualifying?
scottinalaska

[Libertarian]

The statute talks about employees of the State, a political subdivision of the State (that would be, I assume, a city or county), or of an agency of either the State or a political subdivision. I assume the School Board or School District is an agency of the State or County.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

If your wife works for a public school district, isn't she an "employee" of an "agency" of a State or "political subdivision" of a state?

Libertarian;
If you look in the IRC you will find this.

Sec. 3121. - Definitions
(e)State,United States, and citizen
for the purpose of this chapter
(1) State
The term "State" includes the District of Colombia,the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,Guam,and American Samoa.

"[Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ...This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes[a]particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be
omitted or excluded."
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition.

I'll let you look up the definition of Person derived from persona