Thank you Allodial;
That is a new diagram for me. Maybe it is the old "So you used to beat your wife tactic." tactic?
I knew it was not the one I am used to though. When I would make three great points at once then the rebuttal would be only on the weakest point and the two great points would seemingly fall by the wayside.
Hello, I would like to quickly comment on this issue, which is to say the "lock-in" process (or the 'LTR 2801C'), the IRS abuses purely under a 'color of law' as surely your payroll dept. could very readily provide the IRS your recent withholding history and as well the IRS most certainly has all of your prior tax filing on microfiche. Below is an excerpt from a notice I had sent to my payer last year:Originally Posted by jesse james
Concerning 26 U.S.C., to date by way of my own research, I have been unable to locate any statutory authority directly empowering the IRS to issue its infamous “lock-in” letters as “single and zero” by proxy, which so being the case indicates that all such letters are in reality 'color of law' bootleg documents providing no binding legal obligation for enforcement and that all such notices are but contrived farces. The IRS has been granted only authority to implement procedures through regulations to establish for individuals their legitimate claim of allowances for deductions, exemption, etc. as so defined by statute, they have not been granted authority to restrict such rights from them (notwithstanding that they have also been granted authority to issues civil penalties upon those that are committing fraud with concern to such allowances, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 7205).
i. The only regulatory statute I have located on this subject matter pertains to only authorizing such increases in withholdings at the employee’s request, see 26 U.S.C. 3402(i)(1) — ‘Changes in withholding’:
“The Secretary may by regulations provide for increases in the amount of withholding otherwise required under this section in cases where the employee requests such changes. …”
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
ii. The only regulation concerning such notices/letters is found within 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(i) — ‘Withholding exemption certificates’ (which (being merely a 'regulation') is superseded in context by the scope prescribed under statute) and is intended only to ensure that employees are claiming only what they are lawfully entitled to and not to be enforced as a venomous form of maximum withholding punishment (the IRS does none of the below, save for issuing the harrassing letter):
“Notice of the maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted--(i) Notice to employer. The IRS may notify the employer in writing that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding or more than the maximum number of withholding exemptions specified by the IRS in the written notice. The notice will also specify the applicable marital status for purposes of calculating the required amount of withholding. The notice will specify the IRS office to be contacted for further information. The notice of maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted may be issued if--
(A) The IRS determines that a copy of a withholding exemption Certificate submitted under paragraph (g)(1) [“An employer must submit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a copy of any currently effective withholding exemption certificate as directed in a written notice to the employer from the IRS or as directed in published guidance.”] of this section or otherwise provided to the IRS contains a materially incorrect statement or determines, after a request to the employee for verification of the statements on the certificate, that the IRS lacks sufficient information to determine if the certificate is correct.
(B) The IRS otherwise determines that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding and is not entitled to claim more than a specified number of withholding exemptions.
…”
See: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...02(f)(2)-1.htm
Hey there Weston!
Its been a long time since we talked over at your site.
Just last week i tried to log in and couldnt remember my password.
To reply to your post..................read regulation 26cfr 1-1.1 for the reason you think the IRS cant slap a lock in letter.
The key to this is your consent to being their subject.......................the federal "US citizen".
US citizens are regulated and taxed heavily.......................the People are not!
Thank You Jessie...Contract ...................Corporate Info
Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.
In contract law in the United States, the pre-existing duty rule is a legal concept relating to when the performance of a legal duty is classified as consideration.
Generally, performing a legal duty which is already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration, unless that duty is unclear or honestly disputed.
That is, once a party agrees to do something under a contract, that party cannot change the terms without consideration and expect the new terms to be enforceable.
This is expressed as the legal duty rule, and usually occurs in one of three different ways: Wikipedia
Last edited by Chex; 01-06-12 at 05:02 AM.
Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.
Then why is there a "federal income tax" and a separate "FICA" tax and a "Medicare tax" listed on a W-2 form?
Are you saying that all three are Social Security taxes, but split up into three different categories?
If so, why are they split up?
Treefarmer
There is power in the blood of Jesus
Are those not all but hidden taxes anyway? With them all going directly into a general fund with nothing being earmarked for a specific purpose; just the same as "Obamacare", yet another pointless tax hike at 2.5/5-percent (or more) annually. With the federal government reserving the right to terminate such entitlement programs at anytime they see fit, which subsequently could result in the forfeiture of any future benefits in those programs or in greatly reduced benefits from such entitlements, dependent upon nothing but the generosity of whoever is holding the House at the time.
What jesse is describing (correctly, by the way!) is explained very well right here:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxe...ipdiagrams.pdf
Hbert
Federal income tax is separate from the other two.
FICA has to do with SS.
Medicare has to do with social insurance .... interesting.
If Medicare is a social insurance program ... the tax you pay is your premium in contribution to the program....
Interestingly enough, France and Canada also have Medicare or some form of social insurance program. I have a hunch this may be international in scope. If this is the case, then there are greater implications not spoken ....
Insurance is squarely in the realm of Admiralty/Maritime law.
It is not unlawful for government to tax a benefit given (per the Supreme Court). I've seen this in one of the Supreme Court cases on Social Security. I'm guessing it is Flemming v. Nestor (1960), but don't quote me on it.
If you accept a benefit from government, expect there to be a tax.
If you want to reduce your exposure to taxes, decline the benefits.
Cease to be a beneficiary.
Last edited by shikamaru; 01-08-12 at 01:17 PM.
No its not unlawful for the government to tax a benefit................especialy a benefit that comes directly and administered from the government itself.Federal income tax is separate from the other two.
FICA has to do with SS.
Medicare has to do with social insurance .... interesting.
If Medicare is a social insurance program ... the tax you pay is your premium in contribution to the program....
Interestingly enough, France and Canada also have Medicare or some form of social insurance program. I have a hunch this may be international in scope. If this is the case, then there are greater implications not spoken ....
Insurance is squarely in the realm of Admiralty/Maritime law.
It is not unlawful for government to tax a benefit given (per the Supreme Court). I've seen this in one of the Supreme Court cases on Social Security. I'm guessing it is Flemming v. Nestor (1960), but don't quote me on it.
If you accept a benefit from government, expect there to be a tax.
If you want to reduce your exposure to taxes, decline the benefits
Cease to be a beneficiary.
Social Security is a federal government benefit program that has no mandatory participation clause in it whatsoever............its all voluntary.
And its voluntary to participate because in doing so you proclaim under penalty of perjury to being a 14th amendment federal "US citizen" having but a scant Bill of Right protections of the Constitution.
If they would have such a mandatory participation clause in the benefit Act it would be in violation of the US Constitution on many different levels.
Do you think they could force every American to participate if this mandatory participation labels you a second class citizen that has a little Bill of Rights?
This fight against taxation boils down to "RIGHTS" not money!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote