Help - Form 668-W(o)

[Demosthenes]

We are attempting to tell her employer to "just ignore it". Althought I doubt the flunky in the payroll department of a big corporation will do anything except process the request to turn over her money.

Any employer who "just ignores" a wage levy is facing a huge penalty from the IRS.

§ 6332. Surrender of property subject to levy.

(a) Requirement. Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has been made shall, upon demand of the Secretary, surrender such property or rights (or discharge such obligation) to the Secretary, except such part of the property or rights as is, at the time of such demand, subject to an attachment or execution under any judicial process.

[snip]

(d) Enforcement of levy.
(1) Extent of personal liability. Any person who fails or refuses to surrender any property or rights to property, subject to levy, upon demand by the Secretary, shall be liable in his own person and estate to the United States in a sum equal to the value of the property or rights not so surrendered, but not exceeding the amount of taxes for the collection of which such levy has been made, together with costs and interest on such sum at the underpayment rate established under section 6621 [26 USCS § 6621] from the date of such levy (or, in the case of a levy described in section 6331(d)(3) [26 USCS § 6331(d)(3)], from the date such person would otherwise have been obligated to pay over such amounts to the taxpayer). Any amount (other than costs) recovered under this paragraph shall be credited against the tax liability for the collection of which such levy was made.

(2) Penalty for violation. In addition to the personal liability imposed by paragraph (1), if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to surrender such property or rights to property without reasonable cause, such person shall be liable for a penalty equal to 50 percent of the amount recoverable under paragraph (1). No part of such penalty shall be credited against the tax liability for the collection of which such levy was made.

(e) Effect of honoring levy. Any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy has been made who, upon demand by the Secretary, surrenders such property or rights to property (or discharges such obligation) to the Secretary (or who pays a liability under subsection (d)(1)) shall be discharged from any obligation or liability to the delinquent taxpayer and any other person with respect to such property or rights to property arising from such surrender or payment.

(f) Person defined. The term "person," as used in subsection (a), includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.

[Demosthenes]

Because an employee has an oppotunity to go to court prior to a levy, there is no court order requirement for a wage levy. See the Supreme Court case on the subject below:

Administrative levy, unlike an ordinary lawsuit, and unlike the procedure described in 7403, does not require any judicial intervention, and it is up to the taxpayer, if he so chooses, to go to court if he claims that the assessed amount was not legally owing.
Rogers, 461 U.S. at 682-83

[mnchicago]

Posted from another thread: liens NOT "judicial" but "admistrative"

Bear in mind that a Notice of Lien or Levy is just that,
a notice, and the IRS does not follow procedure
in recording them. In addition to the violation of the
cited 26 CFR 301.6103, go after the Recorder of Deeds
for allowing an improper recording of an invalid Lien or
Levy. They will remove post haste!

Never seek administrative relief. You are in the wolf's
den as a plaintiff, and the burden of proof is on you.
Instead, seek relief in small claims court. There, the IRS
would have to validate all their claim(s).

Burden on them.

Always remember, the jurisdiction of the IRS is federal,
and your State has jurisdictional priority, per Constitution.


ooak:

One thing you may want to take from this event is that
you have a choice on how to respond. You made the
choice to seek out information on this forum. Good for
you.

Now, carry it forward and read up on what the irs does,
and how YOU can defelct their insidious actions so that
in the future, you will not be dependent solely upon the
advice of others.

This is not intended to sound like a lecture. It is a piece
of advice from one who has been in your shoes and hadn't
a clue as to what to do.

Some of the advice I received was well-intended, and wrong.
It's your butt, and your responsibility. Do some more
research and reading so that YOU know the difference
between what works and what does not so that you can
rest comfortably with whatever decision you choose to
follow.

Knowledge is not power; it is what you do with it that
gives power.

Welcome to the forum, and keep asking until you get the
answers you need.

Cheers!

