CtC master plan to get employers on board

[Gregg]

From our friend, Diller72

Legally, remedies can be sought only when damages are incurred and demonstrably assigned to a negligent or abusive party.

So...
If we can locate just ONE CtC filer working for a private-sector company who has met with IRS resistance to a refund of monies withheld for a non-existent tax liability (and who has perhaps also been saddled with 'frivolous' penalties to boot) and who, most importantly, also has a boss who has recently come around to the CtC perspective, then an interesting legal riposte can be envisioned:

Worker can agree to sue Boss for damages incurred by the erroneous W-2s, and Boss can covertly agree to be sued.

not very likely

Both can appear in district court pro se to avoid attorney's fees and professional side-walling.

Boss loses (fairly, if possible in that venue). Extra-mainstream publicity ensues.

Boss is now damaged, so sues the payroll agency for incompetent advice and incitement of fraud. More extra- and para-mainstream publicity ensues.

who's paying the legal bills here?

Boss may win. Much more publicity.

of course, if boss wins, he has to go back an undeduct all those wages, so HE has to pay the taxes on them instead of the employees, might be a slight flaw in the plan here

Damaged payroll agency may try to sue the IRS agents who encouraged its misunderstanding and misapplication of the tax laws. Yet more publicity, which may go mainstream this time. The contagion spreads. Americans wake up.

IRS slinks away as most agents come under threat of lawsuits. The Federal Reserve loses its grip on the media and a wave of belated indignation sweeps it into abolition.

and at the same time the mothership lands on the White house Lawn and the aliens proclaim World Peace

Sound money is restored. The economy surges toward renewed prosperity. Liberties expand. Our posterity's future looks shiny again.

I won't even get into the arguments against specie monetary systems


Or am I just a loony Crackhead, as the Quatloosians so fondly call us?

I wasn't going to say, bust since you asked, well, yes

[Quixote]

Boss loses (fairly, if possible in that venue).

How can a trial be fair if the parties are in collusion? A more interesting question is why Diller72, having realized that the only way a CTCer can win in court is by cheating, doesn't see that as an indicator of a flaw in CTC?

[Dr. Caligari]

Both can appear in district court pro se to avoid attorney's fees and professional side-walling.

The employer is almost certainly a corporation, which cannot appear pro se.

[Quixote]

Both can appear in district court pro se to avoid attorney's fees and professional side-walling.

The employer is almost certainly a corporation, which cannot appear pro se.

If the employer, or rather the employer's president/sole shareholder, "has recently come around to the CtC perspective", chances are good that he is the sort who ignores all the niceties that maintain the corporate veil. Couldn't the court just decide that he is a sole owner pretending to be a corporation?

[Paul]

The employer is almost certainly a corporation, which cannot appear pro se.

And the lawyer the employer hires will almost certainly be able to find IRC Section 3403, even though all the geniuses peddling CTC to the masses can't.

[LPC]

If we can locate just ONE CtC filer working for a private-sector company who has met with IRS resistance to a refund of monies withheld for a non-existent tax liability (and who has perhaps also been saddled with 'frivolous' penalties to boot) and who, most importantly, also has a boss who has recently come around to the CtC perspective,

So Peter Hendrick goes to work for Arrow Plastics (i.e., Simkanin)?

Sounds like "Abbot and Costello Meets Frankenstein," and just as likely.

then an interesting legal riposte can be envisioned:

Worker can agree to sue Boss for damages incurred by the erroneous W-2s, and Boss can covertly agree to be sued.

Both can appear in district court pro se to avoid attorney's fees and professional side-walling.

"Side-walling"? What the hell is "side-walling"?

I Googled it, and all I got was information about roofing companies.

Boss loses (fairly, if possible in that venue).

Here's where reality (and problems) arise:

1. Most federal judges did not just fall off the turnip truck.

2. Most clerks of federal judges will either know about section 3403, or will be able to find it in 15-30 seconds.

3. Federal judges only decide controversies, are only used to deciding controversies, and routinely pressure the parties to settle their disputes, so the judge is very likely to wonder why the employer is both fighting the employee and not really fighting the employee. (I.e., it will be very difficult for the employer to take a convincing dive.)

4. Federal judges do not like to be diddled with. Waste enough of their time, and you're looking at possible Rule 11 sanctions.

[grixit]

Both can appear in district court pro se to avoid attorney's fees and professional side-walling.

The employer is almost certainly a corporation, which cannot appear pro se.

If the employer, or rather the employer's president/sole shareholder, "has recently come around to the CtC perspective", chances are good that he is the sort who ignores all the niceties that maintain the corporate veil. Couldn't the court just decide that he is a sole owner pretending to be a corporation?

Worse than that, an employer who "has recently come around to the CtC perspective" is also likely to let other things slide besides income tax. You know, like quality control, business license renewal, liability insurance, etc, etc. After all, when your eyes have been opened, why go half way? Pay your accounts receivable with sight drafts. Tell the regulatory agencies that you have an allodial private business that is outside their jurisdiction. Reply to all complaints from customers by offering to meet at Roberto's Exotic Leather Shop and Common Law Arbitration Service. Pay your employees their nonwages in Libbies, at face value.

[LPC]

If the employer, or rather the employer's president/sole shareholder, "has recently come around to the CtC perspective", chances are good that he is the sort who ignores all the niceties that maintain the corporate veil. Couldn't the court just decide that he is a sole owner pretending to be a corporation?

Unnecessary. A "responsible person" (such as a corporate officer) can be personally liable for withholding taxes.

That's one of the things that Dick Samkinan was convicted of, and I believe Al Thompson also. The fact that they were presidents of corporations, and that the corporations were the employers, didn't help them one bit.

[Lambkin]

A more interesting question is why Diller72, having realized that the only way a CTCer can win in court is by cheating, doesn't see that as an indicator of a flaw in CTC?

His proposal neatly explodes any question of whether he has a good-faith interest in the tax laws vs. just another wanna-be crook who is stupid enough to plan a crime in a public place. It's funny to see the contortions these fools will contemplate when a cash job or straight-forward swindling of some lonely grandmother would be much more effective and less risky. If you don't care about following the law, then why waste time talking about the law? It's just reducing the profitability of the crime while at the same time increasing the risk of getting caught.

[Quixote]

If the employer, or rather the employer's president/sole shareholder, "has recently come around to the CtC perspective", chances are good that he is the sort who ignores all the niceties that maintain the corporate veil. Couldn't the court just decide that he is a sole owner pretending to be a corporation?

Unnecessary. A "responsible person" (such as a corporate officer) can be personally liable for withholding taxes.

That's one of the things that Dick Samkinan was convicted of, and I believe Al Thompson also. The fact that they were presidents of corporations, and that the corporations were the employers, didn't help them one bit.

My piercing the corporate veil idea was a not necessarily serious work around for the problem with Diller72's plan identified by Dr. Caligari, that most employers are corporations and a corporation cannot appear in court pro se.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Or am I just a loony Crackhead, as the Quatloosians so fondly call us?

I wasn't going to say, bust since you asked, well, yes