A lamb at LH asks to be slaughtered - & wants to pay for

[Famspear]

Getting back to the idiot known as almfree (or “Tony”), and his verbiage already quoted above:

For years I have watched others threaten to sue their 'employer' for illegal payroll deductions. But I don't know of any positive outcome (in relation to this forum)... in fact no one ever actually does litigate for fear of simply being fired/laid off. There is no case law (or any case pending that I know of) involving the truths of CTC [Cracking the Code, the Peter Hendrickson tax evasion scheme] regarding payroll deductions.

Of course, Almfree runs up against 26 USC 3403, which provides:

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

(bolding added).

Looking at some of the case law under section 3403:

Employees have no causes of action against employers to recover wages withheld and paid over to the government in satisfaction of federal income tax liability. 26 U. S. C. § 3403.

--Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F. 2d 1276, 1278, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9819 (7th Cir. 1984).

I can hear Tony now, as he is led like a sheep to the slaughter.

Bahhhhhh, bahhhh.

Bahhhhhhh.

[webhick]

Employees have no causes of action against employers to recover wages withheld and paid over to the government in satisfaction of federal income tax liability. 26 U. S. C. § 3403.

--Edgar v. Inland Steel Co., 744 F. 2d 1276, 1278, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9819 (7th Cir. 1984).

I can hear Tony now, as he is led like a sheep to the slaughter.

Tony will just argue that it's not up to the employer to determine if he has federal income tax liability. Or that the employer is not an employer under that protection, but a withholding agent. Or that his third nipple tingles. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that all three arguments won't hold water (especially the last one since they're kind of designed to leak).

[wserra]

And it looks like the Supreme Court agrees. See Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131 (1956), upholding a conviction under 26 USC 145(b) (the predecessor to section 7201, and using the same language) for filing "false and fraudulent" income tax returns, notwithstanding that a separate statute made it a misdemeanor to file a false return with the intent to evade or defeat any tax.

And, under current law, Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (1965).

[webhick]

It looks like they're going to try for a class action lawsuit with Cryer or Becraft at the helm.

The thread

[The Observer]

And diller72 shows his willingness to sacrifice his fellow TPs:

almfree, this is outstanding!

Yes, anything that puts other people at risk without danger to yourself is much better than you standing up and attracting attention to yourself.

I'm neither a legal professional nor a paralegal, but that's never stopped me from throwing in my tuppence-worth.

Of course not - you haven't had anything at risk, including your personal hide.

In a thread on class action suits in the previous forum, I argued that one of the few instances in which a class action suit might be appropriately brought against a sizeble institution that habitually filed erroneous and injurious "wage" reports with the IRS would involve an independent school district. Because class action suits hold at least the promise of lucrative contingency fees, it would probably be a better vehicle for attracting experienced legal assistance than would a 'lone wolf' lawsuit. Might you find a way to pitch this on behalf of all your fellow district teachers and school staffers as well as yourself?

And the more people you can get going down the tubes together makes for your entertainment pleasure - right, diller?

[Quixote]

mutter has joined diller72 in urging action.

I for one have had it with the defensive. Its time to go on the attack.

As long as it's by someone else.

It seems to me someone should be able to slam dunk a case where someones opinion(the W-2 submitting party) is used to take anothers property.

freedomlover has offered himself as a sacrifice. He's going to ask his boss to tell his payroll service to quit withholding from freedomlover's paycheck.

Once the law is presented to them I dont know what choice they will have but to comply with it. I assume their legal department will have no choice but to read the laws and what they actually say.. May be a wake up call for them as well.

Because, of course, no one in the legal department at a payroll service has ever read the law relating to payroll taxes.

[Nikki]

Any "class action" or even low-class action suit is going to be pro se.

Even the lamest lawyer around isn't going to face guaranteed court sanctions and probable bar association censure (at the least) to file a case that stupid.

[Dezcad]

Any "class action" or even low-class action suit is going to be pro se.

Even the lamest lawyer around isn't going to face guaranteed court sanctions and probable bar association censure (at the least) to file a case that stupid.

Speaking of which, maybe LawyerDud can help.......

[The Observer]

Because, of course, no one in the legal department at a payroll service has ever read the law relating to payroll taxes.

I will have to quibble over that statement. From the TP's viewpoint, it because no one has ever really understood what the law says about who is really liable. Thus the reason for the silly theories about why only federal employees, 14th Amendment citizens, Virgin Island Gunsmiths, etc. are liable for the income tax.

[ArthurRubin]

No, I think he's in trouble. The last time I looked into it a tenured teacher could be fired for accusation of a crime involving moral turpitude. Isn't tax fraud such a crime?

[Nikki]

No, I think he's in trouble. The last time I looked into it a tenured teacher could be fired for accusation of a crime involving moral turpitude. Isn't tax fraud such a crime?

Only if you do it with an underage, female student.

[webhick]

No, I think he's in trouble. The last time I looked into it a tenured teacher could be fired for accusation of a crime involving moral turpitude. Isn't tax fraud such a crime?

Only if you do it with an underage, female student.

So its okay if you do it with an underage, male student?

Edit: And what about ducks? Can a tenured teacher have a relationship with a duck without being fired?

[Cpt Banjo]

Why a duck?

[webhick]

Why a duck?

It was in a book I read, where the main character threatened to tell her cousin's wife about a sick relationship he had with a duck unless he gave her a job. Now, whenever I think of sordid relationships, I think of Vinnie and his love affair with a duck.

[Nikki]

Wanna buy a duck?

[Cpt Banjo]

Damn, doesn't anyone remember the Marx Brothers?

[Nikki]

Why a duck? To carry the water into the Colosseum.

Happy?

[Famspear]

I think the place in this thread where I got lost was somewhere right after "moral turpitude."

[ArthurRubin]

I think the place in this thread where I got lost was somewhere right after "moral turpitude."

Maybe it was before your time....

[jg]

I will have to quibble over that statement. From the TP's viewpoint, it because no one has ever really understood what the law says about who is really liable. Thus the reason for the silly theories about why only federal employees, 14th Amendment citizens, Virgin Island Gunsmiths, etc. are liable for the income tax.

... Thus, there is a simple reality: Those advocating errors must stop doing so, and must turn to advocating the truth. There is no room for compromise on that point, for compromise on that point is both impossible to justify and would by flatly counter-productive.

Rather than encourage anyone to "get along" or "work together" with those advocating error (and whose record of positive accomplishments-- that is, none-- accurately reflects the virtue of their positions), why not simply insist that those in error face the fact that the exclusively complete and accurate truth is found in CtC, as is endlessly demonstrated with a constantly-growing mountain of evidence? (See <redacted url>/thedenierspage.htm for more on this.)