Comment: Explanation of the general understanding of the tax...

(See in situ)


Explanation of the general understanding of the tax...

Here was my response below to other poster to my previous comment:

The IRS Cheifs know the truth, the Executive Branch knows the truth the Judicial Branch knows the truth and the Congressional branch also knows the truth about what the tax is and who it applies to under what circumstances!!!!!

THEY WILL NOT STOP MIS APPLYING THE LAW BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THE FRAUD TO CONTINUE THE CONTROL GAME!

You said:

"if you don't comply with their publications, then don't you go to jail?"

My response is:

It's right in the IRS Manual that you CAN NOT... never ever ever ever USE THE IRS Publications and Pamphlets to, in their own words, "sustain a position"., which anyone can access online at WWW.IRS.GOV (here's the link to the exact page on their site: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-007.html and go down to section 4.10.7.2.8 entitled publications and read it for yourself)

Which means the IRS publications and Pamphlets ARE NOT THE LAW. They NEVER HAVE BEEN THE LAW! Because they aren't the law!! The are like little newsletters posted by the IRS to the "tax professional community" that then those "professionals" accept as the word of God, except they are "NOT TO BE USED TO SUSTAIN A POSITION" and the "professionals" ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT!!! Most professionals don't even read the law to determine squat about the tax or the nature of the tax. They start off from the beginning with the myth that everyone just owes the tax.

Here's an example. The IRS says that "tax protestors" claim wages are not taxable. That can be true or false, depending on how you understand the law.

For instance, Wages, as defined under section 3401(a): (This is the actual statutory definition, ready.... here we go.... )

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

++++ (Note: (other than fees paid to a public official) is correct because fees belong to the government, not the "employee" receiving "wages"... that's why they are called fees.

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word means... where it says "wages" means. Now watch, here's the definition of "employee" for purposes of Employment taxes... same general section except it's 3401(c)...READY!!! Here we go

Section 3401(c) Definition of Employee:

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

++++ (Note: This definition enumerates federally related workers. And that last line, The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation., is referring to federally related corporations. Like a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc..) And that would make sense since congress DOES have the authority to legislate on it's OWN "EMPLOYEES"!!!! Where do any private sector people fit into that definition and also where can u make the jump from federally related subjects to private sector from that definition????

++++ (NOTICE the use of the word INCLUDES... which has an entirely different meaning than the word means. The word includes and including are defined under section 7701(c)... and here's that DEFINITION: READY AGAIN.....

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

ALL THAT IS SAYING IS THAT ANYTIME YOU ENCOUNTER A DEFINITION WITH THE WORD INCLUDES OR INCLUDING YOU CAN'T EXCLUDE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD FIT THE LIKE CATEGORY OF WHAT HAS JUST BE ENUMERATED IN THE ACTUAL DEFINITION.

For example. If congress defined the word "Food" for a certain section wherever and the definition said, "Food: For purposes of this chapter the term food includes apples, pears, oranges"

What that then means since it would use the word Includes is that I cannot exclude like minded things. So I can't exclude strawberries, apples, peaches, pears, papayas, mangos, etc... because they are of the same general class of what has been defined which are "Fruits". But I can't include eggs, milk, bread, etc... because even though those items are food for how WE WOULD refer to them in private conversation, that's NOT what the law is referring to!!!!! Get it yet???!!!

But to be making STATUTORY "WAGES", as defined, you would first have to meet the requirements of the definition of "Employee" under section 3401(c). Its a word game.

So technically, you are most likely NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" as defined by law earning "WAGES" as defined. Because for you to be earning "Wages" as defined you MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST... did i say that enough, MEET THE STATUTORY requirement of the definition of "EMPLOYEE".

Congress can define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. So they can take a word YOU and I are familiar with and use in private conversation to describe getting paid, like the word "WAGES" and REDEFINE it for purposes of the law.

Now, once Congress has provided it's own definition, OUR PRIVATE CONVENTIONAL definition NO LONGER APPLIES!

So when the IRS says "Wages" are taxable, technically yes, Statutory "WAGES" as defined by the code are... BUT HERE's the catch, Statutory "Wages" is NOT the same thing as Wages as you get paid in the private sector. But when an IRS publication mentions "WAGES", it's talking about the staturoy definition, not the conventional definition.

Here's what the court said:

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term");"

So, when we encounter a word, that you and I are familiar with, BUT, it has a definition that strays from the "ordinary meaning", we are to use the definition in place of the traditionally defined word!

GET IT YET!!!

So, im not saying that the "Beast" will just leave us alone because there is some magic silver bullet argument, that's NOT what Im saying at all. All im pointing out is what the law says and why it says what it says.

Income tax is an Excise. The law clearly shows the application to be in the nature of an excise. Not that congress didn't want to include you and I and the entire private sector world as those who are required to pay the tax on our own domestic source monies, it's that they DID NOT HAVE THE POWER or Authority to write such a requirement into the law because, get this, .... IT WENT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF TAXATION THE CONGRESS WAS DELEGATED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. And if challenged at that point containing that language, which to this date is NOT there, THEN, THEN YOU COULD challenge the Income Tax as unconstitutional. But as long as you continue to sign W4's and W9's, neither of which have anything to do with the average guy in the private sector earning his/her own domestic source monies, then the IRS is going to ACCEPT your STATEMENT under Penalty of Perjury that YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THE TAX!!!! The IRS does NOT have to prove that you were NOT the person who was to sign such a form, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PROVE YOU DID!! AND THE SIGNING OF THOSE FORMS ARE THE STARTING POINT FOR OWING THE TAX! IT'S THE STARTING POINT FOR THE REPORTING PROCESS AND THE LIKE! STOP SIGNING THOSE FORMS!!!

NOW DO U GET IT???? !!!!

Hope this helps.

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!