Thoughts for u/MAG768720 mostly all in one place. First point, since I represent the Swamp Rangers at large I'm cautious about saying too much or speaking too directly to this issue, but because you've got the fundamentals I can go into more specifics. Specifically, I encourage everyone to stick to the main issue (income) because it's the side issues that have gotten so many into trouble. When the main issue is seen clearly the pitfalls of the side issues can be avoided.
Income: Yes, the tax is on "taxable income", which is a subset of "gross income", but then you stopped short of quoting 26 USC 61, and that's the statute not the regulation: "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: Compensation ...." So gross income is defined as "income", which is itself never defined. Compensation and thus "wages" are categories of income. Because of the Constitution and the Supremes' constant insistence that labor for pay is a 14th-amendment property right (cf. Declaration), we realize that "income" and "wages" must only mean some evitable earning category, i.e. some transfer of money with federal (not state) nexus. If money changes hands in China without any US federal nexus, obviously it's not "income" or "wages" under US law, even though it may be by the dictionary definition. The law only applies to its jurisdiction. The reason for not defining "income" is that it would explicitly explain the federal nexus and make it much easier for the tax to be avoided by the masses via the structuring of affairs that you advocate. (It's also appropriate to use the former regulatory language, which you quote as "unless excluded by fundamental law, or otherwise not taxed under the Constitution", as indicating that we must apply the Constitution's protections and statements of jurisdiction to determine whether something is income.)
Wages: Now you correctly named the categories on the W-2 that might be considered income, but I'm focusing on "wages" because it's mentioned three times (1, 3, 5); and for many people that might seem redundant especially if all three boxes are identical totals. (The operation on other categories than "wages" can be handled separately.) Note that each classification of "wages" has a different withholding amount (2, 4, 6) due to a different tax. The same transaction is being taxed by three different forms of income taxes. In some cases, the amount of "wages" differ from box to box (for instance, if you are earning seven figures, your "Social Security wages" are not that whole number but a smaller maximum as a subset of all your earnings). So it's essential to understand all three taxes: you're taxed on (federal) "wages", "SS wages", and "Medicare wages", each defined differently. It's not redundant, and this is where you make a statement that plays into the hands of the misdirectors, because calling it Social Security or Medicare is not irrelevant at all.
Chapter 24: I like to point out there are actually four taxes of the same kind covered by Chapters 21-24 of Subtitle C: Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Medicare, and Federal Withholding. The first two were passed at the same time, but I don't think anyone's on Railroad Retirement anymore; so W-2 recipients see three. You refer to 3401(a), (c) (Chapter 24), which are definitions for Federal Withholding tax, particularly of "employee". Of course, remember that, in this definition, "includes" is construed according to 7701(c), so it does not necessarily include or exclude things not named; it must be determined what things are of the same category such that they are included along with the things named. So the nexus for box 1, withholding tax or FIT, is established due to the inclusion requirements of 3401(c); the other two nexuses are not.
22: For instruction, the definition of "employee" for Railroad Retirement is completely different and appears at 3231(b) (Chapter 22): it "means any individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation". Here the word is "means", not "includes", because the language is broad. However, "employer" is specifically defined for this chapter only in a very long text in 3231(a) that basically only means railroad employees, which obviously have the federal nexus. Nobody would deny that for RR purposes ordinary businesses are not "employers" but only railroad businesses. This is a clearcut example of how terms of art do not necessarily have the same definitions as the ordinary words they use; 3231(a) "employers" do not include all common-meaning employers. This indicates why we should be on our guard when determining the meaning of the terms of art that rely on inclusion to establish their nexuses. Another essential, when speaking of different taxes, words like "employer" and "employee" change meanings: you must know the scope of which tax you're talking about to know whether the payer is an "employer" or not, as most buyers of labor are not 3231(a) "employers" even though they call themselves employers.
21, 23: Since I've told you that Social Security and Medicare depend on Chapters 21 and 23, I'm sure you can take it under advisement that their taxes depend on different meanings of words like "employee" than the two I've explained. That's a big part of the confusion, because those who are aware of the various scopes can take advantage easily of those who are unaware of them. In particular, since "wages" has multiple meanings we can't just refer to one meaning as if it has universal scope; we must refer as the form does to (federal) wages, SS wages, and Medicare wages. That's why it's not just in DC and/or territories, and/or working for the government, and/or "working on the railroad" for a corporation; it's all cases of federal privilege or nexus that the government enumerates, or includes, anywhere in the law. To say less is to enter a minefield unprepared.
Side trail: The declaration under penalties of perjury (and the dilatory attempt by some to contrast "penalties" and "penalty") does not signify the nexus, it merely establishes that a return constitutes sworn evidence. For instance, the W-3 form is used by a payer to swear that the accompanying W-2's are submitted under penalties of perjury. If you do not submit a 1040 or similar sworn form, it's the payer's word against nobody else's. The 4852 does not have a declaration because it's designed to accompany the 1040 and be covered by the 1040's declaration; the 4868 doesn't have a declaration because it's a courtesy and no significant facts are being attested to. The purpose of the declaration is simply to make the submission actionable. If a person declares they owe the tax but doesn't pay it, that's actionable; if a person doesn't swear they owe the tax (e.g. unsigned 1040) then it's not actionable without some competent person making the assessment. (The IRS is empowered to be the competent person after a year or two; it's better to assess yourself than to let the IRS assess you by your inaction.) If someone says that signing is the activity that causes money to be income, rather than the nature of the money transaction itself, that person is distracting you. The signing of a W-3, a correct or an incorrect one, can't cause money to change its category either from what it was by the nature of its transaction. Those are just forms that report, on the reporter's limited knowledge, what the categories and amounts of the money are. Incorrect limited knowledge can be corrected later under applicable laws and regulations.
Conclusions: (1) If you believe it unnecessary to file anything when someone has filed an info return (W-2, 1099, etc.) stating that you earned income, we might argue that it's "unnecessary" meaning voluntary, but nonfiling abrogates your right to self-assessment, and the info return signed by another begins a clock that allows the IRS to assess you in lieu of your self-assessment, and that process is slow but not fun. (2) So I tell everyone, report on every transaction that others reported on your behalf, and pay all the taxes you owe; nonfiling may be conscientious disobedience but it exposes you more directly to the risks that most people are trying to avoid by adopting it. (3) The simplest case is accurate evaluation of the three categories of "wages" from the W-2, and you need to see the laws as to all three (Chapters 24, 21, and 23 in that order) before evaluating, as well as to understand that 7701(c) inclusion operates to add items similar to those enumerated. (4) I didn't spell out all the details in any of those three chapters because some work must be done by each student of truth; ultimately I can't decide for anyone but me the meaning of those chapters, as each person is responsible to be a sovereign citizen and determine the nature of the tax personally and assess accordingly. (5) In particular, that goes back to inspecting every info return you have received, knowing the definitions of the categories of income there described, and indicating, for your protection, your acceptance or correction of the amounts determined; no tax preparer would tell you any differently in the event that you sincerely contested the amount of "wages" received from a payer.
Thoughts for u/MAG768720 mostly all in one place. First point, since I represent the Swamp Rangers at large I'm cautious about saying too much or speaking too directly to this issue, but because you've got the fundamentals I can go into more specifics. Specifically, I encourage everyone to stick to the main issue (income) because it's the side issues that have gotten so many into trouble. When the main issue is seen clearly the pitfalls of the side issues can be avoided.
Income: Yes, the tax is on "taxable income", which is a subset of "gross income", but then you stopped short of quoting 26 USC 61, and that's the statute not the regulation: "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: Compensation ...." So gross income is defined as "income", which is itself never defined. Compensation and thus "wages" are categories of income. Because of the Constitution and the Supremes' constant insistence that labor for pay is a 14th-amendment property right (cf. Declaration), we realize that "income" and "wages" must only mean some evitable earning category, i.e. some transfer of money with federal (not state) nexus. If money changes hands in China without any US federal nexus, obviously it's not "income" or "wages" under US law, even though it may be by the dictionary definition. The law only applies to its jurisdiction. The reason for not defining "income" is that it would explicitly explain the federal nexus and make it much easier for the tax to be avoided by the masses via the structuring of affairs that you advocate. (It's also appropriate to use the former regulatory language, which you quote as "unless excluded by fundamental law, or otherwise not taxed under the Constitution", as indicating that we must apply the Constitution's protections and statements of jurisdiction to determine whether something is income.)
Wages: Now you correctly named the categories on the W-2 that might be considered income, but I'm focusing on "wages" because it's mentioned three times (1, 3, 5); and for many people that might seem redundant especially if all three boxes are identical totals. (The operation on other categories than "wages" can be handled separately.) Note that each classification of "wages" has a different withholding amount (2, 4, 6) due to a different tax. The same transaction is being taxed by three different forms of income taxes. In some cases, the amount of "wages" differ from box to box (for instance, if you are earning seven figures, your "Social Security wages" are not that whole number but a smaller maximum as a subset of all your earnings). So it's essential to understand all three taxes: you're taxed on (federal) "wages", "SS wages", and "Medicare wages", each defined differently. It's not redundant, and this is where you make a statement that plays into the hands of the misdirectors, because calling it Social Security or Medicare is not irrelevant at all.
Chapter 24: I like to point out there are actually four taxes of the same kind covered by Chapters 21-24 of Subtitle C: Social Security, Railroad Retirement, Medicare, and Federal Withholding. The first two were passed at the same time, but I don't think anyone's on Railroad Retirement anymore; so W-2 recipients see three. You refer to 3401(a), (c) (Chapter 24), which are definitions for Federal Withholding tax, particularly of "employee". Of course, remember that, in this definition, "includes" is construed according to 7701(c), so it does not necessarily include or exclude things not named; it must be determined what things are of the same category such that they are included along with the things named. So the nexus for box 1, withholding tax or FIT, is established due to the inclusion requirements of 3401(c); the other two nexuses are not.
22: For instruction, the definition of "employee" for Railroad Retirement is completely different and appears at 3231(b) (Chapter 22): it "means any individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation". Here the word is "means", not "includes", because the language is broad. However, "employer" is specifically defined for this chapter only in a very long text in 3231(a) that basically only means railroad employees, which obviously have the federal nexus. Nobody would deny that for RR purposes ordinary businesses are not "employers" but only railroad businesses. This is a clearcut example of how terms of art do not necessarily have the same definitions as the ordinary words they use; 3231(a) "employers" do not include all common-meaning employers. This indicates why we should be on our guard when determining the meaning of the terms of art that rely on inclusion to establish their nexuses. Another essential, when speaking of different taxes, words like "employer" and "employee" change meanings: you must know the scope of which tax you're talking about to know whether the payer is an "employer" or not, as most buyers of labor are not 3231(a) "employers" even though they call themselves employers.
21, 23: Since I've told you that Social Security and Medicare depend on Chapters 21 and 23, I'm sure you can take it under advisement that their taxes depend on different meanings of words like "employee" than the two I've explained. That's a big part of the confusion, because those who are aware of the various scopes can take advantage easily of those who are unaware of them. In particular, since "wages" has multiple meanings we can't just refer to one meaning as if it has universal scope; we must refer as the form does to (federal) wages, SS wages, and Medicare wages. That's why it's not just in DC and/or territories, and/or working for the government, and/or "working on the railroad" for a corporation; it's all cases of federal privilege or nexus that the government enumerates, or includes, anywhere in the law. To say less is to enter a minefield unprepared.
Side trail: The declaration under penalties of perjury (and the dilatory attempt by some to contrast "penalties" and "penalty") does not signify the nexus, it merely establishes that a return constitutes sworn evidence. For instance, the W-3 form is used by a payer to swear that the accompanying W-2's are submitted under penalties of perjury. If you do not submit a 1040 or similar sworn form, it's the payer's word against nobody else's. The 4852 does not have a declaration because it's designed to accompany the 1040 and be covered by the 1040's declaration; the 4868 doesn't have a declaration because it's a courtesy and no significant facts are being attested to. The purpose of the declaration is simply to make the submission actionable. If a person declares they owe the tax but doesn't pay it, that's actionable; if a person doesn't swear they owe the tax (e.g. unsigned 1040) then it's not actionable without some competent person making the assessment. (The IRS is empowered to be the competent person after a year or two; it's better to assess yourself than to let the IRS assess you by your inaction.) If someone says that signing is the activity that causes money to be income, rather than the nature of the money transaction itself, that person is distracting you. The signing of a W-3, a correct or an incorrect one, can't cause money to change its category either from what it was by the nature of its transaction. Those are just forms that report, on the reporter's limited knowledge, what the categories and amounts of the money are. Incorrect limited knowledge can be corrected later under applicable laws and regulations.
Conclusions: (1) If you believe it unnecessary to file anything when someone has filed an info return (W-2, 1099, etc.) stating that you earned income, we might argue that it's "unnecessary" meaning voluntary, but nonfiling abrogates your right to self-assessment, and the info return signed by another begins a clock that allows the IRS to assess you in lieu of your self-assessment, and that process is slow but not fun. (2) So I tell everyone, report on every transaction that others reported on your behalf, and pay all the taxes you owe; nonfiling may be conscientious disobedience but it exposes you more directly to the risks that most people are trying to avoid by adopting it. (3) The simplest case is accurate evaluation of the three categories of "wages" from the W-2, and you need to see the laws as to all three (Chapters 24, 21, and 23 in that order) before evaluating, as well as to understand that 7701(c) inclusion operates to add items similar to those enumerated. (4) I didn't spell out all the details in any of those three chapters because some work must be done by each student of truth; ultimately I can't decide for anyone but me the meaning of those chapters, as each person is responsible to be a sovereign citizen and determine the nature of the tax personally and assess accordingly. (5) In particular, that goes back to inspecting every info return you have received, knowing the definitions of the categories of income there described, and indicating, for your protection, your acceptance or correction of the amounts determined; no tax preparer would tell you any differently in the event that you sincerely contested the amount of "wages" received from a payer.
You are so knowledgeable.
I regularly larp as knowledgeable!
You are. Bless you.