Stop Federal Witholding

[David Merrill]

Continued:

Thanks Suitor;

Don't be discouraged yet. I recall long ago pursuing an elusive form - application to be a qualified collection agent. Think about that for a moment; have you ever considered that 99.9% of all employers are not qualified by the Treasury to withhold?

Mental indexing from Title 26 tells me the form is either 2627 or 2728; I think maybe the latter. This was before my internet days so I bet you can find the form Suitor.

When I went to the IRS office (the one that was later burned down) the fellow at the counter cross referenced the form and I wrote the number down on my paper lead - maybe it was a poor copy of the Form. The guy began to shake and stutter. He would not give me the form as I recall. With a shaky hand he actually scribbled out the number on my paper I had setting on the counter. He scribbled and scribbled but it was a five digit number and when he was finished scribbling it out I wrote it again and set the pen down, half expecting him to repeat the weird action.

I know a fellow who simply requested one in the mail and got it. He filled it out in case he was to have employees who wanted him to withhold taxes. He applied and was approved but as far as I know he is the only employer in America qualified to withhold Income Tax.

I suppose somebody could call the Treasury and upon finding out their employer is not qualified to withhold as a collection agent for the Treasury try to get all their withholdings back. But I suspect the company attorney would simply apply and be approved; otherwise I would have told you all about Form 2728 a long time back.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by REDCLOUD

Submit a form W-4 to your employer with 20 or 30 exemptions on it. That will generally end federal withholding by your employer. However, this does not end the requirement to file an income tax retrun. You, then also have the requirement to properly estimate your taxes and submit estimated payments.
[cut]

this just doesnt seem like the right thing to do give that there is ALREADY a CFR procedure for properly notifying the IRS that one doesnt have nor is subject to with-holding.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

The Massachussettes Trust is a private contract trust, so they would have to amend the Article of The Constitution (Art 1:8:10???) about Gov not impairing the obligations of contracts.

The status approach is the cornerstone, but it seems that Pete hangs his hat on the statutory def of the word "includes". The thing is, it seems that the presumption of one being a U.S. Citizen is bolstered when one fills out a form. The approach he has is intriguing certainly, but i just could not get the nerve up to put my pen to one of those forms on a perjury statement

all government forms require the signing of oat at the bottom of the form.

This is a dead give-away when one learned the basics of what the Cosntitutions all say regarding Oats that the form does not contemplate a private citizen taking an Oat.

an Oat is for and to be extracted from one elected, selected or appointed to a position of "trust, emoluments, etc, blah, or autority"

[marksgirl]

I'm having some difficulties here:
When I "google" form 2728, what it gives me is a medical form for end-stage renal disease. And while I think most of us would agree that taxes are a form of disease, this doesn't seem to be what you're referencing.
So now I'm searching US Code Title 26, and not finding any reference to forms for "employers" to fill out. (it's a HUGE document, so if anyone knows where in there to look, I'd appreciate it!) I did find a list of forms in the index for Title 26, but they all have to do with trials involving taxes. http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26a/26a_33_.html

[KaosTheory]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

The status approach is the cornerstone, but it seems that Pete hangs his hat on the statutory def of the word "includes". The thing is, it seems that the presumption of one being a U.S. Citizen is bolstered when one fills out a form. The approach he has is intriguing certainly, but i just could not get the nerve up to put my pen to one of those forms on a perjury statement

It is not true that Pete hangs his hat on the word "includes". There is a whole lot more to CTC then that. The word "includes" is covered in detail but that is not the entire focus of CTC.

When an information return is issued by a payer listing taxable income paid to you, the presumption of citizenship is not what has to be overcome. The presumption of engaging in a taxable activity is. If your payer sends in an information return declaring you earned "income" in connection with a taxable activity, then that presumption stands until you rebut it.

If you rebut then the burden of proof shifts to the Secretary who must produce probative evidence to the contrary.

You might find these essays interesting:

http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ndings/map.htm

Here is a little bit of one of them:
http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/Misu...ndings/ucc.htm

Quote:
The notion of adhesion contracts in this context is a violation of the most elementary principle of law, and would not be sustained in any courtroom in the country if defended against with even casual competence. There is no jury which would not answer with a resounding and unanimous, “What, are you Crazy?!” if asked whether it is their understanding that solely because of their entirely voluntary application for a social security number, or use of the mail, or zip-codes, etc., they became subject to the income tax; nor any judge that would tolerate the impositions of a contractual obligation against a defendant allegedly made an unknowing-- hence involuntary-- party to such an agreement.

