the "W-O (private)" form

[Gregg]

One of the loserheads has posted his use of this form, found here
http://www.geocities.com/w0form/
with his employer. Looks like the employer actually filled it out etc... and now he thinks he has the magic bullet.
My question is this, this form has obviously been made to fool people into filling it out, it looks at first glance very much like an official IRS form. First is the IRS aware of this form? And second, how can it not be criminal for someone to get their employer to fill this garbage out?

[grixit]

Hmm, i looked at the form and saw that it has the phrase "Febrilely Pretentious Wanker" misspelled. I'll make a corrected copy and see if i can get it posted to LH.

[Weston White]

It is just a form one sends to their payroll department or whatever requesting them to fill it out and return it, what is wrong about that? It is not making demands under law or using IRS letterheads. Besides I would think a CPA would know there is no such thing as a W-0.

[wserra]

It is just a form one sends to their payroll department or whatever requesting them to fill it out and return it, what is wrong about that?

If you think that it is OK to send your employer meaningless nonsense which only serves to waste his/her time, then there's nothing wrong about that.

Your employer might not agree, especially if s/he is contacted by the IRS to inquire what the gibberish is all about.

[ASITStands]

It is just a form one sends to their payroll department or whatever requesting them to fill it out and return it, what is wrong about that? It is not making demands under law or using IRS letterheads. Besides I would think a CPA would know there is no such thing as a W-0.

Consider what your answer reveals.

No. There's nothing wrong with sending a payroll department a self-made form that requests certain admissions or responses that appear to support a legal position or theory of income.

However, your admission, "a CPA would know there is no such thing as a W-0," leads to the question, "By asking payroll to complete the form, are you attempting to deceive payroll?"

"Is the form a legal form? Is payroll required to complete it?" No. Then, "Why ask payroll to complete a form that is not legally required unless it's an act of deception?" That could lead to questions, such as, "Who benefits from the deception? And, who is culpable in the act?"

Charges such as "interfering with the administration of tax laws" at IRC § 7212, aka, "impeding and obstructing," and "conspiracy to defraud" at 18 U.S.C. § 371, come to mind.

Yes. The payroll department may simply ignore it. However, if the action of attempting to get payroll to complete the form leads to a sanctionable offense, "Is the act harmless?"

Believe me, someone, at some point, will be sanctioned for using Form W-0. Many criminal investigations have begun by a taxpayer (or nontaxpayer) claiming Exempt on Form W-4.

Bottom line: You have admitted anyone with knowledge would know W-0 is fraudulent.

[webhick]

It is just a form one sends to their payroll department or whatever requesting them to fill it out and return it, what is wrong about that? It is not making demands under law or using IRS letterheads. Besides I would think a CPA would know there is no such thing as a W-0.

Payroll departments have a lot of people there who are not CPAs. It doesn't take a license to key in hours and print a check. In small companies, you may have an inexperienced secretary running payroll who only knows that everyone needs an I-9 and W-4 when being hired.

Using the "W" designation is disingenuous because there are 10 of those forms at the IRS, the most common of which (and several others) indicate certification of some kind, just as this one does. It does say "Form W-0 (private)" at the bottom, but that could mean that it's not to be sent to the IRS (kept "private," if you will). It is in fact making a demand under law, where it says "Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, employers are required to make proper determination of the federally privileged status of certain employees" and then includes a line about perjury at the bottom. The heading on IRS forms vary wildly, so there is no real letterhead unless you're actually talking about a letter. The meat of the form is also laid out a lot like the other forms in the W category. Most people would look at this and think it's a real IRS issued form that it is required by law to be filled out.

It is not just a form that someone sends to the payroll department to have them fill out and return it. I shouldn't have to say this, but "time is money." Your employer has to pay someone to fill out that form, which doesn't exist. Not to mention the amount of time put in if the employer figures out that it's bogus and now has to argue with the employee almost daily about why they're never going to fill it out. I've got a whole lot better things to do than fill out bogus paperwork that is intended to be used in connection with breaking the law. And while it would be "easier" to just fill it out and be done with it, I still have principles and I will absolutely not help someone break the law.

[cynicalflyer]

This fake form, or provisions of it, seem to have been used in Indiana.

http://www.in.gov/dor/reference/legal/r ... 549lof.pdf

Taxpayer filed an Indiana IT-40 income tax return. On that return, taxpayer reported that he had received “0” Indiana adjusted income during 2007. Taxpayer claimed a refund of the state and county tax which had been withheld by his employer. Along with that return, taxpayer filed a specious “Certification of Federally Privileged Status” claiming that he was not a “federally privileged worker.”

...

Taxpayer’s employer supplied W-2 information stating that it had paid him approximately $46,000 in “State wages, tips, etc.” during 2007 and that it had withheld state and local taxes accordingly. Taxpayer objects to that characterization by means of a bogus “Certification of Federally Privileged Status” and a federal form WH-4852 which states that his employer’s characterization of the amount of income it paid taxpayer is “HEREBY DISPUTED” because he “received no such ‘wages.”

[Judge Roy Bean]

The silly part of this is that apparently dim-bulb "B" in a company signed it and the dimmer-bulb "A" who submitted it thought "B" had the authority to make a legal determination based on the nonsense on the form.

[Weston White]

Section 7212 only applies to threats of force or harm and conspiracy to defraud? How does sending in a letter asking questions from another meet the qualifications to defraud and conspire?

Everybody has the right to mail a letter to any other and request a reply, that does not mean they have to do it, just because it has looks like another form is not legally significant, except if the letter is impersonating law enforcement or an agency of the government.

W is merely a letter, regardless of how it is used or where it is used, the IRS does not have rights to it.

You want to get into invalid forms, alright how about the IRS being in violation since the beginning of the PRA, currently at least 29 IRS forms all share the same OMB Control Number a violation of 44 USC.

[1040, 1040A, 1040ES, 1040EZ, 1040NR, 1040-V 1040X, 2555, W-4, W-4S, W-4V, W-5, W-7, W-7A, 4852, and SCHEDULES: 1, 2, 3, A&B, C, C-EZ, D [including SCHEDULE D-1], E, EIC, F, J, R, and SE.]

These are all illegal IRS forms the IRS has released for public consumption.

This form is simply an interment to get the payroll employees to think about the IRC, that is all it really is going to do, it is not helping anybody to break the law or stop withholding or anything similar. Also the fact that it was mailed from a private address and has a private return address would be a major flag that it is not from the IRS. It also serves a dual purpose of showing that the employees in payroll do not actually know the IRC themselves, so that way it very helpful to the requester.

Sanctioned? How so exactly? Fraudulent? How so exactly?

"Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, employers are required to make proper determination of the federally privileged status of certain employees"

The purpose of that is to merely remind the payroll staff that they are responsible for their actions, that is it. It is not saying under the provisions of the IRC, you are required to fill this form out and fulfill any other desire or request that the requester has included.

The employees are entirely free to throw it away, mark return to sender, or simply fill out whatever they want according to their knowledge and return it.


I sent in a letter awhile back requesting information from my payroll department and found that they knew squat-jack, and I got a reply from the managing CPA of payroll. She stated that the only basis they need to determine their responsibilities concerning tax law is Pub 15, that no other reference is needed. She stated she was not familiar with the USC, and I got an admission that when there is a prior W-4 on file and an knew one is submitted although invalid, they are to continue to withhold as claimed on the prior W-4. Which means they violated the law over 1 year ago now, they put me at zero, I even told them then, they did not care, they said that is what their policy, end of story, period. I was just dumbfounded, well I guess we just do what we want, how cares about consequences. I called the IRS and my only protection is to file a 3949-A form, which I did, never heard anything back from the IRS of course... no surprise... nothing else I can do except file a lawsuit.

[wserra]

You want to get into invalid forms, alright how about the IRS being in violation since the beginning of the PRA, currently at least 29 IRS forms all share the same OMB Control Number a violation of 44 USC.

