Are You An Employee?

What would you do if someone told you for the purposes of taxation, you were not an employee when you went to work as a private-sector worker? Would you believe them?

26 USC § 3401(c) defines an “employee” as follows:

Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, 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.

Admittedly, at first glance you read the word “employee” and go, oh yeah, I’m an employee. But let’s break out some old school grammar and get down to what this says.

The first part of the sentence are the people eligible – “officer, employee, or elected official.” The second part of the sentence are the location limiters – “United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing”

So what we have is…
Officer, employee, or elected official of… the United States
Officer, employee, or elected official of… a State
Officer, employee, or elected official of… any political subdivision thereof
Officer, employee, or elected official of… District of Columbia
Officer, employee, or elected official of… any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing

Are you any of those?

You may be going, “well, it says that the definition ‘includes’!” Of course. In laymen’s thought, why would congress name “Employees of… whatever” if the term “employee” includes all these employees already. If you are an employee of the United States (think, FBI agent or something), then aren’t you already an “employee” by common definition. Of course you are. So why define it again?

The answer is simple, because when words are defined in law, they ignore all common definitions. For instance if Congress decided to say “for the purpose of this chapter, ‘gas’ is to be defined as natural gas” then whenever you read the word “gas” then you would know that the law was not referring to gas that you pump at BP or QuickTrip, but rather natural gas.

Likewise, for Title 26 (tax law) the word “includes” is specifically defined. So, we can conclude that the word “includes” no longer means “in addition to” but rather whatever they defined it to be. In this case, in horrible wording, they defined it to mean inclusive of things within the same scope. Confusing right?

Let’s try to make an example. “For the purposes of this chapter ‘gas’ includes natural gas and bio gas.” So for this, we would conclude that natural gas and bio gas are “gasses” but we could also conclude that gas from landfills is included as well because landfill gasses are a type of bio gas. We could also say that town gas is included because it is a sub-type of natural gas. However, we could not conclude that gas put in your car to be a “gas” under this law.

So, who cares if you are or are not an employee? Well, everyone should! Only these select “employees” are the ones that make “wages” (also a custom term) and wages are taxable. Title 26 does not specify how to handle your money if you are not making “wages.” So if you are not an “employee” and you don’t make “wages” then you are probably paying more taxes then you should, permitting that you read and know the law.

Check it out. You might be surprised.

 

Fraud OK for us IRS says

Well, the IRS shows it’s true colors. “Fraud is OK in our house!”

(Original here)

Thousands of individuals claiming the first-time homebuyer’s $8,000 tax credit may have been attempting to scam the system, including purported four-year-olds and illegal immigrants, according to a watchdog report released on Thursday.

Nearly 74,000 individuals who claimed the tax credit did not appear to qualify for it, at a cost of half a billion to the government, the inspector general for tax administration for the U.S. Treasury Department said in a report to be delivered to lawmakers on Thursday.

“Some of our findings, while preliminary, are somewhat disturbing,” inspector general Russell George said in an interview. Among the most striking instances of fraud include four-year-olds, non-U.S. citizens and IRS employees inappropriately claiming the benefit, he said.

The report comes amid a heated debate about the popular credit, which the real estate and homebuilding industry is fiercely lobbying to protect. It expires at the end of November, and some say it simply doles out cash to those who would have purchased a home without it.

A subcommittee of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives will hear from IRS, IG and other officials at a hearing Thursday.

About 1.4 million tax returns have been filed to take advantage of the credit at a cost to the government of about $10 billion. Many powerful lawmakers want to extend it, including some that back broadening it to all homebuyers and doubling its benefit.

Extension in its current form would cost about a $1 billion a month. A proposal in the Senate to double the credit and extend it until June would cost about $17 billion.

In response to a report last week citing thousands not qualifying properly for the credit, the IRS said it intends to vigorously root out fraud in the program.

An IRS spokesman also said potential for fraud exists whenever a new refundable credit is put in place. The agency has opened 107,000 civil cases related to the credit and identified 167 criminal schemes. Also, they have selected thousands of returns for those claiming the credit for deeper audits.

The report finds that 582 taxpayers under the age of 18 claimed about $4 million using the credit, with the youngest being 4 years old.

It further faults the IRS for failing to take its advice that a third party be required to document an individual claiming the credit actually purchased a home.

The IRS refuted some of the findings of the IG, and argued for example that some findings are premature because some taxpayers may eventually purchase a home.

Under the law, the credit should be claimed after purchase.

The IRS has responded to some of the IG’s advice, including installing computer filters so those who filed for a home mortgage interest deduction could not also claim the first-time tax credit.

“The IRS is having a very mixed bag in terms of its implementation of this important tool to help the economy,” George said.

A 2008 law created a $7,500 tax credit for those who haven’t purchased a home in three years and who meet certain income limits, with the intention of jump starting the moribund housing market. A 2009 law boosted the credit to $8,000.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, want to extend the credit but the housing chief for the Obama administration on Tuesday expressed doubts the United States could afford to extend the credit.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the administration would decide in coming weeks whether it backs an extension.

