Another great change is about to happen to our country and it has cryptocurrency written all over it. Bitcoin and other virtual coins will experience a crash at some time. People who think they have money will think they’ve lost it and demand that the industry be regulated to prevent it from happening again. Time and time again, history has proven that this kind of economic situation is a staged event by people on the inside. Taxation of cryptocurrency is the government’s guise of owning and controlling your money.
Listen to the podcast here:
[smart_track_player url=”https://www.podetize.com/statsapi/www.podetize.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/5ae3f0077900f755e73f708260d2d4eb.mp3″ title=”7 – Taxation Of Cryptocurrency: Regulation Or Total Control?” ]
Taxation Of Cryptocurrency: Regulation Or Total Control?
The title of our podcast is Taxation of Property Including Cryptocurrency. For the most part, people don’t understand money, where it comes from and how to get it. Yet wars are fought over it. People are killed for it and families break up over it. The Gospel is preached all over the world using the tool that we call money. Is money a bad thing? No. Absolutely not. The trick about money is the bad thing. Money is not bad providing you understand the game of money. The Bible says and usually when you hear that quote it’s often misquoted but I’ll quote it correctly, “It’s the love of money that is the root of all evil.”
It’s not money that is the root of all evil. It’s the love of the money. You cannot serve two masters. “No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” Matthew 6:23.That word mammon there is talking about money. Great change in our nation and world is coming and it’s important that you become educated about cryptocurrency. It is not going away. However, in the Bible days, they had real money, unlike today. What we have today is credit.
You’ll see a lot of people that were around back in 1933 remembered what happened. That generation is dying off and most of you will never hear the story. I was shocked when I found out in 1998 after reading a book about how the Fed system really worked. I thought I understood commercial underwriting of paper in insurance. However, I had no clue as to how close I was to the great beast of humanity. I have included, for your enlightenment, a free PDF copy of the book The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. It’s 611 pages long, but once you get into it, you’re going to love it and it’s hard to put down. It’s a great book to read. Remember, our goal is to help you reach your goals in life. Please place on your bucket list to read this book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. Ever since the President’s tax plan was passed, there’s been a lot of talk out here that the IRS is going to tax your cryptocurrency. We’re going to give you something to think about. Justin, why don’t you tell our listeners about the term income?
It gets convoluted as it covers so many apparent unrelated topics, but we’ll try to make it easy for them. We have placed a permanent part of each court case or statute in another portion of this podcast and they will all be downloadable. There’s no need to scribble, pause, backup, scribble some more and so on. Just listen to the presentation and then get the written material as verification of what I’m telling you. Keep in mind that I’m not giving legal advice. I’m just reading sections and telling you what I think they mean and why.
Let’s start off with a definition of the United States because it’s crucial in all of this. It’s found in a number of places, Internal Revenue Code 7701 one section A, subsection 9section 3121subsection (e) of the Internal Revenue Code and the Code of Federal Regulations in part 31 section 3121subsection (e)-1.We’ll start off with 3121 subsection (e)-1, State United States, and citizen. Subsection (a)When used in the regulations in this subpart, “The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.
It’s important that you understand that a State includes the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, not after their admission as States. That means that the other 48 States, Texas, California, New York, Wyoming, whatever, are not considered States as it applies to the Internal Revenue Code. You’ll notice that there are some differences between subsection (a) which deals with the term State and subsection (b), which deals with the term United States. Again, when we get to the last part of the subsection (b), it deals with the citizen of the United States and that’s even different from the other two.
Back to the text, subsection (b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “United States,” when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
One of the most significant is Internal Revenue Code section 7701 subsection (8) subsection (9) which states the United States is defined in subsection (9), which states, “The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. One of the places that that term State is defined in section 7701 subsection (a) subsection (10), which states, “The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.” The trick word here is the word includes. There are two very important words in the construction of laws and one of them is “includes.” Generally speaking, “includes” is a word of expansion, and the word means “is an exact.” If the section says, “such and such means,” it means exactly the words that follow. If they used the words include or including or included, other things can be added.
Justin, can you explain then about things that are identified that must be like?
