Are you engaged in a trade or business?
If so, do you KNOW what the legal definition of a "trade or business" is in the law?
You can find it in the tax code at 26 USC 7701(a)(26):
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
There is NO OTHER definition of this term anywhere in the tax code.
FYI.
Look at my other comments here. The Fed is horrendous and destructive, but it's a different allied scheme to the IRS. The IRS is in the process of mob shakeup collections by making everybody want to pay up rather than seek lower liability. The Fed is in the process of constant devaluation (melting) of the funny money already in the pocket ("ice-cream money"). Two different attacks on middle-class wealth. Obviously gold cannot be increased without expense of commensurate labor, but fiat can, so gold is money and fiat is "bad money driving out good".
But those who say gold vs. FRNs is the "excuse" for the taxes are mistaken. In this country where we are all sovereigns we cannot be taxed except by our consent. The IRS has worked very hard to hide the actual path by which we consent to the tax by our action and inaction. The use of FRNs is not that path; they would still tax you if you worked for gold from a modern-traditional employer who followed ADP rules. Essential: find the nexus. Thus see my other comments on this page.
So WHY are the country's citizens Consenting??- I have asked that since 1973
Thank you so much for asking. They've forgotten they are sovereigns because an evil, tireless knot of destroyers has persuaded them with Fabian persistence to forget their rights and powers and to yield lifeblood to leeches instead. Everyone volunteers because they've seen everyone else volunteer and because there is a strong force coloring all alternatives to volunteering with the greatest deprecation. You know how strong peer pressure is.
If you ever need help voicing your refusal to consent to any mismanagement by your federal "government", the servant of your servants, please ask publicly or privately.
was = Why do people Consent to tax-tyranny?
The strong Force, I was told, is >LIFE-imprisonment<. Do they get-away with that?
RE any fed-Mismanagement = will do as you Suggest. Thanks.
The answer is somewhat technical, but that's what you get in a thread like this, so please ask any questions needed. Life imprisonment is something we sovereigns have determined too important for any one of us to decide alone, so we have justly delegated that power to elected (elect) representatives who appoint judges. But the government has no power to threaten prosecution in matters our representatives have not decided prosecutable.
Thus other legally compliant alternatives to the traditional meaning of voluntary compliance do exist. The traditional (deceptive) meaning is "pay what we ask". The true legally compliant meaning is "pay what you owe". To discern the difference is to be able to distinguish when an ask is beyond the government's authority.
Natural inertia tempts a government to enlarge its claims and requests beyond its commission into whatever its masters, the sovereigns, permit it to get away with. Further, the government is not alone but must depend on a network of business interests that also prefer a scheme of effective bondage to the actual nation of sovereigns we created and maintain.
When a government is run by moral people who have the power to pass their morality onto the next generation, all is well; but sooner or later the forces of evil seek, and find, ways to corrupt that government from its intent. The Lord says this corruption will not exceed what we can bear, will not be permitted to go so far as to prevent us from earning our daily bread, and will be surely judged when its iniquity is full. So he oversees all governments that backslide, allowing their errors for his teaching and loving purposes while protecting his own who call on him, and making up for anything lost by anyone who calls on his name.
That means they only get away with what we let them. As a sovereign, I deign not to fight every battle I might, but to trust that I and my Lord and my fellow sovereigns are each taking up our part. In this post I know I have the power to communicate truths unfiltered to a few people, and so I am victor. Before I came to Scored I fought in other ways. But when I first realized the immense scope of this and related problems and I asked the Lord, he told me plainly: it's his job to fix it, not mine, and he's doing it just fine on his own time. And ever since, I've trusted that. So for those around me I do not let lies persist or empty threats prevail; but for the public at large I am not given a special commission to devote dedicated resources to the problem of people who know the IRS is misleading them but don't know how to proceed. I got a commission to come here 2 years ago and was permitted to speak to this topic ad hoc among many others, and my focus may change in future, but right now that's how I fight.
Very few get life imprisonment for tax crimes, because the threat is much more effective than the execution. Those true scoundrels who have broken the law and who happen to have been caught by the IRS are paraded around as evidence that the IRS's judgments are always valid. Intermixed with them is the occasional "law-abiding" citizen who objects to the traditional compliance method but seeks to break no law, and these are paraded just as if they are mob bosses or traffickers for daring to suggest that one who collects money might have a conflict of interest in determining how much to collect. The particulars of any case can be discussed by us sovereigns to determine if the IRS followed or broke the law in its prosecution, rather than accepted wholeheartedly as one-sidedly stated.
But pragmatists like Thoreau can remind us Christians something we ought to have found in the Bible: the man or woman who trusts what is Right will never fear being jailed or even executed for what they have not done. Like our founders, we appeal to the supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. Thus the empty threat has no power over the sovereign. That leads to each one self-educating about the nature of the law and its execution and deciding what to do about it for oneself. And such sovereigns end up banding together to build strength. And by natural law, after enough of this, nobody gets away with deception anymore.
I've read what you're saying, but the fact still stands that We rat ourselves out every April 15th, and that is where they got us....
And you're right, the FRNs are not the Path, but the Excuse for the path, the path itself begins with Contracts, everything in America happens on Contractual Agreement, without it, nothing happens....
Every Tax, no matter what it is, Income Tax, Social Security Tax, Road Tax, Land Tax, Sales Tax, Luxury Tax, etc., are all based upon some Contract, whether we can see that Contract or not....
It may be a t the bottom of a pile of books, and that might make one think it is hidden, it isn't, very little is actually hidden, and Contracts between Govt Entities and the public are never hidden, they might be forgotten, but not hidden.....
