TP Letters to the Editor

[ElfNinosMom]

From the Aspen Daily News:

Editor:

Starwood, given that it is the responsibility of all citizens to obey the law and to ensure our government does the same, I ask that you, and this community, consider the following.

I decline to sign a W-4, as there is no law requiring me to do so. Only withholding agents are authorized to withhold tax from a paycheck. The Internal Revenue Code defines a withholding agent in IRC 7701(a)(16) which states, "The term 'withholding agent' means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of Sections 1441, 1442, 1443 and 1461." The first three sections apply to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, while 1461 simply makes the agent responsible for monies collected. The IRS Web site adds the following: "You may be a withholding agent even if there is no requirement to withhold from a payment" (i.e. if an employee volunteers to have money withheld.)

There is the law, straightforward and not subject to interpretation. An employer is required to withhold tax from a paycheck only if the employee is a nonresident alien or foreign corporation. I am neither and I do not intend to volunteer. I request that you obey the law and not require me to sign a W-4. (End of revised letter. My employment was terminated.)

Meanwhile, Ed Brown and his companions have held off the feds since January. His house is surrounded by an army of agents, armed to the teeth. Ed lives in New Hampshire, whose state motto is "Live Free or Die." Evidently he takes it seriously. Ed Brown was convicted of tax evasion, however, his reasonable demand is that our government simply show him the law he violated before they throw him into jail.

Ed and his allies grabbed their guns partly because a federal court held Erwin Schiff's (godfather of the income tax rebellion) motion to dismiss for over a year. Then, just hours before his trial, the court dismissed every argument, most based on Supreme Court decisions, as frivolous, thus denying due process. Without identifying a single fraudulent sentence, the court banned Irwin's book for sale in America. Anyone who checks the record will learn that Ed also did not receive a fair trial, along with scores of others.

The regime that controls America may be getting a bit nervy because the New Hampshire primary is the first, and on its stage stands Ron Paul, a candidate for president, who is on record saying he cannot find the law that Ed is demanding to see and that Ed is a true patriot. All this might explode into the light of day as armed citizens surrounded by tyranny and a candidate for president share the same agenda, at the same time, in the same place.

Way back in 2001, Robert Shultz, chairman of the We the People Foundation, went on a fast to force our government to "show us the law." As he grew weaker, Bush finally authorized the heads of the IRS and Justice Department to meet with the foundation at the National Press Club. Our president then announced a sudden interest in studying alternative taxation systems, including disposal of the entire current tax code (New York Times, July 16).

Income tax was toast. However, along came 9/11. Consequently, both sides agreed to reschedule. Since then, Bush has refused to honor his agreement. The foundation is presently in court invoking the First Amendment, attempting to force our government to simply identify the law that gives them the authority to impose income tax. Duh! Our government refuses to state the law while insisting that filing is based on voluntary compliance. When will Americans wake up and realize that we are living in a totalitarian state that has even suspended habeas corpus?

The bottom line is that because there is no law requiring most citizens to file, the IRS cannot, clearly does not, require a citizen to have income tax withheld from his/her paycheck. I challenge the tax accountants/lawyers that infest this valley, this nation, to prove that a withholding agent is required to withhold income tax from our paychecks. Since you cannot prove it, you, at the very least, owe us an apology. You profit while your incompetence, perhaps dishonesty, deceives us and assists the government as they steal our money.

But what about all of the employers that insist upon a non-existent law as prerequisite for employment? Perhaps making them legally responsible for their actions will compel them to obey the law. It takes more than waving the flag and parading down Main Street to ensure freedom.

Will Kesler
Snowmass Village

[buck09]

His house is surrounded by an army of agents, armed to the teeth.

Yet the tyrannical government is letting nutjobs come and go as they please from the property. At the current rate, they may also help take tickets for the benefit concert.

[ElfNinosMom]

His house is surrounded by an army of agents, armed to the teeth.

Yet the tyrannical government is letting nutjobs come and go as they please from the property. At the current rate, they may also help take tickets for the benefit concert.

When is that newest concert, anyway? Is it tomorrow?

[Disilloosianed]

ENM, you are just thinking of when the TicketMaster tickets go on sale.....I was thinking it was the 14th.

[ElfNinosMom]

ENM, you are just thinking of when the TicketMaster tickets go on sale.....I was thinking it was the 14th.

