brad.barnhill@mindspring.com
HomeSite v2.5Last Updated: Thursday, January 21, 1999 10:39:01 PM
from whence you came.
Or go to the Odyssey
This is a list of the correspondence I had with the Tax Department of the company that owns the company that I work for.
Mr. Brad Barnhill
c/o xxx Xxxxx Xxxxx
Charlottesville, VA 22902
We have reviewed the laws and ergulations cited in your memorandum/letter dated April 8, 1997 to Mr. Siscoe. Based on our review of your memorandum/letter, we are unable to honor your request because your request clearly violates the law.
In the Code of Federal regulations at Section 31.3402 which corresponds to 26 USC 3402(f), it states in Section 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a):
"[I]f a Form W-4 is not furnished, the employer should withhold as if their employee were single claiming no withholding exemptions."
Since you have terminated your existing Form W-4, we will withhold as if you were single claiming no exemptions.
Please note that 26 C.F.R Section 31.3402(p)-1(2) only deals with federal income tax withholding and if dones not apply to Social Security withholdings.
The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935) was decided prior to the effective date of the Social Security program in 1937. We believe that this decision does not clearly demonstrate the voluntary nature of the Social Security program.
You cite Title 42, Chapter 7, Section 408 as your authority for us to discontinue the use of your social security number. Please note that we are using your social security number as required by law which is clearly not "...in violation of the laws of the United States..."
You state that "[i]f you disagree, please cite the Code Section within Subtitle A (Chapters 1 thru 6 of Title 26) that you believe grtants you the authority to withhold income tax..."
As you know from the beginning of you memorandum letter, the authority to withhold is contained in Subtitle C (Chapters 21 through 24 of Title 26) rather than in Subtitle A.
Please note that we are not legally obligated to respond to your request for us to cite any statutory authority under Title 26. We are providing this information because you are a valued employee. However, your requests to date have been in clear violation of the law.
Also, please discontinue threats of legal action against us because we are merely attempting to comply with the law. If your claims are valid, please direct such claims directly to the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration.
In your memorandum/letter dated April 8, 1997, you cite in paragraph one, 26 CRFR 1.144-5(a) which appears to be a mistake. The proper cite should be 1.1441-5(a).
Under 26 C.F.R. 301.6109(c), "if he does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, he shall request such number of the other person."
However, we do know your taxpayer identification number. Therefore, we will not be able to avoid penalties by merely providing the statement that you suggested.
Under Title 42, Section 405(B)(i)(III), "the Secretary shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will...be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of subclasses (I) or (II)..."
If you should have any questions, please contact me at (617) 558-4918.
Yours very truly,I thank you for your cooperation and helpful suggestions regarding my withholding situation communicated in our telephone conversation on 9 June 1997. To that end, I want to help answer the concerns you have raised regarding that statement and its attachments, to help you process that document properly; and to fully understand the laws that I am relying on regarding its use. What follows should clarify the issues associated with and surrounding individuals like myself, who claim to be persons not subject to withholding.
I have notified you that I am not a lawfully registered participant in the voluntary Social Security welfare program. Many employers in the Unites States are under the impression that 1) a social security number is required of any person who wants to work, 2) this number must be used for accounting purposes, 3) this number must be supplied to the IRS, and 4) every worker must submit a signed W-4. Such beliefs, understandable as they may be, have no basis in the written law. There is simply no law that requires a worker to file a W-4, and no law that requires Citizen to apply for a social security number. An individual who is not a lawfully registered participant in social security and who is not required to apply for a number, is subsequently NOT subject to social security laws. Thus all of the withholding provisions in 26 USC Subtitle C (IRC 3102 and 3402) do not apply. Even though they are required of all non-resident aliens, they are only required of those Citizens and residents who choose to be covered under the social security laws for social security purposes.
[snip copyright stuff]I hope from this you realize that the company is no longer required to pay either the matching IRC 3111(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance contribution nor the IRC 3111(b) Hospital insurance contributions. As I am not a statutory "employee", you have no liablity for the statutory "employer" portion of this tax. This is a very large net gain to the company given there is no longer a tax liability associated with my (non- statutory) employment. This is another reason why the company need not report my pay on a Form W-2, a Form 940, or a Form 941. Form 1099, accompanied by a letter of transmittal is all that is required in order to report my pay.
If you are going to make reports to the IRS regarding my earnings, you really have no choice but to make those reports using Form 1099, including both my name and address, as required under 26 USC 6041 (a) and (c), with "none" or "religious objection" typed in the space for the "RECIPIENT'S Identification Number". You will not be able to include this income on your Form 940 or Form 941 or on a Form W-2, as these report payments made under Subtitle C. Since I am no longer a participant in the Social Security welfare program, and no longer have an SSN, I am therefore no longer an "employee" as defined under taxing laws. Your indication from our telephone conversation that I am not an independent contractor is correct. I am still (non-statutorily) employed by The Michie Company, and so also by Lexis-Nexis, and ultimately Reed-Elsevier. I simply am not an "employee" as defined by the taxing statutes.
In your letter you cited 42 USC 405(B)(i)(III) as proof that I must have an SSN. This section specifically references (I), which is for "aliens" and (II), which is for "any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits". I am neither. I have revoked the signature made on the SS-5 application for Social Security made in my name by my parents when I was a minor child, which has rescinded my participation in the Social Security welfare program. Are you seriously stating that I cannot perform this action? Would you be bound to any agreement signed by your parents when you were a minor child? Even the Social Security Administration has refused to rebut this action, and their silence speaks volumes. Please review again my Statement of Facts Regarding Participation in Social Security as presented in points 3 through 9, along with the accompanying exhibits.
The Alton decision of the supreme Court in 1935, cited in my letter of 8 April 1997, is also proof that Congress cannot force any Citizen to participate in such a program. Even though this decision predates the Social Security Act of 1937, Congress had to rewrite the Railroad Retirement Tax and make it voluntary in order to make it constitutional. If you compare Subtitle C, Chapter 22 (Railroad Retirement Tax) with Chapter 21 (FICA), the parallels make this fact quite evident.