That’s found in one of the rules of statutory construction. The first rule of statutory construction, and this is so important, is that a law means what it says and says what it means and that nothing can be added to it or taken from it by inference. Don’t let anybody ever tell you, “I know that’s what it says, but that’s not what it means,” because it doesn’t mean exactly what it says. This is where some of the trucks come in now. There’s another rule called ejusdem generis, which is Latin, and that means of the same kind, class or nature.
In the construction of laws, wills and other instruments, the ejusdem generis rule is that were general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things at the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. That’s found in the case of United States v. LaBrecque, District Court of New Jersey,419 F. Supp. 430 and 432. Basically, the way to explain this is if you’re going to define the word shoe, you can say that the word shoe include moccasins, sandals, Oxfords, and boots. Could also include flip-flops? Could it also include mules and things of that nature? Sure, because those are all things you put on your feet to protect them. What happens is somebody throws the word bicycle into the term shoes as part of thousand definition?
I haven’t seen the mule shoe yet. Can you explain that?
Mules are like bedroom slippers. They’ve got generally felt like some furry stuff on the inside.
I’ve never heard them referred to mules. Is that where they come up with the term of, “Get your arse to bed?”
I don’t think so, no. We’re talking about things that can be included with the words included, the words include in a in a law. It can only include other things that are of the same type, class or nature. They can’t put in things of another type, class or nature. In many of the laws, the word person for example, is defined generally speaking, as an organization, corporation, association, and an individual. Organization, corporation, association are all entities that have been created by the State. They are fictitious entities. Individual, if it’s going to fit in there, what also has to be something created by an entity.
Justin, if you could break this down because this may be the first time that our listeners have ever heard this, so can you break this down as far as in the fruit category because the listeners may not understand because we haven’t covered it yet, what a person means, but when you start to explain the different fruits and you have three and then you have the odd one, maybe it will paint a better picture on their minds.
If you take an apple or defined fruit as including apples and oranges and pears, and then you also add something in there that is a beef steak. Beef steak is not in the same category. It’s not the same kind, class or nature as the others. If beef steak is going to belong in there, there’s got to be a special definition for beef steak that actually makes it a fruit and that’s what they do to you in a lot of their definitions. They have a special definition for the odd word that makes it fit in there.
If you have the apple, the banana and the pear and then you have a steak of some type, that would be the odd thing out.
Unless you can find a definition in that code or in some code that applies to define steak as being a fruit, it doesn’t apply and it cannot be part of that section.
The reason I bring that up is that there’s a term for a beef steak tomato. That’s why I wanted to make sure to clarify that. What they do when they try to construct these is that it must be things that are absolutely alike and when you see this word, person, now he’s going to get in and explain this. Now, this isn’t going to be super technical all the way through, but there are some basic foundations that you really need to understand to figure out where they’re trying to get you in this cryptocurrency as far as the regulators. Here’s what we believe is getting ready to happen and it always happens this way and you could just write it and peg it exactly what they’re getting ready to do.
At some point in time, Bitcoin or the other coins will crash. There’ll be a lot of people that will lose what they perceive to be money and they’ll scream and beg for regulators to come in and regulate the industry in order to make sure that doesn’t happen again. Every time that this has happened to all the way back since 1929 with the stock market crash, that was a false flag staged event that was orchestrated purposely by the guys on the inside. I believe they’re going to try that again, and the reason that they’re going to try that is for regulation purposes. That’s why we’re covering this tonight so you can get an idea and an understanding of what these words mean. Justin, go ahead and explain what our next topic is.
Another definition is found in Internal Revenue Code 3021 subsection (e), and you’ll notice a difference here. United States, State and Citizen of the United States, subsection (e) State, United States, and Citizen. For purposes of this chapter—(1) State, “The term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. I’m going to break from the script here now. You’ll notice that it did not say the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before they entered into Statehood. That’s why the regulation is important to know.
Back to the script, subsection (2) United States, “The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, breaks from the script. Notice again, it had no mention of the territories of Alaska and Hawaii. That’s their way of tricking you. This is the law I’m reading to you now, the Statute and then it says, “An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for the purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.”