Argh, I hate TicketMaster!

I think I'll have to get my ticket to the Browns' concert of the year from one of their three-toothed supporters instead.

[grammarian44]

I decline to sign a W-4, as there is no law requiring me to do so. Only withholding agents are authorized to withhold tax from a paycheck. The Internal Revenue Code defines a withholding agent in IRC 7701(a)(16) which states, "The term 'withholding agent' means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of Sections 1441, 1442, 1443 and 1461." The first three sections apply to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, while 1461 simply makes the agent responsible for monies collected. The IRS Web site adds the following: "You may be a withholding agent even if there is no requirement to withhold from a payment" (i.e. if an employee volunteers to have money withheld.)

There is the law, straightforward and not subject to interpretation.

This is the sort of TP argument that really pisses me off, especially when it appears in a publication likely to be read by people who know nothing about tax law.

The very first premise--only withholding agents are required to withhold from a paycheck--has no citation. There is a simple confusion here between withholding for purposes of sections 1441, 1442, 881, 882 and the plain vanilla kind of withholding from wages. There are (at least) two different kinds of withholding. But this jerk pretends there can be only one. And readers with no background will likely see no reason to disagree.

[Question everything]

I especially liked the allusion that 9-11 happened just as the "income tax was toast".

[Judge Roy Bean]

...There is a simple confusion here between withholding for purposes of sections 1441, 1442, 881, 882 and the plain vanilla kind of withholding from wages...

There is absolutely no confusion there. The entire purpose is obfuscation and reiteration of nonsense in an effort to grow the "movement."

[Quixote]

Part of a previous Kesler letter to the Aspen Daily News:

Mon 12/19/2005 10:00PM MST

For years I have publicly refused to volunteer and file an income tax return. The Internal Revenue Service has finally responded. In an absolutely stunning display of incompetence, illegality and arrogance they claim I owe $11 million for income earned during 2001 and have filed a lien on "all my property and rights to property."

Suddenly, without prior notice, the IRS controls my rather meager assets until I pay up, including additional penalties, interest and costs. While the IRS states in bold print that "demand had been made," I assure you it had not. Unless a telephone call from some person claiming I owed 11 mil is considered legal notification.

The only official contact was a letter from the "Examination Division." I responded by quoting the Organizational and Staffing Manual of the IRS that clearly revealed they were not authorized to contact me. I then asked the IRS to find someone who was authorized and send me another letter. No letter appeared; that was years ago. Innocent until proven guilty? Due process? The rule of law? They do not now exist for me here in the "Land of the Free."

And a reader's response.

Off his medication
Letter to the Editor -
Wed 12/21/2005 10:00PM MST

Editor:

Will Kesler must be off his medication - and you are cruel to publish his mad rantings. Everything he suggests in his column has been litigated before in tax courts and the courts have found his arguments to be totally without merit.

People just like him have tried this kind of fraud and have lost that argument - not to mention their assets and their freedom as they commit these kind of crimes and build up not only tax obligations, but penalties as well. The man is insane to keep trying to convince himself and others that there is no basis in law for the income tax, that IRS officials do not have a right to contact him - much less prosecute him for tax evasion - and all the rest of his inane charges.

What point is made by giving over your editorial space to Looney Tune folks like this? In the interests of an informed community, stop giving "air time" to people so clearly out of touch with reality. Mr. Kesler's head is the only thing in a place "where the sun don't shine."

Barry Crook
Aspen

[The Observer]

Suddenly, without prior notice, the IRS controls my rather meager assets until I pay up, including additional penalties, interest and costs. While the IRS states in bold print that "demand had been made," I assure you it had not. Unless a telephone call from some person claiming I owed 11 mil is considered legal notification.

The only official contact was a letter from the "Examination Division."

Hmmm, sounds like Kesler did get "prior notice" - whether he granted permission or not.

[ASITStands]

A case came to me in which the non-filer had tax liens totally $3M. Once I pointed out the benefits of filing the returns [and overcame the objections], the person was able to reduce the amounts next to nothing.

It was valuation on real estate and not a true picture of gain. Most of the liens have been removed but not all. The former non-filer is pleased it turned out so well.

I guess my point is, "If tax protesters [like this person] would honestly consider filing returns, they could make life easier for themselves." Otherwise, it's like the Captain says, greed.