[rentiap]

ooak;
This topic has been hashed through many times on this forum.
Do a search on *Levy* or *Notice of Levy*.
I havn't searched to find where but the last time was just a few months back with Shoonra being the advocate for the IRS.
Now we just have a new schill taking the place of Shoonra, hence Demon.
the twisting will continue until you start looking at the correct definitions as they are defined through the IRC and not as you would normally use them in every day use or from a dictionary being either a Websters or even a Blacks, Bouvier or any other law dictionary as none of them give you definitions only Diction.
You would need a definitionary and that is taken care of with the IRC.
First figure out if your wife is an employee as defined in the IRC 3401(c)
Then figure out if she has an employer IRC 3401(d)
this would be a good start. And continue up the chain of application.

Though I do not advocate using the method given in the book "Cracking the Code The Facinating Truth About Taxation In America"(Because I am not a citizen, I am of the posterity of the people) it would give you some understanding as to if you or your wife are a Taxpayer or a Tax payer. or if you are an employee or have an employer.or if you or your wife are one who a Levy is applicable to?

First and foremost would be to figure out if you are a citizen or if you are one of We The People as recognized by the Pre amble of their constitution for the United States of America.
If you are indeed one of the second class citizens then as the 4th article of their 14th amendment says that the Validity of the public debt shall not be Questioned (Paraphrased) then shut up and pay your part.
If you are of the posterity of the people and have not volunteered into their servitude as recognized by the 13th amendment that states that involuntary servitude shall not exist(again paraphrased)none of their laws or taxes apply to you.

Welcome to the forum, and continue to read as much material as possible.
You will eventually figure out who on this forum are truly trying to help you and also who are trying to fool you from behind the curtain.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Demosthenes

Because an employee has an oppotunity to go to court prior to a levy, there is no court order requirement for a wage levy. See the Supreme Court case on the subject below:

Emphasis added.

I am not a taxpayer. I have never been served with an assessment from the government (who has?). I have not self-assessed myself (by filing form 1040 ect., under penalty of perjury, without objections). Thus, I do not have a (subtitle A) tax liability, the above doesn't apply to me.

I think that the following makes some rather strong points regarding the issue of assessment of taxes:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant
v.
ARTHUR L. FARNSWORTH


PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 04-cr-00707)

After a lunch break, the Government asked the District Court to reconsider its determination that proof of either a self-assessment or a formal assessment by the IRS is necessary to prove attempted evasion of payment. The Government also informed the District Court that there was no evidence that Farnsworth self-assessed or that the IRS had made a formal assessment for the years charged. The District Court responded by stating the following:


[T]he defendant has argued that the Government has no case for willfully attempting to evade the payment of tax because an assessment would be required to establish[] a tax due. And, then subsequent to that[,] an evasion. . . . And, defendant asserted that there was no such assessment either by way of self- assessment to the filing of returns or assessment through the Internal Revenue Service.

In connection with that point I stated in court this morning, . . . that I believed that that form of misconduct as a violation of this offense, namely the form that deals with evading -- evading payment, would require an assessment of some type.

Emphasis added.

Absent a procedurally valid assessment that can be made ONLY by the "taxpayer" himself on an income tax return and there is no tax due, and there can be no lawful levy absent an assessment.

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/In...iolDueProc.htm

Originally Posted by Dr. Caligari

As I understand the law, that [IRS proposed assessment] wouldn't do it-- there would have had to have been an assessment before the defendant committed the acts of evasion charged in the indictment. The theory is that if the defendant is not charged with evasion of assessment (e.g., lying on his tax return, etc.), but rather with evasion of payment (e.g., hiding assets to avoid a levy), the IRS had to have had the legal ability to collect the tax, something they cannot do without an assessment.

Emphasis added.

Thanks doc.

§ 6332. Surrender of property subject to levy.