In addition to all of the above, I have a profound religious objection both to participation in the Social Security welfare program, and to the use of the social security number to identify me. These objections are based on true nature of the Social Security welfare program as evidenced in the Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, First Session on the Legal Status of OASI benefits, dated November 27, 1953, part 6, pages 906, 932, and 963. This evidence reveals the truth that the Social Security Act is NOT insurance, nor does it go into a separate trust fund, nor does it create any vested rights. Due to these facts, Social Security is a CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD and as such is theft from me today, and theft from my children for my "benefit" tomorrow. The Eighth Commandment of the Lord is "Thou shalt not steal", and I cannot participate in a system which would force me to steal from others upon retirement, or to allow others to steal from me and imperil their immortal souls. Please know that I consider your use of a social security number to identify me places my eternal soul in peril, as this mark of the beast will be evident upon that Day of Judgment.
The attached Statement of Citizenship is being provided to you in duplicate per the requirements of regulations contained in 26 CFR 1.1441-5 (a), and in place of a form W-4, pursuant to 26 CFR 3402(n). This constitutes formal legal notification to Reed- Elsevier that Brad L. Barnhill does not wish to participate in the voluntary welfare retirement program known as Social Security and is exempt from taxes under both Subtitle C and Subtitle A.
It is important that you follow the legal instructions provided in the law as 26 CFR 1.1441-5(c) regarding the disposition of this Statement of Citizenship, which instructs you to send one copy of the Statement of Citizenship together with a transmittal letter and your request for waiver of penalties, to the:
Internal Revenue Service Centerwhile retaining one copy for your own files. I want to ensure that the company will not be held liable for any penalties from the IRS with regard to my status. I have enclosed a sample copy of such a transmittal letter for your use. I strongly suggest that you send this correspondence to the IRS Service Center by certified mail, return receipt requested, as there are various court rulings which have stated that correspondence to the IRS requires proof of mailing in the absence of IRS records.
The regulation in subsection (c) must be strictly adhered to for you own protection and to avoid confusion. Accordingly, the IRS Service Center in Philadelphia is the only office authorized to handle and respond to these documents. If you seek advice from any other IRS office you may be told to disregard the Statement of Citizenship and withhold all taxes, which is erroneous information in view of the written law. You may also be told that you will be held liable for any taxes not withheld. It is important to realize that because of the regulation contained in subsection (c), local, District, and Regional IRS offices have no authority in this matter, and are not trained or prepared to properly deal with it. Also, these IRS offices will not mention that non-payment "due to reasonable cause" and not "willful neglect' is not punishable as stated in IRC 6651 and 6656. Furthermore, the question of willfulness addresses in 6672 is nullified because the law states that upon the submission of a Statement of Citizenship or Residence of the United States of America (and not anything which represents itself as a Substitute W-4), the withholding agent is relieved of duty to withhold and pay tax. Remember the EEOC vs. ISC case? The agents which gave "advice" contrary to the law were nowhere to be seen when the case was about to be heard. If you get "advice" from the IRS, be sure to get a statement addressed to you specifically about me which is sworn and subscribed under penalty of perjury. I am an honorable person and have supplied you with sworn and subscribed statements which are admissible as evidence in a court of law. If the IRS refuses to do the same, what does that tell you about my position?
The reason you need to send the Statement of Citizenship to the International
Office is due to Treasury Decision 2313 issued on March 21, 1916, which states in
pertinent part:
"The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of NONRESIDENT ALIENS... shall
make a full and complete return of the INCOME there-from on Form 1040."
As you can see, since I have been unwittingly declaring myself to be a either a non-resident
alien or the agent of one on FORM 1040 (U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) ever since I
mistakenly started filing returns, it is the International office which needs to be appraised
of this change in status. The proper form with which Citizens are required to make a
return of income, according to both the Office of Management and Budget and the
National Office for the IRS, is Form 2555, titled "FOREIGN EARNED INCOME", which
states it is for use by U.S. Citizens. Apparently the IRS does know the difference between
an "individual" and a "citizen".
Which brings me to a very important question: Where is the statute which imposes the tax which is collected pursuant to IRC 3402? If you study the regulations in 26 CFR 31.3402 it should become evident that the W-4 is also an agreement to withhold Subtitle A taxes. Otherwise, why would 26 CFR 31.3402(n) ask for a statement (and not anything which represents itself as a Substitute W-4) that the person seeking exemption from the tax declare that he has no current or anticipated Subtitle A liability? If this is so, then 26 CFR 1.1441-5(a) and (c) are controlling.
Finally, I ask you why is this only now coming to light? If you think about it, the answer is really pretty simple. For over 80 years the income tax laws have been printed in books. Within the last 5 years, they have been available electronically, and more to the point, they are searchable. There is no nook or cranny for the true purpose of the law to hide. I realize that you have had many years of experience in these matters, but have you ever really looked at the code in the manner in which I have presented it? Of course not. You have been busy with other important matters, as have I. It is only now that we have the ability use Occam's Razor to slice into the onion and peel back the layers.
To this end, I pray that you will comply with my wishes in this very important matter. I make no threats, as I know you are a reasonable man, and will soon come to the same conclusions as I have through the study of the written law. I must tell you, however, that if you insist on withholding at the single-zero rate, every pay period you delay will force me closer to bankruptcy. I cannot absorb this loss in cash flow for very long. I am depending on you to do the right thing and comply with the written law. In any event, I will eventually get all the withholdings which the company has taken since April 8, when I filed my Statement of Citizenship. The written law is on my side.
Kindest Regards,
Mr. Brad Barnhill
c/o xxx Xxxxx Xxxxx
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Based on our conversation of 9 June 1997, I thought that we were making progress in resolving your issues. Yet when I received and reviewed you letter dated 11 June 1997, it appears that little progress has been made.
20 CFR 404.1001(c) states "[t]he Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Service Code (Code) have similar provisions on coverage of your earnings because one law specifies the earnings for which you will receive credit for benefit pruposes and the other the earnings on which you will receive credit for benefit purposes and the other the earnings on which you must pay social security taxes. Because the Code (Title 26 of the United States Code) has some provisions that are not in the Act but which may affect you, you may need to refer to the Code or the Internal Revenue Service regulations (Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations) to get complete information about your Social Security coverage." What is the purpose of this written statement?
