Misc RM 43    Misc reference material


Reference Material - For Information Only!


Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.




Discontinued use of the W-4 Form     Discontinuance of withholding Taxes




Employer's name   Employer's address

Attn: (Payroll)


From:  (Your name) (Your address)


Re:     Discontinued use of the W-4 Form

Discontinuance of withholding Taxes


Dear Sir:

I have fully reviewed Chapter 4 (36 pages) of the Internal Revenue Code, which is the authority for the withholding of taxes.  Upon careful study, it is evident that chapter 24 and the "Employee's Withholding allowance Certificate" (W-4 Form) that Chapter 24 authorizes, DO NOT APPLY TO ME.


I realize that you may have some difficulty in relating to what is about to be presented to you.  I know that you, as most of the American public, have been led to believe that all companies are to withhold taxes from their workers' compensation.  The truth of the matter is that the Federal Government and the Internal Revenue Service have grossly misinformed us.  Please do not let your belief systems interfere with the logic necessary to understand the forthcoming arguments to support these conclusions.




Employment agreements are limited to two persons, the employer and the employee.  No other party can lawfully impair the agreement between these two persons.


For an agreement to be lawful, all parties to the agreement must enter into it willingly and with full knowledge of the rights and obligations created by that agreement.  A written contract is actual evidence of an agreement.  Any change in an existing agreement, actual or implied, cannot be forced by either party, but must be done with the full knowledge and consent of all parties to that agreement.  Also, a person cannot be forced to accept the terms of an agreement (contract) to which he is not a party.


There are five essentials to any contract:

(1)  competent parties,

(2)  subject matter,

(3)  legal consideration,

(4)  mutuality of agreement, and

(5)  mutuality of obligation.


Mandatory to a legal change in an existing employment agreement is that the proposed change be discussed by all parties to the agreement and mutually accepted.


With this basic information on the law of contracts it is intended that you will begin to understand that, even though the Federal Government employee compensation arrangement today does include a "legal kickback" by employment agreement, it does not apply to us in the private sector.


I need to briefly review history to emphasize and clarify THIS important point.  Federal government employee kickback started in 1862.   The United States Government has had the status of "employer" since its creation.  Like any employer, the Federal Government must, of necessity, enter into employment agreements (contracts) with employees.


Congress promulgated a kickback program for Federal Employees in 1862.  Once the Federal Government kickback program was well established by forced acceptance, employees and employers in the private sector were forced to believe that the terms of Federal Government employment agreements applied to them.  Here is how it au happened.


In 1862, the Thirty-seventh Congress passed Ch. 119, 12Stat. 472.  Section 86 of that Public Law reads as follows:



Sec. 86 And be it further enacted, That on and after the first day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all salaries of officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress, when exceeding the rate of six hundred dollars per annun-4 a duty to three per centum on the excess above the said six hundred dollars; and it shall be the duty of all paymasters, and all disbursing officers, under the government of the United States, or in the employ thereof, when making any payments to officers and persons as aforesaid, of upon settling and adjusting that accounts of such officers and persons, to deduct and withhold the aforesaid duty of three per centum and shall, at the same time, make a certificate stating the name of the officer or person from whom such deduction was made, and the amount thereof, which shall be transmitted to the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and entered as part of the internal duties; and the pay-roll, receipts, or account of officers of persons paying such duty, as aforesaid, shall be made to exhibit the fact of such payment.  In the fall of 1938, Congress enacted the first withholding tax law.  This act became effective as of January 1, 1939, and was entitled "The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" (53stat.574). Section 4 of this act states:

"The United States hereby consents to the taxation of compensation, received after

December 31,1938, for personal services as an officer or employee of the United States..."


During the early part of World War 11, Congress enacted the second withholding tax law entitled "The Victory Tax Act of 1943" (56 Stat. 884).  For the first time in the history of our country the government taxed citizens in the private sector "at the source on earnings." This was a temporary emergency voluntary wartime measure, and it contained specific provisions for its repeal.  The government collected withholding taxes under this act for the remainder of World War II.


