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.
What I meant was that what you’re describing is more in line with Peter Hendrickson or Brian Swanson who stays within the legal framework as opposed to Karl Lentz or Bill Turner who operates under common law. I don’t mind learning both approaches.
When I mention going after the man, I meant the irs, not my hr manager. So in this scenario, 4-6 years later when the irs comes knocking on my door, couldn’t I just hold the agent liable. (Employer might be liable for a false w-2, but if I have a copy of the email I sent informing them that my earnings is not subject to income taxes then that’s on them)
While true (as a government employee, he is) if they said I owe $xxxxx in taxes, I simply ask for a bill of particulars, or to have them sign their claim that I owe $xxxxx. Without a signature it boils down to fraud. Who would I hold liable if $xxxxx was off by 1 penny.
They’re not and I agree with it being useless to go after my employer. But I can claim it, it’s just why would I want to unless I’m burning bridges. That’s my plan z, if I end up losing my job over this, I can claim every $ withheld in the last x years. Hopefully it doesn’t get to that.
You didn’t mention it but it was in the book:
I’m fine with option 3, however I believe I can possibly get out of the 7.65% hit through the use of termination of authority to withhold Because an agreement between a non-"employee" and a non-"employer" regarding withholding is neither regulated nor required, one can end it at any time by simply withdrawing any implied or explicit permission. as you say, they may just laugh but at least I tried.
I don’t think one should be filed at all but because I had previous withholding, it would be necessary.
A w-2 is used to confess “income” to an “employee”. I can’t be an “employee” because my company is not “engaged in the performance of the functions of a public office”. That makes my earnings “non taxable income”.
3401 failed to define me as an “employee” so none of their definitions of “wages” apply to me.
For 3121, (d)(2) is a bit confusing. What does that even mean? Can I determine whether there is a employer-employee relationship? Can my employer?
I’ve skimmed through 6051, 3401 and 3121, but I’m going to need a lot more time to fully process and understand it. Most don’t apply but some seems like they do (for example 3401 (a)(4), everything is outside of business or trade, so it’s a bit confusing. I would think it doesn’t apply at all since my employer is not a trade or business, but what if they claim to be?)
Also, it sounds like compensation revolves solely around being harmed or in a position to potentially be harmed. Was that why you said it’s less important?
Yes, this thread is about the code rather than the common law, so that's what I'm focusing on. If there were a simple repeatable common-law remedy for the "wage slave" as opposed to the sovereign who can easily withdraw, given the problems they face, I'd focus on that too.
They deflect everything you give their agents as personal attachments. If you are willing to email your workplace, you should be willing to testify to the IRS to the facts you know before it goes a lot farther.
Good, but what happens when the IRS contacts your workplace or bank with a lien or levy? Suddenly you're older Joe Lewis with tons of power but no liquidity. He wasn't the only one to wake up with his cash zeroed like a terrorist, and my allusion is hiding a whole world of destruction of lives. The purpose of early testimony is that it protects you before it goes that far.
Your workplace knows nothing about how much you claim out of your withholding after they've completed their middleman work in January each year. There are no bridges burned with the workplace by making a proper claim with the IRS.
Good, and now we're coming to the meat. Remember that "wages" are different for the two purposes, Fed WH and SS/Med. Nature of "employee" is also different for the two.
That would only work if you were being asked about the definition you quote, "trade or business", which only comes up for the self-employed. You could still be an "employee" under either or both of the two other definitions. We're constantly dealing with scoping, words that change meaning based on context, to an extreme degree.
There's your first hump. None of the chapter 24 definitions by this standard (we'll get to the chapter 21 definitions). For Fed WH purposes (box 1), you have legally determined that you are not a 3401(c) "employee". A person who has made that determination can truthfully testify on form 4852 attached to 1040 that they have made attempts to contact the workplace about the error (copying your letter), that the error remains uncorrected and should be corrected to the amount specified, and that they have determined themselves not to be a 3401(c) "employee". (By the 1940s, when withholding at the source was piggybacked onto Social Security to produce more taxpayers, the lawmakers realized that the ambiguity of the word "includes" was not being contested by anyone and they could set up "volunteers" in plain sight, especially with the war and Donald Duck and all. Earlier they had to be cagier.)
Indeed, because in the early 1930s only business owners were paying personal income tax, so when SS withholding was invented and sold as a savings plan rather than a tax it had to rely on the cagier definitional track. So let's assume for the moment that a 3121(d) "employee" (SS/Med) is not the same as a 3401(c) "employee" (Fed WH), and that a 3121(d) SS/Med employee is (and includes) just the ordinary meaning of the word, a common-law employee. Did SS law fail to create an excise nexus, thus running the risk of unconstitutionality due to impinging the constitutional right to exchange labor for money? No, we just look further for the nexus. I've discovered that there's always a nexus. Go back to 3121(a), which talks about the withholding to be paid:
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except ....
Nothing about an "employee" in that sentence! Just "employment". Employment is the nexus for SS/Med, but employee is the nexus for Fed WH. Now reread my earlier note about 3401 vs. 3121. (I may have mentioned 7701 too hastily as global definitions for the whole IRC, because there's a backup definition in 3121 also useful that doesn't conflict, and either route works.) Getting over the second and final hump won't take "a lot more time" with that much help, and I think you're willing to see it, and it covers 3, 5, 7 all together. And that is all the pieces you need even if my account should go silent.
("Compensation" has multiple meanings, and I thought there was a quick demonstrable route to show which one is intended for W-2 but I'm not finding that immediately. The reason it's less important is that it's generally a catchall term for things that are not cash-for-labor, such as investment benefits. Unless you have an adjustment to these boxes that causes their totals to differ from your final pay stub gross total before withholding, there's no compensation to worry about, just earnings.)
The money I make isn’t income, it’s capital. Since the exchange was of equal value, there is no gains or income.
True enough, and I believe it was the Slaughterhouse Cases and Opelika that established this right, but then you need to prove it by consistent testimony, which is why I wrote what I did.
Someone had to sign their name and I would hold them liable. Go to my local district court and notify them that there is a void judgement on my property and I require a hearing immediately. If my workplace garnishes my wages without a court order then I hold them liable. Again, burning bridges but it’s probably inevitable.
I missed that in your previous comment. So it’s not that I’m not an “employee”, it’s that my earnings did not come from any forms of “employment”.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment, I really appreciate it.