suggestions and insight by senior members on the W-4 form

I would like to first off thank this wonderful group of minds whose regular exchange has been to my ongoing benefit in the quest for wisdom,knowledge, and right judgment.

Secondly, I have been redeeming lawful money for approx. 6 months. No troubles with the bank, both "cashing" and "depositing" instruments, carefully and with the appropriate restricted endorsement. The minor trouble is arising from my place of exchange ("work"). I am being classified by the kind and very open minded folks at this location as a statutory employee, though they have my declaration of status/intent on file. I formerly attempted to negotiate, for the simplest of terms, due to their use of private credit and its taxation, to be classified for their benefit as an "independent contractor". Not my will or intent, but for their benefit of course. They have since been "advised",that I am most certainly an employee and should be classified as such and therefore they requested of me a W-4, which I correctly filled out and returned to them, utilizing the exemption per 12 usc 411. To date there is no problem, but a few weeks ago they requested a meeting with me where they expressed their concern for "my position" regarding "income taxes". They are not refusing the W-4 as of yet but they are requesting that I research and present to them what I perceive THEIR liabilities are should they continue to honor my claim of exemption per 12 USC 411. They are very concerned that the IRS, in the event of any controversy, will hold them liable for all "taxes". I have explained and presented to them thoroughly and in detail the remedy and function of 12 USC 411 and its alternative, private credit/FRN with fractional reserve lending and interest/usury/taxation.

So I submit my story here to request, a sort of "what would you do if you were me?", in hopes of gleaning knowledge/tools for use in smoothing my relationship with those at the location I exchange time for credit(lawful money) with. I respectfully appreciate and thank all in advance for their replies/thoughts.

Paul Thomas

Dear Paul Thomas;

Congratulations on your sense of patriotism.

I think that I would apologize for the time your position has taken from the company. For one thing, the IRS cannot hold them responsible for your taxes when it is your signature on the W-4. However, the IRS can get nasty with them and you do not want that to happen.

I know that there is a thread here somewhere that indicates somebody feels that Title 12 U.S.C. §411 entitles you to claim exemptions on the W-4 Form. I say now and said then that I do not feel this is true. Doing so puts your employer in an uncomfortable position with people who want to build a national debt in spite of the current Debt Crisis.

You might quickly pitch once more that people should be educated about redeeming lawful money. But even so, that does not justify being dishonest about the withholdings, the number of exemptions.

I think the best way to handle it is to offer to fill the W-4 Form out with your Demand made clear, but with the standard amount of exemptions. Fill out the 1040 honestly and show Payroll your Refund Check. Maybe they will seriously consider teaching people about redeeming lawful money - so that your company can participate in abolishing the Fed properly, by reducing the national debt.

Discovering that you were wrong to try redeeming lawful money on the W-4 Form after you have been fired, or worse yet, to continue justifying the falsification of exemptions for years down the road while broke and maybe worse, will be a sad waste of potential prosperity. Whereas if you show confidence in the law, and especially when you get your refund of withholdings, your employer should be quite impressed.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I think it is near the end of this video. I suggest that after you show your refund of withholdings that your employer may quit withholding altogether. This is based on you might be profiting and gaining on the extra cash flow sooner than after waiting for a refund.

Thank you David! I appreciate your comments and I am going to rewatch the video to see what further knowledge I can acquire. I will report on my progress. Your plan of demonstration of refund after filing 1040 may be the route I have to take, as much as I do not wish to contract in any way with the FED district/IRS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportiva27

Thank you David! I appreciate your comments and I am going to rewatch the video to see what further knowledge I can acquire. I will report on my progress. Your plan of demonstration of refund after filing 1040 may be the route I have to take, as much as I do not wish to contract in any way with the FED district/IRS.

---

The real underlying problem as expressed in the first video is how in 1938 the Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security program is a valid Income Tax. Here is the 1984 Article:

Quote:

---

So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

---

Thank you for your comment about our minds. Maybe we can put them together to figure a way around the interaction with SSA. But for now, to have a bank account you need a SSN and for any tax reporting at all too. So employers, even for 1099 Contracting need a SSN or TIN for reporting purposes.

