NOTICE: This is an archived forum maintained only for search purposes.

Member services are being moved and revamped at www.iwarrior.net.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Designated area for Committee on Core Withholdings (CCW) Group members.

Moderator: Committee on Core Withholdings


Unread post November 27th, 2012, 9:54 pm
jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

Some of you have seen and read this statement before.

House Congressional Record, 27 March 1943, page 2580,
The income tax is, therefore, NOT a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges, which is measured by referring to the income which they produce. The income is NOT the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax”.

I for one didnt really put two and two together when reading the statement the first time or even a second time. Confessingly, at the time the federal income tax code itself was a confusing state of affairs and the statement didnt register much except for the income tax being an excise. It wasnt until after I noticed how deeply rooted Social Security was involved in the federal income tax statutes that this statement reflected a number of times.

Have you ever taken the time to look over a W2 and notice the individual boxes?
Ever notice the amounts listed in boxes (1), (3) and (5)?
Ever ask yourself why all three boxes have the same amount listed when each box is describing something different?
Box (1) describes "wages", box (3) describes Social Security "wages", and box (5) describes a medicare "wages". But the amounts listed are identicle for all three boxes.
You and I both know we dont earn three seperate wages from the employer, so why is the W2 saying we earn three seperate "wages"?

jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

Looks like the "Libel for review" thingy that David merrill Vanpelt has pulled out of his imagination....isnt going as planned.... a judge has thrown the libels out, though not related to lawful money, and basically calling them "horse biscuits"!
I suspected this "libel" thingy would NOT do anything......my suspicion is thus far.....correct!

You can view the case over at quatloos.com under the "redeeming lawful money" thread.

jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

In the tax freedom movement theres been a question circulating of when has the basic fundamental right of working for one another been an "excise" taxable activity?
People have been laboring for one another for thousands of years. So how in America did a fundamental right become a taxable activity?
In the United States working for someone (private sector) was for the most part untaxed for the general population until 1939.
So what happened?
IRS records show that nearly 7 million Americans for the first time in thier lives were required to file tax returns.
Government records show over 14 million 1040's were filed in 1940 practically doubling from 7 million from the year before 1939.



1933
4,198,000

1934
3,892,000


1935
4,670,000


1936
5,486,000


1937
6,350,000


1938
6,251,000


1939
7,652,000


1940
14,711,000


1941
25,870,000


1942
36,619,000


1943
43,722,000


1944
47,111,000



So what was added in the 1939 Internal Revenue Code to require 7 million Americans to file a tax return who never before were required to file tax returns?
The most significant private sector related change to the revenue code was the addition of Social Security in the Title 26 revenue code. This new addition to the 1939 code is FICA, chapter 21 of Subtitle C- Employment Taxes.
How Social Security operates is a person applies for a ssn and upon receiving the ssn the individual, to participate in Social Security, is to disclose the ssn on the government exemption form (W4).
The form W4 authorizes the employer to treat the non-statutory earnings as statutory 3121(a) "wages". This is authorized by the individual participants signiture on form W4 to commence withholding and deduction allowances based on that individuals personal criteria.
Once the private sector employee authorizes the private sector employer to treat the earnings as statutory 3121(a) "wages" several taxes and deductions are imposed employees earnings.
The first tax imposed on the newly classified private sector Social Security earnings can be located at statute 26usc 3101.
26usc 3101 is reproduced in part as follows.

26usc 3101(a)
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)



And for the very same Social Security reason the employer is imposed an EXCISE tax.
Heres 26usc 3111 reproduced in part:

26usc 3111(a)
RATE OF TAX
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)


Notice anything peculiar?
Before Social Security was enacted the government didnt classify working for someone as an "EXCISE".
And notice the excise is only from earning 3121(a) "wages" which are in respect to 3121(b) "employment". Its clear 3121(b) "employment", the foundation of Social Security, is the excise activity.

jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

Well TDL shows his true colors.
I opted out of making up a graph for him after johnny implies I accepted the task.
So he bans me from his site for refusing to do his work and blames it on me for having a temper when addressing johnny's misleading assumption.

Good luck TDL when the IRS catches up to Merrill and any of you fools stupid enough to file returns based on johnny's false testimony that it redeeming works.

I'll predict the outcome for Merrill just like I did for Hendrickson. It will fail!
And you'll be back to where you were.......starting from scratch after wasting all that time chasing a theory eminating from an incompetent ego.

You deserve johnny!

jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

Let me set the reocord straight here about SS being the culprit. Johnny's well aware of what is meant when I say SS being the culprit.

Yes SS is a seperate tax, but Johnny is convoluting and purposely twisting what I have been saying for several years. What I've been saying is when you earn 3121(a) "wages", from participating in an ALL voluntary welfare program sponsored by the US federal government, you are also earning 3401(a) "wages". These "wages" are evident on every W2. The purpose of chapter 24 (where the 3401(a) "wages" definition is located) is for "withholding" and "deduction". Its these 3401(a) "wages", and 3401(a) "wages" only, that are subject to the withholding and deductions for the Section 1 federal income tax imposition. Anything outside the chapter 24 3401(a) "wage" definition (definitive scope) is exempt from withholding and deductions.

Heres the title to chapter 24:
26 USC Chapter 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES

So naturally any element found in the definition of 3401(a) "wages" (which happens to be the "object" of chapter 24) is going to be subjected to "withholding and deduction" (which happens to be the "subject" of chapter 24), basically the collection of tax as the title the suggests. Subject is "withholding and deductions" (collecting) on the object of "wages" of a defined nature.