How the Criminal IRS works

If someone accuses you of something, the burden of proof is on them, right?

For instance, if someone accuses me of murdering someone via a gun they need to prove this fact beyond a doubt. They need to provide video surveillance of me doing the deed, the weapon I used and my fingerprints on it, ballistics, witnesses, and so on. What they cannot do, at least not in America, is to say that I committed 1st degree murder and then throw me in the slammer (that is what happens commonplace in Communist countries, of which, unfortunately, we are quickly becoming). They also cannot show generic data and say that it proves me guilty – such as saying that I own a gun and therefore I shoot people or that I was in the same city at the time of the murder therefore I did it.

If that is indeed the case, then why is the IRS allowed to provide evidence against you which doesn’t even include my name, my SSN, or any of my specific account data? If you have no idea what I am talking about, check these two pictures out below.

I know the documents are small but please notate that I didn’t black out anything on these forms. This is a RACS006 (aka, Summary Record of Assessments or RACS Report 006) that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) gave to me to “prove” that I filed my 2007 tax year return in a frivolous (incorrect and unlawful) manner.

So how is it that my guilt is being proven by a form which does not even mention me in any way? What this form IS, is a computer printout of thousands of returns that were processed that day. If you look at the first page on the first full line and you should be able to see that 337,122 items were processed for withholding for a total of $22,002,348,789.51 in tax.

So again, obviously since this is dealing with billions of dollars, where is MY information? Where are MY specifics on what I did wrong? Where is MY guilt? Of course, I’ve asked for my specifics and they state that they are right there in the RACS006. So if anyone can find my data and my guilt and my liability in the above documents, I will send you money via Paypal for your concerted efforts (no joke).

Let’s face it folks. When your government takes your money and then accuses you of being a fraud and won’t tell you how they came to that determination, you are living in a power-hungry Communist State. A place where freedom is shunned and the State has the right and the privledge to call its citizens (aka, slaves) to whatever it wants and do whatever it wants for the “betterment of the State.” Only in a freedom loving State is the government responsible for doing what not only is lawful, but what can be understood by it’s people. Only in a freedom loving State are the citizens innocent until proven guilty – even if the big bag government or the scary IRS says something negative against them.

I don’t like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of ‘from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs’. That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him. – T. Coleman Andrews, Comissioner of the IRS from 1953 to 1955 who resigned after coming into opposition to the income taxes as we know it.

Of course, along with the RACS006 report, I asked for the evidence that was used to support their claim. I was sent a form (which I am not going to post due to too much sensitive data) that now shows my name and that they are assessing a penalty against me. It says nothing of how much I actually owed or how I should have filled out my 1040. All it says is that I have been penalized. The equivalent of this for the murder example scenario above would be the official document that has been pencil whipped saying that you have been determined as the murderer, but has no evidence to incriminate you.

So again, where is it that you get my liability, Uncle Sam? And for you people out there, when are you going to wake up and learn the truth about the IRS and start reclaiming your property like these people here ($10M returned to it’s owners who decided to find out what the tax laws said)?

Freedom of Speech Under Obama

After the Democratic convention, Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer warned TV stations against airing a TV ad that was embarrassing to Barack Obama. The commercial focused on the longtime relationship between Obama and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer sent letters to the Justice Department imploring the agency to pursue criminal action against those behind the ads. It was not lost on anyone at that time that Bauer was considered a candidate to be the next U.S. Attorney-General.

A team of Obama campaign operatives, joined by major news outlets, descended on Wasilla, Alaska immediately after Governor Sarah Palin was introduced as Senator John McCain’s running mate. This was immediately followed by patently false reports claiming Palin imposed book bans, joined a fringe political party, charged rape victims for emergency room treatment and cut funding for special needs children.

In late August, the Obama campaign emailed an “Obama Action Wire” to thousands of supporters and liberal activists exhorting them to harass the offices of Chicago’s WGN radio by flooding the station with angry phone calls and emails. Activists screamed insults to call-in screeners. The radio station’s offense was that a long-time, respected radio host had the temerity to interview Ethics and Public Policy Center watchdog Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz had uncovered university records that documented a much closer relationship between Obama and Ayers than the presidential candidate had previously disclosed.

What Income Taxes Really Are

There IS an Income Tax . . .

HOWEVER

“Everything” you earn
IS NOT
“Taxable Income”

Did YOU earn your money by:

WORKING FOR…

DOING BUSINESS WITH…

INVESTING IN…

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ?

If not, then those earnings
ARE NOT “taxable income”

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general: Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

That’s not very helpful, what exactly IS “income” since THAT is what you are taxing…

US Supreme Court, US v. Ballard, 535 f2d 400, 404 (1976) “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code”

What does the Dictionary say “income” is?

in·come: The monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, such as rents or investments.

OK, “income” is all that I earn from my work and investments…just what I thought…

US Supreme Court, Southern Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918): “We must reject the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income…”

WHAT !?…….”income” is NOT “all” money that I receive !? What does the Constitution say about a DIRECT TAX upon my earnings?

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”

In response to the above Constitutional reference, your accountant or the IRS will probably refer to the 16th Amendment, commonly known as the “Income tax”. To which the Supreme Court would reply…

US Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103 (1916): The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…

Additionally… Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress Report No. 80-19A,“Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”:

Page CRS-5 (1979): “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White [the Brushaber ruling], first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.”F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department Legislative draftsman. March, 27 1943 Page 2580.

The income tax is, therefore, is not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

The “PRIVILEGE” you must participate in to earn “taxable income” is working for, doing business with, or investing in businesses majority-owned by the Federal Government or “Federal Instrumentalities”. If you make your money having nothing to do with the Federal Government, then your earnings are not “taxable income”.

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

(original)

You Don’t Owe Taxes – I Challenge You

As some of you may well know, I recently won against Arizona in the claim that I do not owe them any income taxes (see here) for 2007. Do you owe taxes on what you make? Have you read the law and seen where it requires you to pay them?

I would like to challenge you to do the same. To make the deal sweet, I challenge you to go to LostHorizons.com and buy Cracking the Code – The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America. It costs $24.95 + S & H. This is not a scam. This is not tax evasion. This is not finding a loophole. This is about reading the (confusing) tax law and understanding it. US Supreme court cases support this book and this idea. $9Million+ dollars have been recovered so far by readers of this book.

This is a win-win deal for you. This is why.

If you don’t like the book and think that it is unfounded, unsupported, and totally bunk… then write me back on this post and I will I will buy the book from you. You can go on paying your taxes like you always have.

If you like the book, then keep it and fight for your property back. The book will pay for itself when you uphold the law and regain your rightful property.

If you decide to take me up on this offer, please reply to this thread and tell me that you are buying the book and taking me up on my offer. I want to know how many people are taking the challenge just in case 10,000 people take me up on this challenge and I am in over my head. (I am not rich, but I do believe that if I can use some of my money to encourage people towards the truth, then it is worth it. The truth is priceless.). With that said, if there becomes too many, I will repost here that the offer is [temporarily] closed.

It is time to do what is right. The truth is out there.

The IRS vs the Truth

So, it seems that some of my readers disagree with me on my last post. They state that the 16th Amendment is legal and is the basis for the legalization of taxes upon persons working in the private sector. In some aspects, they are correct. As it stands now, the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. However, there is a lot of controversy surrounding that Amendment – and at this time, I will base my arguement based on the fact that the 16th Amendment is still standing and has not been repealed.

It has been quoted to me the Supreme Court case, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), removed the apportionment. However, if we look at that case closely we will see that the court decided that the 16th Amendment allowed “Congress to tax stock dividends as income.” The key word here is dividends. This court case shows us nothing more than the fact that monies earned via investments – CDs, stocks, mutal funds, lottery winnings, etc. – are indeed taxable. This case does not address the legalization of taxes on payments derived from your employer (aka: your paycheck) whatesoever.

So with the assumption that the 16th Amendment is legal and still breathing, lets examine what the Supreme Court has said about it.
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . .”

United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no
real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it
does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”

United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 405 U.S. 505 (1988)

“The legislative history merely shows… …that the sole purpose
of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for
whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id.,
at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916).”

And also… United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

“We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the
government that all receipts– everything that comes in– are income…”

So it seems that the USSC has ruled that if you didn’t pay taxes before 1913 (the 16th came into existence), you don’t pay them now. And furthermore, that not everything that comes in is or should be considered “income.”

In any case, this particular battle against the IRS is surely going be a cock fight…

The 16th Amendment

Interesting. So according to all the law schools such as Cornell University, the “Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It empowered Congress to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,” and that “Not everyone, however, must file a return. The requirements for filing are found in 26 U.S.C. § 6011″

§ 6011 states that “(b) Identification of taxpayer: The Secretary is authorized to require such information with respect to persons subject to the taxes imposed by chapter 21 or chapter 24 as is necessary or helpful in securing proper identification of such persons.”

So hang with me, this is going to blow you face off…

So Chapter 24 says this of what constitutes a “wage.”
(a) Wages: For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid

And later on, “employee” is defined as.
(c) Employee: For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, 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.

Wait…. WHOA! Hold the train! An employee is an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision, then I am an employee? Well, if that is how the IRS defines an employee, then I am not am employee! Are you? And if we look at who earns wages, subsection (a) states that only employees earn a wage. So, if I am not employee and do not earn a wage… why do I have money listed on my W2 under “wages.” Something here is wrong, very wrong!

So in a nut shell, not only are we not employees, or wage earners… we are not tax payers… And to prove my point, check out these fine Americans that stood up against the IRS and said, “I’m not going to pay taxes because, by the law, I do not owe taxes.” And they won, and they got all their money back. (And just to let you know, chapter 21 is the same thing, but for FICA taxes).

So the question now is… what are you going to do about this nugget of knowledge? Sit back and continue to pay taxes out of fear even though you know you don’t have to – or – stand up against a tyrannical government that has been stealing your money for years and years, even if it means that they might throw you in prison over it (which BTW, there is no law either that says that you must pay taxes…. or even file! Not that the government hasn’t enforced these imaginary laws).

To learn more, buy Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America.