How to get withholding back?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on May 12, 1998 at 12:29:49:

In Reply to: Re: How to get withholding back? posted by Tobin on May 09, 1998 at 09:46:52:

: : After one has already gotten the $$ withheld, what is the best way to get it back from the illegal I.R.S.

: File a 1040X and you'll get the last 3 years back.
: be on the defensive though as The Fraudulant IRS
: doesn't like to give back what they've already stolen..

Forget the IRS. They are hopelessly corrupt.
The 1040X is certified under penalty of perjury
INSIDE the United States, so why would you want
to place yourself INSIDE the United States
(read "federal zone"), just to get some money
back from the IRS? This sounds like being
penny-wise and pound-foolish, imho.

To get withholding back, first read IRC 3402
in toto. Then file a proper Certificate of
Exemption from Withholding, retroactive to
the date of your original W-4, with the
withholding agent. That agent is then required
to correct the error, by refunding excess
withholding back to the worker, and to
adjust their next quarterly payment(s) to the
IRS accordingly. In this way, you have
removed IRS completely from the loop.

We recommend an Affidavit of Exemption from
Withholding In Lieu of W-4, instead of a
Certificate, since an Affidavit is the
highest form of truth in any judicial
proceeding. Since the ONLY liability
statutes in the IRC are those listed in
the IRC definition of "withholding agent,"
until and unless you are a withholding agent,
you will have no specific liability, as such --
mountains of CFR regulations notwithstanding.

Certify your Affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1746(1) (NOT subsection (2), because the
latter is the form used on IRC Form 1040!)

You don't notarize tax returns, so you won't
need to notarize this Affidavit either, for
the very same reason. If somebody wants to
debate this point, you have a great controversy
at Law -- and a GREAT lead-in to the crucial
distinction between "United States" and the
"United States of America", because both terms
are used in 28 U.S.C. 1746. This is where the
whole income tax debate should begin, because
Title 28 governs the conduct of all federal
courts (where the rubber meets the road).


The liability created by 26 CFR 1.1-1 is an
overly broad extension of IRC Sec. 1, since
the latter does NOT impose a specific
liability on citizens [sic] or residents [sic]
of the United States [sic]. See Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF, in the Supreme Law Library,
for current litigation on this latter point.
Unfortunately, the 8th Circuit turned into
rubber chickens when presented with this


26 CFR 1.1-1 does NOT impose a specific
liability on any Citizens of the several
States of the Union; and we have now
established, beyond dispute, that there
are two classes of citizenship, and the
Right of Election reserves to you an option
to be one, the other, both, or neither, of these
two classes. For pertinent authorities,
see Topic "A" in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
plus the extensive supplements found in the
draft Applications for Leave to File Enlarged

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Mitchell

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness
and Private Attorney General

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]