I want to point out something to you of the difference between regulations and statutes. Statues are things that are enacted by whatever legislature it is. Congress could be the legislature if your state and it’s generally signed into law by the president or the governor of your state, and it’s a statute. A regulation is something that is written by the department head of whatever department is involved. For example, if we’re talking about internal revenue, it’d be the secretary of the Treasury. A regulation tells the people in that department how they’re going to administer the law, the statute that’s been written. A regulation is a guide how to administer something. The statute is the thing that Congress or the legislature has enacted. If there’s a conflict between the two, the statute wins out. The wording of the statute wins.
[Tweet “A note is only a promise to pay and it has absolutely no value whatsoever.”]
How does the term State and Citizen of the United States come into play here?
We’ve pretty much covered a lot of that, but the term state shall be construed to include the district of Columbia who are such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title and it also because of the regulation involved, does include the territory of Alaska and Hawaii before they entered into statehood, which exempts the 50 states of the union from the definition of the term state only where it applies in a internal revenue code, which is what we’re dealing with here.
How does this relate to the term income?
Income is another term that is grossly misused. The internal revenue or the Internal Revenue Service will tell you that income is everything that comes into your household and that’s absolutely not true. The term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. I am told that it’s because Congress has been prohibited from defining income, but we do have some terms or some definitions for income in the Internal Revenue Code. The first is in Section 61 and that’s gross income defined of subsection (a) General definition except as otherwise provided by in the subtitle. Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, etc. What they’re doing is using the word to define itself. They’re using the word income to define the word income. You can’t do that.
When I was in the government schools, they told us that we couldn’t use the word in a Senate, so they said, “Define what a car is? A car is a car that you drive in.” Yet the IRS has done this exact same thing. In the definition, you can’t use the name of the definition in the sentence of the definition.
It’s a circular definition.
You never get to the truth?
That’s correct. The next one is section 63 which is Taxable income defined. It refers right back to section 61. Subsection (a) IN GENERAL, Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction). Then it goes on with a lot of other things. I’ve excised the remainder of the section because once you realize that income is the profit gain a corporate business, you realize that the term probably doesn’t apply to you at all. A lot of people will say that the Sixteenth Amendment really sews a lasso around throat and ropes us in and I’m going to read the Sixteenth Amendment to you. It says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
When you were reading that top part, it just hit me. The Federal Reserve note that we have been told is money and we know that it’s not because it’s a note. It’s a promise to pay and it doesn’t say when they’re going to pay us, if ever they’re going to pay us. How do they, with a straight face try to describe income with a note? In other words, if I say, “Let me buy that pencil from you,” and you say, “That’s fine,” and I write up a note and I hand that to you and you say, “What’s this?” “It’s a promise to pay you.””Okay.” “I’ll pay you on Friday.” “Fine.” When Friday comes along, I’ll give you another promise to pay. At some point in time, wouldn’t you say, “I want money. I don’t want another note. I want money.” How do they get away with pulling this off? Is this part of our decades of brainwashing?
It’s actually explained very well in a saying adapted by accountants worldwide and the initials for that are LLPOF and that stands for “Liar Liar Pants On Fire.” You’re absolutely right. A Federal Reserve note is exactly that. It’s a note. A note is only a promise to pay and it has absolutely no value, whatsoever. The Sixteenth Amendment applies only to indirect taxes, which encompasses the duties imposed on excises. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 240 U.S. 1 at Page 11. I’ve got Brushaber right here. Before I get into Brushaber, I’m going to talk to you about Article 1, Section 8Clause 1 of the Constitution, and that basically says “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
The term taxes refer to property tax, tax on your property and it also refers to capitation. It used to be called The Capitation Tax, which is a tax on your head or the head’s of your slaves because slaves were legal, one that’s the constitution was written. Taxes are regulated by Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which starts out representatives and direct taxes are a portion throughout the several states. A portion means only that it’s an evening out of what we have to pay and the way it works is this. There are 435 members in the House of Representatives. Each state has a certain member. Texas has 32 and Wyoming has one for example. To make the math simple, let’s just say the Congress wants to levy a tax for $435 million. Texas is going to have to come up with $32 million, Wyoming is going to have to come up with $1 million and the least respective states recoup the taxes from their people however they run their taxing.
Let’s get into Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. This starts on about page eleven and it says. “We’re of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation — that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned.
(b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes “from whatever source derived,” the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to “tax incomes from whatever source derived” for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and preexisting provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void. So far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the preexisting constitutional requirement as to apportionment.
It clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another. That is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states.
The next one we’ll talk about is Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers 247 U.S. 179, 183. This is also from the Supreme Court. An examination of these and other provisions of the act (The Sixteenth Amendment) make it plain that this legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon their gainful returns from their business operations.
In this particular case, this is saying that it can tax corporations. It can tax businesses. I don’t see in that particular case, now that ruling was 1918, is that correct?
No.
Was that case overturned?
Yes.
That case still stands now? Somebody would be able to actually use that case should they want to?
Yes.
Against one of the creature from Jekyll Island.
It gets even more convoluted than that. I have a case, I don’t have it at hand right here, but if anybody wants it, I can give it to them. The question was asked to the Supreme Court if Federal Taxation laws applied to corporations that were incorporated in the States and the Supreme Court said, “Yes, they do.” I wrestled with that for a long time because in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, it says that the legislative jurisdiction of Congress applies to Washington, DC and those places within each state that had been instituted to the Federal government for the purposes of erecting forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other buildings. It didn’t seem to me that the tax laws would apply down in the States and I couldn’t reconcile it too.
Until I was studying the words having to do with the definition of State and then it hit me. The Supreme Court, because they’re dealing with taxation, are using the definition within the Internal Revenue Code to define the word State, which if you’ll remember is Washington, D.C., the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before they entered into statehood after 1960, Guam American Samoa. In that respect, that Supreme Court decision is absolutely true. If a company is incorporated in any of those places, the United States Tax Laws apply to them, but I believe that the United States Tax Laws do not apply to corporations that are incorporated in Texas, New York, California, Wyoming, Nebraska, whatever.
The next one I want to talk about is another Supreme Court decision and it’s Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire 271 U.S. 170 (1926). “Income” has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.” You’ll notice that the Income Tax Act of 1909 was a Corporation’s Excise Tax. That means it’s the tax on corporations for exercising a privilege. The term “excise” is synonymous with privileged.
Could they not common right?
No. There are many Supreme Court decisions that say that a State cannot tax a common right. It doesn’t say that the United States can, but I believe that the same sections or the same rulings that applied to the states also apply to the Federal Government because some of those things state that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The Federal Government does not have or should not have the power to destroy a right that’s given to you and I by God, by our Creator.
Let’s take this argument for just a moment, for the sake of argument. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was established and that was December 23, 1913. December 25th for the most part or majority of the legislature was gone. They were home with their families. There were a few of the swamp creatures that were milling around up there and they got the Federal Reserve passed. At that same time, they also got the IRS passed as far as enacted. The IRS was established in 1913 along with the Federal Reserve.
The thought is that as long as you’re using their currency, that’s for another show and for another time, but people think that when they get paid Federal Reserve notes and they have a $20 in their pocket, the assumption is that possession is nine-tenths of the law, but the reality is that note fits in your pocket is owned by Uncle Sugar. It is not owned by you. That’s why they can come in and take it. That’s why they can tax it. That’s why they can do whatever they want to because it’s their money. Now, cryptocurrency has come about and it’s like the old Eastern saying of, “Let the camel get his nose underneath the tent and before you know it, the whole camera will be inside your tent,” and that’s what’s getting ready to happen, I think.
Another case is Evans v. Gore,253 U.S. 245, “Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: “It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before.” The next one is Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 and that says, “The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation upon Congress.”
That’s pretty clear, isn’t it?
Yes, it is. When you look at the Sixteenth Amendment although it uses terms like apportionment and enumeration, it tricks you into believing that it’s okay to tax direct taxes or direct income and obviously, it’s not. The Supreme Court time after time after time has said, “No, it’s not.” The Sixteenth Amendment refers only to indirect taxes.
[Tweet “A trust, estate, partnership, association or company or corporation are fictitious entities. They are creations of the State.”]
All through these things that we’ve read over the years, we’ve seen the wordsmithing and the changing of the definition of a word. Then as you begin to grow up in America and you see all the television programming, because they’re programming these words into your mind, you automatically go along with this. That’s why it’s so important even though this may be very tedious, it’s very important that you understand the basic foundation of this.
Another term that we find in a lot of the laws is United States Person that’s found in 7701 Subsection (a) Subsection 30 of the Internal Revenue Code. The term “United States person” means—(A) a citizen or resident of the United States, (B) a domestic partnership, (C) a domestic corporation, (D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31) and (E) any trust if—(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and (ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust. That’s a United States person.
Justin, the term ‘person’ appears to be all encompassing and includes just about everything. Does that rope us all in pretty tight?
It would appear to. Let’s look at what Section 7701 Subsection (2) says about person. It says, “The term ‘person’ shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”
This is where you were talking about the statutory construction.
A trust, estate, partnership, association or company or corporation are fictitious entities. They are creations of the State. An individual would appear not to be a creation of the State. Well, it turns out it is. The term individual is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, but it is defined in Title 5of the United States Code Section 552 (a) Subsection 2.It says “The term individual means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to permanent resident.”
Justin, another point of some confusion to the term citizen, we’re all taught we should be patriotic citizens and defend our country, etc. It appears that it’s the citizen who is liable for a lot of stuff. Can you explain that?
The definition of citizen is found in a couple of places. The first in the Fourteenth Amendment in Subsection (a) and it says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. The trick here is the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 244 defines citizen, “One who, under the constitution of the United States or a particular State, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”
It cites the Fourteenth Amendment as the authority for that definition. Another definition in the next paragraph in the same definition says, “Citizens or members of a political community who in their associated capacity have established or have submitted themselves to the dominion of the Government for the promotion of their general welfare and protection of their individual as well as their collective rights.” That was ruled in the case of Harriet versus City of Seattle, 81 Washington, 2d 48, and the Appellate was 500 P.2d191 at 109.
Justin, we’ve been schooled and told in one particular way, but I thought that the administration we’ve been taught as the government, I thought that they work for the people, but that says that citizens are member of a political community who in their associated capacity have established or have submitted themselves to the dominion of the government. That’s backwards. Getting back to the Fourteenth Amendment, instead of freeing the slaves, they basically made everybody a slave when they become a citizen.
It’s my understanding that civil rights are those rights that are granted by the Government as opposed to God’s rights or our Creator’s rights, which had been bestowed by our Creator. See the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We are men and I used that term as in “mankind” as opposed to gender and as such are subject to the law of nature, sometimes called the common law, which simply put means that we have the right to do whatever we wish, whenever we wish, however we wish and wherever we wish. Just so long as we do not trespass on the rights of another, for as long as you don’t create an injury to somebody else, the natural law, God’s law says you could do pretty much what you want to do, anywhere you want to do it. The tricky thing is you can’t hurt somebody else. You can’t cause injury or loss to somebody else in doing that. When you do, you trespass on his right and you’re in violation. Another term I want to talk about is “withholding agent” and anybody who works for somebody else deals with a withholding agent.
The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of Section 1441, 1442, 1443 or 1461. The Internal Revenue Code Section 1441 deals with withholding on tax on non-resident aliens. Internal Revenue Code Section 1442 deals with withholding tax on foreign corporations. Internal Revenue Code Section 1443 deals with foreign tax exempt organizations and Internal Revenue code 14 63 deals with the liability for withholding tax. Please tell me how that applies to the average American, the American national, not the citizen. The citizen is responsible for paying a tax, but the average Joe who is an American national. How do those sections apply to him? A withholding agent is the person who takes the money out of your paycheck for taxes, FICA, or whatever. You’ll see by these sections here that it doesn’t apply to them at all.
The next and last thing I want to talk about is the term “trade” or “business.” Frequently, in the Internal Revenue Code, they refer to trade or business. Title 26 Section 7701Subsection (a) Subsection 26, find a trader business. The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office. How is what you do related to the performance of the functions of a public office?
I didn’t know that we were in a public office.
They’re telling you, you are. When they use the term trade business, they’re saying that you’re in the performance of a public office when they try to rope you into that. Joseph, that’s all I have on this subject right now. There’s a lot more that we can get into, but that’ll do for another show.
Justin, as always have a wonderful evening and we’ll see you back here. Until then, I’m Joseph Farley and I’m Justin Allan Case.
Important Links:
- The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
- United States v. LaBrecque
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 240 U.S. 1
- Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers 247 U.S. 179, 183
- Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire 271 U.S. 170 (1926)
-
Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Join the Joseph Farley Show Community today: