123 Main Street
Any City 12345
ANY STATE, USA
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator
and qualified Federal Witness
DATE: November 24, 2004 A.D.
SUBJECT: termination of Form W-4 withholdings
The Supreme Law Firm has been retained by another counsel to your worker, John Q. Doe, to document our professional observations concerning IRS Form W-4 and the voluntary nature of that withholding agreement.
After 14+ years of difficult research and litigation, my office is now in a position to provide you with a clear and verifiable summary of the IRS “problem.” Much additional documentation is also enclosed, if you wish to conduct a deeper study of the many issues that arise in this context. Everything is also readily available from the Internet.
The most important single fact is the proven lack of any federal Statutes at Large which create a specific liability for federal income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). This proof was established conclusively when former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul H. O’Neill, fell silent in the face of a proper and lawful SUBPOENA for all such liability statutes. See Internet URL:
Even if the IRS were a legitimate service or bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are not), they would still not have any authority to create a tax liability by means of regulations published in the Federal Register.
Only Congress can make law, and this Separation of Powers is founded upon Article I, Section 1, in the U.S. Constitution (the supreme Law of the Land throughout America). This fundamental limitation upon all Executive and Judicial Branch agencies is succinctly summarized in the abstract of pertinent cases cited at this Internet URL:
Another essential characteristic of subtitle A provisions is that they are all federal municipal law. When Congress enacts municipal laws, it does so in its capacity as the Legislature for a very small area that embraces the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and all other areas under the American flag which are not also States of the Union (i.e. stars on the American flag).
In the book I authored in 1992, which many now regard as a classic, we coined the term “federal zone” to describe this limited area where Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. That book proves conclusively that IRC subtitle A contains federal municipal laws with no legal application whatsoever inside any States of the Union.
Further proof of what we are saying here can be found in the statutes which clearly limit the legal meaning of key terms like “employee” and “employer”. For purposes of subtitle A of the IRC, the term “employee” applies only to people on the federal government payroll, and their “employer” is the “United States” federal government.
Obviously, private sector companies, particularly if they are situated inside the 50 States, are by definition not “employers” as that term is used in IRC subtitle A. Private entities, the 50 States and their political subdivisions are NOT REQUIRED to enter into payroll deduction agreements. See Internal Revenue Manual section 220.127.116.11:
At this point, it also worth mentioning that the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 has rendered the IRM enforceable now. For example, IRS employees can now be disciplined or terminated for violating its provisions. Prior to that Act, the IRM had no legal authority at all.
With this brief overview in mind, the title of IRS Form W-4 makes a lot more sense: the Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate is a certificate by which a federal government employee allows withholding to occur. This form does exhibit a valid OMB control number.
As such, a completed Form W-4 is like a written “power of attorney” authorizing a payroll officer to withhold certain sums from a worker’s periodic paychecks. And, for workers who are not “employees” as that term is defined in the IRC, a completed Form W-4 also creates the legal presumption that such a worker is opting to be treated as if s/he is an employee of the federal government.
Another major problem with Form W-4 is that it is most often presented to newly hired workers as the only available option, when the IRC makes numerous references to another form entitled the “withholding exemption certificate”. See IRC section 3402(n), in particular. The term “withholding exemption certificate” occurs seventeen (17) times in that one section alone, so its existence is beyond any doubt. Please feel free to count the number of occurrences yourself, by accessing that section at this Internet URL:
As is so often typical whenever IRS is trying to conceal one of their many fraudulent practices, they have never published an official IRS form entitled “Withholding Exemption Certificate”. They did publish Form W-4E in 1977, but with a different title and with the same legal presumptions that apply only to federal government “employees”.
Without an official “Withholding Exemption Certificate” issued by the IRS, properly approved by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and showing an OMB-approved control number and expiration date, private sector workers are now faced with the need to certify substitute forms which payroll officers have most often never seen.
Even though an official “Withholding Exemption Certificate” form is presently not available, private sector workers are entirely within the law whenever they execute and submit a substitute “withholding exemption certificate.” By doing so they establish that: (1) they are not federal government “employees”; (2) they do not wish to be treated as if they are federal government “employees”; (3) they did not have any specific liability for federal income taxes last year; and, (4) they do not anticipate any such liability this year.
Clearly, without any Statute at Large which creates a specific liability for federal income taxes imposed by IRC subtitle A, there is no known legal duty that requires any private sector workers to render or make themselves liable for such taxes, e.g. by opting to be treated as if they are federal government employees when they are really not.
Moreover, if they do verify their substitute certificates outside the “United States” (federal government) -- by using the language and by correctly citing the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) -- that is further legal proof that such workers are lawfully situated inside the 50 States of the Union, and outside “the federal zone” i.e. the limited area where Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction (which is the same area where the provisions of subtitle A apply).
As you will discover after carefully reading the attached document entitled “31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service,” 28 U.S.C. 1746(2) is the federal statute which governs the perjury jurat on IRS Form 1040. Thus, a signed Form 1040 becomes legal evidence that the signer is situated inside “the federal zone” and outside the 50 States of the Union. Pretty sneaky, yes?
People who learn this for the very first time, usually come away shocked and amazed at the depth of fraud and devious deceptions that are perpetrated daily against them by the IRS, whenever such tricky forms are made to appear mandatory. On the contrary, the common laws throughout America are very clear in maintaining that fraud vitiates (or nullifies) even the most solemn promises.
Please feel free now to review all of the supporting documents which we have enclosed for your information, and especially for you to confirm what we have now summarized above.
If there is any further assistance we can provide, please direct your questions first to Mr. Doe’s counsel.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
copy: Counsel to John Q. Doe (in triplicate)