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.
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.
Well, at this point, and more like since Obama first stole the presidency, we have been falling further and further away from having a Govt at Federation Level that obeys the Law....
So yeah, I've watched the entire ""Sovereign Citizen"" thing happen, and also on the other side of that coin, I've seen a few people who have Corrected their Legal Status, and no longer have to deal with the BS from the Federation, but as Article 4 Section 2 State Citizens, they do still have to keep from accidentally killing people, and such things....
There are lots of people who think they know, and then there's people who actually Do Know, and I know people on both sides.....
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?
I’m getting the impression that your methods still requires you to sign a confession every year, thought not one that they would like. Is my presumption correct?
I was looking towards a path that doesn’t require me to deal with them at all (except maybe this final year). Just write a notice of “termination of authority to withhold”, have my w2 corrected (or at least try) and then not even file despite “possibly” getting a huge refund from withholding.
I may spend the time learning their codes, just for the sake of understanding, but I certainly wouldn’t use it as a defense. Going after the man acting as an agent seems, I don’t want to say easier but it will cause less headache in the long run as opposed to navigating within their legal society.
Yes, but at this point I don’t really care about previous withheld money. I just want to stop all withholding moving forward.
Good to know
Boxes 1,3,5 and 7.
She’s should be 0, I think? Don’t really know how it should be filed. Still researching.
Have to read through their pamphlet to answer that one.
Wages/income? I’m guessing here.
It’s not always necessary. I can get out of it the same way 147k+ does, for the same reasons, despite not making 147k+. Maybe I overthink It, but I think that’s what you were hinting at.
You meant, made Not more than that in 8 years <--- That resembles me.