What you're swearing to when you sign a 1040

[LDE]

There's been a bunch of hooey on various threads, espoused by various tax deniers and fellow travelers, about how signing a 1040 (somehow labeled a "jurat") means you endorse the fact that the figure you're reporting on line 7 is "wages." (There are variants of this stance, but what follows applies regardless.)

A quick glance at an actual 1040 shows that you're reporting "Wages, salaries, tips, etc." It also tells you to "attach Form(s) W-2."

So, signing the form under penalty of perjury is not tantamount to agreeing that what you earned was wages. It might have been a tip. It might have been et cetera. The implication is pretty clear that it ought to agree with what's printed on your W-2(s).

Now, suppose you whited out the verbiage on line 7 and claimed the money reported as paid to you on your W-2(s) wasn't wages. Say you wrote in "glubglub" instead.

But you reported every penny.

I'm willing to bet the IRS would accept your claim of glubglub rather than "wages, salary, tips, etc." on line 7 so long as you reported it. You could then sue for a refund in Tax Court under your theory that glubglub shouldn't be taxed.

That's not what tax deniers do. They enter "0" on line 7 because glubglub isn't "wages, salary, tips, etc." Or at least they don't believe it is, so they won't swear to it under the "jurat." But it seems to me the "etc." covers a whole lot besides "wages."

[Nikki]

Back before e-file, the IRS accepted a computer-generated hard-copy form called the 1040PC.

It contained almost nothing besides line numbers, check boxes, brief abbreviations, and amounts.

It DID, however, contain the full jurat.

Aside: I really miss that form. It condensed a multi-page tax return onto a single page. I was able to file returns for myself and each of my children in a single envelope with just the minimum postage -- and no e-file fees.

[Dr. Caligari]

signing a 1040 (somehow labeled a "jurat")

A "jurat" is a legal term for a signature block on a document in which the signer swears to the truth of what she is signing. Forms 1040 include a jurat.

[John J. Bulten]

Umm, LDE, what about the rest of the form, such as when you are supposed to treat the amount in line 7 as "adjusted gross income"? If I admit my etc. and glubglub is adjusted gross income, I've just sworn that it flows into taxable income and vitiated any refund claim, haven't I?

As for reporting, say, "nonincome payments" anywhere without flowing them into income, I'm sure no tax honesty pursuer would have a problem admitting that, as Lawman pointed out.

The problem in the actual case before us is that Judge Nancy ordered Pete that, whether he fills it out on a teabox or a 1040PC, he must swear he believes certain payments are "income" when he doesn't. Have you read the laws about subornation of perjury and witness tampering?

[Neckbone]

Back before e-file, the IRS accepted a computer-generated hard-copy form called the 1040PC.

It contained almost nothing besides line numbers, check boxes, brief abbreviations, and amounts.

It DID, however, contain the full jurat.

Aside: I really miss that form. It condensed a multi-page tax return onto a single page. I was able to file returns for myself and each of my children in a single envelope with just the minimum postage -- and no e-file fees.

My advice to clients (gained from bitter personal experience) is NEVER, EVER submit separate returns in the same envelope. Do nothing to confuse the letter opener dweebs at the Service Center.

Neckbone

[LDE]

JJB:

What about the rest of the form? It tells you to add anything you report on line 7 to what you report on the intervening lines and put the result on line 22. ("Add the amounts in the far right column for lines 7 through 21. This is your total income.")

1. As far as your mentor, who won't sign the form under penalties of perjury, is concerned, it doesn't seem the instruction I just quoted leaves a lot of legal wiggle room. The form may not reflect the law as written (though I believe it does), but signing a statement that the form is accurate does not seem to bind the signer to a particular legal interpretation. That is, let's pretend I agree with your idea that the definition of wages, or income, or whatever it is your employer gives you to put in your wallet, isn't what the IRS thinks it is; they're misreading their own enabling statute. Okay, but I still don't see how endorsing this form binds someone to any particular legal theory and, therefore, how being ordered to sign it, containing a particular amount on lines 7 and 22 that agrees with the amount withheld on form W-2, against one's will is a matter of belief about the law. The form itself tells you to include, not just wages, but (in effect) any wage-like money under whatever name it's given. Then it tells you to add that with other things to get "income." When you sign the form you're swearing that the information is accurate.

This, by the way, seems to me to be the very simplest idea in tax preparation.

2. On another thread, you went to great lengths to argue that what you get to put in your wallet for services rendered isn't "wages." Now I see it doesn't matter whether you earn "wages." Suddenly the question is whether wages are income.

Remember, the form actually asks you for "Wages, salaries, tips, etc." and tells you to attach Form(s) W-2. So I guess your task is to show how what you get to put in your wallet for services rendered isn't income. Or maybe you want to claim wages aren't income? Sorry, but on what authority do you exclude what you earn from income?

[Joey Smith]

Have you read the laws about subornation of perjury and witness tampering?

Yes, and those have absolutely nothing to do with the situation here.

But you or the mail bomber can trot down to the U.S. Attorney's office and see if you can get them to prosecute.

[John J. Bulten]

LDE, that means you "swear" "to the best of your knowledge and belief" that line 7 is part of "total income". If you don't believe payments are income, you simply cannot swear to the best of your belief that they are. Do you "see how endorsing this form ... is a matter of belief about the law" yet? This was hotly debated on another thread.

Second, Pete is not unwilling to sign under penalties of perjury; he already did, and continues to every year. What you mean is that he won't sign a perjurous statement under penalties of perjury, namely, "total income is $X to the best of my belief".

Third, determining something was paid is a straightforward matter of fact and has standards of accuracy. But determining something was "wages" as defined in section 3121(a) or 3401(a), or "income" as used in the 16th Amendment, is an ambiguous matter of law, not fact, and is measured by statutory construction rather than accuracy. You're not only swearing to accuracy, but also to legal definitions. And payments for labor are not "wage"-like as so defined. But cutting to the chase, the legal definition which Nancy ordered Pete ("I find payments were income and you must swear payments were income") is not an accuracy matter and could not be sworn under an accuracy-only standard.

Fourth, no, there is no question whether "wages" as defined in section 3121(a) or 3401(a) are income, they are. The question is whether ordinary earnings are income, or are "wages" as so defined. Many presume that question has already been settled conclusively in the affirmative. I do not need to "exclude" payments from deriving income, if they don't derive income because no law explicitly "includes" them in deriving nonzero income. This was hotly debated on another thread.

Fifth, W-2 may be wrong. If W-2 and 4852 disagree on a matter of fact or law (which are both sworn to on the respective W-3 and 4852 jurats), the legal principle is that the amount reported by the filer shall be taken for assessment purposes.

Sixth, continuing with the form, it requires one to self-assess how much tax is due based on "income" amounts. Swearing to the correctness of one's assessment is an additional legal conclusion.

Now you believe the form does not bind one to any legal interpretation. And using or not using a form is itself insignificant (forms are provided only for convenience), because anything reasonably containing the info needed to complete an assessment constitutes a valid, nonfrivolous return. So would the following rough example, which does not contain any legal interpretations to my knowledge, suffice in your view as a valid return?

- Name, Address, SSN, etc.
- I had $20.00 in bank interest from a national bank.
- In 2002 I earned $X from workplace Y for labor. I and the workplace have both sworn (as attached) that payments were made pursuant to a contract written, executed, and performed solely within Michigan, for a Michigan corporation, etc. Any statement to the contrary is hereby corrected.
- I authorize IRS to determine and assess the amount of income and federal, SS, and Medicare tax due in accord with law, based on the facts herein.
- Workplace paid IRS $Z for 2002 for potential tax liability for federal, SS, and Medicare taxes. Any amount overpaid shall be refunded to me. Any amount underpaid shall be calculated and billed to me.
- Signed (under jurat as specified on 1040).

I don't think I missed anything. The IRS will most likely presume the legal conclusion that $X was both wages and income. But do you know what? The category of statutory wages has been specifically and explicitly denied in every factual point (within the "etc."), so that legal conclusion would be false. Since there is no evidence of wages and no evidence of derived income in any other way, the second legal conclusion cannot be made lawfully either due to lack of evidence. All that can be done is to hope I don't call the IRS's bluff.

My questions to you are: How can a form contains no conclusions of law (as you maintain) suffice to obey Nancy's order that payments be included in income? But how can someone swear to one's belief to a legal conclusion one does not believe?

[Demosthenes]

"total income is $X to the best of my belief".

Whatever happened to the "knowledge" part of "knowledge and belief"?

[jg]

But determining something was "wages" as defined in section 3121(a) or 3401(a), or "income" as used in the 16th Amendment, is an ambiguous matter of law, not fact, and is measured by statutory construction rather than accuracy.

The determination for section 3121 is based on whether the facts and circumstances fit the common law rules of whether the legal relationship of employee-employer exists.

Section 3121(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the term "employee" means any individual who, under the common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of employee. The Internal Revenue Service ignores contract labels, and instead examines the facts and circumstances of each situation and analyzes specific characteristics, such as behavioral and financial control and the relationship between the employer and the individual performing services, before a determination can be made whether the individual is classified as an employee or an independent contractor under common law.

For one legal basis of this determination see, for example, the Supreme Court case found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=179 which concludes by saying:

It is clear that this brief sketch of relevant factors cannot be intended to provide a workable test, complete in itself, displacing the complex of common-law rules Congress so carefully tried to preserve. Rather, the regulation provides a summary of the principles of the common law, intended as an initial guide for the determination, required by the first sentence of the regulation, whether a relationship "is the legal relationship of employer and employee." The thrust of both statute and regulation is that the standards that are to govern in any field are those that the courts customarily apply to define this "legal relationship."
We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in declining to judge the status of the captains and crewmen against the standards of maritime law. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Note the reference to the "complex of common-law rules Congress so carefully tried to preserve" .

See also Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) and United States v. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179 (1970).

Although there can be legitimate dispute in some instances in applying the common law rules referred to in the regulations that is not the contention of CtC. To my knowledge, Hendrickson has not told his followers to attempt to refute the determination of the legal status as an employee under the common law rules when submitting Form 4852.

Hendrickson's claim that most private sectors workers are not employees as the term is used in Section 3121 is simply wrong (as adjudged in his own false claim for refund case ) and seems to be an attempt to justify denial of the information reported on the Form W-2 in order to falsely or fraudulently claim a refund.

Regardless, whether or not the individual is or is not an employee under the common law rules per Section 3121(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code; it does not change the inclusion of the indiviudual's earnings in gross income subject to the income tax (as others have clearly stated) and you have not been able to provide any contradictory legal basis.

Hendrickson's imaginative theories that a tax on a private sector worker's earnings or that a "federal privilege" is a vital element for income to be subject to the income tax is just rewoven rejected rubbish.

[John J. Bulten]

To my knowledge, Hendrickson has not told his followers to attempt to refute the determination of the legal status as an employee under the common law rules when submitting Form 4852. Hendrickson's claim that most private sectors workers are not employees as the term is used in Section 3121 is simply wrong (as adjudged in his own false claim for refund case ) and seems to be an attempt to justify denial of the information reported on the Form W-2 in order to falsely or fraudulently claim a refund.

For about the twentieth time, jg, Pete does not claim as you say, he claims all common-law private-sector workers are 3121(d) "employees". His key claim is instead that they don't have 3121(b) "employment".

In 3121 employee is wide and employment is narrow, while in 3401 employee is narrow and employment is wide because undefined. Your ongoing attempts to advantage yourself of potential confusion inherent in this statutory scheme are ever more disingenuous.

Rather, Pete would have all common-law workers affirm they are 3121(d)(2) employees, subject to "employment tax" on any 3121(b) "employment" they engage in, which is usually none. Save your smoke and mirrors for the carnival sideshow. (Or tell your employer you prefer different employment than having to beat dead horses.)

[jg]

For about the twentieth time, jg, Pete does not claim as you say, he claims all common-law private-sector workers are 3121(d) "employees". His key claim is instead that they don't have 3121(b) "employment".
...
Rather, Pete would have all common-law workers affirm they are 3121(d)(2) employees, subject to "employment tax" on any 3121(b) "employment" they engage in, which is usually none. Save your smoke and mirrors for the carnival sideshow. (Or tell your employer you prefer different employment than having to beat dead horses.)

The smoke and mirrors are being employed by Hendrickson. Claiming it is so does not make it so.
Please provide any legal basis that supports the claim that one can be 3121(d) "employees" and not have 3121(b) "employment".

Again, regardless of the outcome of this determination under 3121 the payments for work/labor/personal services are included in gross income of the individual subject to the income tax . You have yet to provide any legal basis for these payments not to be included in gross income under section 61 beyond the rewoven rejected rubbish.

[David Merrill]

There's been a bunch of hooey on various threads, espoused by various tax deniers and fellow travelers, about how signing a 1040 (somehow labeled a "jurat") means you endorse the fact that the figure you're reporting on line 7 is "wages." (There are variants of this stance, but what follows applies regardless.)

A quick glance at an actual 1040 shows that you're reporting "Wages, salaries, tips, etc." It also tells you to "attach Form(s) W-2."

So, signing the form under penalty of perjury is not tantamount to agreeing that what you earned was wages. It might have been a tip. It might have been et cetera. The implication is pretty clear that it ought to agree with what's printed on your W-2(s).

Now, suppose you whited out the verbiage on line 7 and claimed the money reported as paid to you on your W-2(s) wasn't wages. Say you wrote in "glubglub" instead.

But you reported every penny.

I'm willing to bet the IRS would accept your claim of glubglub rather than "wages, salary, tips, etc." on line 7 so long as you reported it. You could then sue for a refund in Tax Court under your theory that glubglub shouldn't be taxed.

That's not what tax deniers do. They enter "0" on line 7 because glubglub isn't "wages, salary, tips, etc." Or at least they don't believe it is, so they won't swear to it under the "jurat." But it seems to me the "etc." covers a whole lot besides "wages."

If you are waving around Fed stock certificates, the fiduciary responsibility is proven right there. The signature on a 1040 Form is simply a guaranteed testimony to that fact.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[John J. Bulten]

Again, regardless of the outcome of this determination under 3121 the payments for work/labor/personal services are included in gross income of the individual subject to the income tax . You have yet to provide any legal basis for these payments not to be included in gross income under section 61 beyond the rewoven rejected rubbish.

I love how you retreat to the second plank when you appear to be losing the first! And this first plank is so easy to defend:

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employment" means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (i) within the United States, or (ii) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into within the United States or during the performance of which and while the employee is employed on the vessel or aircraft it touches at a port in the United States, if the employee is employed on and in connection with such vessel or aircraft when outside the United States, or (B) outside the United States by a citizen or resident of the United States as an employee for an American employer (as defined in subsection (h)), or (C) if it is service, regardless of where or by whom performed, which is designated as employment or recognized as equivalent to employment under an agreement entered into under section 233 of the Social Security Act; except that such term shall not include -

There are four tests:
(A)(i) "United States",
(A)(ii) "American vessel" or "American aircraft",
(B) "citizen or resident of the United States" and "American employer", or
(C) "section 233 of the Social Security Act".

If all four do not apply-- if you don't work in the "United States", are not connected with an "American vessel" or "American aircraft", don't work for an "American employer" (or are not a "citizen or resident of the United States"), and don't work pursuant to "section 233 of the Social Security Act" ("International Agreements")-- you don't have statutory employment. I think I already said this in a thread about statutory wages. Since corporate officers and common-law workers who don't meet any of these four tests are easily extant, there are plenty of 3121(d) employees without 3121(b) employment.

Now what you meant to ask might be: what if the 3121(d) employee is stipulated to be working in, say, Wyoming, and is thereby working within the "United States" as defined in 3121(e), and/or working for an "American employer" as defined in 3121(h), and such? Well, as you know, to carry that point you'd have to bring me some fresh meat about the meaning of "includes" which explains why Congress has NEVER explicitly included Wyoming in the "United States" for these purposes, even though it almost always does for any other purposes. See my "location" tagline at left.

[jg]

For purposes of this chapter, the term "employment" means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (i) within the United States, or (ii) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into within the United States or during the performance of which and while the employee is employed on the vessel or aircraft it touches at a port in the United States, if the employee is employed on and in connection with such vessel or aircraft when outside the United States, or (B) outside the United States by a citizen or resident of the United States as an employee for an American employer (as defined in subsection (h)), or (C) if it is service, regardless of where or by whom performed, which is designated as employment or recognized as equivalent to employment under an agreement entered into under section 233 of the Social Security Act; except that such term shall not include -

There are four tests:
(A)(i) "United States",
(A)(ii) "American vessel" or "American aircraft",
(B) "citizen or resident of the United States" and "American employer", or
(C) "section 233 of the Social Security Act".

If all four do not apply-- if you don't work in the "United States", are not connected with an "American vessel" or "American aircraft", don't work for an "American employer" (or are not a "citizen or resident of the United States"), and don't work pursuant to "section 233 of the Social Security Act" ("International Agreements")-- you don't have statutory employment. I think I already said this in a thread about statutory wages. Since corporate officers and common-law workers who don't meet any of these four tests are easily extant, there are plenty of 3121(d) employees without 3121(b) employment.

All four do not need to apply. Note that that "or" is used in the statute which means that only one need apply.

For most of us, "employment" means any service, of whatever nature, performed by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, within the United States.

Since you have already admitted that Hendrickson says most are "an employee" as that term is defined for section 3121, I expect you will now pull out the redundant, rejected rubbish that the United States does not include the fifty states.

I do not have to bring you anything nor does anything need to be stipulated as whether one provided services within the United States is a question of fact.
Please do take that argument to court if you sincerely believe you can show that Congress did not intend for Title 26 to apply to the fifty states or if you choose to ignore the case law rejecting such frivolity.

[John J. Bulten]

Since you have already admitted that Hendrickson says most are "an employee" as that term is defined for section 3121, I expect you will now pull out the redundant, rejected rubbish that the United States does not include the fifty states. I do not have to bring you anything nor does anything need to be stipulated as whether one provided services within the United States is a question of fact.

Excuse me, up until Alaska and Hawaii joined us (after all the relevant legislation had been passed), the question of the meaning of "United States" was often a hotly debated point of law which varied from law to law. For instance, "It is unnecessary to lay special stress on the title to the soil in which the channels were dug [Boston], but it may be noticed that it was not in the United States", Ellis v US, 206 US 246, 259. It also came up in Downes and was argued in Brushaber, just off the top of my head. Sometimes "United States" means only federal land.

So we must abide by the definition of "United States" in Chapter 21. I suppose you think it's easy to find some court case that states that, for purposes of IRC Chapter 21, the "United States" includes the fifty states. Keep in mind that I'm not looking for generic TC statements that it's absurd to consider Illinois essentially not part of the United States, or generic statements that inclusion is limitedly expansive. Keep in mind that Dan's representation of frivolous position (3) from notice 2007-30 as quoted at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#USdef is incomplete.

Got one?

[jg]

So we must abide by the definition of "United States" in Chapter 21. I suppose you think it's easy to find some court case that states that, for purposes of IRC Chapter 21, the "United States" includes the fifty states. Keep in mind that I'm not looking for generic TC statements that it's absurd to consider Illinois essentially not part of the United States, or generic statements that inclusion is limitedly expansive. Keep in mind that Dan's representation of frivolous position (3) from notice 2007-30 as quoted at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#USdef is incomplete.

Got one?

Nothing you have presented distinguishes your claims from absurd statements that consider Illinois, or another state, essentially not part of the United States.
As I said:

Please do take that argument to court if you sincerely believe you can show that Congress did not intend for Title 26 to apply to the fifty states or if you choose to ignore the case law rejecting such frivolity.

Your inability or unwillingness to accept or understand the law as appliied and enforced is no fault of the law.

[Paul]

Got one?

As soon as you come up with the part of the Brushaber decision that shows the meaning of "United States" was argued. Just off the top of your head, of course.

[natty]

Well, as you know, to carry that point you'd have to bring me some fresh meat about the meaning of "includes" which explains why Congress has NEVER explicitly included Wyoming in the "United States" for these purposes, even though it almost always does for any other purposes. See my "location" tagline at left.

No need to bring fresh meat to the table since you are incapable of digesting the meat you have already been given.

There is no need to INCLUDE Wyoming in the "United States" because there is no instance EVER where Wyoming (once it became a member of the Union), nor any of the other 49 States of the Union, whereby a State of the Union was NOT "otherwise within the MEANING of" the United States. Therefore, no State of the Union would be EXCLUDED.

Your argument is akin to claiming that since the steer ate only grass, the beef steak from such steer was not meat, but vegetable. -Clearly a semantical delusion.

[Paul]

See my "location" tagline at left.

You mean the statute that says the United States includes the 50 states? Which 50 states?