[...](2) Penalty for violation. In addition to the personal liability imposed by paragraph (1), if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to surrender such property or rights to property without reasonable cause, such person shall be liable for a penalty equal to 50 percent of the amount recoverable under paragraph (1). No part of such penalty shall be credited against the tax liability for the collection of which such levy was made.

Blah, blah, blah...

As you see the IRS (government) works through deceitfulness, threat, duress, and coercion (TDC).

[PANICPASS]

Form 668-W states that, "This levy requires you to turn over to us: (1) this taxpayer's wages and salary that have been earned but not paid, as well as wages and salary earned in the future. Demos posted information from the code that states: any person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property subject to levy upon which a levy...

So the IRS must be saying that money earned but not paid is either personal property or property.

I don't know where Wages, Salary, or Other Income fits into the defintion of personal property or property:

From Wikepedia:


Personal property refers to things that an individual has an exclusive right to use but only while they are in use or used regularly. This differs from private property which refers to things that are owned by an individual regardless of whether he is using them. In the case of private property, since an individual owns what he does not use, he has a right to prevent others from using what he does not use or has no intention of using. This allows a landowner, for example, to charge rent for the use of his land. With personal property, an individual does not hold any rights over things he does not use. If he decides to stop using land, he may not prevent any other individual from using it or charge them to use it.



"Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right; whereas the private credit issued by the feds is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title."

[PANICPASS]

'Wage', according to Wikipedia, is compensation/return. Nowhere does it say that wages are property or personal property.

Even 'money', defined in Wikipedia, is not property or personal property .


Wage:

In economics a wage is the return to labor. This compensation/return may be in the form of goods produced by the laborer or "in kind" or in money when the laborer is employed in an enterprise with others. But in any case the compensation/return is still called a wage or wages. For instance, a man existing in a world without others will acquire his wages directly from his labor on land that is free. Without consideration for tools and weapons and the like, the food he hunts and gathers are his wages. A self employed person in the lawn care business will realize income in the form of wages for his labor and interest for his investment in the lawn mower and other capital goods.

[PANICPASS]

The ONLY place Levy on Salary and Wages is mentioned is paragraph (e) on the back of the Notice of Levy:

(e) Continuing Levy on Salary and Wages – The effect of a levy on salary or wages payable to or received by a taxpayer shall be continous from the date such levy is first made until such levy is released under Section 6343. (on who?)


How can there be a continuing levy on salary and wages when there is no authority to levy the salary and wages of any taxpayer? They omit paragraph (a) where it states that levy may be made upon [ONCE] on the accrued salary and wages of any officer, employer or elected official of the United States. (Emphasis added)

The IRC does not authorize a levy on a taxpayer.

Here is what it says on the front of the NOL:


THIS ISN’T A BILL FOR TAXES YOU OWE. THIS IS A NOTICE OF LEVY TO COLLECT MONEY OWED BY THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE.

The Internal Revenue Code provides that there is a lien for the amount shown above. Although we have given the notice and demand required by the Code, the amount owed hasn’t been paid. This levy requires you to turn over to us: (1) this taxpayer’s wages and salary that have been earned but not paid, as well as wages and salary earned in the future until this levy is released, and (2) this taxpayer’s other income that you have now or for which you are obligated.


We levy this money to the extent it isn’t exempt, as shown in the instructions. Don’t offset money this person owes you without contacting us at the telephone number shown above for instructions.

If you don’t owe money to this taxpayer, please call us at the telephone number at the top of this form. Instead of calling us you may complete the back of Part 3, attach it as a cover to the rest of this form, and return all parts to IRS in the enclosed envelope.

If you [b]do owe money to this taxpayer[/B], please see the back of this page for instructions on how to act on this notice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The levy does not require the employer to turn over wages and salary that have been earned but not paid as well as wages and salary earned in the future. It only requires that the levy on salary or wages payable to or received shall be continous from the date such levy is first made until such levy is released under Section 6343, but it doesn't mention WHO OR WHOM a continuous levy applies to.