However - redeeming lawful money is still for you, even if you are a corporate slave. So hang in there. Keep your job and keep the peace. Do not take up much of your employer's time apologizing but I suggest that you do apologize for dragging him into what is really between you and the IRS/Fed.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I think you might want to read that thread about filling out a W-4 Form. And you can always start one so that you keep both the IRS and your employer happy - and get back your entire withholdings next year.

I have read the success story threads about the refunds, and it is really cool to see a remedy that works. You seem quite sure of the refund potential.....are there other successes out there?

Yes. I have heard of quite a few.

However the IRS attorneys are becoming acute about tax liability prior to redeeming lawful money. One instance, a banker with an evidence repository, six-figures working in two states is still waiting for refunds from one state and federal - just Silence. Federal offered him about half of his refund but he R4C'd. That was the last he has heard.

This indicates he has the law on his side, it is a bit sad but he seems more patient about it than I am.

My "place of exchange (work)" is at one of the Federal Home Loan banks (FHLB). I submitted a form w-4, not specifying any dependents, but rather I wrote in "Exempt" at line number 7. I included a footnote on the form that pretty much explained that I've opted out of Federal reserve banking.

Several weeks went by with no problem.

But then I received an email from the payroll department. Payroll informed me that the FHLB legal department will not accept forms w-4 (either Federal or State) with any verbiage on it that is not explicitly requested by the form. The email cited Illinois statute and IRS publications.

Silly me. The forms w-4 is intellectual property of the State, and I have no standing to change their rules on how their forms are to be used.

I simply filled out corrected forms, still writing in "exempt", but absent the "...demand for lawful money..." verbiage.

All has been well ever since. No Federal or State income tax withholdings. Not a peep from Payroll or Legal.

sportiva27, I find it odd that the employer would ask you about their liabilites should they proceed under 12 USC 411. They're asking you for legal advice. Are you a licensed attorney?

P.S. Line number 7 on form w-4 (Federal) reads:

I claim exemption from withholding for 2011, and I certify that I meet both of the following conditions for exemption.
• Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability and
• This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability.
If you meet both conditions, write “Exempt” here . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If the foregoing bullet points are true, then it is truthful, lawful, and legal to write in "Exempt". I suggest that you instill confidence in the employer that both conditions are met.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock Anthony

My "place of exchange (work)" is at one of the Federal Home Loan banks (FHLB). I submitted a form w-4, not specifying any dependents, but rather I wrote in "Exempt" at line number 7. I included a footnote on the form that pretty much explained that I've opted out of Federal reserve banking.

Several weeks went by with no problem.

But then I received an email from the payroll department. Payroll informed me that the FHLB legal department will not accept forms w-4 (either Federal or State) with any verbiage on it that is not explicitly requested by the form. The email cited Illinois statute and IRS publications.

Silly me. The forms w-4 is intellectual property of the State, and I have no standing to change their rules on how their forms are to be used.

I simply filled out corrected forms, still writing in "exempt", but absent the "...demand for lawful money..." verbiage.

All has been well ever since. No Federal or State income tax withholdings. Not a peep from Payroll or Legal.

sportiva27, I find it odd that the employer would ask you about their liabilites should they proceed under 12 USC 411. They're asking you for legal advice. Are you a licensed attorney?

P.S. Line number 7 on form w-4 (Federal) reads:

I claim exemption from withholding for 2011, and I certify that I meet both of the following conditions for exemption.
• Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability and
• This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability.
If you meet both conditions, write “Exempt” here . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If the foregoing bullet points are true, then it is truthful, lawful, and legal to write in "Exempt". I suggest that you instill confidence in the employer that both conditions are met.

---

Thank you Rock!

I should have referred to the W-4 Form itself before talking about it.

Sportiva;


Last year you had the right to a full refund, even if you did not exercise it.

"All corporations have to zero their books at the end of the year, so where do they get their capital money to startup the next year?"

I worked as a CPA and as a controller (aka comptroller) for much of my twenty-five year career. I am still very familiar with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which are the rules that govern the presentation of financial statements intended for the "public" users of financial statements.

There are two primary classifications of accounts in every enterprise's GAAP books -
(1) balance sheet accounts and
(2) periodic income statement accounts. Balance sheet accounts retain their balances from year to year; they are not zeroed out at the close of the accounting period.