On page 1, second paragraph, last sentence, of your letter dated 11 June 1997, you state "[e]ven though they are required of all non-resident aliens, they are only required of those citizens and residents who choose to be covered under the social security loaws for social security purposes." Generally, a non-resident alien is not required to obtain a social security number unless "they" are working in the United States. Many non-resident aliens merely receive interest, dividend or royalty payments from United States of America sources which are subject to withholding taxes absent a provision in an income tax treaty.
Where in the written law does it state that before any withholding provisions can apply to any given circumstance, an employee must have applied for a number?
On page 2, first full paragraph, second sentence, of your letter dated 11 June 12997, you state "[a]s I am not a statutory 'employee', you have no liability for the statutory 'employer' portion of the tax." While your are clearly not a "statutory employee", are you not a common-law employee as described in 20 CFR 404.1007?
Does the written law state that "[u]nless otherwise excluded from coverage under 404.1012 through 404.1037, the work you perform as an employee for your employer is covered as employment under social security"? What exclusion from coverage are you claiming?
On page 2, second full paragraph, you state "... I am therefore no longer an 'employee' as defined under taxing laws." Please note that an employee is not defined in the taxing laws. In order to review the definition of "employee", you must review the common law.
On page 2, third full paragraph, you state "[a]re you seriously stating that I cannot perform this action?" You can revoke a social security number at any time.
Where in the written law within Subtitle C, Chapter 21 does it state the FICA is voluntary?
On page 4, first paragraph, last sentence, you state "[i]f the IRS refuses to do the same, what does that tell you about my position?". The answer is nothing. The IRS does not have to supply a sworn and subscribed statement unless complelled to do so by a court of law. Where in the written law does it state that the IRS is required to do the same?
On page 4, paragraph 3, you state "[i]f you study the regulations in 26 CFR 31.3402 it should become evident that the W-4 is also an agreement to withhold Subtitle A taxes". Yet on page 1, second paragraph, fourth sentence, you state "[t]here is simply no law that requires a Citizen to file a W-4, and no law that requires a Citizen to apply for a social security number." Are these statements not contradictory?
Your statement that 26 CFR 1.1441-5(a) and (c) are controlling is not based on the written law. If a person declares that he/she has no current or anticipated Subtitle A liablity, there is no need to withhold any tax. For once, these provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are based on logic (i.e. no liability, no need to withhold).
Please note that IRC 3403 clearly states "[t]he employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.
Are you not attempting to impose a liability on your employer for the payment of such taxes?
You ask if I have ever really looked at the code in the manner in which you have presented it. The answer is clearly no. While I have argued points of law with the Internal Revenue Service on numerous occasions, I have always reviewed the entire code as a single body of law rather than as unrelated sections of law. In order to convince the Internal Revenue Service, you must anticipate their response and utilize the entire code to support your position.
Please note that the withholding at the single-zero rate is a direct result of your actions. You rescinded the original W-4 and you have not provided an appropriate substitute. While bankruptcy would truly be an unfortunate outcome of your actions, please note that tax liabilities are generally not dischargable claims in a bankruptcy proceeding.
If the written law is on your side, why have you not filed refund claims for the past three years to obtain the taxes previously withheld? Why have you not directed your claims directly to the Internal Revenue Service?
If you should have any questions, please contact me at (617) 558-4918.
Very truly yours,I returned from my 65 mile hiking vacation in New Mexico with the boy scouts last Friday and was pleased to receive your letter. Did you miss me? I have to disagree with your second statement. I think we are making great progress. You agree that I can "revoke a social security number at any time", and that if there is "no liablity, no need to withhold". Both of these statements show a fine understanding of the principles of freedom we both hold dear in this republic, and a keen understanding of the IRC as written law.
You also cite 20 CFR 404.1001(c), which states that "[I] will receive credit for benefit purposes". I am not, however, a participant in the Social Security Welfare Program, and so will not receive these credits. If I am not to receive the credits, then why must I pay for them? The corresponding portions of Title 26 Subtitle C, I will address later, as they are also pertinent to this discussion.You are correct in the third paragraph of your letter with regard to my reference to non-resident aliens. I misspoke when I said that non-resident aliens are required to have an SSN. However, 42 USC 405(B)(i)(I) (Exhibit A of my letter of April 8, 1997) clearly states that resident aliens (and not Citizens) must have an SSN in order to "engage in employment in the United States". I apologize for the confusion.
You ask in the fourth paragraph of your letter: "Where in the written law does it state that before any withholding provisions can apply to any given circumstance, an employee must have applied for a number?" I gave you citations of these laws in both my original letter of April 8th of this year, and my letter of June 11. First, this authority comes from 42 USC 405(B)(i)(II) (Exhibit A of April 8), that a Citizen who is not "an applicant for or a recipient of benefits" from federal funds does not need to make application for the SSN. Second, there is 20 CFR 404.1003 (Exhibit X of June 11), which is the statute which defines "employment" as "any service covered by social security". If I am not a participant, then my employment is not covered. Can you show me the statute which shows that it is? As a Citizen, I can do as I choose, unless specifically restrained by the written law.
The evidence for this can be found on OMB Review form 83 for the SS-5 (Exhibit C, page 2 of April 8), box 24, with box number 2 checked: "Required to obtain or retain a benefit". Notice that box number 3 "Mandatory" is not checked. This OMB form is the embodiment of the legislative and regulatory intent for the Social Security Act. Also, I provided a copy of the Social Security Procedure regarding Enumeration at Birth (Exhibit D of April 8). This proves that Citizens are not required to have Social Security numbers. Do you have any evidence that a Citizen is required to have an SSN? I suggest that you find some.
I think your above question is really two questions. I will try to address both. First, let us say that a Citizen does not have an SSN because his parents never applied for one in his name, and he did not on his own make voluntary application. How could you possibly withhold taxes from this individual and report them to the IRS without the SSN? He is not a participant and does not have a number. Second, lets us say that a Citizen that has an SSN applied for in his name by his parents, realizes the liability this creates for others upon his retirement, and revokes and rescinds it because he does not want to be a participant, steal from others, and imperil his immortal soul. How do you withhold taxes from this individual and report them to the IRS without the SSN? In either event, the individual does not participate and so has no tax liability.
