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.
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.....
I Know.
This is good data, of course on this thread I'm only speaking of the corrections necessary for tax purposes.
Beyond federation level we go to ultimate kingdom level. In 2008 Satan claimed de jure control over our government, long time coming. Removing him de jure from that is not easy. However, we Jesus people are each sovereigns, co-regents of the kingdom, so we already also retain greater rights to control the same government of the America de jure constituted in the year of our Lord 1787. That means we no longer fight him as an outsider but as an infiltrator, much harder because of collateral risk.
De facto control has been around a lot longer and is a matter of street-by-street warfare. It's not necessary for us to control everything de facto in order to complete our objectives but we have always taken strategic wins.
So "having the government obey the law" is always a demonstration event, and the general approach of appealing all the way to and past the Supremes is still correct. No appeal route is ever shut out because God's on top. If you can't afford a lawyer, study enough to write your own cert requests; if you feel totally shut out, you appeal to general conscience and peaceful civil disobedience. It's not our job to make our servant government obey, it's our job to demonstrate their disobedience sufficient for later discipline and correction.
The other several tracks of acting on sovereignty are important and TBF I'm less expert in them. Many status corrections are very helpful; becoming Amish has never been so appealing. The overarching key is that every awakened sovereign must take whatever steps are most fitting for the local situation, must deign to accept certain drawbacks because of noblesse oblige, the impropriety of calling out one's fellow sovereigns too early for allowing bad laws. This is why St. Paul says very encouragingly about all such situations, If you are able also to become free, rather do that (1 Cor. 7:21 NASB95).
So each sovereign gets the bracing daily challenge of responsibility for life and the realm, and that includes occasional management of the servant governments, or else blithe ignorance of their recent shenanigans because one has structured one's life such that their failures don't hurt one or one's realm. A few periods of intense management can do wonders for indefinite protection from certain failures. For many years I've concluded "what happens in that city doesn't affect me". When RB Cheney first announced that he had invoked Continuity of Government, I knew that part of that meant that nothing ever after could be trusted. (At c/Christianity we are accumulating people who had gotten advanced supernatural warning that something like that would happen at exactly that time.) Each person has the God-given responsibility to labor such that errors of government will never hurt them, and that labor will be rewarded and unexpected divine gifts also given (hint: Jesus is the answer).
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.
There's no method, there's just the law. You're not required to sign anything you don't want. But if someone testifies falsely against you under penalty of perjury, it's appropriate to testify truly under penalty of perjury. Since the scheme convinces many bosses to testify under penalty about hundreds of millions of people, each of those people has the responsibility to check and correct their boss's testimony because it's an evidentiary nexus.
That leads to the choice to testify (risky) or not to testify (differently risky). The law provides that if you don't testify and the IRS accumulates evidence against you, it can proceed to enforce after it checks off its procedural boxes, which typically takes 4-6 years leading people to believe not testifying is just fine. The law provides that if you do testify accurately, the IRS is required to accept your testimony, which sometimes it has accepted (with many examples available) but sometimes it tries to talk you out of, by various tricks.
There have been different periods where I haven't testified annually for different reasons, some mistaken, some informed. One of my reasons was that I was (as you hint) fearful of making a confession to something tricksy or nefarious. Now I firmly recommend testifying truly according to your knowledge of the law as always the best approach. Any mistake you make can be corrected procedurally if your views grow later. Simply review every fact you're asked to testify to against the code definitions and determine the correct answers. You are free to retain scruples, as I did, but once you learn the law you'll have no fear of being trapped into a negative confession. (Not only that, but having learned the law I can read the cases of people who have been trapped into confessions they didn't intend, and tell you what mistakes they made.)
"Simple." Structure your affairs so that nobody ever sends the IRS a mistaken information return under penalties of perjury that states that you had taxable income. This is not easy for slaves but there are several bracing paths available for sovereigns.
The government's "agent" doesn't realize what an agential service he's doing, he thinks he's burdened by the law just like you are. He is fearful of going outside ADP's lines. The most fruitful conversation with an HR professional I had on this subject ended suddenly when the person retired with no prior announcement. I don't know whether it was "family reasons" or whether I had actually convinced him his job was largely a lie. So unless your boss is so based as to want to know the whole truth and consider broad changes, I don't see it useful to "go after" them. You (1) convert your job to contract, which some positions are able to do; (2) quit and change up; or (3) settle for something that might work as a minimal loss option, namely file W-4 exempt, accept the 7.65% hit from all paychecks, and never try to collect that back. If this last is an acceptable loss, you don't need to correct the record in the short term, but again by not filing you're on the long track of needing to correct the record someday as you continue to work under that assumption.
But if you tell your boss you terminate his authority to withhold, he (who hates legalese worse than you) laughs, asks payroll, hears that they can mark you as exempt and will only withhold 7.65%, and settles for that. In other words, it has no effect because it is a request with no power to overcome his perceived legal duties. For him to understand his legal duties correctly requires patient education rather than legal notices, and his willingness to find a path that doesn't risk the place of his business as a going concern in the world.
We'd all love that, and that requires finding a workplace and a job where the ADP is permitting that withholding is not necessary. That usually comes to the three options above, or other ones that a creative sovereign might work out with fellow based citizens. If you've gotten into a "slave job" ("employee" means "slave" in French), you go to that passage in Paul about getting free if you can, but not sweating it if you can't.
Good, so let's see, as it's much easier to look these things up than previously and it's part of the hours of tax prep every American is projected to do annually anyway (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw2w3.pdf).
Box 1—Wages, tips, other compensation. Show the total taxable wages ....
Box 3—Social security wages. Show the total wages paid ... subject to employee social security tax ....
Box 5—Medicare wages and tips. The wages and tips subject to Medicare tax are the same as those subject to social security tax (boxes 3 and 7) except that there is no wage base limit for Medicare tax.
Box 7—Social security tips. Show the tips that the employee reported to you even if you did not have enough employee funds to collect the social security tax for the tips.
Yes, "wages" is the key word, because as you see it has to be reported 3 times because each amount might be theoretically different. And therefore there are basically 3 definitions of "wages" in the tax code, one for each box. (New to me is how tips are handled, but I'll note that here for my own memory's sake: 26 USC 6530 says, "Every employee who, in the course of his employment by an employer, receives in any calendar month tips which are wages (as defined in section 3121(a) or section 3401(a)) or which are compensation (as defined in section 3231(e)) shall report all such tips." Why would you only report "tips which are wages ... or which are compensation" and not any other tips? Do tips exist which are neither? But the definition of "compensation" comes up separately and is less important.)
Correct, it's not always necessary for "wages" to apply to you, because "wages" are taxable income in the nature of excise, which makes them evitable without infringement of common-law right to labor for money.
Close enough. The reason that excess earnings over $147K are not taxed for SS purposes (box 3) is that SS law thinks that you shouldn't earn any additional benefits just because you're at a top-tier income. So in that sense only, the excess is tax-free for SS purposes. Well, the same broad reason is that any other money made in America that is not taxable income is also tax-free for SS purposes. If you pay your babysitter $100 in the course of a year and are the only one to pay, every accountant knows that is not taxable income because it's below the threshold (if I am wording this point accurately). So the question is whether an ordinary laborer's regular earnings are not taxable income. But the W-2 is evidence that they are. But if the W-2 is mistaken and they're not taxable and further evidence corrects the record, the IRS has a duty to refund any mistaken withholding, including SS/Medicare.
So now we can look at leisurely pace at the law (I do this all the time, especially for traffic law).
Per 26 USC 3402(a), box 1 is about 3401(a) "wages" defined in terms of 3401(c) "employees".
Per 26 USC 3101(a)-(b), boxes 3 and 5 are about 3121(a) "wages" defined in terms of 3121(b) "employment" defined in terms of 7701(a)(9) "United States" defined in terms of the 7701(a)(10) "State". (The distinction between boxes 3 and 5 is made in 3121(a)(1).)
(The ordinary reader who wants to drill down can find these provisions in reasonable time and follow through to find the definitions and the general definitions section. It's possible one might risk making a scoping error, but scope too can be validated by further study.)
I belabor these two because they are both for the sake of understanding and a valid defense through knowledge of the law. If you are happy with the 7.65% hit every year, some people compromise at that and call it an acceptable bribe to pay for relative quiet. But if you want to know your actual liability and how to defend against allegations of different liability, which are an eventual risk with any traditional job, it'll be important to track why those definitions above are important.
(Hint: One of them was written in 1864 for Lincoln's income tax and its core has never changed since. Most people don't know Lincoln started an income tax in 1862, but the basic scheme goes back that far!)
So I would ask you, if you want to keep diving: Why, Mr. Crotch, do you believe boxes 1, 3, 5, 7 of the W-2 should be corrected to zero?
You meant, made Not more than that in 8 years <--- That resembles me.
Maybe but that's not what I'm talking about here. When we learn what the code says about rich people it has consequences for "poor" people.
Because we must be careful what we say about this online, what I said was a form of puzzle to tax researchers, which is not hard to solve online. The question is what is $147,000 a cutoff for in this year's law. When they discover that, they can join it with the answers to the other questions to learn how to classify their own earnings. If you want more explanation I can provide it.