Periodic income statement accounts are brought to zero at the close of the accounting period.

At the conclusion of the accounting period, which usually coincides with a twelve month period, all of the transactions recorded in the periodic income statement accounts are summed. The balances in the periodic income statement accounts are brought to zero, and the net amount needed to offset them is recorded in a balance sheet account. Usually this account is called Retained Earnings. The act of bringing the accounts to zero is done with an accounting entry, usually called a "closing entry". Retained Earnings carries in it the running net profit or loss of the enterprise since its inception.

For example, if at the close of the accounting period, all of the revenue accounts totaled $100,000, and all of the expense accounts totaled $90,000, the sum required to be recorded in Retained Earnings to bring the income statement accounts to zero is $10,000. All of the income statement accounts are brought to zero, and an accounting credit of $10,000 is recorded in Retained Earnings.

Balance sheet accounts are not zeroed at the end of an accounting period. Cash, cash equivalents, and inventory are balance sheet accounts. As there is no real money any longer, cash and cash equivalents represent available credit that can be immediately accessed without interest charges.

Enterprises obtain the means to begin the next year's operations with the cash, cash equivalents, and physical inventory on hand, which are measured by the amounts recorded in these balance sheet accounts.

This does not preclude the possibility that operations could be financed with trade acceptances. However, having audited many publicly held corporations, I am not aware of any practice whereby financing is obtained through trade acceptances backed by "employment" documents such as a W-4.

The W-4 is intended solely for use by instrumentalities of the United States.

An instrumentality of the United States is more commonly known as a "U.S. Person".

The submission of the W-4 indicates that the submitter is voluntarily declaring his intent to work in the capacity of a public office of the United States, specifically an office in the United States Merchant Marine.

In actual practice, the enterprise demands Form W-4 from the worker as a condition of the labor contract.

Thus, the enterprise declares itself to be an "employer", and brings itself under the taxes and reporting obligations of that classification, by virtue of the fact that it compels otherwise private sector workers to act in the capacity of public office holders of the United States.

The enterprise voluntarily brings itself under bondage, and compels its workers to be slaves along with it.

When I worked as a controller, the original W-4's were always retained in personnel files. If a W-4 had been used to obtain financing through a trade acceptance, I believe we would have had to surrender that original document to the creditor.

Used to be that they had a more easier-to-grasp district structure for the IRS. Now it seems to be a bit more ambiguous. I had always seemed comfortable with the idea of settling your exemption with the local IRS and having the employer deal with the IRS. That is, if the local IRS will hold up their end, the employer being the "little, helpless girly" in the scheme of things will have to follow suit. That is: it seems a lot more sound to first establish the exemption with the local IRS or with the IRS in general. Long ago, I used notarized statements in lieu of federal forms..things like a notarized Certificate of Foreign Status and was free from withholding...and I have never, ever heard a peep or question from the IRS. I am, simply, exempt. Keep in mind that, the "employer" in the capacity of doing withholding is very much the IRS/Treasury--really. But the level of competence back at the IRS local office is probably going to be a lot higher than Jennifer the HR chic.

What some folks do not realize is that they are exchanging substance/labor for scrip. The company is the one getting the deal not you. You're the one with what they want. They cannot pay you in lawful money so they are the one's receiving a benefit. But yet they want you to pay the tax on top of their getting a great deal by getting labor for just about nothing. This scheme of passing tax onto the employee was said to have been devised during the 1960s and 1970s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Used to be that they had a more easier-to-grasp district structure for the IRS. Now it seems to be a bit more ambiguous. I had always seemed comfortable with the idea of settling your exemption with the local IRS and having the employer deal with the IRS. That is, if the local IRS will hold up their end, the employer being the "little, helpless girly" in the scheme of things will have to follow suit. That is: it seems a lot more sound to first establish the exemption with the local IRS or with the IRS in general. Long ago, I used notarized statements in lieu of federal forms..things like a notarized Certificate of Foreign Status and was free from withholding...and I have never, ever heard a peep or question from the IRS. I am, simply, exempt. Keep in mind that, the "employer" in the capacity of doing withholding is very much the IRS/Treasury--really. But the level of competence back at the IRS local office is probably going to be a lot higher than Jennifer the HR chic.