You state that "an employee is not defined under the taxing laws". It most certainly is unless you think that § 3401(c) in Subtitle C, Chapter 24 is not a definition. But I will get to that later on.
I am pleased to notice on the fourth paragraph of page 2 that you admit that I "can revoke a social security number at any time." Since I have revoked it, under what authority do you continue to withhold Subtitle C taxes? How do you intend to report the withholding?
You ask on page 2 where in the code it states that "FICA is voluntary". This issue is not addressed in Title 26, except by inferrence, as I will later show. I have already addressed the voluntary nature of the Social Security Welfare program above and in other letters. I wish to remind you that the decision of the supreme Court in the Alton case [Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935)] has never been overturned. Congress cannot force Citizens to participate in socialism. Read the decision again which is quoted in my April 8 letters. In your letter of May 22, you said that since Social Security was passed in 1937, that this case is not on point. I think most judges will disagree with you on this. Surely you must realize that if Congress passes a law and the Court declares part of it unconstitutional, that they cannot make it constitutional by passing it again. They have to change it. This is what happened to the current Chapter 22 (Railroad Retirement Tax). Congress had to go back and address the constitutional issues and correct them. Congress could not have possibly made the Social Security Welfare program mandatory for Citizens and have it remain constitutional. The principle had already been established. Last month the Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional. What would be the effect of Congress passing the same law again?
You also ask where the IRS is required to supply a sworn and subscribed statement. You will find this in 26 USC 6203, implemented by 26 CFR 301.6203-1, and in 26 USC 6065.
§ 6203. Method of assessment
The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office
of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the
Secretary. Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a
copy of the record of the assessment.
26 CFR 301.6203-1
The district director and director of the regional service center shall appoint one or
more assessment officers. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer
signing the summary record of assessment.
§ 6065. Verification of returns
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement,
or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue
laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is
made under the penalties of perjury.
Since an assessment is required by the provisions of the internal revenue laws upon request of the taxpayer, they must sign it under penalty of perjury pursuant to § 6065.
In paragraph 7 of the page 2, you ask if "these statements are contradictory". Not at all. If a Citizen does voluntarily apply for a social security number (which I have not), they can of course voluntarily put it on the W-4. A Citizen can participate in the Social Security Welfare program if he so desires. This is a free country, is it not? What I am stating is that there is no law which requires a Citizen to have an SSN or to file a W-4. Have you come up with any since my last letter? Unless you can, your case is on very shaky ground.
In the last paragraph on page 2 you are arguing against my attempt to connect the provisions of 26 CFR 31.3402(n) with 26 CFR 1.1441-5(a) and (c). I think this is very pertinent. What is a reference to Subtitle A liability doing in a Subtitle C regulation? What tax is being imposed by § 3402? Where is the statute which imposes this tax? You have still answered none of these questions and I do not think your silence will convince a judge. It certainly has not convinced me. I am heartened by your statement in this paragraph that if there is no liability, there is no need to withhold. So I ask you again: Who has the liability for the tax in § 3402? I suggest you look at § 3403.
You state that you "have always reviewed the entire code as a single body of law rather than as unrelated sections of law." I understand that you cannot take bits and pieces of the IRC and bandy them about. However, I do understand the construction of the law enough to realize that it is divided into Subtitles each of which deal with different taxes (A-Income, B-Gift and Estate, C-Employment, D-Miscellaneous, E-Tobacco and Alcohol, etc.), each of which has its own liability statute. Do I have the liability to pay the tax in Subtitles B or E? Of course not. Also, all of the terms have to be defined or they become ambiguous (or are made purposely so). For example, let us inspect some of the definitions used in Chapter 21 (F.I.C.A.) of Subtitle C:
§ 3121. Definitions(b) Employment - For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employment'' means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the Citizenship or residence of either, (i) within the United States, or (ii) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into within the United States or during the performance of which and while the employee is employed on the vessel or aircraft it touches at a port in the United States, if the employee is employed on and in connection with such vessel or aircraft when outside the United States, or (B) outside the United States by a Citizen or resident of the United States as an employee for an American employer (as defined in subsection (h)), or (C) if it is service, regardless of where or by whom performed, which is designated as employment or recognized as equivalent to employment under an agreement entered into under section 233 of the Social Security Act; except that such term shall not include -
O.K., this seems to make sense unless the term United States is itself defined. Does this term mean the 50 states of the Union, or the federal states, or both?
§ 3121. Definitions (continued)
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter -
(1) State - The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
and American Samoa.
(2) United States - The term ''United States'' when used in a
geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An
individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall
be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of
the United States.
So, it means the federal states, not one of the states of the Union (such and the Virginia commonwealth, or for that matter the Massachusetts commonwealth). Therefore, anywhere within Chapter 21, where it says "United States", it means federal states, and not Union states. So, § 3121(b)(A) fails because (i) means within a federal state, and (ii) specifies an "American vessel". Do I work in a federal state or on an American vessel?
O.K., what about § 3121(b)(B)? "American employer" must mean an employer within the states of the Union, right? Let's see:
§ 3121. Definitions (continued)
(h) American employer - For purposes of this chapter, the term ''American
employer'' means an employer which is -
(1) the United States or any instrumentality thereof,
(2) an individual who is a resident of the United States,
(3) a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are residents
of the United States,
(4) a trust, if all of the trustees are residents of the United States, or
(5) a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or
of any State.
Which of these is Reed-Elsevier? (1) The United States government? I think not. (2) A resident of a federal state? No, Reed-Elsevier is a corporation. (3) Are two-thirds of the partners who own Reed-Elsevier residents of a federal state? No, I believe they are Dutch or British, right? (4) Is Reed-Elsevier a trust and are the trustees residents of a federal state? If so, please provide certified documentation of same. (5) Is Reed-Elsevier a corporation organized under the laws of the any federal state? Again, I would demand certified proof of this.
O.K., so Reed-Elsevier is not an "American employer" (as defined by statute), is it? So, § 3121(b)(B) fails. If you disagree, please produce the certified documentation which shows which of the proper forms of "American employer" you think Reed-Elsevier to be.
Do I participate in an agreement entered into under section 233 of the Social Security Act? I think not. This is the SS-5, Application for Social Security Number Card, which you admit I can revoke as it was made for me in my name by my parents. So, § 3121(b)(C) fails.
Therefore, the test for "employment" (as statutorily defined) fails, and you have no authority to deduct F.I.C.A. from my earnings without my consent, unless I voluntarily participate under § 3121(b)(C). I also remind you that I have a religious objection both to participating in the Social Security Welfare Program, and for you to use a social security number to identify me.
Now, let us move on to Chapter 24 of Subtitle C, Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages. First, we will look at the definitions, for they may alter the sense of these terms in the code.
§ 3401. Definitions
(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.
Would you please show me how I am an "employee"? I am not a "government employee" or an "officer of a corporation", am I? I am therefore not the "employee" as defined by § 3401(c) from whom tax is to be withheld pursuant to § 3402. Again, you have no authority to withhold Subtitle C taxes from my earnings.
Also, you asked if I was attempting to make you the person liable for this tax. I was never the person liable for the tax; you always were the person liable. Look at § 3403:
§ 3403. Liability for tax
The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be
deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any
person for the amount of any such payment.
The tax is required to be deducted from "employees". I am not an "employee" as defined in this statute due to § 3401(c). You cannot therefore be held liable by the IRS if you stop withholding this tax. However, this also means that you are certainly liable to me personally because the tax is not required to be deducted, and you continue to unlawfully withhold it. I have supplied you with the documents which will end your IRS liablity. Until you comply with the provisions of 26 CFR 1.1441-5(c), you will continue to be liable for your actions to me.
You aver that I have not provided an appropriate substitute for the Form W-4 which I have rescinded. Do you know what one looks like? I have provided you with one; it is sitting on your desk awaiting your action. It complies with both 26 CFR 31.3402(n) and with 26 CFR 1.1441-5. If you disagree, please show me in the code or regulations how it does not comply.
You mention that "tax liabilities are generally not dischargable claims in a bankruptcy proceeding". I must remind you that I have no tax liablity under Subtitle A for either the current year or the next, and that I have no tax liability under Subtitle C for the current year or any year in the future. Look again at § 3403 to see that you have the liability for these taxes. If your actions drive me into bankruptcy who will be liable for the damages?
Here is the bottom line: I cannot afford to continue to bandy back and forth about this. I know I am right, and have proven it in the code and in the regulations. And more importantly can prove it to a judge.
I will make you a deal. You will please send by certified mail, return receipt requested, one copy of the Statement of Citizenship which I provided April 8, and a copy of the transmittal letter to the IRS Center in Philadelphia as required by 26 CFR 1.1441-5(c). We wait 30 days. If you receive any correspondence from the IRS which states that I have a tax liability and that you have to continue to withhold (signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to § 6065), then you can continue to withhold. If they do not write back to you, then you will have to stop all withholding and remit all back withholdings since April 8.
If you refuse to comply with the written law and mail the Statement of Citizenship, your next correspondence will be from the the National Worker's Rights Committee notifying you that they are filing an E.E.O.C. complaint. They live for this. You can see the results of their work in the consent decree which I provided to you in my April 8th correspondence. If you force me to file an E.E.O.C. complaint then I will not only get the back withholding, but I will demand triple damages. This is not a threat. Your recalcitrance in this matter leaves me no other recourse.
Please know that I have enjoyed our little sojourn into the IRC, but you must comply with the written law.
Kindest Regards,CERTIFICATE
I, Brad L. Barnhill, Sui Juris, certify that I delivered a true and correct copy of the attached Letter entitled "Your recent letter dated 27 June, 1997", which is dated 8 July 1997 by facsimile transmission to Mr. Charles P. Fontaine, Senior Tax Consultant, Reed-Elsevier plc, on this 8th day of July in the year of our Lord 1997.
/s/ Brad L. BarnhillI have not received a reply from you regarding my last letter. Also, I just received my paycheck, and not only are taxes to which I am not subject still being withheld, but it bears a social security number which you are illegally using to identify me. From this, I must assume that either you are guilty of conversion of part of my pay without the proper authorization, or have the answers to the following questions:
If I do not receive a written answer to each an every one of the above questions by Monday, August 11, I will assume that you agree that you do not have the necessary statutory authority to withhold these monies, and that you admit you are guilty of the crime of conversion.
I pray, however, that the reverse is true. I pray that you are an honest and honorable man. I pray that you have already sent the Statement of Citizenship and letter of transmittal to the Philadelphia office and are waiting the 30 days before the principle of acquiescence of estoppel by silence prevails.
Kindest Regards,I, Brad L. Barnhill, Sui Juris, certify that I delivered a true and correct copy of the attached Letter entitled "Your lack of communication regarding my letter of 8 July, 1997", which is dated 1 August 1997 by facsimile transmission to Mr. Charles P. Fontaine, Senior Tax Consultant, Reed-Elsevier plc, on this 1st day of August in the year of our Lord 1997.
/s/ Brad L. Barnhill
Mr. Brad Barnhill
c/o xxx Xxxxx Xxxxx
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Thank you for your numerous letters. I am sorry that I have not responded to date but my duties to your employer do require some prioritization. Since your claims to date have not required any immediate action due to their nature, I have been engaged in other activities which sould ensure the future growth of your employer.
Let me begin by addressing your questions in your August, 1 1997 letter in the order in which these questions are presented.
8, 9 and 10 (discussed below).
Please note that Section 1441 of the Internal revenue Code of 1986, as amended, clearly applies only to a nonresident alien individual or a foreign partnership.
Code Section 1441(a) clearly states "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in subsection (c), all persons, in whatever capacity acting (including lessees or mortgators of real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers and all officers and employees ot the United States) having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of any of the items of income specified in subsection (b) (to the extent that any of such items constitutes gross income from sources within the United Sttes) of any nonresident alien individual or of any foreign partnership shall (except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary under section 874) deduct and withhold from such items a tax equal to 30 percent thereof, except in the case of any item of income specified in the section sentence of subsection (b), that tax shall be equal to 14 percent of such item."
