Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

W-4 Form

Any topic relate to Taxation, State, Federal etc.

Re: W-4 Form

Postby wealllbe20 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:11 pm

please reread marc-stevens-irs-drops-attack-for-six-years-jurisdiction-t5915-100.html#p54512 again.

it addresses what you are saying.

While intent of the law is important, what takes precedent first is what the law actually says.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

 

Re: W-4 Form

Postby mertensv16 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:30 pm

You raise two separate issues: (1) whether the regulations really exclude money from the definition of “property”, and (2) whether such an exclusion is authorized.

In arguing that money isn’t excluded, you mistakenly believe that the definition of “includes” under §7701(c) requires that money be included in the definition. In other words, you rely on the words “other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined” without regard to the fact that the regs explicitly exclude money. But once the regs exclude money, money is not “otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” You cannot blithely ignore the phrase “other than…money” – it’s in there for a reason.

Look, suppose the reg had said, “For purposes of Section 83 and the regulations thereunder, the term “property” does not include money. Subject to this exception, the term includes real or personal property….” Would you seriously claim that money is somehow still included? And if not, what’s the difference between this and what the reg actually says? Is there any doubt that the IRS intended to exclude money from the definition?

As to the second issue, the fact is that §83 doesn’t define “property”, and the IRS has been granted the authority to promulgate interpretive regulations under §7805. The §83 regs were initially promulgated in 1978, and the exclusion of cash from the definition of property was there from day one. In the 39 years since then Congress has amended the Code numerous times, but it hasn’t amended §83 to override the rule set forth in the regs. Accordingly, the regulations have been implicitly approved by Congress:

Treasury regulations and interpretations long continued without substantial change, applying to unamended or substantially reenacted statutes, are deemed to have received congressional approval and have the effect of law. Helvering v. Winmill, 305 US 79 (1938)


Suffice it to say that if you were to try this §83 argument in court, you would not only lose but would likely be fined for making a frivolous argument, because it’s simply a variant on the brain-dead “wages aren’t income” argument.
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
mertensv16
Statist
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 48 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby wealllbe20 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:10 pm

No, I understand the REGULATION excludes money.

The regulation that excludes money has 'includes' in it.

I stated you can interpret it two ways:

1. Which seems to me the correct interpretation but would be unlawful.
per: http://www.suijurisforum.com/lawful-money-stymies-irs-proposal-t5690-140.html#p53206

as well as:
Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984).
"The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress." Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U. S. 199, 231 (1974). If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.[12] Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.[13]



2. Which seems incorrect but would be lawful.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby Shoonra » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:06 pm

The reg expressly excludes money, either paid immediately or promised to be paid in the future. When the reg or statute explicitly excludes something, it's excluded. When it explicitly includes something, obviously that thing is included. The definition of 'include' in §7701 is meant to be expansive but not contradictory.

Usually in the Tax Code when a section explicitly mentions something that the law's application 'includes', it's because that something might not often be thought of as being in the category described; for example, when the Tax Code says that 'employee' includes a govt official, or a corporate officer, it is because many people probably don't think of people in those particular positions as 'employees' but the Tax Code wants to make it clear that they're also in that category - not the only members of that category but members along with all the people usually thought of as employees.
/ Shoonra
"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
First Samuel 15:23
User avatar
Shoonra
Statist
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:14 am
Location: suburban Maryland
Has thanked: 20 time
Have thanks: 208 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby wealllbe20 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:30 am

Shoonra, I agree with you. Perhaps not about the

§7701 is meant to be expansive but not contradictory.


everything else I agree with.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby wealllbe20 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:06 pm

Since we disagree about the regs let's look at it a different way.

26 USC § 6001
§6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).


If I am liable for said tax ONLY by regulation then I am not subject to §6001.

Only those subject to §6001 must comply with regulations and rules the Secretary may prescribe.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby mertensv16 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:50 pm

wealllbe20 wrote:If I am liable for said tax ONLY by regulation


You're not. Liability is imposed by §6151 and §6155.

