QUOTING: “No, it is not a courtesy on the part of the filer. You are submitting a self-assessment. The W-2 is presented to you by the employer for your validation. The IRS in turn requires that you send them a copy to verify that you have seen what the employer reported and that by this submission you validate that it is true and correct.”
No, a W-2 is not required to be submitted along with a 4852 Form, for that is the entire purpose of that specific form, to correct and replace it, or to outright substitute it in instances where no W-2 was ever provided to the filer. Moreover, as to status quo filings (and including all filings, in general), it is the information provided and attested to upon the face of the 1040 or similar form itself that completes one’s “self-assessment” and not a third-party W-2 copy.
As to your reasoning, the same would also be made true if the numbers match precisely upon both the 1040 and W-2. Neither is a there a statute or jurat that stipulates for the specified enclosure of the W-2 as a personal validation of the data contained upon it as being “true and correct” or anything to that effect (there is only a generalized jurat for whatever included schedules and attachments).
Also, I seem to recall that there are various lower court cases (district, tax court, etc.), finding that a filing is still valid even without a W-2 and that a 1040 form is not even a requirement in being used, i.e., the Beard Test. If there is a statute stipulating the legal requirement of certain forms and attachments to create a valid tax filing, I have yet to come across it and if you happen to know of it then please post it and correct my error in logic on this point. Thank you.
QUOTING: “Why didn't you simply say to her what you wrote in (2) above - The 4852 is a government form that serves as a substitute W-2.”
I did, in so many words (which clearly only upset her further as she picked up my small stack of papers and hastily slid them across the counter back at me telling me that they are not helping me with anything, not even a few other papers I was wanting to file that did not require a W-2), though she probably finds such filings atrocious and probably will get docked by her higher-ups for permitting such filings into her office, while she and her crew are most certainly instructed to keep all such filings out of her office at all costs.
I also had a similar problem last year (with the same manager and the same counter clerk) when I went to my local office to personally submit amended returns and to seek local aid in dealing with several unlawful aspects of my family’s current liens and levies. I was basically told they are not trained to handle any those types of things, they don’t want to hear about them, they will not try to contact or research my issues with anybody outside of their office, that they cannot even make the effort to help me because I have not even filed my tax returns yet (and when I questioned them as to this oddity that if I officially have no tax returns on file then how could I have penalties imposed upon me for those non-existing filings, they again simply did not care to get involved, that it just did not matter; ergo, it is, what it is –also to note: I do in fact have several FOIA replies showing that my returns are on file though the IRS to date is refusing to process them, and I am aware from the experiences of others that if you do send a copy of your original filing or draft a new one that is not status quo and submit either in an effort to comply with the IRS’ ACS request by letter or notice for a new return to be mailed to them, you will only be charged with a new frivolous penalty, talk about “entrapment”), and that I just need to start doing what the IRS instructs of me and to cooperate with them, and that I can either call the phone numbers on the notices I received for help (which I had many times over the years and they only ever state to arrange for payment of the penalties, to visit your local office for further help, or to file in tax court), or just pay the penalties and address the matter in tax court.
QUOTING: “You Lose. We just had a discussion about judges being taxed on their salaries. The Executive and Legislative branches are also taxed on their salaries.
If you give me the line that the tax falls on all federal workers, then I will throw the B.S. card on you. The janitor in the Pentagon has the same protection as the janitor in a Mcdonald's.
The tax also falls on the salaries of executives of all corporations. It applies to the salaries of all small business owners.”
Surely, it must be kept in mind, the present status quo misconception as to federal powers and purposes of taxation, be it in whatever mode or method, while perhaps it is incorrect (immoral, etc.) for such classes of workers to be taxed upon their labor as well, it would certainly seem justly a valid exercise of the federal power to impose such a tax; being in the form of an indirect excise, which is what the federal income tax truly is –within its proper core the income tax is merely a subset of excise taxation. To tax federal employees of whatever branch, class, or instrumentality would be merely a tax upon specific occupation. Just as to the federal income taxes imposed upon railroad, mining, and sea occupations; BATFE occupations; associations; corporations; joint-stocks; insurance companies; foreign employments; resident aliens; etc., for they had been directly mentioned (or targeted) within various Subtitles of the IRC.
Individuals engaged in operating a business entity are rightfully taxed under the federal income tax as they are in fact earning a ‘profit’, e.g., if you are an attorney charging $200 an hour for your ‘services’, you have traversed far beyond simply earning a livelihood; similarly, if you are selling a $5 at cost pair of fancy sneakers for $125.
Further to note, presuming that the janitor at the Pentagon is not a privately contracted out foreigner working for minimum wage without benefits, while in hopes of acquiring permanent citizenship someday, then those two employees are compensated very, very differently (e.g., the Pentagon employee -aside from owing his employment directly to the will of the federal government- is probably earning well above minimum wage, while enjoying a host of additional perks). Also many government employees work in a professional capacity requiring specialized certifications or licenses, or in unique fields that simply do not exist outside of the government itself. More pointedly, most all federal employees are compensated very differently from their “civilian” counterparts; while, also noticing that those working for the federal government subjugate themselves to that very will, this could mean the surrendering of certain individual rights or mandated participation in certain activities, concessions, programs, etc., as similarly this can to a certain degree apply to private employment just the same, although would be much more limited in degree.
Also noticing that such language is observed all throughout the IRC:
“employee” as: “… includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, Territory, 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.”
“… any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, …”
Page eight (8) of IRS Publication 15 – known widely as ‘Circular E’ and entitled: ‘Employer’s Tax Guide’, states [in part] the following with no further clarification other than referring to the statutory term “employers” throughout: “Federal Government employers. The information in this guide applies to federal agencies …” and closes the same paragraph by cross-referencing: ‘Treasury Financial Manual (I TFM 3-4000)’, for additional information.
Treasury Financial Manual – ‘I TFM 3-4000: Federal Income, Social Security, and Medicare Taxes’; Section 4080 – ‘Levy for Unpaid Tax Liability’, reiterates that only the ‘accrued salary or wages’ of “any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia” can be lawfully reached by a notice of levy. TFM Subsection 4080.20 – ‘Designation of Individuals to Receive Service of Notice of Levy’ clarifies that “Each Government agency should designate one or more persons on whom a levy may be served” for that agency’s employees. No levy provision is made for the salary or pay of private-sector or non-federally connected workers.
QUOTING: “You can not make the blanket statement that gross income does not include wages or salaries.”
Neither was I attempting to; for of course not, the IRC is so entirely expansively diverse and convoluted such would be an utter impossibility. The IRC has become a century old quagmire existent within a hotchpotch. I am merely addressing the menial labor as to their inherent right in achieving an honest and fruitful means of livelihood.
It must be recognized that indirectly taxing “compensation for services” is not the same as directly taxing wages or salaries; further noting that salaries are earned only by supervisors, managers, professionals, and the like, while wages are earned by their subordinate workers.
While the requirement of withholding might in fact be upon wages (and notice that never is “salaries” mentioned within Subtitle C) the assessment of the individual income tax is to be only upon the gains, profits, and incomes having derived from wages and salaries and not the wages and salaries themselves. “Withholding” itself does not establish one’s taxable liabilities; it only establishes a valid claim for credit or refund on whatever was overpaid after assessment, 26 USC §§ 31(a)(1), 6201(a)(1), 6401(c). Ergo, if no process of withholding took place that alone would not relieve one of whatever tax liabilities realized during a taxable period.
QUOTING: “I do not need a SCOTUS case”
Our United States of America is a common law republic, so why not? The fact that there are no such cases existing within the high court is to me very, very telling, indeed.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us