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated (check with Mr. Bell) the laws means what the words in them say. Therefore, Code Section 1441 must be limited to withholding on a nonresident alien or a foreign partnership.
In your letter dated July 8, 1997, you state [i]f I am not to receive the credits, then why must I pay for them?" Are you attempting to avoid the clear language in the Social Security Act? Have you not studied the Social Security Act?
On page 2, you state "[i]f I am not a participant, then my employment is not covered". What is your legal basis for this statement other than a case decided before the enactment of the Social Security Act?
I belive we have agreed that you do not have to obtain a social security number. However, what is your basis for the conclusion that without a social security number, you are not subject to the tax? Also, please review Section 6109(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
You state on page 3 that "I think most judges will disagree with you on this". Please show me a case where a judge has ruled that Alton applies to the Social Security Act. When did Congress pass a law (the Social Security Act was initiall passed in 1937), the Court declares the Social Security Act in part unconstitutional and Congress pass the Social Security Act again? Further, the Ralroad Retirement Act is still law. Is it not?
Please note that Congress has on numerous occasions passed laws which have teen modified as a result of Constitutional challenges.
Neither 26 USC 6203, implemented by 26 CFR 301.6203-1 and 26 USC 6065 requires the Internal Revenue Service to provide a sworn statement to a taxpayer. The Internal Revenue Code does require taxpayers to provide sworn statements to the Internal Revenue Service.
On page 6, you state that "... it means the federal states, not one of the states of the Union (such as the Virginia commonwealth or for that matter the Massachusetts commonwealth)". What is your basis for this statement? By stating that the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa, is the Internal revenue Code merely expanding upon the definition which includes the fifty (50) states? Further, the stature does not exclude the fifty (50) states. Ther term "United States" is used in a geographical sense. How is the fifty (50) states excluded from a geographical definition?
On page 7, you state "[a]gain, you hvae no authority to withhold Subtitle C taxes from my earnings." To date, you have not provided any evidence of a proper exemption.
Please examine the law. You are clearly an employee 26 CFR 31.3121(d)-1(c)(1), and Code Sections 3121(d) and 3306(i).
How can you claim that you have complied with 26 CFR 31.3402(n) when you claim you are not an employee?
What is your basis for no tax liability under Subtitle A? May I remind you that Section 1441 of the Internal revenue Code of 1986, as amended, only deals with withholding, not tax liability.
You state on page 8 that "... more importantly can prove it to a judge". Please provide me with any case law which demonstrates that a judge would rule in your favor. If the Code supports your position, there should be case law to support your position. Why have you been unable to find any?
Since the issue appears to be whether you are an employee, please complete the enclosed Form SS-8, Determination of Employee Work Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding. We will review it and submit the Form SS-8 in accordance with law.
If you should have any questions, please contact me at (617) 558-4918.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Charles P. Fontaine
Charles P. Fontaine
Tax Director
cc:
Susan Wolanczyk
Nancy Nash
I read with great interest your recent letter of 25 August 1997. We are very close to the resolution of this problem. Our only differences seem to be due to your continued misapplication of the defined terms in the code. I phoned you last week with the relevant code sections I wanted you to review. You have not replied, so in good faith, I will try to be accommodating this one last time.
First, let's take a look at the overall authority given to the federal government by statute. Title 4 § 72 reflects the proper authority given to the federal government by the Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section 8:
4 USC § 72. Public offices; at seat of Government.
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia,
and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law. [emphasis added]
As you can see, the federal government has very limited authority in its municipal capacity. Now let's take a look at the powers expressly delegated to the Department of the Treasury:
31 USC § 301. Department of the Treasury
(a) The Department of the Treasury is an executive department of the United States Government
at the seat of the Government.
[emphasis added]
As you can see, the Department of the Treasury only has authority within the District of Columbia, unless expressly granted the authority be statute. These authorities are evident from the various and sundry definitions for the term "United States" sprinkled throughout the United States Code. I suggest that you take some time to do a search for "term", "United States", and "includ*" or "means". I have found all kinds of crazy definitions for the term "United States". One of them means only the "continental shelf". This "word of art" is quite intentional in the part of the government, and sometimes confuses the average Citizen, as we all have been confused.
Thurston is absolutely correct when he observes that the "words in the code mean what they say", unless their sense is changed by an explicit definition by statute. Here is the general definition of the term "United States" for Title 26:
26 USC § 7701. Definitions.
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible
with the intent thereof-
(9) United States. The term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes only the
States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State. The term 'State' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia,
where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
Many in the patriot community substitute the definition of "State" (§7701(a)(10)) into the definition of "United States", but from this we would get "... includes only the [District of Columbia] and the District of Columbia." Then again, maybe they are correct in view of 4 USC § 72, and the fact that this section included the territory of Alaska until it was changed when Alaska became a state of the Union. They also point to the Buck Act of 1940, and construe the term "the States" found in § 7701(a)(9) to mean the territories ceded to the federal government by the states for the "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" which are within the boundaries of the several States, but are "without" the state and "within" the federal "United States" for purposes of jurisdiction. I, however, will stipulate for the purposes of argument that within Title 26, unless otherwise specified, the term "United States" includes the states of the Union.
It is important at this point to remember to keep in mind the chapter of Subtitle C in which we are working. These special definitions are only active within a single chapter at a time. This is the error which you have made with respect to the terms "United States", "employee", "employment", and "wages".
First, I will deal with Chapter 21 - the tax on employment for socialist purposes. You will recall that I continue to cite the Alton case [Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935)]. I am going to prove to you that the social security tax as written is completely constitutional as it is mandatory only within the federal states and voluntary for citizens and residents of the several States.