However, as noted above, judges will rule based only upon what is presented in the trial-- they rarely interject their own knowledge of the law into a proceeding. Consequently nonsense cited by the prosecution and undefended against often rules the day, and builds its own body of misleading 'case law', as well. For instance, many, many years ago a Circuit Court of Appeals allowed to stand uncorrected (and even adopted in the language of its decision) a prosecutor's declaration that the Supreme Court, in its Brushaber decision, ruled that the 16th Amendment authorized a direct, non-apportioned tax on incomes-- the direct opposite of the actual ruling in that case-- and that error has been cited and deployed against poorly prepared defendants in lower courts ever since. In any case, no one has ever been convicted with language intoning that, "Having been proven to have used the postal system, yet not paid income taxes for three years, you have been found guilty ..."
Other, more overtly paranoid versions of these complicated arguments maintain that a second government was imposed or installed within the Union and now rules without Constitutional limitation, or that Union state citizenship has been abrogated and replaced with universal citizenship of the District of Columbia, and so on. These views take cognizance of some elements of the law, but entirely out of context-- leaving their adherents at such a complete loss in making sense of the reality they perceive that they can find refuge in nothing but theories of elaborate conspiracy and craft. Such perspectives, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, most of the other varieties mentioned here, can also be viewed less charitably: They may simply be efforts to invoke the specter of the insurmountable enemy against what would otherwise be an obligation to take up a grueling and dangerous battle. It is much simpler, after all, to sit unengaged while grousing about an invisible and overwhelming conspiracy than to conduct research, file papers, and confront the other side.

If these notions of usurpation were sound, however, nothing about the current system as it is actually implemented would remain so. For instance, we would hear no more of even the rhetoric of “voluntary compliance”-- we would all be sent a bill as we are for our property taxes. This might not preclude making a return and taking deductions, but there would be no more talk of self-assessment.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

Other, more overtly paranoid versions of these complicated arguments maintain that a second government was imposed or installed within the Union and now rules without Constitutional limitation, or that Union state citizenship has been abrogated and replaced with universal citizenship of the District of Columbia, and so on.

Or an unabrogated Union State Nationality Status is waived in favor of the presumed Federal Citizenship.

Read Dual System of law attached

[KaosTheory]

This looks similar to Chris Hanson's "Why a National" doc. So far I don't see where LB addresses the 3 different definitions of US. Also, the District of Columbia is not a Nation by definiton or at least I believe the SC said that it was not a Nation.

One thing I keep in mind is that citizenship is voluntary. If I can't volunteer out of it then it isn't voluntary which means that it isn't citizenship. The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude which means the only way the 14th Amendment makes one a slave is by volunteering. And again, if one can volunteer in then one can volunteer out.

I'll check into this doc a bit more but the main point I was trying to make was that a taxable activity is the subject of the income tax, not income or citizenship.

The w-2 or 1099 sets up the presumption of taxable activity.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

One thing I keep in mind is that citizenship is voluntary. If I can't volunteer out of it then it isn't voluntary which means that it isn't citizenship. The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude which means the only way the 14th Amendment makes one a slave is by volunteering. And again, if one can volunteer in then one can volunteer out.

Emphasis added.

You seem to be on point. An affidavit should be enough to deal with this issue, as it is a statment of your will. If an affidavit won't work to dispel the 14th Amendment presumption of citizenship, then who's will is making the determination, and on what authority?

I'll check into this doc a bit more but the main point I was trying to make was that a taxable activity is the subject of the income tax, not income or citizenship.

The w-2 or 1099 sets up the presumption of taxable activity.

Good post.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by KaosTheory

[cut]

One thing I keep in mind is that citizenship is voluntary. If I can't
volunteer out of it then it isn't voluntary which means that it isn't
citizenship. The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude which means
the only way the 14th Amendment makes one a slave is by volunteering. And
again, if one can volunteer in then one can volunteer out.

[cut]

excellent point, kaos!

Ya know, one of the things i'm oft mentioning in RL to others is that
one must think outside of the box; we're all taught how to
thing IN the box but that's a trap; think outside the box;
get out of the Box and take our father in heaven with you when
you leave the box!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by idknow

excellent point, kaos!

Ya know, one of the things i'm oft mentioning in RL to others is that
one must think outside of the box; we're all taught how to
thing IN the box but that's a trap; think outside the box;
get out of the Box and take our father in heaven with you when
you leave the box!

Excellent!

One thing I keep in mind is that citizenship is voluntary. If I can't volunteer out of it then it isn't voluntary which means that it isn't citizenship. The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude which means the only way the 14th Amendment makes one a slave is by volunteering. And again, if one can volunteer in then one can volunteer out

That is why the Congress passed the Expatriation Act on the eve of the Fourteenth Amendment. There may be some merit to Bernard Bershears' Strategic Withdrawal and he just shoots himself in the foot by living on a boat, Mexico and now Central America. It is difficult to put a lot of confidence in the issue when the author and profiteer is not living the walk himself.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...triation_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...triation_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...triation_3.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.