[ooak]

I truly appreciate all the input given here. I have done extensive research myself and understand all the posts given so far. It boils down to whether there is sufficient case law to show the employer as to why he should not follow the demands of the notice from the IRS; or case law that would show the employer his liability to the employee as a result of following the demands of the notice.

As for educating a big corporate lawyer on these issues and getting any satisfaction... let me tell you that for the last two days my wife has been trying to just find out where in the corporation the letter came from. The envelope was sent from an office in the corporation in Arizona. The actual notice was sent to the corporate headquarters in Texas. The letter was unsigned but gave a toll free phone number. She called the toll free phone number. It turns out the the department she was to contact with any questions is a corporate call center in Jamaica. She has been unable, so far, to contact the individual (minimum salary call center employee) regarding the letter/notice.

It is my feeling that in the mean time, this has been past to some data entry employee (somewhere on earth) to initiate the automated payroll system to start the garnishment of her pay.

So my wife has already started making contacts to find another job should she be unable to stop this where she currently works. She is not an adversarial person and I have been unable to convince her to go straight to the top. She says she doesn't want to "burn any bridges" at this point in time or jeopardize future business contacts.

She looks to me to fix it... and I tell her it's time she strap on the gloves and get into the ring, because I cannot fix it for her... I can only be in her corner.

Thanks again to all for the input. If something good comes from this in the future, I will update you all.

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

The ONLY place Levy on Salary and Wages is mentioned is paragraph (e) on the back of the Notice of Levy:

(e) Continuing Levy on Salary and Wages – The effect of a levy on salary or wages payable to or received by a taxpayer shall be continous from the date such levy is first made until such levy is released under Section 6343. (on who?)


How can there be a continuing levy on salary and wages when there is no authority to levy the salary and wages of any taxpayer? They omit paragraph (a) where it states that levy may be made upon [ONCE] on the accrued salary and wages of any officer, employer or elected official of the United States. (Emphasis added)

The IRC does not authorize a levy on a taxpayer.

Here is what it says on the front of the NOL:


THIS ISN’T A BILL FOR TAXES YOU OWE. THIS IS A NOTICE OF LEVY TO COLLECT MONEY OWED BY THE TAXPAYER NAMED ABOVE.

The Internal Revenue Code provides that there is a lien for the amount shown above. Although we have given the notice and demand required by the Code, the amount owed hasn’t been paid. This levy requires you to turn over to us: (1) this taxpayer’s wages and salary that have been earned but not paid, as well as wages and salary earned in the future until this levy is released, and (2) this taxpayer’s other income that you have now or for which you are obligated.


We levy this money to the extent it isn’t exempt, as shown in the instructions. Don’t offset money this person owes you without contacting us at the telephone number shown above for instructions.

If you don’t owe money to this taxpayer, please call us at the telephone number at the top of this form. Instead of calling us you may complete the back of Part 3, attach it as a cover to the rest of this form, and return all parts to IRS in the enclosed envelope.

If you [b]do owe money to this taxpayer[/B], please see the back of this page for instructions on how to act on this notice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The levy does not require the employer to turn over wages and salary that have been earned but not paid as well as wages and salary earned in the future. It only requires that the levy on salary or wages payable to or received shall be continous from the date such levy is first made until such levy is released under Section 6343, but it doesn't mention WHO OR WHOM a continuous levy applies to.

You see this is the problem with this and the Nazis idea of gain from labor. There is no gain in labor. To have a profit or return you must have an calculable investment, in other words if I invest 100.00 and realize a return of 125.00 I profit 25.00 or 25% (125.00-100.00 =25.00/100.00 = 25%). Labor on the other hand has no value to place on the investment side of the equation. What value can you put on something that is free? The return is infinite, incalculable (25.00 per hr. - 0 = 25.00/0 = ?????????????); there is no profit or GAIN. But this will not stop the war mongers of international corporatocracy