Pablo Rodriguez has discovered the silver bullet

[Quixote]

CTC worrier Pablo Rodriguez has discovered the secret to winning in court: have a position that is supported by facts.

Since in the mind of the IRS the basic presumption still stands, the dispute in court will turn on the contradiction between the wages reported on the W-2 (let’s say, $10,000) and the zero wages reported by the purported employee on a Form 4852. All the IRS needs to do is go to the employer and ask him how much money he paid his employee: “Employee N. claims he earned zero wages. What did you, his employer, pay N.?” The employer’s answer will substantiate the amount of money shown on the W-2, thereby proving to the court that the employee did not earn zero wages. All this happens because the purported employee provided no proof or fact to the court that would put teeth into his sworn testimony and applicable law. Yes, he provided the court with sworn testimony and relevant law, but, again, that essential third ingredient is lacking.

Yes, all the sworn testimony in the world will do you no good if the evidence shows you were lying.

The following link says many things, but one item in it is very telling, and bears directly on the need to provide the IRS proof or a fact. Check out this link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv08275.htm

Check out where the Assistant Attorney General tells Congress the following:

“The tax defier is not someone who has a legitimate or factual dispute about the amount of tax due.”

Notice the words “factual dispute.” Where facts are in evidence, the IRS will not label a person a “tax defier.” I would add that such a factually based dispute cannot be labeled "frivolous" either. But there's the warning, on the internet for all to see. A purported taxpayer who has no facts or proof concerning a tax due will be labeled a tax defier by the Department of Justice. Let's get a hold of that proof, that third prong that makes evidence have the intended deadly effect against the beast. Without knowing it, they're telling us how we can defeat them, so let's go for it!

Now all they have to do is learn how to warp the space-time continuum to eliminate all those pesky facts.

[Gregg]

Umm, the evidence, Pablo, is the paper trail the money left in your bank etc... when you took their money for working for them.
Do these dimwits realize that SOMEONE has to pay the tax, and when they ask the employer to not withhold it, they're in a way asking them to pay the tax in their stead?

[Thule]

Yes, all the sworn testimony in the world will do you no good if the evidence shows you were lying.

'cept perjury, p'rhaps... But I guess that's covered by "no good".

[LPC]

And Pablo has come up with another gem of an idea:

Don't worry about where your company operates or other operational details. All you need is a document that shows that the company you worked for, during the time you were working for it, was validly incorporated in one of the union states party to the Constitution.

This incorporation can be shown by a Certificate of Fact (different states have a different name for this document), issued by the corresponding Secretary of State. The beauty of this document is that it is self-authenticating (as someone mentioned earlier in this post). That means no witness needs to be called in to swear to its authenticity. It is irrefutable proof.

Recall at the beginning of this post where I make the point that the whole web of deceit began when this company filled out a SS-4 when in fact it was not in a position to do. Congress did not contemplate private for-profit enterprises to be filling out forms intended for employers and employees as those terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

If the company filled out a Form SS-4 based on a false understanding of the meaning of the terms contained in that Form, nothing in the law requires that the IRS correct that misunderstanding.

A filled out SS-4 does not transform the company into an employer; it merely creates the (false) presumption that the company is an employer. That presumption will be considered correct unless and until proof is provided that the presumption is false.

By means of a letter of protest to the IRS, accompanied by a Certificate of Fact concerning the company you worked for, you can straighten out your record. We're going right back to where the whole liability problem began in the first place.

The Certificate of Fact issued by the Secretary of State shows that the company you worked for, during the time you worked for it, was incorporated under the laws of a state party to the Constitution. As such, this company is not among those identified in the law (Sec 6051) as employers paying wages subject to withholding. It is also the case that it is not among those identified as employers providing employment for wages subject to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes.

As a matter of law, documents purporting to be Forms W-2 must show, among other things, a valid payer. Thus, the document upon which the IRS is basing its assessment is a document merely purporting to be a Form W-2; it does not show a valid payer as a matter of law and is therefore void.

You can see that with this proof and factual reasoning, your liability vanishes into thin air. The IRS has NOTHING upon which to take any action against you whatsoever--no frivolous penalty, no levy, no lien, no income taxes, no FICA taxes--NOTHING.

If you give the IRS notice of these factual claims backed up with proof, and the IRS continues to take action against you, you are in a position of strength. You can later tell the judge in court, "Judge, the IRS knew, or had reason to know, that it was basing its administrative proceedings against me based on an invalid document." That is a crime, my friend.

Still, the IRS will kick and scream. It will step up to the line and perhaps make you take them to court. Any time you want the IRS to act lawfully so that you can have justice done and get your property back, you will be in for a long, drawn out battle. What I'm suggesting is not a silver bullet, but silver bullets don't exist anyway. The best we can hope for is to build up a legally unassailable beachhead of facts and apply the law to those facts.

All we're doing is claiming a factual dispute with the IRS regarding the validity of an information return! It's really not that complicated! Perhaps that's why this approach is, in my view so powerful.

Some emphasis added for the impatient.

And don't bother to look up section 6051, because it has no definition of "employer," "employee," or "wages." It simply says that persons required to withhold taxes under 3401 or 3402 are required to give employees a written statement (i.e., a W-2) showing the wages paid and taxes withheld.

[LPC]

I don't know that I've ever seen the state of incorporation of the employer used as an argument, so I did a quick search and found the following:

Taylor claims that he is a citizen of Tennessee but not the United States, and that therefore the federal income tax law does not apply to him. He also argues that his employer is "foreign" to the United States because it is incorporated in Louisiana, rather than being an arm of the federal government, and is therefore not eligible to withhold income tax. Finally, he claims that his wages are not included in the federal income tax system because they are not "Income," as they are not "for gain or profit," but rather are mere "compensation."

Taylor's claims are patently frivolous, and it is clear from the record and the district court's opinion that Taylor should have been aware that his claims were frivolous when he filed suit. Taylor's claims are an unsubtle attempt at protesting the federal income tax system. We have previously held that, "it is clear beyond peradventure that the law is well established and long settled that wages are includable in taxable income." Waters v. Comm'r, 764 F.2d 1389, 1390 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). Further, we have held that any appeal of this issue is patently frivolous and a cause for sanctions. McNair v. Eggers, 788 F.2d 1509, 1510 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

Taylor v. Gaither, 88 AFTR2d 2001-6055, KTC 2001-432 (11th Cir. 2001), aff'ng 87 AFTR2d 2001-1688, KTC 2001-584, http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cam-detax/thompson.htm (S.D. Ala. 2001) (Rule 11 sanctions imposed against plaintiff who sued to enjoin employer from withholding federal income tax).

[grixit]

Sovereign Affidavit of Factual Truth

(This is a self authenticating irrefutable document, which must be accepted once it's been filled out)

Subject: Pablo Rodriquez

Status: Total Moron

[notorial dissent]

I see Pablo suffers from the same selective reading disability that his mentor does, i.e. conveniently not reading the little bits that get in the way of his delusion du jour. Although I will give him this, it is at least a teensy tiny little bit more, but not much, original than some of the other nonsense that has been put forth for our collective amusements.

And Grixit, is that moron or maroon-as in whatta ????

[grixit]

Just moron.