Bing
Forum Replies Created
It is most likely that the 23-C Assessment Certificate with your name on it, and signed by an IRS Assessment Officer, does not exist and that is why they sent you the RACS roll-up report. And this is especially true if you did NOT file an income tax return and self-assess yourself.
You should write back to them and request your 23-C Assessment.
Bing
aviatngal, I am not a lawyer and this reply post is not legal advice.
You need to impress upon your company that you expect them to abide by the law and all federal regulations. You have to identify who the key people are at your company and then set out to educate them as quickly as possible.
The answers that you seek are contained in the Internal Revenue Code and teh Federal regulations themselves.
I want to suggest that you read and study 26 USC 3402 (n).
Then go and read and study the federal regulations at 26 CFR 31.3402 (n). Also, read the surrounding sections.
If you do each of the above, it will become readily apparent to you that a W-4 withholding arrangement is a voluntary agreement that first must be completed by a worker and then submitted to and accepted by the firm you work for.
The key word here is that all such agreements are “VOLUNTARY.”
Neither the IRS nor your company is permitted as a matter of law, to revise or modify your W-4.
It is my opinion that you made a serious mistake by claiming 10 exemptions and then signing and submitting the W-4. By doing that you volunteered into the IRS' jurisdiction and may have perjured yourself.
I suggest to my nontaxpayer clients, for whom I have successfully stopped all income tax withholdings, that they should never, NEVER, EVER, use any IRS form. Why? Because IRS Forms are for taxpayers, not non-taxpayers.
Don't rely on IRS Forms to help you stop paying income taxes.
Hypothetically speaking, all you really need to do is copy and highlight certain sections of the IRC and the regs, and then attach everything to what is called a “Exemption Certificate in Lieu of a W-4”, and submit two signed originals to your company's payroll department.
I hope the above is helpful.
Bing
SEDM & Family Guardian Rule!!!!! 🙂
Bing
Sonik, you Da-Man!!
Thanks for posting the Kuglin trial transcript.
I just now downloaded it onto a diskette. 🙂
Thanks again.
Bing
Amen, Admin!!
Thank you.
Bing
Great reply, Author #2. Thanks.
Sunrise, it is too bad that you did not discover Ed Rivera's website before the corrupt IRS and corrupt DOJ convinced the Judge to shut it down, Ed had some insightful stuff on the IRS' and the US Government's limited jurisdiction inside the 50 states of the USA.
Bing
My understanding is that the DOJ obtained a default judgement against Ed because Ed refused to file a pleading in the territorial court. Had Ed filed a response, as I understand it, he would have granted the Court jurisdiction even though they had none.
Bing
Sonik, I think you are confusing the grand jury with the other type of jury that exists in civil and criminal trials.
I can answer your post from personal experience, (having dealt with the IRS at the highest levels) but will only do so after you clarify what exactly you are referring to.
BTW, there are no Implementing Regulations for 26 USC 7201 and 7203 (tax evasion and willful failure to file) so the first order of business, after establishing the IRS' limited jurisidction inside the 50 states of the USA, and my status as an American Citizen and national of the USA, is to rebut the IRS' incorrect presumptions.
Bing
Sonik, I applaud your courage to stand up for what you believe.
Bravo!!
I don't know what state you are in, but if you are an employee at will, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.
Keep us updated.
Bing
Ahahahahahahaha!! Sonik, you Da-Man! 😀
That there is some funny stuff!!
Thanks.
Bing
Author #2, thanks for the update about Joe.
It simply goes beyond the pale just how corrupt and brazen the IRS and the Administrative Law Judge behave. Their actions shock the conscience.
Joe Banister is a stand-up guy and his courage (and his book) are inspiring and reaffirm the fact that the IRS HATES the Truth.
Bing
Sonik, great post!! 🙂
Thanks for the insights and cites.
And here I thought that I was the only person to rely on and quote from back issues of U.S. News & World Report. See, for instance, the editorial from Sept. 27, 1957 or 1958 (I forget, which), titled, “The 14th Amendment was Not Lawfully Ratified”.
Bing
Sonik, I have never heard of TBA, nevertheless, I know for a fact that ALL Americans have a fundamental right to expatriate.And I am sure that you know this as well.
Congress reaffirmed as much back on July 27, 1868.
I suspect that what alot of folks do is they are born inside one of the 50 Union states of the USA; they get a social security number; they begin paying income taxes; evenutally they learn the Truth from books like “The Great IRS Hoax”; and they mistakenly believe that because they have been paying income taxes for XX number of years, this must mean that they are “citizens of the [federal] United States”, therefore, they become convinced that they need to expatriate their federal citizenship that was somehow miraculously bestowed on them as a direct result of paying federal income taxes.
I surmise that many folks expatriate when they need not do that, because they never really technically gave up their American Citizenship in the firstplace.
Giving up a right so fundamental as one's natural birth Citizenship (in this case, American Citizenship) is the ultimate waiver of one's constitutional right. Being tricked into filing a federal tax return does not equate to a lawful waiver of one's constitutional rights because it is not done with a “sufficient awareness of the relevent circumstances and likely consequences.” See, Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742.
What I am saying is that just because one may have a social security number and may have paid income taxes, this does not mean that that person renounced their American Citizenship and purposefully elected to become a “citizen of the [federal] United States”.
In any case, I have to presume that many of the folks who have paid big bucks to get so-called, “expatriated”, were wasting their money because if they were born inside one of the several Union states, they were born with all the sovereignty they will ever need.
All they really needed to do was articulate the facts of their situation to the IRS and the federal government.
Bing
Gentleman,
I think you both might be mistaken.Unless things have changed recently, this case is not goint to go to trial.
A few weeks ago, I had the chance to read through much of the Simkanin
Case file and Dick pled guilty to Count #4, Failure to Collect and Pay Over Taxes, an alleged violation of 26 USC 7202. In exchange for the DOJ dropping 20+ other counts, Dick avoided trial.
An eight page factual resume spells out just exactly what Dick allegedly knew and when, and contains some rather revealing, and purposefully disingenuousness language by the IRS/DOJ. For example, the DOJ asserts that Simkanin had “employees” and paid them “wages.” Under the prima facie Tax Code, those two terms are “words of art.” See especially, Subtitle C, chapters 21-25.
Also, the Simkanin Factual Resume over and over again, contains this telling phrase, “Based upon the position of Simkanin's former accounting firm, Simkanin understood in December 1999 that under the law as interpreted by the IRS and the courts of the United States) the wages of Arrow employees were considered “taxable income.”
“…under the law as interpreted by the IRS and the courts of the United States…”
Very craftily written.
Once again, the DOJ has ignored and disobeyed numerous U.S. supreme Court case law on statutory construction. The IRS has no lawful authority to interpret the laws. The laws mean exactly what the words in them say that they mean. No more. No less.
I suspect what will happen today is that Simkanin will be sentenced or make his in court plea agreement official.
But a trial, I don't think that that is going to happen because Simakanin decided that it was too risky for him.
Bing
Wireless, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I don't trust attorneys at all, but if you think you must, you should seek legal counsel from a licensed attorney.
This post is based on my experience and is not legal advice.
My personal experience is that the IRS is lying to you because they do not have the lawful authority to prepare your tax return for you.
One option is that one may want to write them a brief letter and indicate that one was not aware that one was required to make and file an income tax return. Hypothetically, one might ask the IRS to cite you the enacted statute and Implementing Regulation that imposed a legal duty on you. One might also state that the IMplementing Regulation must be published in the Federal Register and referenced by volume and date.
If they cite 26 USC 6051, you should politely inform them that the Implementing Regulation for that tax code section is in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations and not in title 26, where it should located. This is very important because they are presuming that you owe an excise tax for alcohol, tobacco or firearms. Note too, that agencies are not permitted to cross-reference to the regulations of another agency. Please refer to 1 CFR 21.21 ( c ). You need to rebut their presumption if it is not true.
Most likely, if you were born in one of the several States of the USA, then you are a non-resident alien with respect to the domestic (i.e. federal United States– Just like Frank Brushaber).
You should ask them for a signed original of the income tax return that they allegedly prepared and tell them that under 26 USC 6065, an IRS employee is required to sign any such IRS prepared income tax return under the penalty of perjury.
Also, remind them of the provisions of 26 USC 7014.
Good luck.
Bing