So now that we know the purpose of chapter 24 is subjecting a defined "wage" to "withholding" and "deducting" what does this have to do with Social Security might you ask? Well it all comes down to the elements of what makes up 3401(a) "wages". Until the 1939 revised tax code there never was a chapter 21 (Social Security) found in Title 26. Yes, Chapter 21 is strictly about the collection of Social Security payments, however, when it comes to the chapter 24, the same 3121(a) "wages" elements used to determine SS taxes are also found in the 3401(a) "wages" definition. Not only are elements of 3121(a) "wages" found in 3401(a) so are ALL elements that make up the definition of 3121(b) "employment".

What these elements of 3121(a) and 3121(b) that are found in the definition of 3401(a) "wages" indicate is that Social Security is very much apart of chapter 24's 3401(a) "wages" that makes up the definitive "object" the IRS is authorized to collects from.

So the question of earning a living that is taxable or not taxable is.........to be 3121(b)"employed" or not to be 3121(b) "employed" .





I just want to thank our resident clown, Johnny, for allowing me to set the record straight about what I've been saying about Social Security. With that said, any astute individual can see that johnny doesnt have a damn clue what-so-ever when it comes to saying:

But SS is a separate tax and you can be held liable for one and not the other.


Its a no brainer to see if you are earning 3121(a) "wages", because you voluntarily particiate in Social Security, you are effectively earning 3401(a) "wages" which the government subjects to withholding and deducting because 3121(b) "employment" is an excise taxable activity (see 26usc 3111 and then 26usc 3101 that 3121(a) "wages" are only in respect to being 3121(b) "employmed" which is participating in Social Security).

Outside of participating in Social Security payroll earnings are not in respect to 3121(b) "employment". Therefore none 3121(a) "wages" do not qualify as 3401(a) "wages" and therefore are not subject to government withholding and deducting.

jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

Was messing round title 42 (social security) this morning and totally forgot about this little tidbit of formation about Social Security and Subtitle A "federal income tax".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/411

(a) Net earnings from self-employment The term “net earnings from self-employment” means the gross income, as computed under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

So the law doesnt lie.....Social Security (Employment and/or self-employment) means "gross income". So the earnings from participation of Social Security are in essence "gross income" as computed under subtitle A?
So if you dont participate in Social Security then the earnings are not derived from "employment" or "self-employment" (aka Social Security) and therefore do not fall under subtitle A's "gross income"...........NOT TAXABLE INCOME!
They are not considered "income" for the purpose of Title 26.
But I already knew this!

(1) for Social Security
(0) for lawful money

Looks bad....looks very bad for Merrill..........its a matter of time for the government catches up with Merrill for promoting a tax scam to defraud the government. And Merrill is promoting a tax scam.

jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

In regards to the above post 42usc 411(a) says that net earnings from self-employment MEANS gross income as computed under subtitle A then "gross income" is governed by Social Security then we should see this reflecting on a W2....lets see if theres any evidence of this action in the requirements of a W2 receipt.

(a) Requirement
Every person required to deduct and withhold from an employee a tax under section 3101 or 3402, or who would have been required to deduct and withhold a tax under section 3402 (determined without regard to subsection (n)) if the employee had claimed no more than one withholding exemption, or every employer engaged in a trade or business who pays remuneration for services performed by an employee, including the cash value of such remuneration paid in any medium other than cash, shall furnish to each such employee in respect of the remuneration paid by such person to such employee during the calendar year, on or before January 31 of the succeeding year, or, if his employment is terminated before the close of such calendar year, within 30 days after the date of receipt of a written request from the employee if such 30-day period ends before January 31, a written statement showing the following:

(1) the name of such person,
(2) the name of the employee (and his social security account number if wages as defined in section 3121(a) have been paid),
(3) the total amount of wages as defined in section 3401(a),
(4) the total amount deducted and withheld as tax under section 3402,
(5) the total amount of wages as defined in section 3121(a),
(6) the total amount deducted and withheld as tax under section 3101,
(7) the total amount paid to the employee under section 3507 (relating to advance payment of earned


Well looky there folks................line (2)!

You cant file a 1040 without a ssn....the irs will reject the 1040 without a ssn.
The ssn is only required on a W2 IF wages as defined in section 3121(a) have been paid.
And since 3401(a) "wages" are made up of 3121(a) and 3121(b) "employment there is no "gross income" to report.

jessejames44 Apprentice

Apprentice

Hey Libra, nationwide, johnthetaxist....did you notice something?

Look at the statute again.....its "411" also....and looky.......it completely debunks merrills interpretation to 12usc 411.....its great!

42usc 411 with out a doubt ties Social Security to "goss income". 12usc 411 does not do this.
Have you ever noticed the definition to 3401(a) "wages" particularly what is excluded from 3401(a) "wages"?

The exclusions are the same exclusions found in 3121(a) "wages" and 3121(b) "employment"....HA!
Why wouldnt the exclusion from 3121(a) and 3121(b) not be in 3401(a)?

To sum this up if self-employment dictates what "gross income" is then why wouldnt you see the exclusion to social security "wages" and "employment" in the 3401(a) "wage" definition!

HA........!


Return to Committee on Core Withholdings

cron