NOTICE OF NON-TAXPAYER AND AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

Troyboy wrote:Oh wow, this is going to be a good forum for discussion.  I will admit, I am totally ignorant in tax issues. I am just like everyone else.  The end of the year comes, April 15th looms ahead and I pay my taxes, complaining the whole time.


I am curious to all sides and I am looking forward to learning more. 

Thanks roadglide for taking this on and thanks to everyone else who participates.

IQD4US wrote:Then I will start with the fact that even though we are the great US of A - not ALL states follow the same set of rules as to where you can file "items" - and I know of 2 states that would require this filing to be made at the "District Supreme Court", which also happens to be where the county recorder receives information AFTER APPLICATION THROUGH THE COURT DESK. 

#2 - there is no where near enough information in what YOU have provided to this site, and I have been with these people for YEARS - I'll be damned if you or anyone else is going to "lead them blindly" - and I have referred that they seek an attorney to validate what they may choose to do --  YOU are not an attorney - YOU are an individual who is part of a group of people who THINK they have a loophole...a loophole I won't let you hang my friends with.

Yes - this is going to get interesting FAST.  And NO - I do not have to prove anything to you until you give me Chapter section article numbers to support your statement - or at least a case law number.

PALMER01 wrote:"Every dime you pay in "income tax' goes directly in to Rockefeller's pocket."

Tell me why you think this?

Tonypresser wrote:The Internet is filled with schemes for getting off the IRS tax rolls and never having to pay income tax again. Most of these schemes are either idiotic or outright fraudulent. In many cases, you are asked to pay hundreds—or even thousands—of dollars to purchase a package of documents and information that will free you from paying taxes. These schemes are partly or wholly as fictitious as the tooth fairy. Just because something sounds logical and has a lot of legal references does not mean it has any real substance. So don’t take my word for any of this—check it out for yourself. Meanwhile, here is what I have discovered.

What is the Internal Revenue Service? The IRS is a commercial business whose two greatest expenses are postage and rent. If you check this out, you will find that government agencies don’t pay postage and rent. The IRS is an intelligence-gathering, accounting, and collection agency for the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Well, that’s okay… the IRS was probably founded so that we could all have someone nice to help us with our taxes. Hey! Don’t take my word for it. Look at the IRS mission statement: To provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. See…I told you they were helpful and nice.
 Despite their claims, The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury.  The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code. The only mention of the IRS anywhere in Title 31 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of  the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS.

The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for the Federal Reserve and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”).  But the FAA was declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States in 1935 by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, because Prohibition had been repealed and the agency was no longer needed.
The truth is that most Americans “voluntarily” pay an income tax because they have been told it is required by law and they are afraid not to. In fact, I once called the IRS 800 number and asked if it is true what my IRS tax booklet says--that the income tax is voluntary. I was told—I swear I’m not making this up—that filing is voluntary and that you have to do it. According to the IRS, approximately 67 million Americans do NOT file tax returns. Are these people crooks and traitors, or do they simply know something the voluntary filers don’t know?

While it is true that the government needs tax money to operate, it is not true that the Federal income tax funds government services. The percentage of the personal income tax that is used to pay for operating the government is exactly zero. That’s right, zero. The interest on the seventeen trillion dollars of Federal Reserve and foreign loans—loans that the government should not be taking out in the first place—absorbs more than what the IRS collects, particularly when it is reduced by the cost of the IRS’s operating budget. Our hard work and often too meager earnings are going to the federal government to pay the interest on loans that are made up of non-existent money—as we have already seen.  In fact, the final report of the Grace Commission, which was convened under President Ronald Reagan, admitted that none of the funds the IRS collects from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans.

For over ninety years, the American public has been fooled into believing that the federal income tax is a legal requirement. The truth is that the domestically earned incomes of Americans (most incomes) have never been taxed by the federal government. Lacking the constitutional power to obtain money gained from domestic commerce with an income tax, the tax laws were written to obscure the truth. Since the law must be constitutional (must tell the truth), they buried--deep in a section of the law where nobody knew to look (Section 861)--the fact that the only individuals who owe federal income taxes are  federal employees and those engaged in international and possessions commerce.

Section 861 of  the tax code itemizes what sources of income are taxable. Oddly, the heading for this section is titled “Miscellaneous matters.”  Boy is that helpful and straight forward.
 