Eight months after passage of "The Victory Tax Act of 1943," Congress enacted "The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943" (56 Stat. 126) This became a part of Chapter 9 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code pertaining to employment taxes, and was entitled Chapter 24 of the revised 1954 Internal Revenue Code.  Chapter 24 contains the withholding tax law that the government and the Internal Revenue Service now contend applies to the private sector.  However, this is not the case, as the government very deceptively reverted back to "The Public Salary Tax Act or 1939." They accomplished this deception of concealing and disguising the above stated fact by using very restrictive definitions which are defined in Chapter 24, Internal Revenue Code.


Before we explore the definitions in the Internal Revenue Code, it is necessary to define two words.  They are "DEFINITION" and "INCLUDES." These definitions are taken from the 1990 Edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language and read as follows:

DEFINITION - a boundary, the act of determining, distinguishing, explaining, or establishing the signification of the word or term defined.


INCLUDES - to confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut in; to close up.


The Internal Revenue Code, in defining different terms and phrases, is in fact giving the reader of the Code a set of instructions to follow.  When reading the Code as it is written, the reader must not deal with assumptions, but only with facts as they are presented.  In other words, do not ASSUME automatically that a term or phrase implies more than is stated in the definitions contained in the Internal Revenue Code.  Follow the BOUNDARIES the Code lays out for you.


To illustrate to you that the government reverted back to "The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" when Congress passed "The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943" we must examine and scrutinize the following Code sections: 3401 (c), 7701(a)(10), 6103(b)(5), 3401(d), 7701(a)(1), 3401(a), and 3401(f).


The first definition to be examined is for the term "employee." The restrictive definition for this term is found in Code section 3401(c).

SEC. 3401.  DEFINITIONS (boundaries)

Sec. 3401(c).  EMPLOYEE. - For purposes of this CHAPTER, the term "employee" includes (confines within) 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. (emphasis mine)


On the surface, the definition of "employee," as defined in section 3401(c) would appear to mean any type of individual who works for some type of government, either state or federal.  However, this is not the case.  The definition of the term "State" must be studied.  The term "State" is defined in Chapter 79, section 7701(a)(10) and to illustrate the difference in meanings, we will also list the term as defined in Chapter 61B, section 6103(b)(5).


SEC. 7701.  DEFINITIONS (boundaries)

Sec. 7701 (a).  When used in this TITLE, (Title 26) where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof


STATE. - The term "State" shall be construed (explained) to mean and include (confine within) the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. (emphasis mine)


In the section 7701(a)(10) definition you will note that the 50 States, as well as all of the United States possessions have been omitted.  "State," as defined in section 7701(a)(10), means "the District of Columbia," NOTHING MORE.  That is why "employee" means "federal public servant."


Sec. 6103(b).  DEFINITIONS (boundaries) - For purposes of THIS SECTION (only) (5) STATE. - The term "State" means any of the 50 STATES, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.


Code section 6103 deals with the disclosure of information that is contained on a tax return.  The State and Federal Government exchange information, and the authority to do so is in this Code section.  The government needed to broaden the definition of the term "State" in this instance in order to legally exchange information with all of the 50 States and all of the United States possessions.  However, this definition only applies to Code section 6103, and not the entire TITLE.  When the government needs to, they can define "State" in the generally accepted way.  It is important that you DO NOT ASSUME something that is not in the Internal Revenue Code.  DO NOT fall into the TRAP the government has set for you by assuming that you know what a word or term means, therefore, not reading or studying the BOUNDARIES that the government intends.


Go back and check the definitions of "employee." No one who works in the private sector is defined in that section, except one officer of a corporation, and I am not an officer of a corporation, The term "employee," as defined in section 3401(c), in simply stated words, means "federal public servant."


In defining the term "employer" the term "employee" is used, and for purposes of this CHAPTER each time you see the term "employee" used you must follow instructions of boundaries placed on the restrictive definition of this term.  This in turn, makes the definition of the word "employer," as defined in section 3401(d), also restrictive.  The definition is as follows:

SEC. 3401.  DEFINITIONS (boundaries)

Sec. 3401(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. (emphasis mine)


The term "employee" would be defined by the "standard accepted dictionary definition" if a period or semi-colon had been placed after the word "nature," and the sentence had ended there, but a comma was added and the words "as the EMPLOYEE (federal public servant) of such person (federal government agency)." Federal public servants DO NOT work for IBM, General Motors, or Republic Steel, and can only work for some branch or agency of the federal government.  In consulting with several instructors of the English language, they have all concurred that the phrase "as the employee of such person' becomes an essential part of the definition, and should not be misconstrued to be an illustration of the definition.


"Wages" and "tips" are also defined in chapter 24, and you will see how the word "employee" and "employer" change the "standard accepted dictionary definition" for these words.


Sec. 3401.  DEFINITIONS (Boundaries)

Sec. 3401 (a).  WAGES. - For the 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 paid in any medium other than cash.


No one in the private sector makes WAGES according to this section; only "federal public servants" make WAGES.  The key here in the definition of the word WAGES is "for services performed by an EMPLOYEE (federal public servant) for his EMPLOYER (federal government agency)." This definition only applies to chapter 24, the W-4 Form, and the Internal Revenue Service rules and regulations pertaining to withholding.


Sec. 340 1 (f).  TIPS - For the purposes of subsection (a), the term "wages" includes TIPS received by an EMPLOYET in the course of his EMPLOYMENT. (emphasis mine)


No one in the private sector makes TIPS either, since only "federal public servants" make wages, and tips are only received by EMPLOYEES (federal public servants) in the course of his EMPLOYMENT (working for a federal government agency).  This applies to subsection (a) which is Code section 3401(a), the definition of the word WAGES.  This definition applies to chapter 24, the W-4 Form, and Internal Revenue Service rules and regulations.


Judges have many times told defendants that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." I wonder how many judges are ignorant of the true intent of Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code.  It is truly a masterpiece of deception, but it has been written quite legally.


"Governments never do anything by accident; in government does something you can bet it was Planned."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


A review of the preceding definitions as defined in Chapter 24 is now in order.

EMPLOYEE                   federal public servant

EMPLOYER                  federal government agency

WAGES                         money paid to federal workers

TIPS                     money given to federal workers


Apply these definitions when you reread a W-4 Form.  You can see how they change the implied intent of the form.  The Federal Government and the Internal Revenue Service know full well that you will use the standard accepted dictionary definitions rather than their definitions and think that they apply to this form.  We tend to believe everything we are taught, even to the point of disbelieving logic and truth when it is later presented to us.  When the definitions of chapter 24 are applied, they change the entire meaning of that chapter.  Unmistakably the withholding tax laws expressed in chapter 24 and the W-4 Forms are intended for "federal public servants."


The last definition we will analyze is the only definition found in chapter 24 that is not restrictive.  Here the Internal Revenue Code defines a phrase, or a series of words, and it is as follows:

Sec. 3401(e).  NUMBER OF WITHHOLDING EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED.  For purposes of this CHAPTER, the term "number of withholding exemptions claimed" means the number of withholding exemptions claimed on a withholding exemption certificate in effect under section 3402(o, or in effect under the corresponding section of prior law, except that if no such certificate is in effect, the number of withholding exemptions claimed shall be considered to be "ZERO." (emphasis mine)


I Want to point out that nowhere in this definition are the words EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER, TIPS, or WAGES used.  Therefore, the definition is not restrictive.


However, it still only applies to "federal public servants" because of the way the term is used in section 3402(f).



(A)  ON COMMENCEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT. - On or before the date of the

commencement of employment with an EMPLOYER (federal government agency), the EMPLOYEE (federal public servant) shall furnish the EMPLOYER (federal government agency) with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the NUMBER OF WITHHOLDING EXEMPTIONS WHICH HE CLAIMS, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.


It is also interesting to note that the government does not entitle the W-4 Form the same way as they refer to it is chapter 24.  The W-4 Form is titled "EMPLOYEE'S WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE CERTIFICATE," but chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code uses the words "WITHHOLDING EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE."


When you consider the heading on a W-4 Form, "Employee's (federal public servant) Withholding Allowance Certificate," you should immediately realize that the form does not apply to private citizens, The Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Government know that the private sector will use the "standard accepted dictionary definitions" when reading and filling out a W-4 Form.


If you read the foregoing carefully, it will be apparent to you that an "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" (W-4 Form) is NOT REQUIRED and need not be submitted by any private citizen working in the private sector.  This company has no legal basis for to compel the fling of a W-4 Form.  The W-4 Form is a governmental trap and must be avoided.  This company has been grossly misinformed by the Internal revenue Service.


If a worker for this company does not choose to file a W-4 Form, there is NO LEGAL BASIS for the company to withhold at a ZERO BASIS. (Reread Code sections 340 1 (e) and 3402(f)(2)(A).

The reason for not VOLUNTARILY filing a W-4 Form with this firm will be explained after reviewing Code section 3402(p).


Sec. 3402(p).  VOLUNTARY WITHHOLDING AGREEMENTS. - The Secretary is authorized by regulation to provide for withholding -

(1) from remuneration for services performed by an EMPLOYEE (federal public servant), for his EMPLOYER (federal government agency) which (without regard to this subsection does not constitute wages, and

(2) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under provisions of this CHAPTER, if the EMPLOYER (federal government agency) and the EMPLOYEE (federal public servant), or in the case of ANY OTHER TYPE OF PAYMENT the PERSON making and the PERSON receiving the payment, AGREE TO SUCH WITHHOLDING.  Such agreement shall be made in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulation provide.  For purposes of this CHAPTER (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter) remuneration of other payments with respect to which such agreement is made SHALL BE TREATED as if they were WAGES (only federal public servants earn wages) PAID BY AN EMPLOYER (federal government agency) TO AN EMPLOYEE (federal public servant) to the extent THAT SUCH REMUNERATION IS PAID OR OTHER PAYMENTS ARE MADE DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE AGREEMENT IS IN EFFECT. (emphasis mine)


In Code section 3402(p) it states that my earnings from this firm DO NOT constitute wages.  This is further supported later in the second underlined group of words, which says that what I earn from this firm is some other type of payment.  You will note that in this instance the term "person" is substituted for the terms "employer" and employee." This means I am the "person" receiving and this firm is the "person" making THIS OTHER TYPE OF PAYMENT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS NOT "WAGES." In the third underlined series of words we see that other payments where an agreement has been made VOLUNTARILY shall be "treated" as if they were WAGES paid by an EMPLOYER (federal government agency) to an EMPLOYEE (federal public servant).


Since I am NOT REQUIRED to file a W-4 Form, I also will not VOLUNTARILY file a W-4 Form with this company any longer because I do not care to be placed in the category of a "federal public servant."


In this letter I have quoted the necessary Code sections to support my case.  I challenge you to prove me wrong by quoting any section of chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code and/or any law. (NOTE - Regulations are not law and are valid only if they are supported by law.)

It is important for you to know that Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code is NOT positive law.  This is per the Congressional Research Service.


"Is Title 26, of the United States Code, law?


This question stems from the fact that some titles of the United States Code (U.S.C.) are "positive law" and others are not.  Title 26, Internal Revenue, has not been enacted as positive law.


The U.S.C. is divided into fifty titles.  Of the fifty titles, twenty and part of another have been enacted into positive law.  If a title has been enacted into positive law, then the text of that title constitutes legal evidence of the laws in that title. if the title has not been enacted into positive law, then the title is only prima facie evidence of the actual law.  The courts could require proof of the underlying statutes, which are the positive law when the title has not been so enacted.


The positive law backing Chapter 24 dealing with withholding is found in the Code of Federal Regulations section 31.3402.


31.3402-1 (p) Voluntary withholding agreements.

(a) In general.  An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) to provide for the withholding of income tax...

(b) ... an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder.  The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding.


31.3402-2 An agreement under section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon.  However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other.


This is my formal notice to you my "employer" that I wish to terminate any and all W-4 agreements on file with you as per CFR sec. 31.3402-2.


Please          be informed of the following:

1.  Revealing any part or portion of my personnel file to any government agency, agent, or any other third party, without a court order signed by a duly appointed or elected judge, is a clear invasion of my privacy. (Internal Revenue Service summons are signed by Internal Revenue agents - they are not a court order and not signed by a duly appointed or elected judge.) My personnel folder is for company use ONLY!  A PRIVACY NOTICE is enclosed.


2.  In my case the law is clear.  I am not required to file a W-4 Form with this company, nor does this company have a LEGAL RIGHT to compel me to submit a W-4 Form.  This company also has no authority to withhold on a ZERO BASIS.


3.  The Internal Revenue Service has NO AUTHORITY to compel a private citizen working in the private sector to have taxes withheld from his pay check unless the individual chooses to VOLUNTEER.


4.  The Internal Revenue Service has NO AUTHORITY to hold this company liable for taxes NOT withheld from my paycheck.  They have the right to ASK you to withhold, NOT THE AUTHORITY TO COMPEL YOU TO WITHHOLD.


You are hereby advised of the following:

1.  I REVOKE AND RESCIND AS PER CFR SEC. 31.3402-2, ALL W-4 FORMS THAT THIS COMPANY HAS ON FILE IN MY PERSONNEL FOLDER.  Please return the W-4 Forms to me immediately.


3.  DO NOT withhold either STATE or FEDERAL taxes.


5.  Place this letter in my personnel file and USE IT AS A BASIS FOR NOT WITHHOLDING FEDERAL OR STATE TAXES.


I have been very specific in quoting Code sections, definitions, etc.  I expect the same from this company.  Remember that the terms EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER, WAGES, and TIPS have very restrictive meanings when used in chapter 24, the W-4 Form or in any Internal Revenue Service rules and regulations pertaining to withholding taxes.


If in a letter from the Internal Revenue Service, you were instructed to rob a bank, WOULD YOU COMPLY?  I think not!  Is there any difference when the Internal Revenue Service instructs you to STEAL FROM ME - when they have ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO???


I have done much research and study with the material that has been presented to this firm in this letter.  I have used no case law in making the assertions, and have only quoted the Internal Revenue Code and the Positive law backing it, in making these determinations.  I expect the same from this firm.


I would like to offer one last piece of evidence to further prove that what I have presented is TRUE AND CORRECT.  Code section 633 l(a) deals with LEVY AND DISTRAINT.  This code section is the AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY to place levies against any type of property, either real or personal, tangible or intangible.



Sec. 6331 (a).  AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY. - If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 1 0 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a hen provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.  Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d) of such officer, employee or elected official.  If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.  (emphasis mine)


I have underlined, and capitalized who the Secretary has the AUTHORITY TO LEVY against concerning "accrued salary "or "wages." There is unquestionably no reference made in this Code section to any citizen working in the "private sector."


Kindly note the similarity of the following:



The AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY to place a levy against the "accrued and "wages" in Code section 6331 (a) - OF ANY OFFICER, ENIPLOYEE, OR ELECTED OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED STATES -


and lastly, in "The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" - FOR PERSONAL SERVICE AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES -


Are our American companies in such fear of harassment and intimidation by the Internal Revenue Service that the human, civil and Constitutional rights of their workers are no longer a concern to them?  Could it be possible that the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Government are making COWARDS of all our business leaders?


"To sin by SILENCE when they should PROTEST makes COWARDS OF MEN."  Abraham Lincoln


Respectfully,      (Your name)


Encl:  Statement of Facts

Privacy Notice




From:   (Your name)   (Your Address)


(Your Employer's name)   (Address)

Attn: (Payroll)


Dear Sir:

This "Privacy Notice" is in conformance the Constitutional principles of PRIVACY, DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.  This is a request pursuant to "The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 USC 552a; "The Right to Financial Privacy Act," 12 USC 3401; "Confidentiality of Tax Records Act", 26 USC 6103, and Internal Revenue Cod section 7609.


The right to PRIVACY is defined in the following manner:


PRIVACY, right of. - The Right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity.  Term "right of privacy' is generic term encompassing various rights recognized to be inherent in concept of ordered liberty, and such right prevents governmental interference in initiate personal relationships or activities, freedoms of individual to make fundamental choices involving himself, his family, and his relationship with others.  Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Indus. Acc.  Bd.  Tex.,-540 S.W.2d 668,679.  The right of an individual (or corporation) to withhold himself and his property from public scrutiny, if he so chooses.  It is said to exist only so far as its assertion is consistent with law or public policy, and in a proper case equity will interfere, if there is no remedy at law, to prevent an injury threatened by the invasion of, or infringement upon, this right from motives of curiosity, gain or malice.  Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S.298, 44 S.Ct.336,68 L.Ed.696. See also Vhalen v. Roe, 429 U.S.589, 97 S.Ct.869,51 L.Ed.2d 64; Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv.L.Rev. 193. --5th Edition, Black's Law Dictionary.


I request that this company DOES NOT reveal any part or portion of my personnel file to any government agency, agent, or any other third party, without a court order signed by a duly appointed or elected judge.  To do so is a clear invasion of my privacy. (Internal Revenue Service summons are signed by Internal Revenue agents - they are not a court order and not signed by a duly appointed or elected judge.) My personnel folder is for company use ONLY!


I request that you RED TAG my personnel file so that no one at this firm will inadvertently or accidentally give out any information that is contained within.  I request that I be immediately notified of any request for information about me that you receive from any government agency, agent, or any other third party.


Legally you can refuse to furnish records on the demands or directives of administrative agents or agency regulations, such as, Treasury Decision 7772 or IRS Employment Tax Regulation 31.3402(0(2)-a(g), which are not laws, without being punished for doing so.  Pursuant to 26 USC 3402(n), you WILL NOT be subject to taxes or penalties under Code sections 3403, 6672,6651, of 6656.  This firm is in a position to comply with this request without suffering any penalty whatsoever.


The Supreme Court has ruled in Reisman v. Caplin 375 US 440, 84F S.Ct. 508 (1964) that you can refuse an IRS summons and demand a court order signed by a duly appointed or elected judge.  The Federal courts have held in Reisman and other cases, that one of the grounds upon which you can deny government access to a worker's records is that the worker may institute a law suit against the company for damages should the information be released against his request for privacy.  If necessary, you may assert that position using this notice as justification.


This Privacy Notice will remain in effect until further notice; your compliance and cooperation will be greatly appreciated.


Respectfully yours,   (Your name)




This statement of Fact is presented to further prove that the letter accompanying this document is totally true and correct, and depends on the correct definition of the term "includes." The history of the definition is necessary to enable you to understand the intent of the law makers when this portion of the Internal Revenue Code was written.


The term "includes" is not defined in the first Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1910. The word, "includes" appears for the first time in the third Edition published in 1933, and is most important because the legislation was passed and enacted into law during the period of 1935 to 1943.


In the fourth Edition of Blacks Law Dictionary, the definition for the term "includes" is almost exactly the same as defined in the third Edition.  The only differences are the court decisions cited.  The Definition in the third Edition follows:

INCLUDE. (Lat. inclaudere, to shut in, keep within).  To confine within, hold as in an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, enclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.  Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within the general words theretofore used.


The term "including" may be broadened, but the terms "include" and "includes," as defined in the third Edition must remain as the definition states.  The newer edition dictionaries tend to broaden all phases of the terms to mean "a part of the whole." However, at the time the legislation was passed the term "include" was restricted to confine within, etc.  The 1991 Edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of English Language supports both the third and forth Editions of Black's Law Dictionary.


During the period of 1935 to 1943, the term "INCLUDES" meant "to confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut in; to close up."





Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".