Irs Garnishment By Employers Notice
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Irs Garnishment By Employers Notice as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,471
- Pages: 7
(your name) do mailing location ___________ texas state non domestic mail phone; ( ) date: ______________ certified mail # ________________________________ company representative d.b.a. company name a.k.a. common company name if different location ______________ texas (pz) subject: garnishment of wages dear company representative; i am addressing this notice to you, (company representative), to explain and inform you as to internal revenue code (hereinafter the irc) and internal revenue regulations (hereinafter regs), with regard to the garnishment request which your company is in receipt of. with this notice, i will attempt to clear up some legal double speak the irs uses to get you to do that which would otherwise be outside their legal authority to demand. the irs accomplishes this by using legal words knowing you will apply the term in its colloquial or vernacular meaning that is vastly broader than the more narrowly defined legal meaning. i will further show you that i am not an employee as defined by the irc and corresponding regulations. i do not have wages as defined by the irc and corresponding regulations and the company as it relates to me, is not an employer as defined by the irc and corresponding regulations. and as we know, courts hold us accountable for the legal meaning of terms, especially when they are defined in the contract or statute; in this case irc and corresponding regulations. first the definitions:
notice
the webster's 1dictionary defines employee as: "a person working for another person or a business firm for pay page 1 of 6 under the dictionary definition i may be your employee, however i will supply you with documentation which will substantiate that the irc has a different definition for an "employee" other than that as defined in webster's dictionary. the irs has redefined the term to mean something vastly different than its meaning in the vernacular. under chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3401. definitions., (c) we end the irc meaning of the term "employee"...
[sec. 3401(c)] (c) employee. for purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes [only) 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. as can be seen by the definition, the term employee is used within the definition to define the term "employee", which shows that the irs through the lrc is defining the term to be used in a restricted sense in reading the definition it is apparent that an "employee" for the purpose of withholding from wages is someone who works for the government, not a private sector worker such as myself also, upon going back to the foundational definition upon which irc definition comes from as published in the federal register, tuesday, september 7, 1943, 404.104, pg. 12267: employee: "the term employee specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the united states, a state, territory, or political subdivision thereof or the district of columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."; it is quite apparent that an "employee", for tax purposes, means only an employee of the 1 all quotes from the webster's dictionary are taken from: webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the english language; portland house new york copyright ~ 1989 by dilithium press, ltd.
government, as defined by the irc and the federal register, and although the company may have some in its employ who fit this category, i do not. i am a worker for the company but not an "employee" as defined in the irc. by the way, there also seems to be some confusion with regard to the legal meaning of "includes" as it is used in the statutes, specifically the lrc or regs. let me clear this up by giving you the meaning of the term as defined by the united states supreme court and the treasury department (i.e., irs). they say when "includes" is used in a definition, it means only what is listed and is to be used for the meaning of the term defined, when "including" is used it means in addition to the terms normal meaning and what is listed is meant also: page 2 of 6 the united states supreme court stated the meaning of the words "include" and "including" to mean the following; "the ordinary significance of the terms, as defined by the dictionaries, both webster and the standard, is "to confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut up; embrace; and involve include or the participial form thereof, is defined to 'comprise within'; 'to hold'; 'to contain'; 'to shut up'; and synonyms are 'contain'; 'enclose'; 'comprehend'; 'embrace,"' montillo salt co. v. utah, 221 u.s 452, at 455, 466. these are terms of restriction not expansion. these terms do not mean "in addition to"; they mean "only" what is listed. therefore when you read "includes" in the statute (irc or regs), only what is listed is meant to be included in the definition according to the united states supreme court. let's look at the treasury definition to see if they agree (not that they could over ride the supreme court anyway). treasury definition 3980, vol. 29, januarydecember, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines "includes', and "including" as follows; "(1) to comprise, comprehend, or embrace (2) to enclose within; contain; confine,, but granting that the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. it thus and thus only enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language,.." (emphasis added) even the treasury department agrees that the term "includes" as used in the irc and regs
is a term of limitation and not expansion. interestingly the u.s. supreme court stated that if there is any doubt whatsoever, that it is to be construed against the government and in favor of the citizen; "in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. in case of doubt they are construed must strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen" gould v. gould, 245 u.s. 151, at 153. the u.s. supreme court and the treasury department have left no doubt about the meaning of "includes" (or "including") and when in doubt that the citizen is to receive the benefit of the doubt, not the government (or irs) point 2. what about this company being an "employer'"? webster's dictionary states an employer is: "a person who employs, esp. for wages." page 3 of 6 as you can see, in the colloquial sense of the term, you are my employer. but, irc again redefines the term employer to mean something different under chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3401. definitions., (d) we find the irc meaning of the term "employer"; [sec, 3401(d)] (d) employer. for purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person... how do you become an "employer'? you must hire an employee; that is, an "employee" as defined by the irc. an employee not as defined in webster's dictionary, but as defined in irc sec. 3401(c)! [refer to point 1] point 3. what about '"wages"'. webster's definition is: "...money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week." as used in the vernacular i would have to say you pay me wages.
however, in looking at the irc usage we find it is limited just like the turn "employer" is limited. under chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3401. definitions., (a) we find the irc definition of the term wages: [sec, 3401(a)] (a) wages.for purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (...) for services performed by an employee for his employer.... it i nave already made clear to you that, for tax purposes, i do not have "wages",, as defined by the irc, when i am not an "employee" and it has already been shown in "point 1" i am not and "employee " point 4. for me to have submitted a signed w4 to the company would be an inducement to perjury on the part of the company. the requirement for a wa is presented in the lrc under: chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3402. income tax collected at source., (a) requirements ff withholdings. (1);
page 4 of 6 [sec. 3402(a)] (a)requirements of withholdings. (1) in general.except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the secretary. as can be seen the requirements for withholding of taxes is upon an "employer" making payments of "wages", neither of which you are in my case or i receive as shown under "point 2" and point 3". further, the requirement for when the wa is to be given is directed under § 3402(f) of the irc and its supporting regulations. this is under: chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3402. income tax collected at source.,
(f) withholdings exemptions. (2)(a); [sec. 3402(f)] (f) withholding exemptions. (1) in general.an employee receiving wages shall on any day be entitled to the following withholding exemptions; (2) exemption certificates. (a) on commencement of employment. on or before the date of the commencement of employment with on employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims,.. i cannot use the w4 for the withholding of tax requirements as it is for "employees", which i am not, as defined by the irc if i use a w4, i must sign a w4, and the w4 has a perjury clause as required by irc § 6065. i would be committing perjury if i were to sign a w4 and i know your intent is not to force me to commit perjury. [sec. 6065] except as otherwise provided by the secretary, ally return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations tail contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is being made under the penalties of perjury. (emphasis added) by the way unless what the irs sends you is signed under the penalties of perjury, it is not lawful according to this provision of the irc (something even most attorneys are unaware of) and must be either immediately signed under the penalties of perjury or ignored as legally insufficient. any action by you on any such document would then allow the injured party to bring suit against you and the company under the form of an injury for not having legal process permitting the stated or requested action. page 5 of 6 the irs never offers to inform anyone, nor the company they may work for that they are not an "employee", as you can see, defined by the irc, the company is not an "employer", as defined by the irc, and i am not receiving "wages", as defined by the irc, for tax purposes. in examining the tax code, i really think that you are not required to give the irs anything
and you are not required to "withhold" anything from me, as i do not fall within the scope or purview of the irc under my status. but, i also understand that the irs most likely scrutinizes your tax related paperwork constantly and you may have "employees" making you an "employer" for them.. therefore, this information provided you should inform you as to your legal rights and standing, and should relieve the company from any presumed liability, as it relates to me, to withhold taxes from my remuneration and hold the company harmless in their actions. i am not stating that i am a nonresident alien to this country; but rather, that i am nonresident and alien to the jurisdiction of the irs and irc as defined in law and in the code and regulations themselves (see irc regulations § 1.11(c)). this should clear up any misunderstanding relating unlawful seizure of my personal property to which you have been ordered to relinquish to the irs without any valid instruments such as a 'court order' or any instrument signed 'under the penalties of perjury'. my remuneration should therefore be returned to me with no offsets for taxes of any kind, only deductions you and i have contractually agreed to. my pay should not be run through payroll as only "employee"(s), as defined within the irc, are supposed to be recorded under payroll, as you are probably already well aware of. my pay should be through accounts payable, for example as the electric bill is. i have enclosed a letter and an affidavit that you could use if the irs was to contact you in regards to me or my situation. this letter should keep the company out of any problems with the irs while giving them (the irs) the opportunity to address the real issue of my status properly and not involve the company (the irs have never written back to me when i have asked them for such information, see attached copies of the requests herein). my tax consultant, of over 24 years experience, has used this with 100% success in dealing with the irs both during and after the time he was comptroller of a large trucking corporation. if you disagree with the information or conclusions proven in this notice, then when you reply support all your positions either by statute, contractual agreement or by substantiation with case law, codes and regulations, as i have herein. or, we can setup a meeting where we can meet and you can present your codes, regs., and cites at that time which would support a conclusion other than the one reached in this document. i do want to obey the law and if there is law that conflicts with what i have cited here i would like to know about it and correct my position if i am wrong. sincerely,
______________________________ page 6 of 6
notice
the webster's 1dictionary defines employee as: "a person working for another person or a business firm for pay page 1 of 6 under the dictionary definition i may be your employee, however i will supply you with documentation which will substantiate that the irc has a different definition for an "employee" other than that as defined in webster's dictionary. the irs has redefined the term to mean something vastly different than its meaning in the vernacular. under chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3401. definitions., (c) we end the irc meaning of the term "employee"...