The first parts of the law (Subchapters A and B) make it seem that the income tax is a direct tax on incomes and that all incomes are taxed. Most people, therefore, incorrectly “assume” that the receipt of income automatically means that it is taxable and send in their money. They don’t realize that after Subchapter B, it is necessary to go thousands of pages away to Subchapter N to continue the process of finding out WHEN income is taxable. It is in this nearly universally misunderstood part of the law that the specific legal language proving that the income tax is an indirect (excise) tax only on those engaged in international and possessions commerce is found in deliberately convoluted but correctly written regulations under Subchapter N, Section 861.
The pathway in the law that takes the reader from where the tax is imposed on “taxable income” to where the law (in Section 861) shows that only incomes from international or possessions commerce are taxable is so complicated that most readers of the tax code would falsely conclude that they owed the tax. But despite everything, the law does NOT lie. It misdirects like crazy: as I said, the heading for this section is “Miscellaneous matters”--as if to say, “Here’s a bit of trivial data that doesn’t apply to you, we just stuck it in here as a technicality.”

1.    The Constitution does not permit Congress to tax the incomes of individuals engaged only in domestic commerce (the incomes of most Americans).
2.    The Sixteenth Amendment did not change this limitation, as we’ll soon see.
3.    The law correctly shows that the only individuals who owe federal income taxes are those engaged in international and possessions commerce.

What makes the law so difficult to understand is not only the arrangement of its critical parts thousands of pages away from each other (and there’s no obvious connection between Subchapters B and N), but the fact that one has to become aware of what is MISSING from the law. The law applies only to what is specifically pointed out. The law does not show that incomes derived from purely domestic commerce are taxed. It does show that incomes derived from international and possessions commerce are taxed.

Because the collection of a federal income tax has gone on for so long, for many people it may seem odd that the founders of this country did not permit Congress to tax the incomes of the majority of its own citizens living and working in the United States. The founders obviously knew that throughout history all governments grabbed more power AND MONEY until they were overthrown. As such, in the Federalist papers 45, James Madison (the main author of the Constitution) pointed out that commerce with foreign nations would be the primary source of Congress' tax revenues.

These funding limits were imposed to PREVENT exactly what the federal government has done to the public by deception. Since 1916, it has systematically hidden deeper and deeper in the law the truth that it could not tax the incomes of most Americans.

The income tax has become much larger than the Constitution permits, routinely exceeds its very limited jurisdiction, preys on the ignorance of the public, is more corrupt and lawless than anything in the private sector, and never really challenged by Congress.

Besides writing and arranging the law to deceive, typical methods used to delude the public have included:
1.    Misrepresentation of the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.
2.    Forced reliance on the huge cottage industry of “experts” (most of whom were deceived as well) who tell average Americans that they owe federal income taxes.
3.    Limited access to the law and the lack of a way to search through the law (which is now solved by the Internet and computer search engines).
4.    Intimidation and threats by the Treasury Department and Department of Justice, who have provably known for many years that the incomes of most Americans were not taxed under federal law.
For example, in 1985, in an argument submitted by Bruce Hinshelwood, Assistant United States Attorney in Orlando, Florida, he admitted:

"The government is unable, therefore, to offer case authority for the universally accepted proposition that a citizen of the United States, working and residing in the United States, subject to federal law, earning wages, and responsible for filing an income tax return, is liable for taxation." [Ward v. US, 11 th Cir.] 

Every American should understand the basics of the law, particularly when it comes to government confiscation of hard-earned money. So, there are two types of taxes that Congress can impose: direct and indirect.
•    "Direct" taxes are per capita taxes, such as taxes on property. They must be apportioned.
•    Indirect taxation involves a tax you pay at the point of purchase or a tax you pay for engaging in certain types of activities.  Excises, tariffs, lawful levies, imposts, and duties are all examples of indirect taxes.  They must be geographically uniform.
Apportionment means that the tax is divided up among the states according to population so that each person pays the same amount of tax. Therefore, it is a direct tax. Apportionment guarantees that any direct tax, such as an emergency tax imposed during time of war, is evenly distributed among the population. Here is the way it works.  Let's say that the federal government wants to raise 500 million dollars to fund a "war effort" and let's say that at the time California has ten percent of the population.  California receives a bill for 50 million dollars.  If  California has a population of, say, 50 million people, then everybody pays one dollar. That's apportionment.  Level of earnings is not relevant; everyone pays the same.  Furthermore, any lawfully imposed and apportioned direct taxes must be temporary and repealed within two years of enactment.

The Federal Income Tax is geographically uniform, which means that the tax applies the same regardless of geographical location in the United States (the same in Texas as in Utah, etc.). The Sixteenth Amendment did not change these constitutional limits; therefore, such a tax must be an indirect (excise) tax. Limiting it to international commerce is a legal stretch but is consistent with an excise tax; if you don’t want to pay the tax, then you simply avoid being involved in international commerce.
The main culprit in the nearly universal misunderstanding of all this is the Sixteenth Amendment. To keep people from looking deeper in the law, the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment was deliberately misrepresented to lead us to believe that it changed the Constitutional limits on Congress’ taxing power, permitting it to directly tax all incomes without apportionment. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court ruling, was to make it clear that the income tax is, and has always been, an indirect “excise” tax, which has never required “apportionment.”  The Secretary of the Treasury agreed with the Court in Treasury Decision 2303.

“The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress’ original power to tax incomes] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment.”  [Treasury Decision 2303]

The Sixteenth Amendment makes it clear that the Constitutional limits on Congress’ power to tax have been preserved in the law, as the rule of law demands. However, the public has been led to believe that the Sixteenth Amendment imposed the tax and expanded Congress’ power to tax ALL incomes by “overriding” the Constitutional limits. That is, that the Sixteenth Amendment supposedly:
•    Imposed the current income tax (it did not).
•    Permitted Congress to directly tax all incomes (it did not).
•    Removed the constitutional requirement that direct taxes must be apportioned (it did not).

But if it did not affect the Constitutional limits on Congress’ power to tax then WHY was the Amendment passed in the first place? WHY was it worded in such a way as to give the impression that it changed Congress’ limited taxing power when it did no such thing?

It was written to correct an error by the Supreme Court. The Sixteenth Amendment was passed to tell the courts that the income tax is and has always been an indirect tax, making it impossible for the courts to conclude otherwise (as the Supreme Court did in error in 1895 in a case known as Pollock). But by the time the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court had already corrected itself.

Now let’s dissect the amendment and figure out what it actually means.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." 

Congress has always had authority to collect taxes on incomes. The important question is, whose incomes?  Obviously, Congress has no authority to collect taxes on incomes from Mexican citizens living in Cancun, or Canadian citizens living in Toronto.  In other words, Congress' jurisdictional authority is limited by the Constitution. 

“The Congress shall have power...  To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.."  [Article I, Section 8, clause 17, United States Constitution]

In other words, Congress' lawful jurisdictional authority extends only to those who live and work in federal territory. Nowhere was Congress granted authority to impose any taxes on people living outside of the federal zone, including Mexican citizens, Canadian citizens, Kentucky Citizens, California Citizens, and so on.

  "...from whatever source derived..." 

“Derived” is a word taken from the French de rive, meaning “from the stream.”  When a fish was captured on a hook, it was not "derived" until it had been separated from the stream.   Now, in law, the word derived means to “separate from the source.”  For example, if you bought a painting for 500 dollars, then the painter suddenly died, sending the value of your painting up to one million dollars, you would derive no income from that painting until you sold it--at which point you would have separated its value from the painting itself.  It is only at this point that you would have acquired any income whatsoever.  If you filed a return, the IRS would allow you to deduct the cost of the painting before calculating your taxable income (or profit) from the sale of the painting. This is what is meant by deriving income. So, if you have income derived from the sale of an investment—stocks, bonds, real estate, etc—then that income is taxable—IF that investment income is from a foreign or international source. Let me repeat that. IF your investment income is derived from a foreign country or a country that is a US possession, then it is taxable.

When you get paid for your labor, you are engaging in a “zero sum transaction.” That is, there is no profit or gain because you have simply traded your labor for compensation.  No profit, no derived income.  No derived income, no taxable income.  It's that simple.

"...without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

On the surface, this would appear to alter the prohibition against direct taxation without apportionment, but it does not, as the Supreme Court has clearly stated. This is because the federal government never had to apportion any taxes imposed upon its own (federal) citizens.
This bears repeating: The federal government never had to apportion any taxes imposed upon its own (federal) citizens.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified is true, but it’s irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the amendment has no real teeth in it because it lacks an “enabling clause.” If you read the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and other Amendments to the Constitution, you will find an enabling clause that reads:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
 
The Sixteenth Amendment lacks a clause authorizing Congress to enforce it with appropriate legislation; therefore, Congress cannot do so. This is why the Sixteenth Amendment is meaningless and mostly irrelevant.

Once again, in the same manner as the Constitution, the law states what is not taxable by showing the incomes that ARE taxed and by not showing the incomes that are not taxed. Incomes that are earned from purely domestic commerce (the incomes of most Americans) are not taxable because they are not shown to be taxable. Here is the reference: Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations--section 1.861-8(f)(1).

Now, let’s look at the good old scary 1040 form.

There is no law anywhere compelling an American citizen to fill out and submit an IRS 1040 form. Such a law would violate the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The IRS uses the information submitted on Form 1040 to determine the correctness of tax computations of anyone filling out the form. That information can be and often is used in court when the IRS claims the information is not correct, which is why you have to sign it under penalty of perjury.
Therefore, we are being asked to waive our 5th Amendment right not to incriminate ourselves when we provide the IRS with ANY personal and financial information. That waiver of rights cannot be compelled. That is why people have to be tricked into filling it out and signing it, not realizing what they are doing. Now you may be thinking something like “If you don’t fill out the 1040 form, the IRS will do it for you. Yes, BUT-- and that is a BIG BUT!

“Internal Revenue Code Section 6020(b)
(b) Execution of return by Secretary—
    (1) Authority of Secretary to execute return—if any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time……”

Notice the word REQUIRED.  If you aren’t required to fill out a return, the IRS can’t do it for you.

The IRS, of course, disagrees. So, for that matter, have several judges who have dealt with tax cases where the defendant used this defense. One judge ruled that the fifth amendment clause only relates to “compelled testimony” and doesn’t apply to tax forms. In other words, the court took the position that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the Income Tax because the Income Tax is not a "compelled testimonial communication." Obviously, this ruling means that filling out a 1040 form is voluntary, not mandatory. There are other court rulings that state the 1040 form is a requirement and you waive your 5th Amendment rights when you do it.

One of the major dangers of challenging the IRS in court is that they control some judges and convict non-tax-filers of committing fraud, no matter what the defense. I’ve noticed that the government and the courts often accuse citizens of crimes they themselves are committing.

A notice appears on the IRS website that deals with the wonderful, caring, kind and considerate Criminal Investigation Agents. That job title can be said two different ways, depending on what you emphasize: criminal investigation agents or criminal investigation agents. Anyway, here is how the IRS deals with voluntary submission of 1040 forms.

"The term voluntary compliance means that each of us is responsible for filing a tax return when required, and for determining and paying the correct amount of tax."

Notice again that little word “required.” All this means is that if you actually do have taxable income, you must report it on a tax form. There is nothing voluntary about it. On the other hand, if you do not have international or possessions income, then you can file voluntarily. Your choice.

Or how about this nonsense from the same source.

“The efforts of Criminal Investigation are directed at the portion of American taxpayers who willfully and intentionally violate their known legal duty of voluntarily filing income tax returns and/or paying the correct amount of income, employment, or excise taxes. These individuals pose a serious threat to tax administration and the American economy.”

There is a technical term for this type of statement that we in the linguistics field use. It is probably too esoteric a term to be used by the general public but some of you may have heard it before. The word, abbreviated, is “BS.”

Now, since this question is doubtless going to be raised, I will deal with it as best I can. That question is “What good is knowing about all this if the place where I work deducts federal income taxes from me and I have to fill out a 1040 form to get part of it back?”

That’s a tough question. All I can do is explain what the law says about it. First of all, every company that withholds taxes from employee paychecks does so through what is called a withholding agent, even if the company doesn’t use that term.

The term "withholding agent" is legally defined in the Internal Revenue Code as a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker's paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis.

No one where you work can become a withholding agent unless you first authorize taxes to be withheld from your paycheck. This authorization is typically done when you opt to execute a valid W-4 "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate."

In plain English, by signing a W- 4 Form, you designate yourself as an "employee" and certify you are allowing withholding to occur. If you do not execute a valid W-4 form, a company's payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from your paycheck. In other words, the payroll officer does not have "permission" or "power of attorney" to withhold taxes, until and unless you authorize or "allow" that withholding -- by signing Form W-4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.

Pay particular attention to the term "Employee" in the title of the W-4 form. A properly executed Form W-4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were "employees" of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.

Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations § 1.6091-3 specifically identifies any parties required to file federal income tax returns and they are citizens with foreign or international income, as well as

"(g) …a withholding agent of the income tax required to be withheld at source under chapter 3 of the Code on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and tax-free covenant bonds, as provided in Sec. 1.1461-2.”

Thus, citizens who are required to pay an income tax are those with foreign or international income, and those designated as “withholding agents.”

So, although there is no law requiring you to fill out a W-4 form, most large companies refuse to hire you if you don’t. You can explain all this to the payroll department, and sometimes that has worked. The other thing you can do is to sign the form “Under duress and without prejudice.” This means that you are doing it against your will and that you are not waiving any of your legal or Constitutional rights.

Now let’s highlight one case as an example of what happens to influential people who cross swords with the Federal Reserve. Here is what Ohio Congressman James Traficant had to say on the subject in a 1993 speech:

“The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

“Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated [which means “to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.”] as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.”

What was the result of Jim Traficant’s attitude, and public pronouncements based on it?

To silence Traficant, certain members of Congress found a means to put him in prison on trumped-up felony charges of bribery, corruption and tax evasion. The hearings were totally one-sided, he was not allowed to bring in important witnesses, documents, and testimony. Judge Lesley Wells of the U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio, refused to set bail for Traficant, ordering that service of his sentence should begin immediately.

Denial of bail set aside all pending appeals to Traficant's conviction. He served an eight year sentence in federal prison for his April 11, 2002, conviction.

By a vote of 420-1, Traficant was also expelled from the House of Representatives.

There is one and only one reason why your domestic income is not taxable by the federal government—and that is that the federal government has never taxed it.

I fully realize that some of the things I’ve said here may seem incredible and difficult to believe. Nevertheless, they are all true to the best of my knowledge. The ordinary, domestic income of most American citizens is not taxable by the Federal government. There is no law requiring American  citizens to fill out an submit ANY IRS forms, including the 1040 or W-4 forms, and the IRS has no legal right to “require” anyone to voluntarily submit these forms.

Nevertheless, I must add a disclaimer here. I am not suggesting that anyone not submit tax forms and I am not suggesting that anyone not pay a personal income tax. You see, it doesn’t matter what the law SAYS, it only matters how it is administered. The IRS and the courts have been working together for nearly a century to keep the true nature of the income tax a secret from all of us and they have become quite good at it. Unless you are prepared for a long and often losing battle, unless you are thoroughly educated in the tax laws, unless you are prepared to accept a barrage of government lies and distortions, do not even think about challenging the IRS or the federal court system. The  deck is stacked against you.

On the other hand, I think Edmund Burke was right when he said, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” No major society in world history has achieved freedom and democracy to the extent that America has. Today, that is ironic. Our country was born out of rebellion and the determination to die rather than to live under government tyranny. Thanks in large part to good people doing nothing, however, we have the Federal Reserve System, the IRS, and a Congress made up of people who, like former President Bush, think the U.S. Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.

The question we all have to ask ourselves is this: What kind of world do I want my children and grandchildren to inherit?

I have spoken to many people about the IRS and the corrupt banking system. And I have noticed two obvious reactions when I do. The first is denial: they don’t want to think about this, so they refuse to acknowledge that any such level of corruption is even possible. Then they change the subject.
The second reaction is fear: I know I am being lied to, cheated, and stolen from, they say. But I don’t want to become a target of the IRS. I’d rather pay them a large chunk of my income and be left in peace.

Imagine Patrick Henry standing up in the Continental Congress and proclaiming, “Give me liberty—or else I’ll sit here and sulk.”

We inherited the past. We can create whatever future we want. Next time you sit down to fill out an income tax form, at least think about that.

tonypresser wrote:While everything you say about income taxes is true, it is also moot.  The IRS has an absoute power to distroy anyone who threatens them--and they use that power daily.

mannymanin925 wrote:Roadglide

Thanks for your writtings.

I would like to learn more, please re; ( Opt out and use that money to purchase a much better retirement plan.)


Thanks again.

roadglide wrote:Ten years ago, I asked 4 state tax attorneys to show me the law that says a private sector citizen is required to pay an "income tax".  They asked for 30 days. I'm still waiting.

roadglide wrote:Otherwise, those terms would apply to a rice farmer in Vietnam or factory worker in China. 

FS4Enthusiast wrote:26 U.S. Code § 3121 a

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include—

ALL remuneration for employment.  Not "privileged"  federal or state employment.  ALL EMPLOYMENT.

roadglide wrote:

FS4Enthusiast wrote:26 U.S. Code § 3121 a

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include—

ALL remuneration for employment.  Not "privileged"  federal or state employment.  ALL EMPLOYMENT.

Please define "wages", "income", "employee", "employer"using only the Internal Revenue Code, and Title 26 of the USC.  All of these terms are specific to a certain group of people and it does not include the Private Sector.

FS4Enthusiast wrote: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

NOTHING about referring to ONLY the USG. 

roadglide wrote:WOW! Americans have been dumbed down more than I thought. I feel sorry for people who don't know how to read something thoroughly, and make uneducated statements.

FS4Enthusiast wrote:26 U.S. Code § 3121 a

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include—

ALL remuneration for employment.  Not "privileged"  federal or state employment.  ALL EMPLOYMENT.

Sorry, but I don't think there is anything that can be done.  Maybe the author deleted it, link expired, etc.

Invalid or Deleted File.