And why is that? Because you say so? “Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. Section 3507 requires periodic review, not a periodic change in control numbers." United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2007). Every court to have considered this "argument" - and there are many - has rejected it.

nothing else I can do except file a lawsuit.

What type of "lawsuit" would that be?

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
I sent in a letter awhile back requesting information from my payroll department and found that they knew squat-jack, and I got a reply from the managing CPA of payroll. She stated that the only basis they need to determine their responsibilities concerning tax law is Pub 15, that no other reference is needed.

Which is true. In fact, if you want to be specific, under the corporate umbrella (assuming the proper WRITTEN policies are in place and enforced uniformly) employees don't make decisions on matters of the law, they merely have to follow company policy, which in almost every case I've encountered, includes following applicable law as determined by the corporation's counsel.

She stated she was not familiar with the USC, and I got an admission that when there is a prior W-4 on file and an knew [sic] one is submitted although invalid, they are to continue to withhold as claimed on the prior W-4. Which means they violated the law over 1 year ago now, they put me at zero, I even told them then, they did not care, they said that is what their policy, end of story, period.

Weston, there is no legitimate requirement for them to accept a new, invalid W-4; the only option is to continue to withhold based on the extant W-4.

Did you mean "valid" instead of "invalid?" VALID new W-4's are routine. They're submitted almost every time a child is born or a marriage takes place among other things. If you did actually mean "valid," apparently there's a disagreement about validity. They may have a policy that precludes participating in acts that would expose the company to the time and expense of an IRS inquiry, i.e., changes in W-4 exemptions from say, 1 to 9 without documentation of an extraordinary event (like you just married a spouse with eight kids). Trust me, no one in a corporation likes having to respond to something from the IRS.

I was just dumbfounded, well I guess we just do what we want, how cares about consequences. I called the IRS and my only protection is to file a 3949-A form, which I did, never heard anything back from the IRS of course... no surprise... nothing else I can do except file a lawsuit.

I'll give you some unwanted advice - don't use the phone. Write a letter to go along with your new, VALID W-4 and simply ask them to respond in writing as to when it will take effect and/or why it won't. Without that, you have nothing.

[ASITStands]

Section 7212 only applies to threats of force or harm and conspiracy to defraud?

Here's an example where it pays to read the text of the statute correctly.

Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title, or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title ...

Notice the little word, "or," that appears in the first sentence.

"Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of force ..." showing that Section 7212 does not apply only to threats of force or harm but something called "corruptly endeavoring."

Take a look at the Omnibus Clause for 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a).

I think you'll see something different in the concept of "impede or obstruct."

[LPC]

You want to get into invalid forms, alright how about the IRS being in violation since the beginning of the PRA, currently at least 29 IRS forms all share the same OMB Control Number a violation of 44 USC.

And why is that? Because you say so? “Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB has shirked its duty. Section 3507 requires periodic review, not a periodic change in control numbers." United States v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2007). Every court to have considered this "argument" - and there are many - has rejected it.

The 29 different forms that WW is talking about are the various schedules to Form 1040.

But the statute doesn't require that every *form* have a different OMB control number. The statute requires that each "collection of information" have a control number. See 44 USC 3507(a)(3) and 3512(a)(1).

The IRS has apparently taken the position, and the OMB has agreed, that Form 1040 and the schedules that may be filed along with Form 1040 are all one "collection of information" and therefore share one OMB number.

[Gregg]

This form is simply an interment to get the payroll employees to think about the IRC, that is all it really is going to do, it is not helping anybody to break the law or stop withholding or anything similar. Also the fact that it was mailed from a private address and has a private return address would be a major flag that it is not from the IRS. It also serves a dual purpose of showing that the employees in payroll do not actually know the IRC themselves, so that way it very helpful to the requester.

No Weston, it's a deliberate attempt to confuse them or get them to sign it without information. In the "instructions" on the page you download it from, it says in big bold letters, DO NOT LEAVE THE FORM, get someone to sign it or refer you to someone who will sign it. Ergo: they're trying to get the signature before anyone sits down to read or think about it. I'm also very troubled by the language someone quoted above,

"Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, employers are required to make proper determination of the federally privileged status of certain employees

That is just a plain lie, funy for those nuts who make such a fuss about people acting "under the cover of law" Methinks some of them may be opening up themselves to some of the things they're crying so hard about.

[ASITStands]

The 29 different forms that WW is talking about are the various schedules to Form 1040.

But the statute doesn't require that every *form* have a different OMB control number. The statute requires that each "collection of information" have a control number. See 44 USC 3507(a)(3) and 3512(a)(1).

The IRS has apparently taken the position, and the OMB has agreed, that Form 1040 and the schedules that may be filed along with Form 1040 are all one "collection of information" and therefore share one OMB number.

Actually, there are currently 204 forms with OMB # 1545-0074 displayed on them.

The first link will allow a search on 1545-0074, and the second actually lists the forms.

It includes not only the schedules attached to Form 1040 but other forms used to report income, credits, deductions, etc. in connection with the reporting of individual income.

You can read through the list. Form W-4, Form 4852, Form 1040-NR, Form 2555, etc.

However, in light of Dan's assertion, "[T]he statute doesn't require that every *form* have a different OMB control number," a bigger question would be, "Why did the other forms have different OMB control numbers from January, 1981 through December, 2005?"

Did Treasury's interpretation of statute change in December, 2005, or sometime before?

For instance, Form 1040-NR for tax years 1980 through tax year 2004 used OMB # 1545-0089, and in January, 2006, for tax year 2005, Form 1040-NR displayed OMB # 1545-0074.

Did Treasury's interpretation of the Paperwork Reduction Act change?

The same is true of Form 1040-A which displayed OMB # 1545-0085 for tax years 1980 through 2004 but OMB # 1545-0074 in January, 2006, for tax year 2005. Why the change?

Remember: A form is used for the preceding calendar year. The form for tax year 2004 appeared in January, 2005, but the form for 2005 did not appear until January, 2006.

Patridge argued in his evasion case, United States v. Patridge, that the IRS had requested approval of various OMB control numbers in August, 2004, but because the government had shut down due to budgetary constraints, the numbers were never approved for 2004.

And, why do some forms connected to the 1040 still have different OMB control numbers?"

If statute doesn't require "that every *form* have a different OMB control number," and the IRS has taken the position that "Form 1040 and the schedules that may be filed along with Form 1040 are all one 'collection of information' and therefore share one OMB number," why do Forms W-2 and W-3 still use OMB # 1545-0008? Shouldn't it be OMB # 1545-0074?

Surely, it can't be argued that the reporting of "wages, tips, other compensation" and "federal income tax withholding" is anything other than individual income tax reporting?

And, why do all the 1099 forms display different OMB control numbers when they represent the reporting of non-wage income? Certainly, Form 1099 can be attached to forms other than Form 1040, and should not display OMB # 1545-0074, but why different numbers?

Did Treasury's interpretation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 change? Or, does the interpretation vary by the form that's being challenged? Did the intent of Congress change?

The use of the words, "it" and "each," in 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1)(B) and 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(i)-(vi) has always seemed to trouble government agents, attorneys and apologists.

Take a look at 5 CFR 1320.8(c)(1), while you're there, and 5 CFR 1320.9(g).

They cannot conceive that Congress would actually require certain disclosures to be made on the form itself, rather than on a website somewhere or in an Instruction Booklet.

Actually, they cannot conceive that either the IRS or the Courts may have been wrong.

As an example how another government agency "interprets" the intent of Congress in the Paperwork Reduction Act, take a look at Form 1068A from the Federal Communications Commission, which clearly complies with 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), (c)(1) and 1320.9(g).

Or, take a look at Treasury Form 5000.24, Excise Tax Return.

Do you see a difference in Treasury's interpretation between Form 1040 and Form 5000.24?

The IRS could potentially resolve all their problems complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act by simply including a cover sheet for Form 1040 similar to the cover on FCC Form 1068A.

They would then approach compliance with 5 CFR 1320.8(c)(1).

Instead. "For Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see page 88."

Why does the IRS feel a need to bury mandatory disclosures on page 88 of an Instruction Booklet that does not always accompany the form? And, why does the IRS cite the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 instead of the current Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995?

All the government agents, attorneys and apologists aside, there's something wrong with Treasury's interpretation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and Patridge shows it.

Judge Easterbrook stated in United States v. Patridge:

Anyway, as we held in Salberg, the obligation to file a
tax return stems from 26 U.S.C. §7203, not from any
agency’s demand. The Paperwork Reduction Act does not
repeal §7203. Repeal by implication depends on inconsistency
that makes it impossible to comply with the newer
law while still honoring the old one, see Branch v. Smith,
538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003); J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer
Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 141–44 (2001),
and there is no such inconsistency between §7203 and
the Paperwork Reduction Act. One reason for this is
that §7203 requires a “return” but does not define that
word or require anyone to use Form 1040, or any “official”
form at all. All that is required is a complete and candid
report of income.

Finally, we have no doubt that the IRS has complied
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 1040 bears a
control number from OMB, as do the other forms the IRS
commonly distributes to taxpayers. That this number
has been constant since 1981 does not imply that OMB
has shirked its duty. Section 3507 requires periodic
review, not a periodic change in control numbers. Patridge
offers us no reason to think that the necessary review has
not been conducted. The control number on Form 1040
appears on OMB’s web site as a current, valid number; if
this is wrong, it takes more than a lawyer’s say-so to
establish the proposition. That OMB didn’t re-review Form
1040 between the 1995 and 1996 tax year is irrelevant;
nothing in the 1995 amendments says that all existing
approvals become invalid or that all forms must be resubmitted.

If all that is required is a "complete and candid report of income," why use Form 1040?

Or, better yet, why would a taxpayer be sanctioned for not using Form 1040? Whatever happened to using a homemade return or even the shirt off your back? It's now sanctioned as a "frivolous position," though Judge Easterbrook sanctions not using Form 1040.

And, factually, nowhere does OMB or the IRS ever state that OMB # 1545-0074 is "currently valid," or even "valid," but rather, only uses the words, "currently approved."

Thus endeth my Friday Afternoon Moment of Zen, and thus endeth my PRA/OMB rant!

[Cpt Banjo]

Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, employers are required to make proper determination of the federally privileged status of certain employees

Some poor soul at LH named RLM has asked where this requirement might be found in the Code:

Under what section in the IRC of 1986 is this found?:

"Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, employers are required to make proper determination of the federally privileged status of certain employees."

I've been searching for this but cannot locate it?

Please respond. Thank you.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 4977#14977

It should come as no surprise that none of the resident fruitcakes at LH has given him a response, but I'll give it a whirl in case he comes by to lurk.

RLH: You can't locate it because it isn't there. There is no such requirement in the Code or anywhere else in the law. This is merely a variation of the bogus "federal privilege" argument that Hendrickson peddles and that every court has rejected. The law does not require, nor has it ever required, some sort of federal privilege before the federal government can tax income (or anything else, for that matter). If anyone tries to persuade you otherwise, they are selling a lie. Don't fall for it.

[RyanMcC]

My employer filled out the W-0 and returned it to me:



Lucky for me I'm self-employed.

[grixit]

Could someone smack Weston on the back a few times. He needs to bring up some more of the koolaide.

[Randall]

My employer filled out the W-0 and returned it to me:



Lucky for me I'm self-employed.

Well, it's red and it is written at an angle, but it does not look like crayon, so it cannot be valid. You are still employed.

[ASITStands]

Well, it's red and it is written at an angle, but it does not look like crayon, so it cannot be valid. You are still employed.

I thought the same thing, and I also noticed it was not handwritten.

I distinctly remember it has to be handwritten in red crayon at an angle. Right?

On the other hand ...

If the boss had a LARGE RED STAMP ready to deploy, what does that say?