First, look at the definition of the term "United States". It would have this very same § 7701(a)(9) meaning if it were not for § 3121(e)(2):
26 USC § 3121. Definitions.
(e) State, United States, and citizen. For purposes of this chapter-
(1) State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
This definition is very clearly meant to change the meaning of the §7701(a)(9) term "United States" to its "federal states" context. Note that it does not even include the District of Columbia. There is absolutely no way that this could be meant to augment the common definition of the "United States" to "also include" this territory with the several states of the Union as you aver. You need to understand this all important rule of statutory construction:
"Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius." [in Latin]
"Inclusion of one is exclusion of other terms not used."
Confer at same in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. Omission of terms can be inferred as an intentional omission. Therefore, it does not say "includes also" or "including". It means exactly what it says. It "includes" only what it says, and excludes all others.
Due to this, the terms used in Chapter 21 take on a different meaning from these same words as we commonly use them. Therefore, your interpretation of 26 USC § 3121(b) is incorrect. If we substitute this definition for "United States" wherever we find it in Chapter 21 then "employment" is:
"... any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence or either, (i) within the [federal states]..."
I do not work within the federal states and I deny that my "service" can be construed as "employment" as defined here. You cannot prove that it is. Please review pages 5 through 7 of my letter of 8 July of this year. My service can in no way be considered "employment" as defined in the Code. Also, please recognize the our common usage definition of the term "employment" is irrelevant when the term itself is defined in the Code. Now see what happens to 26 USC § 3121(a):
26 USCS § 3121. Definitions.
(a) Wages.
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 that such term shall not include- [emphasis added]
Therefore, my remuneration for "any service" cannot be considered "wages" as defined in 26 USC § 3121(a), can it? Our common usage of the term "wages" is irrelevant when the term itself is defined in the Code. Since my services are not "employment", and my remuneration is not "wages", please notice what happens to § 3101:
26 USC § 3101. Rate of tax.
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance.
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to
the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect
to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))- [emphasis added]
Therefore, your answer to point 4 is incorrect. It should be: "If [I have no "wages" as my services cannot be considered "employment"], then we do not have to collect FICA and FUTA." I will take you at your word. Since you do not have any lawful authority to collect these taxes, I demand that you to stop collecting them, and remit all monies withheld since April without the proper authority.
People who work within the federal states are the only ones who can be compelled by law to participate in this socialism. This is completely constitutional given this decision by the supreme Court:
"In exercising its power, Congress is not subject to the same consitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States ... And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guaranties applicable." - Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945)
This means that Congress has to consider the Constitution when legislating for the states of the Union, but not when legislating for the federal states. This is because Congress is the state and municipal government for the federal states. The federal states have no protections guaranteed by a state constitution to keep Congress from doing anything it pleases nor are they guaranteed a republican form of government. The federal states are a legislative democracy wherein the tyranny of the majority reigns. Citizens of the states of the Union, however are another matter, as I have shown above. This is why no citizen can be compelled to get a social security number, no citizen can be compelled to participate in the immoral socialism funded by Chapter 21, nor can any Citizen within the states of the Union be forced to fund this immoral socialism against their will.
Now I will turn my attention to Chapter 24. Since we are no longer in Chapter 21, we now go back to the § 7701(a)(9) meaning for the term "United States", which includes the states of the Union. However, in this chapter, we see that the term "employee" is defined quite differently from the definition found in § 3121:
26 USC § 3401. Definitions.
(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.
I deny that I am an "employee" as defined in this statute. Prove that I am. The form SS-8 which you forwarded to me is used to determine my status as "employee" for § 3121 purposes. This § 3121 definition is only for use in Chapter 21 and is irrelevant in this context as the term is defined here for its use in Chapter 24. The common parlance definition for "employee" is also irrelevant within Chapter 24 for the same reason. The term "employee" itself has no other meaning than that which is defined by § 3401(c).
Now, look at the definition for the term "wages":
26 USC § 3401. Definitions.
(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- [emphasis added]
Since I am not an "employee", as defined in 26 USC §3401(c), any remuneration paid to me cannot be considered "wages" as defined here for use in Chapter 24. You cannot prove that it is. Therefore, my remuneration for my "services" cannot be considered "wages" as defined in 26 USC § 3401(a), can it? Please notice what now happens to § 3402:
26 USC § 3402. Income tax collected at source.
(a) Requirement of withholding.
(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of
"wages" shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables
or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary.
Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall- [emphasis added]
Since I earn no "wages", there is no "requirement of withholding". I will take you at your word when you say if I "am not am employee, we do not have to collect the tax under 26 USC 3402." Since I am not an "employee" as defined by statute within this Chapter, you do not have any lawful authority to collect these taxes. I demand that you to stop collecting them, and remit all monies withheld since April without the proper authority.
You and I do not have the freedom to define these terms as we please. The common usage definitions are not relevant when the terms themselves are defined by statute. I have just shown you that my services cannot be considered "employment", so I do not have "wages" as defined by the statutes in Chapter 21. Therefore, you have no authority (absent a voluntarily executed W-4), to withhold FICA or FUTA from my pay. I have just shown that I cannot be considered an "employee" and that I do not have "wages" as defined by the statutes in Chapter 24. Therefore, you have no authority (absent a voluntarily executed W-4), to withhold FIT or SIT from my pay. I demand that you stop collecting them, and remit all monies withheld since April without the proper authority.
I am confused by your question about liability in Subtitle A. I was under the impression that you understood that Subtitle A is a tax 1) on the foreign source income of Citizens doing business in a country which has a tax treaty with the federal government, 2) on the income from privileged occupations (federal employees and heads of corporations), or 3) on the income of non-resident aliens, with respect to business that they do in the United States. That is why I spent all of our time these past months on Subtitle C. You seemed to understand all of this. Now you say you do not? This fact is very clear to anyone who reads the underlying regulations 26 CFR 1.1-1, and the analysis of the form required by Citizens to file their return of Foreign Earned Income (Form 2555), and I know you to be an intelligent person. This is all moot, however, because the only authority you would have to withhold under Subtitle A is in § 1441, and § 1446.