What some folks do not realize is that they are exchanging substance/labor for scrip. The company is the one getting the deal not you. You're the one with what they want. They cannot pay you in lawful money so they are the one's receiving a benefit. But yet they want you to pay the tax on top of their getting a great deal by getting labor for just about nothing. This scheme of passing tax onto the employee was said to have been devised during the 1960s and 1970s.

---

A debtor U.S. person is what a debtor U.S. person does when one claims to be such a creature via silent acquiescence.

I have been non-endorsing my paychecks for about 4 weeks now. I will continue with my current withholding until I understand more about the w4. I will just file my 1040 and use my lawful money to hopefully offset the tax for 2011 because I started late in the year non-endorsing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawful

I have been non-endorsing my paychecks for about 4 weeks now. I will continue with my current withholding until I understand more about the w4. I will just file my 1040 and use my lawful money to hopefully offset the tax for 2011 because I started late in the year non-endorsing.

---

Six weeks might get you a larger refund. Wait until 2013 though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock Anthony

I wrote in "Exempt" at line number 7. t.

---

I do not like that " exempt " verbage, but rather " not subject to " there is quite a bit of difference there

I sent my 2011 1040 tax return with demand for lawful money and received a notice back where they revised my return and completely ignored all.

Do you think this is a test or maybe they don't understand what I did?

Does anybody have any experience with this?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dekneez

I sent my 2011 1040 tax return with demand for lawful money and received a notice back where they revised my return and completely ignored all.

Do you think this is a test or maybe they don't understand what I did?

Does anybody have any experience with this?

Thanks.

---

I have tested out lawful money redemption of W-2 based paychecks in the safe confines of some 1040EZ returns, where the "income" was small enough to qualify for EIC, no matter how you figured it. The IRS ignored everything about the lawful money redemption and figured the EIC as if I had endorsed private credit of the Fed.

I've come to the conclusion that the only Lawful Money is Cash, in hand paid, besides gold and silver coin which nobody has ever offered to pay me in.

The SSN in connection with banking and DL appears to be evidence of a "trade or business" of the United States, and once you receive IRS information returns such as W-2s and 1099s, the IRS considers the amounts shown on those info returns to be taxable income.

I have no idea what legal trickery they base their fleecing power on, and I'm only vaguely interested in the latest theories about the income tax mechanisms anymore.
I have read many an opinion and research on how the IRS tax scheme supposedly works, and overall the SEDM research and the Informer make the most sense to me.

My observations are no more than anecdotes of my real-life experiences.
My experiences have shown me that cash transactions between real humans are never taxed, but as soon as I take my cash to a business which has a tax ID number, such as a grocery store or gas station, the taxation starts.

Sorry I can't offer you a magic bullet. I believe that the only way to win with the IRS is to not play the debt based fiat money game at all.

well said, TF

I am a little saddened that the experience has taught you that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I am a little saddened that the experience has taught you that.

---

Why?
It seems that you learned this a long time ago.
I'm just now catching up:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treefarmer

I've come to the conclusion that the only Lawful Money is Cash, in hand paid, besides gold and silver coin which nobody has ever offered to pay me in.

---

My understanding is lawful money is Fed notes that are fully bonded; or in other words cash. The signatures of the US Treasurer and the Secretary bond the cash but the endorser bonds the extra currency generated from fractional lending. Endorsement gives naked contract consent for that increase to happen so there is a lot of bonding going on that is a first lien against the substance of the endorser.

However it is true that I have not cashed a paycheck for well over a decade and a half. So you have a point with me.

Maybe your point is that if you provide a Taxpayer ID number on a 1040 Form to get a Refund the IRS agent presumes you have taxable income? I may be mistaken but it seems to me that you are a Cracking the Code recovery from that thread. This severely complicates things since redeeming lawful money.

We have success stories coming in though. Not many recent postings here though. I think that I can understand reluctance to post on websites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

My understanding is lawful money is Fed notes that are fully bonded; or in other words cash. The signatures of the US Treasurer and the Secretary bond the cash but the endorser bonds the extra currency generated from fractional lending. Endorsement gives naked contract consent for that increase to happen so there is a lot of bonding going on that is a first lien against the substance of the endorser.

However it is true that I have not cashed a paycheck for well over a decade and a half. So you have a point with me.

Maybe your point is that if you provide a Taxpayer ID number on a 1040 Form to get a Refund the IRS agent presumes you have taxable income? I may be mistaken but it seems to me that you are a Cracking the Code recovery from that thread. This severely complicates things since redeeming lawful money.

We have success stories coming in though. Not many recent postings here though. I think that I can understand reluctance to post on websites.

---

It would be wonderful if people could demand lawful money on the backs of their paychecks and elsewhere, and even though they get W-2s, be able to get full refunds of their withholdings when they file their 1040s, without getting "frivolous" letters, penalties, etc.
I'm all for it.

I have not seen it happen yet though.
I hope it will happen, and that someone will share their success stories here with us.

Since my HENDRICKSON adventures, I'm not too eager to experiment with big numbers on 1040s anymore.

I'm a big fan of the LoR and Lawful Money cash:)
Lawful Money has been working very well for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treefarmer

It would be wonderful if people could demand lawful money on the backs of their paychecks and elsewhere, and even though they get W-2s, be able to get full refunds of their withholdings when they file their 1040s, without getting "frivolous" letters, penalties, etc.
I'm all for it.

I have not seen it happen yet though.
I hope it will happen, and that someone will share their success stories here with us.

Since my HENDRICKSON adventures, I'm not too eager to experiment with big numbers on 1040s anymore.

I'm a big fan of the LoR and Lawful Money cash:)
Lawful Money has been working very well for us.

---

I tend to sanitize a good example and stick with it. Here the NY Tax Authority contemplated a return carefully enough to add a refund for School Tax Credit of $125:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3503/...5adjustmen.jpg

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3...5adjustmen.jpg

I will certainly respect your Rules of Evidence that this is sanitized to the point of being unverified.

The new slang for redemption by the Blood is Plead Guilty to the Facts ONLY!

What are you going to do about it? I have done nothing wrong!

We can't arraign this guy! He does not understand the nature and cause of the accusation if we cannot make him feel guilty... Somebody tell him we called Jesus and he is no longer Forgiven and Redeemed!


Redeem the lawful money and climb out from under the national debt/guilt. It amuses me that Jesus warned the central bankers about the children.

Just a thought, maybe redeemed lawful money is 'taxable' (meaning there is an obligation to pay tax on it). The only thing that makes sense to me right now is this: the obligation to pay any tax or obligation once demand for redemption is made remains with the issuer of the note who created the obligation ab initio.

The endorsers of FRNs (or fractionalized credit/currency) are obliged to pay any taxes on it so long as I restrict my endorsements properly.

EDIT TO ADD: I personally believe there are fees owed, after all, Federal Reserve Credit is issued to be paid at face value in goods and services, plus interest, only endorsers of that agreement (contract) may be obligated to pay in goods and services.

Re: Victoria GRANT and Canada's debt what's interesting is that "Canada" means "the Village" or "the City". Do you live in the City?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin earl

Just a thought, maybe redeemed lawful money is 'taxable' (meaning there is an obligation to pay tax on it). The only thing that makes sense to me right now is this: the obligation to pay any tax or obligation once demand for redemption is made remains with the issuer of the note who created the obligation ab initio.

The endorsers of FRNs (or fractionalized credit/currency) are obliged to pay any taxes on it so long as I restrict my endorsements properly.

EDIT TO ADD: I personally believe there are fees owed, after all, Federal Reserve Credit is issued to be paid at face value in goods and services, plus interest, only endorsers of that agreement (contract) may be obligated to pay in goods and services.

---

Or perhaps it has something to do with tax on cancellation of debt if you endorse it in blank?

I compiled some images about Social Security.

Well there it is in black and white from the SSA itself.

"The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a social security number to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSn simply for the purpose of having one."

They go on to use circular reasoning by citing "other laws" that
require businesses who are required to file with the IRS, without
stating what those requirements are.

Pretty evasive, in a clever sort of way...