[sec. 3401(c)] (c) employee. for purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes [only) 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. as can be seen by the definition, the term employee is used within the definition to define the term "employee", which shows that the irs through the lrc is defining the term to be used in a restricted sense in reading the definition it is apparent that an "employee" for the purpose of withholding from wages is someone who works for the government, not a private sector worker such as myself also, upon going back to the foundational definition upon which irc definition comes from as published in the federal register, tuesday, september 7, 1943, 404.104, pg. 12267: employee: "the term employee specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the united states, a state, territory, or political subdivision thereof or the district of columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."; it is quite apparent that an "employee", for tax purposes, means only an employee of the 1 all quotes from the webster's dictionary are taken from: webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the english language; portland house new york copyright ~ 1989 by dilithium press, ltd.
government, as defined by the irc and the federal register, and although the company may have some in its employ who fit this category, i do not. i am a worker for the company but not an "employee" as defined in the irc. by the way, there also seems to be some confusion with regard to the legal meaning of "includes" as it is used in the statutes, specifically the lrc or regs. let me clear this up by giving you the meaning of the term as defined by the united states supreme court and the treasury department (i.e., irs). they say when "includes" is used in a definition, it means only what is listed and is to be used for the meaning of the term defined, when "including" is used it means in addition to the terms normal meaning and what is listed is meant also: page 2 of 6 the united states supreme court stated the meaning of the words "include" and "including" to mean the following; "the ordinary significance of the terms, as defined by the dictionaries, both webster and the standard, is "to confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut up; embrace; and involve include or the participial form thereof, is defined to 'comprise within'; 'to hold'; 'to contain'; 'to shut up'; and synonyms are 'contain'; 'enclose'; 'comprehend'; 'embrace,"' montillo salt co. v. utah, 221 u.s 452, at 455, 466. these are terms of restriction not expansion. these terms do not mean "in addition to"; they mean "only" what is listed. therefore when you read "includes" in the statute (irc or regs), only what is listed is meant to be included in the definition according to the united states supreme court. let's look at the treasury definition to see if they agree (not that they could over ride the supreme court anyway). treasury definition 3980, vol. 29, januarydecember, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines "includes', and "including" as follows; "(1) to comprise, comprehend, or embrace (2) to enclose within; contain; confine,, but granting that the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. it thus and thus only enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language,.." (emphasis added) even the treasury department agrees that the term "includes" as used in the irc and regs
is a term of limitation and not expansion. interestingly the u.s. supreme court stated that if there is any doubt whatsoever, that it is to be construed against the government and in favor of the citizen; "in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. in case of doubt they are construed must strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen" gould v. gould, 245 u.s. 151, at 153. the u.s. supreme court and the treasury department have left no doubt about the meaning of "includes" (or "including") and when in doubt that the citizen is to receive the benefit of the doubt, not the government (or irs) point 2. what about this company being an "employer'"? webster's dictionary states an employer is: "a person who employs, esp. for wages." page 3 of 6 as you can see, in the colloquial sense of the term, you are my employer. but, irc again redefines the term employer to mean something different under chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3401. definitions., (d) we find the irc meaning of the term "employer"; [sec, 3401(d)] (d) employer. for purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person... how do you become an "employer'? you must hire an employee; that is, an "employee" as defined by the irc. an employee not as defined in webster's dictionary, but as defined in irc sec. 3401(c)! [refer to point 1] point 3. what about '"wages"'. webster's definition is: "...money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week." as used in the vernacular i would have to say you pay me wages.
however, in looking at the irc usage we find it is limited just like the turn "employer" is limited. under chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3401. definitions., (a) we find the irc definition of the term wages: [sec, 3401(a)] (a) wages.for purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (...) for services performed by an employee for his employer.... it i nave already made clear to you that, for tax purposes, i do not have "wages",, as defined by the irc, when i am not an "employee" and it has already been shown in "point 1" i am not and "employee " point 4. for me to have submitted a signed w4 to the company would be an inducement to perjury on the part of the company. the requirement for a wa is presented in the lrc under: chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3402. income tax collected at source., (a) requirements ff withholdings. (1);
page 4 of 6 [sec. 3402(a)] (a)requirements of withholdings. (1) in general.except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the secretary. as can be seen the requirements for withholding of taxes is upon an "employer" making payments of "wages", neither of which you are in my case or i receive as shown under "point 2" and point 3". further, the requirement for when the wa is to be given is directed under § 3402(f) of the irc and its supporting regulations. this is under: chapter 24 collection of income tax at source on wages, subchapter 'a' withholding from wages, sec. 3402. income tax collected at source.,
(f) withholdings exemptions. (2)(a); [sec. 3402(f)] (f) withholding exemptions. (1) in general.an employee receiving wages shall on any day be entitled to the following withholding exemptions; (2) exemption certificates. (a) on commencement of employment. on or before the date of the commencement of employment with on employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims,.. i cannot use the w4 for the withholding of tax requirements as it is for "employees", which i am not, as defined by the irc if i use a w4, i must sign a w4, and the w4 has a perjury clause as required by irc § 6065. i would be committing perjury if i were to sign a w4 and i know your intent is not to force me to commit perjury. [sec. 6065] except as otherwise provided by the secretary, ally return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations tail contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is being made under the penalties of perjury. (emphasis added) by the way unless what the irs sends you is signed under the penalties of perjury, it is not lawful according to this provision of the irc (something even most attorneys are unaware of) and must be either immediately signed under the penalties of perjury or ignored as legally insufficient. any action by you on any such document would then allow the injured party to bring suit against you and the company under the form of an injury for not having legal process permitting the stated or requested action. page 5 of 6 the irs never offers to inform anyone, nor the company they may work for that they are not an "employee", as you can see, defined by the irc, the company is not an "employer", as defined by the irc, and i am not receiving "wages", as defined by the irc, for tax purposes. in examining the tax code, i really think that you are not required to give the irs anything
and you are not required to "withhold" anything from me, as i do not fall within the scope or purview of the irc under my status. but, i also understand that the irs most likely scrutinizes your tax related paperwork constantly and you may have "employees" making you an "employer" for them.. therefore, this information provided you should inform you as to your legal rights and standing, and should relieve the company from any presumed liability, as it relates to me, to withhold taxes from my remuneration and hold the company harmless in their actions. i am not stating that i am a nonresident alien to this country; but rather, that i am nonresident and alien to the jurisdiction of the irs and irc as defined in law and in the code and regulations themselves (see irc regulations § 1.11(c)). this should clear up any misunderstanding relating unlawful seizure of my personal property to which you have been ordered to relinquish to the irs without any valid instruments such as a 'court order' or any instrument signed 'under the penalties of perjury'. my remuneration should therefore be returned to me with no offsets for taxes of any kind, only deductions you and i have contractually agreed to. my pay should not be run through payroll as only "employee"(s), as defined within the irc, are supposed to be recorded under payroll, as you are probably already well aware of. my pay should be through accounts payable, for example as the electric bill is. i have enclosed a letter and an affidavit that you could use if the irs was to contact you in regards to me or my situation. this letter should keep the company out of any problems with the irs while giving them (the irs) the opportunity to address the real issue of my status properly and not involve the company (the irs have never written back to me when i have asked them for such information, see attached copies of the requests herein). my tax consultant, of over 24 years experience, has used this with 100% success in dealing with the irs both during and after the time he was comptroller of a large trucking corporation. if you disagree with the information or conclusions proven in this notice, then when you reply support all your positions either by statute, contractual agreement or by substantiation with case law, codes and regulations, as i have herein. or, we can setup a meeting where we can meet and you can present your codes, regs., and cites at that time which would support a conclusion other than the one reached in this document. i do want to obey the law and if there is law that conflicts with what i have cited here i would like to know about it and correct my position if i am wrong. sincerely,
______________________________ page 6 of 6
Related Documents
Irs Garnishment By Employers Notice
November 2019 14
Skills Required By Employers Table
May 2020 5
28usc3104 - Garnishment
November 2019 4
Irs
December 2019 26
Irs
December 2019 21