Let's take a look at this "liability" issue. As far as I can see, § 1446 is the only section within Subtitle A to confer any liability. This applies in the same manner to § 3403 within Subtitle C. I would like to address this issue for a moment. Subtitle A is set up in such a manner that unless you know that a person is a Citizen or resident of the United States, you are required to withhold. As an "employer", you have liability under Subtitle C's § 3403 for anyone who has a social security number. I have no social security number, and I have proven herein that I cannot possibly be subject to Subtitle C absent living in a federal state or voluntarily executing a W-4. Therefore, the only other tax which might apply is the Subtitle A tax. I cannot be the person "liable" for Subtitle A as the "Withholding Agent" is made liable in § 1446. You are then the "person liable", not me, and acting as the "Withholding Agent". Remember, here in Subtitle A, the 7701(a)(9) definition of the "United States" is active, and since I am a Citizen of one of the states of the Union, I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
In order to relieve you of this liability to withhold, you have to have a Statement of Citizenship, so that you know that I am a not a non-resident alien. Otherwise, I would be subject to withholding and you would be duty bound to withhold. I have supplied you with this Statement of Citizenship in duplicate as required by 26 CFR 1.1441-5(a). You are required by law to forward that to the proper authorities as specified by 26 CFR 1.1441-5(c), namely the Internal Revenue Service Center in Philadelphia, and no other. You do not have the authority to ignore a regulation published in the Code of Federal Regulations. I demand that you comply with the written law and file my exemption from withholding immediately and remit all of the monies improperly withheld from my pay since April.
The reason there are no published cases where a judge has ruled that Alton applies to social security is due to the fact the government relies on the naiveté of employers like you to fight these fights. When they come to court, the IRS is nowhere to be found, and the employer is hung out to dry. In the face of this lack of support from the government, employers have ended up settling these cases. In this way, no published precedent is set. I would suggest that you review the EEOC v ISC case I supplied or call the Pepsico legal department about the Taco Bell case to learn about their experiences with Citizens who have no social security numbers and the subject of withholding.
The Social Security Act as written is not unconstitutional as I have shown. It is not unconstitutional because it clearly applies only to the federal states or to voluntary participants. I am neither. The Railroad Retirement Tax Act was rewritten in 1936. You are correct that it is still law, but you will also have to recognize that it is was changed to be effective in precisely the same manner as social security. Congress consistently modifies laws which have been ruled unconstitutional so as to be in effect only within the federal states. This makes them constitutional. Gun laws, drug laws, education laws, and all of the other laws passed outside of Congress' Article I, Section 8 authority are municipal laws of the federal states only and cannot (lawfully) extend into the several states party to the Constitution. So long as they want to put those laws into effect within the federal zone, and not within the states of the Union, they can pass all the laws they want. There are no Constitutional guarantees within the federal states. I am surprised that you did not understand this fundamental fact about federal law.
I agree that I am an "employee", but only for purposes of § 3121, and only within Chapter 21. This is the purpose of the SS-8 Form, to allow persons who do not qualify as "employees" to get their exemption from FICA and FUTA. Although if I were fill out the form and write "NONE" for social security number, "Virginia" (not "VA") for the state, "NONE" for zip code, and "UNLAWFULLY" to denote whether my employer withholds taxes, I do not know what the outcome would be. This is irrelevant, however, as I have proven that my services are clearly not "employment", so my remuneration is clearly not "wages". The Chapter 21 tax is on "wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))". Both of these tests fail, so I am not the subject of this tax.
You have failed to recognize that the "employee" in Chapter 21 is quite different from the "employee" in Chapter 24. The Chapter 24 "employee" is someone who works for the federal or state governments, or is an officer of a corporation. "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". Since I am clearly not an "employee" as defined in Chapter 24, my remuneration is clearly not "wages". Since "every employer making payment of "wages" shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax", I am not the subject of this tax.
The issue is not whether or not I am an "employee" for § 3121 purposes. The issue is whether I am paid "wages" as defined in Chapters 21 for the Chapter 21 tax, or whether I am paid "wages" as defined in Chapter 24 for the Chapter 24 tax. As I have proven, the remuneration I receive in exchange for my services cannot be construed as "wages" as defined in either of these chapters of Subtitle C. This is consistent with my position that as a Citizen of one of the several states party to the Constitution, my right to contract freely cannot be obligated.
I am unclear as to what you are referring to in § 6109(d). Are you referring to the number which was falsely and fraudulently foisted upon me by my parents due to the constructive fraud of the federal government? I am quite surprised that you would use such an invalid number to report payments made to me under our solemn contract, and in direct contravention to my religious beliefs. If I find evidence that you have used such an invalid number on any forms which are filed in my name, I will be forced to file a suit for Declaratory Relief in the district court of the United States (and not the United States District Court) and an order to show cause why you should not be charged with filing a false and fraudulent return pursuant to 26 USC § 6065 and § 7207.
You must recognize that we began this correspondence over 5 months ago. I hope that you also are cognizant that I have been extremely patient and civil. I want you to know that I have found your conduct in this matter to be the same, and I sincerely thank you for your perseverance and patience.
My patience, however, is at an end. In the past five months time, you have improperly and illegally converted approximately $6,000 of my remuneration (not "wages") without any lawful authorization and against my express wishes. Please take timely and proper NOTICE of my DEMAND and comply within 10 business days from receipt of this letter.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted,I, Brad L. Barnhill, Sui Juris, Citizen of the republic known as the Virginia commonwealth, and so of these united States of America, have given proper and timely NOTICE of the applicable laws of the United States to Charles P. Fontaine of Reed Elsevier, Inc., to wit:
I, Brad L. Barnhill, Sui Juris, Citizen of the republic known as the Virginia commonwealth, and so of these united States of America, DEMAND the following:
I, Brad L. Barnhill, Sui Juris, Citizen of the republic known as the Virginia commonwealth, and so of these united States of America, CERTIFY that I have delivered by certified mail number _______________________, a true and correct copy of the attached NOTICE and DEMAND to Charles P. Fontaine, Tax Director, Reed-Elsevier, Inc., on this 8th day of September in the Year of our Lord 1997. Notice to the Agents is Notice to the Principles.
/s/ Brad L. Barnhill|
brad.barnhill@mindspring.comHomeSite v2.5 Last Updated: Thursday, January 21, 1999 10:39:01 PM |
Hit your <Back> key to return from whence you came. Or go to the Odyssey |