If you don't want to pay the Taxes, that's fine, but it's on You to learn what specific Contracts You have with the State and Federal Governments, and then You have to Break those Contracts....
I'll go so far as to point out that they are Adhesion Contracts, and cannot be nor have they ever been negotiable nor negotiated....
Almost, but the almost is part of the trick. Many Americans are "falsely ratting" themselves by signing prepared confessions that they don't understand, haven't researched, and still trust. Standard Soviet tactic. It's not ratting per se when you confess falsely and in ignorance. The paperwork is complex in order to hide the part of it where you're making the key false statement(s).
The contract-law research prepares one to understand the law but is not the legal nexus itself. They can't get you with a contract you have no legal notice of, but they can get you through the ordinary promulgated law if you don't read and understand the law for yourself, because you delegated them to write the law by electing a representative (or by failing to when notified). But if your methodology is to "learn" and "break" adhesion contracts, that terminology won't help you in the end because it's not enough as such.
By the same token it shouldn't be a matter of "not wanting to pay the taxes". Income taxes in the nature of excise always mean you have a choice between not engaging the taxable activity, and engaging the activity prepared to pay the tax. For many, it's easier to claim they engaged taxable activity when they didn't, just to keep the protection racket on someone else's neck instead.
If you testify truly every April 15, you have done right, though the "service" may then try to make life harder and get you to retract your testimony if they don't like it. They have no interest in telling you when you've gotten it right, so they prosecute lots of people who get it wrong too. But all you can do is to speak truly to all men and that includes tax authorities; when they come back at you, you continue to testify truly. True testimony requires consistent understanding of the law.
Now I can only say so much here, but obviously the taxable activity is "income generation". This is why I ask you whether anyone is testifying to the IRS under penalties of perjury that money paid to you was a category of income as opposed to nonincome. If someone testified that, even if mistaken, that is the more serious "false ratting" because it comes from another rather than yourself, and can also be used to gaslight yourself into thinking the testimony must be right. (If it were wrong then all kinds of things would be wrong and that wouldn't make sense for nobody to have successfully stood up against, would it?) Well, each sovereign must determine the truth by personal search.
With Solzhenitsyn's captors, "one word of truth" dispels a multitude of lies, but with the IRS you might need to tell them the truth a few times, which is why you must learn it on your own until you have resolved concerns and contradictions. There is guidance available but I limit my own statements to the topics actually at hand. Thinking about the questions I asked, along with the question of what would legally be sufficient to rebut a jurat document written by your workplace, will make progress for you.
So, just claim it's all ""REPARATIONS FOR LABOR DONE""....
Got it....
Nope nope! There are literally a Dozen schemes out there that don't work and that the IRS is fine with people touting because they can legally slap them down. Claiming reparations is big because it resonates with several races. It won't do a thing except delay and worsen the inevitable. When people follow the law instead, the IRS can only either ignore them, harass them, or make fun of a caricature of what they're doing and hope we don't notice the bait-and-switch.
If we assume (1) You don't want to pay income tax (hinted above) and (2) You want to obey the law if possible (broad axiom), there is a conclusion (3) You don't want to have taxable income. That leads us to ask how. Now since the Supremes tell us income tax is in the nature of an excise (it couldn't be a direct tax because it would expire in 2 years), by definition it is evitable (avoidable), so your conclusion is entirely possible. We can also add the proposition (4) You want to exert your common-law and Constitutional right to exchange labor for money (broad axiom). That would lead to the further conclusion (5) You want your earnings not to be taxable income. That leads us to ask whether that's "really possible." Well, if it weren't, then the whole country would be deprived of its fundamental right to labor, and we'd have a case that somebody rich should be able to identify; but, since that hasn't happened, maybe the actual state of affairs is that it is possible and nobody wants to talk about how. Even I want to be cagey about it.
(I should also mention peaceful civil disobedience, very important moral question but one which doesn't affect this decision. Not ignoring it but its bearing is tangential.)
If you said "my earnings are not income because they are reparations", the problem is that you have no legal justification, only a rarefied theory based on the common law of reparations. In America that law is subsumed into class action and you'd need a lawyer to prove reparations and get a verdict before you could claim it; so it doesn't work to claim it to the IRS preemptively. Sorry. It's important to beat down mistakes like this so they don't impugn the honesty of the searcher; and it's important that we don't make it into an argument because we need as much unity as we can. (So if it were to become an argument I'd appeal to the plain words of the law and code and if we agreed to that we'd find a much more direct route there than reparations I think.)
So in my other comments in this thread there are hints as to when earnings are not taxable income. For instance, everyone agrees, standard regulation, that if you earn more than $147,000 this year your extra earnings are not taxable income for some tax purposes. However, I haven't said why this is or for what purposes this applies, because I want people to share in the research. But the fact that everyone knows that earnings are not automatically taxable income for all purposes means that we have the right to question whether earnings are taxable income for our purposes. And that question is answered by law and code.
You wouldn’t happen to be referring to a form 4852 are you? This was one of the first things I came across on my journey. In the event that my job still submitted an incorrect w2, I was considering using one to get my monies back.
That's the form designed to be used for that purpose, isn't it?
If the error is not noticed on the immediate year's filings, of course there's a different form, the 1040X.
What might be incorrect about the W-2 as filed by the workplace?
What would be the correct statement of the case?
What do the W-2 instructions specify about how to define words used when filling it out?
What word used in the W-2 has multiple definitions in the tax code requiring it to be used multiple times in case the meaning should change from one definition to another?
For instance, people who make more than $147,000 in income this year are treated differently than people who don't.
What is the actual applicability of the key word to you?
Why?