Only those subject to §6001 must comply with regulations and rules the Secretary may prescribe.


This doesn't follow at all. That fact that §6001 says that those who are liable must follow the regs doesn't mean that no one else has to. People who are required to file information returns, for example, must follow the regs even though they have no tax liability or withholding requirement.
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
mertensv16
Statist
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 48 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby wealllbe20 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:18 pm

mertensv16 wrote:
wealllbe20 wrote:If I am liable for said tax ONLY by regulation


You're not. Liability is imposed by §6151 and §6155.

I am confused what would §6151 and §6155 have to do with somebody not subject to §6001?

If you were forced to file or not file a W-4 and your employer took the withheld amount or the maximum amount..
AKA. "Use of interstate commerce for purpose of fraud or deceit" 15 USC § 77Q

But then that is just criminals, forcing you to be subject to the code.. we can list more criminal statute's here if you want.

Only those subject to §6001 must comply with regulations and rules the Secretary may prescribe.

mertensv16 wrote:This doesn't follow at all. That fact that §6001 says that those who are liable must follow the regs doesn't mean that no one else has to. People who are required to file information returns, for example, must follow the regs even though they have no tax liability or withholding requirement.


Sure, if it is specifically stated in 'positive law' statute.

Let me say it this way.

Here is what I am getting from §6001:
Correct me if I am wrong.

If one is not not subject to any Title 26 tax law and ONLY a regulation makes them subject to the Title 26 tax law.
Then one is not subject to §6001 which means the regulation has no force or effect dejure and defacto.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby mertensv16 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:56 pm

wealllbe20 wrote:I am confused what would §6151 and §6155 have to do with somebody not subject to §6001?


Nothing. I was simply refuting your suggestion that it's a regulation that makes one liable.

If you were forced to file or not file a W-4 and your employer took the withheld amount or the maximum amount..
AKA. "Use of interstate commerce for purpose of fraud or deceit" 15 USC § 77Q


Nonsense. Withholding is required for wages whether or not a W-4 is submitted.

But then that is just criminals, forcing you to be subject to the code.. we can list more criminal statute's here if you want.


Don't bother. None of them apply to withholding under the IRC. And I have news for you: the universe doesn't revolve around you, and you're forced to be subject to a lot more laws besides the IRC.

Sure, if it is specifically stated in 'positive law' statute.


Got any law to back this up or are you just shooting from the hip?

Here is what I am getting from §6001:
Correct me if I am wrong.

If one is not not subject to any Title 26 tax law and ONLY a regulation makes them subject to the Title 26 tax law.
Then one is not subject to §6001 which means the regulation has no force or effect dejure and defacto.


Sure. Because a false proposition implies any proposition.
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them. Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
mertensv16
Statist
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 48 time

Re: W-4 Form

Postby wealllbe20 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:09 am

Nothing. I was simply refuting your suggestion that it's a regulation that makes one liable.


ok, we will have to agree to disagree here.

Don't bother. None of them apply to withholding under the IRC.


ok, we will have to agree to disagree here.

And I have news for you: the universe doesn't revolve around you, and you're forced to be subject to a lot more laws besides the IRC.


Wow.. here I thought we were having a discussion, it appears this is more of an attack on my character.
Notice, I don't say It doesn't APPLY to me I am simple saying not SUBJECT to it.
Now all the sudden I am being attacked and you think I think the universe revolves around me somehow.
If the code says I am liable and subject to it, I am subject to it.

Got any law to back this up or are you just shooting from the hip?

Now you are asking me for a LAW to prove that a non-passed statute by congress isn't law.
How about the constitution.

sure. Because a false proposition implies any proposition.


if it's a false proposition tell me why under the scenario I gave you:

here:
Correct me if I am wrong.

If one is not not subject to any Title 26 tax law and ONLY a regulation makes them subject to the Title 26 tax law.
Then one is not subject to §6001 which means the regulation has no force or effect dejure and defacto.


If you are going to go off like some woman on permanent PMS again, please just say so and we can end this discussion.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

PreviousNext

Return to Taxation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred