the "W-O (private)" form

[Weston White]

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."

Well look at that, it is a bit more expansive; however, you are still misapplying it, similarly to how the IRS does in consideration of filing CtC. It includes such things as creating bootleg documents, false or forged documents, frauds, impersonations, scams, and other similar acts. It has nothing to do with asking questions, calling IRS employees names, acting in an aggressive or harassing manner, filing out tax returns in accordance to ones personal understanding of the language used therein "the Code", etc. I saw no such examples... of course I could have missed it, if so please feel free to cite the quotation from the link you posted.

Examples of corrupt endeavors within the meaning of Section 7212(a)
include:

* Statements, whether threats or not, designed to convince witnesses
not to testify. United States v. Valenti, 121 F.3d
327, 332 (7th Cir. 1997).

* Attempting to interfere with the auction of property to pay tax debt
by filing a

lis pendens action and affixing an enlarged copy of that document to a
sign advertising the auction. United States v. Bostian, 59
F.3d 474, 477 (4th Cir. 1995).

* Backdating documents, concealing assets, and hiding corporate.
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234-35 (4th
Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Madoch,
108 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 1997) (CPA executed bogus refund scheme);
United States v. Workinger, 90 F.3d 1409 (9th Cir.
1996) (dentist engaged in elaborate scheme to conceal income and
assets).

Mere "harassment" of an agent, if it is not done to obtain an undue
advantage, may not rise to the level of a section 7212(a) violation. The court
in Reeves I stated:

[T]here is no reason to presume that every annoyance or impeding of
an IRS agent is done per se "corruptly." A disgruntled taxpayer
may annoy a revenue agent with no intent to gain any advantage or benefit
other than the satisfaction of annoying the agent. Such actions by
taxpayers are not to be condoned, but neither are they "corrupt" under
Section 7212(a).

[Weston White]

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

I guess you did not realize that until 2004 (starting as of that time) most of those forms had their own specific OMB control numbers, the IRS then changed them so as to be the same as the 1040. Also that OMB Control Number used on the 1040 was never valid, it is a proposal number only, yet to be reviewed and approved. At least last time I studied that theory; which BTW, is how Mr. Springer claimed he got his case dismissed. Not that I really want to debate about this, I was just pointing it out, yet a another nail in the coffin concerning the IRS' illegitimacy.

[Famspear]

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

I guess you did not realize that until 2004 (starting as of that time) most of those forms had their own specific OMB control numbers, the IRS then changed them so as to be the same as the 1040. Also that OMB Control Number used on the 1040 was never valid, it is a proposal number only, yet to be reviewed and approved. At least last time I studied that theory; which BTW, is how Mr. Springer claimed he got his case dismissed. Not that I really want to debate about this, I was just pointing it out, yet a another nail in the coffin concerning the IRS' illegitimacy.

Sorry Weston. That's a big baloney sandwich. No OMB control number for Form 1040 has ever been "invalid." And the concept of "invalidity" of an OMB control number for a Form 1040 would have nothing to do, from a legal standpoint, with the "legitimacy" of the IRS. It also would have nothing to do with the legal obligation to file income tax returns and pay taxes. The whole OMB control number argument is just another stupid argument.

[Weston White]

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

I guess you did not realize that until 2004 (starting as of that time) most of those forms had their own specific OMB control numbers, the IRS then changed them so as to be the same as the 1040. Also that OMB Control Number used on the 1040 was never valid, it is a proposal number only, yet to be reviewed and approved. At least last time I studied that theory; which BTW, is how Mr. Springer claimed he got his case dismissed. Not that I really want to debate about this, I was just pointing it out, yet a another nail in the coffin concerning the IRS' illegitimacy.

Sorry Weston. That's a big baloney sandwich. No OMB control number for Form 1040 has ever been "invalid." And the concept of "invalidity" of an OMB control number for a Form 1040 would have nothing to do, from a legal standpoint, with the "legitimacy" of the IRS. It also would have nothing to do with the legal obligation to file income tax returns and pay taxes. The whole OMB control number argument is just another stupid argument.

Yes it is invalid because it has never actually been approved, only proposed. If something is not in accordance with a law, what is it? It is invalid or unlawful, take your pick.

Right, it would however, have directly to do with the improper application of the IRC on the populous.

[Weston White]

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,

That is for the person submitting it to read, as a guideline, it is not mean as instructions for the payroll employees. I concede though the form is lame and so are the instructions, I am only saying this form is not illegal in any capacity and the submitter has every right to implement it as they see fit. No violation in law is occurring in choosing to use it or whatever.

[Weston White]

What type of "lawsuit" would that be?

Civil, they caused undue pain and suffering through their negligence, my pay was noticeably reduced each pay period. I have attempted to address this issue through several means, to no avail. I have written several letters all without a response, to both their attorneys and to payroll. I have attempted to address this through my union representative, he could care less.

[Weston White]

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.

Right, that is what I meant.

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.

That is good advice, thanks. Though I was prior advised that by the payroll manager that I need to fill out and submit a proper W-4, I said in so many words, negative you are in the wrong, you are not complying with the regulations as written, this is the section so you may see for yourself, therefore you need to fix your mistake, I will not be refiling a W-4 to fix it for you. I left it at that as did they. Though I have been writing letters every few months since then, all non-responsive. Such nice people I work for really.

[Weston White]

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!

Wholly, cow, I am impressed this is one of my most favorite posts thus far on Quatloos. This is the first time I have seen somebody honestly question and in a deep fashion the potential improper application of the IRC. Neato!

[Paul]

This is the first time I have seen somebody honestly question and in a deep fashion the potential improper application of the IRC. Neato!

OK, how's this for your second time? I question this as an improper application of the IRC:

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

Code: Select all

"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.

Note the difference between the "improper application" I question and the nonsensical gibberish spewed out by asitstands is that there is nothing anywhere in the IRC that says anything about a federally privileged status or about an employer's obligation to determine that status, so the W-O statement is clearly an improper application. On the other hand, asitstands' gibberish is about failure of the IRS to meet requirements of the PRA that do not exist anywhere in the PRA. Your defense of the W-O nonsense and gullible acceptance of asitstands' questioning is proof of your bias, and of a lack of knowledge and analytical skills on your par.

[LPC]

Wholly, cow, I am impressed this is one of my most favorite posts thus far on Quatloos. This is the first time I have seen somebody honestly question and in a deep fashion the potential improper application of the IRC. Neato!

I just wrote a reasonably long and (by my standards) thoughtful piece on why you're a gullible idiot (although I didn't use those words), and now I find that you've produced a perfect example of what I was trying to explain.

The rant that Asitstands wrote was not about the application of the Internal Revenue Code, but the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is not part of the Internal Revenue Code.

And I call it a "rant" because it was largely incomprehensible to me, because it was based entirely on what was presented as an inconsistent application of the PRA, and not necessarily an improper application of the PRA. (Sorry, Asitstands, but I call them as I see them.)

You read the same rant, and you failed to understand the statutory or analytical bases for the criticism (which you characterized as "deep"), but you perceived it to be critical of the IRS, and so you embraced it enthusiastically, apparently without any comprehension that it has nothing to do with the enforcement of the tax laws. In other words, you applied no critical thinking whatsoever.

From my point of view, this is another example of why I have no reason whatsoever to trust anything you write. It is all knee-jerk reaction and no evidence of any conscious thought.

[LPC]

Wholly, cow, I am impressed this is one of my most favorite posts thus far on Quatloos.

And it's "Holy cow," not "Wholly, cow."

Furrfu.

[Weston White]

Wholly, cow, I am impressed this is one of my most favorite posts thus far on Quatloos.

And it's "Holy cow," not "Wholly, cow."

Furrfu.

Felt compelled to point out yet another typo, huh? Really? BTW,are you the one that made that "here is the law" web-page? Because I got to tell you that think is filled with misquotes, that has been bothering me for months! When is somebody going to fix that, really now?

P.S. Yes I admit it I tend to do that frequently, type the synonym of a word, most of the time I catch myself, sometimes they slip by me. So if you feel compelled to point them out, have at it big guy. BTW, is that cause enough to have me exsanguinated till death or is it only worthy of castration... you know for being such a severe mental defect? I mean I figure if anybody here would know it would be you.

[LPC]

What type of "lawsuit" would that be?

Civil, they caused undue pain and suffering through their negligence, my pay was noticeably reduced each pay period.

Having pay "noticeably reduced each pay period" is actually the intended and expected consequence of both tax withholdings and tax levies. And the courts have held that both are constitutional.

[LPC]

Felt compelled to point out yet another typo, huh? Really?

Felt compelled to defend yourself against typos while ignoring your substantive ignorance, huh? Really?

BTW,are you the one that made that "here is the law" web-page?

No.

Because I got to tell you that think is filled with misquotes, that has been bothering me for months! When is somebody going to fix that, really now?

Swallowing camels and straining at gnats, huh? Really?

[Judge Roy Bean]

.....
That is good advice, thanks. Though I was prior advised that by the payroll manager that I need to fill out and submit a proper W-4, I said in so many words, negative you are in the wrong, you are not complying with the regulations as written, this is the section so you may see for yourself, therefore you need to fix your mistake, I will not be refiling a W-4 to fix it for you. I left it at that as did they. Though I have been writing letters every few months since then, all non-responsive. Such nice people I work for really.

What was improper about the W-4?

Keep in mind that attempting to provide legal advice to an employee of a corporation who is only required to abide by their company's policies is the equivalent of trying to teach a pig to sing even if you have a viable legal argument. Their obligation is to their employer, not you or the law for that matter. If that proves to be a mistake on the part of their employer's counsel, it's no skin off their nose. And they are in no position to give you legal advice so the two of you arguing the point might as well be screaming at each other in a vacuum.

I've seen corporations argue to the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in a civil case to not have to admit what their employee did or said was wrong, even when it was patently obvious they had taken advantage of someone.

Let's try this again, what was it about your W-4 they don't seem to like?

[Weston White]

Note the difference between the "improper application" I question and the nonsensical gibberish spewed out by asitstands is that there is nothing anywhere in the IRC that says anything about a federally privileged status or about an employer's obligation to determine that status, so the W-O statement is clearly an improper application. On the other hand, asitstands' gibberish is about failure of the IRS to meet requirements of the PRA that do not exist anywhere in the PRA. Your defense of the W-O nonsense and gullible acceptance of asitstands' questioning is proof of your bias, and of a lack of knowledge and analytical skills on your par.

The link to the federal nexus dates back to the original Revenue Acts and follows through in similar language through concurrent Revenue Acts. True not all taxes imposed require a federal nexus to be present, such as certain excise taxes that have been imposed e.g. BATFE. Though in consideration of taxing on common labor, such is the case.

The “employers” obligations would be located under the individual state statutes and codes where the violation took place, most likely in the form of civil law; unless criminal acts such as willful fraud, extortion, conspiracy, etc. actually took place in the process. Though they are certain Title 18 violations that could be considered, depending upon the circumstances.

As to the rest of your post I will reply below…

I just wrote a reasonably long and (by my standards) thoughtful piece on why you're a gullible idiot (although I didn't use those words), and now I find that you've produced a perfect example of what I was trying to explain.

The rant that Asitstands wrote was not about the application of the Internal Revenue Code, but the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is not part of the Internal Revenue Code.

And I call it a "rant" because it was largely incomprehensible to me, because it was based entirely on what was presented as an inconsistent application of the PRA, and not necessarily an improper application of the PRA. (Sorry, Asitstands, but I call them as I see them.)

You read the same rant, and you failed to understand the statutory or analytical bases for the criticism (which you characterized as "deep"), but you perceived it to be critical of the IRS, and so you embraced it enthusiastically, apparently without any comprehension that it has nothing to do with the enforcement of the tax laws. In other words, you applied no critical thinking whatsoever.

From my point of view, this is another example of why I have no reason whatsoever to trust anything you write. It is all knee-jerk reaction and no evidence of any conscious thought.

Other than to state I do not need to for I have previously studied the PRA/OMB argument about one year ago, so unless something has dramatically changed since then, I concur with what he had posted. What he posted it not new to me and it is not “news”. Other than that I have nothing more to say to you and your insatiable rudeness. BTW the PRA/OMB applies to federal departments and agencies, the IRS/IRC (the 1040 instructions even disclose this therein) is included within such as scope, so your argument is moot.

TITLE 44 > CHAPTER 35 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 3506
TITLE 44—PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 35—COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
SUBCHAPTER I—FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
§ 3506. Federal agency responsibilities
(b) With respect to general information resources management, each agency shall—
(1) manage information resources to—
(A) reduce information collection burdens on the public;
(B) increase program efficiency and effectiveness; and
(C) improve the integrity, quality, and utility of information to all users within and outside the agency, including capabilities for ensuring dissemination of public information, public access to government information, and protections for privacy and security;

The 1040 Form and all other tax forms utilized by the Internal Revenue Service Agency or the Department of Treasury relied upon to invoke penalties and avoid the public protection of 44 U.S.C. §3512 are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and must strictly comply with the PRA.
Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 44 (1990); U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990); U.S. v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1991);

After an agency has satisfied itself that an instrument for collecting information termed an "information collection request" is needed, the agency must submit the request to OMB for approval [See 44 U.S.C. § 3507(a)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. V)]. If OMB disapproves the request, the agency may not collect the information [see 44 U.S.C. § 3507(a) (3) (1982 ed.)].
Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990);

TITLE 44 > CHAPTER 35 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 3512
§ 3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

Treasury Regulations, Subchapter A, Sec. 1.6011-1
Sec. 1.6011-1 General requirement of return, statement, or list
…
(b) Use of prescribed forms. … Taxpayers not supplied with the proper forms should make application therefor to the district director in ample time to have their returns prepared, verified, and filed on or before the due date with the internal revenue office where such returns are required to be filed. …

[Weston White]

.....
That is good advice, thanks. Though I was prior advised that by the payroll manager that I need to fill out and submit a proper W-4, I said in so many words, negative you are in the wrong, you are not complying with the regulations as written, this is the section so you may see for yourself, therefore you need to fix your mistake, I will not be refiling a W-4 to fix it for you. I left it at that as did they. Though I have been writing letters every few months since then, all non-responsive. Such nice people I work for really.

What was improper about the W-4?

Keep in mind that attempting to provide legal advice to an employee of a corporation who is only required to abide by their company's policies is the equivalent of trying to teach a pig to sing even if you have a viable legal argument. Their obligation is to their employer, not you or the law for that matter. If that proves to be a mistake on the part of their employer's counsel, it's no skin off their nose. And they are in no position to give you legal advice so the two of you arguing the point might as well be screaming at each other in a vacuum.

I've seen corporations argue to the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in a civil case to not have to admit what their employee did or said was wrong, even when it was patently obvious they had taken advantage of someone.

Let's try this again, what was it about your W-4 they don't seem to like?

It was a notice to withdraw fully from withholding, stating why and provided citations from the USC, and signed under jurat. As recommended by Hendrickson. It was returned to me about three days later.

Actually I work for a city, their obligation is to the Constitution of California and of the U.S., I reminded them of that, had no effect though.

[Famspear]

Weston wrote:

Yes it [apparently referring to either the Form 1040 or the OMB control number for that form, or both] is invalid because it has never actually been approved, only proposed. If something is not in accordance with a law, what is it? It is invalid or unlawful, take your pick.

Right, it would however, have directly to do with the improper application of the IRC on the populous.

First of all, in the sense you mean here, the word is "populace," not "populous."

Second: No, sorry, both the form and the number have been "approved," as far as I know.

Third: The mere fact that something has only been "proposed" and not yet "approved" does not make it legally "invalid." You are mixing up your concepts. Something can be "proposed" (i.e., not yet finally approved), and yet be legally binding in terms of taxpayer rights or obligations.

For example, in certain limited circumstances, proposed Treasury regulations (regulations that have not been approved) may be relied upon by taxpayers as authoritative pronouncements, provided that:

[ . . . . ]there are no applicable final or temporary regulations in force[,] and there is an express statement in the proposed regulations that taxpayers may rely on them currently. If there are applicable final or temporary regulations in force, taxpayers may only rely on proposed regulations for planning purposes in the limited circumstances that the proposed regulations contain an express statement permitting taxpayers to rely on them currently, notwithstanding the existence of the final or temporary regulations.

--from Mitchell Rogovin & Donald L. Korb, The Four R’s Revisited: Regulations, Rulings, Reliance, and Retroactivity in the 21st Century: A View From Within, 46 Duquesne Law Rev. 323, 329 (2008) (a revision of Mitchell Rogovin’s monograph The Four R’s: Regulations, Rulings, Reliance, and Retroactivity: A View from Within, originally published by Commerce Clearing House, Inc., in Federal Tax Guide Reports, Vol. 49, No. 8 (Dec. 3, 1965) and reprinted by the U.S. Government Printing Office as Document 6062 (4-1970)).

[Weston White]

Weston wrote:

Yes it [apparently referring to either the Form 1040 or the OMB control number for that form, or both] is invalid because it has never actually been approved, only proposed. If something is not in accordance with a law, what is it? It is invalid or unlawful, take your pick.

Right, it would however, have directly to do with the improper application of the IRC on the populous.

First of all, in the sense you mean here, the word is "populace," not "populous."

Second: No, sorry, both the form and the number have been "approved," as far as I know.

Third: The mere fact that something has only been "proposed" and not yet "approved" does not make it legally "invalid." You are mixing up your concepts. Something can be "proposed" (i.e., not yet finally approved), and yet be legally binding in terms of taxpayer rights or obligations.

For example, in certain limited circumstances, proposed Treasury regulations (regulations that have not been approved) may be relied upon by taxpayers as authoritative pronouncements, provided that:

[ . . . . ]there are no applicable final or temporary regulations in force[,] and there is an express statement in the proposed regulations that taxpayers may rely on them currently. If there are applicable final or temporary regulations in force, taxpayers may only rely on proposed regulations for planning purposes in the limited circumstances that the proposed regulations contain an express statement permitting taxpayers to rely on them currently, notwithstanding the existence of the final or temporary regulations.

--from Mitchell Rogovin & Donald L. Korb, The Four R’s Revisited: Regulations, Rulings, Reliance, and Retroactivity in the 21st Century: A View From Within, 46 Duquesne Law Rev. 323, 329 (2008) (a revision of Mitchell Rogovin’s monograph The Four R’s: Regulations, Rulings, Reliance, and Retroactivity: A View from Within, originally published by Commerce Clearing House, Inc., in Federal Tax Guide Reports, Vol. 49, No. 8 (Dec. 3, 1965) and reprinted by the U.S. Government Printing Office as Document 6062 (4-1970)).

I believe it was approved for "submission" as a proposed form though never for "OMB review", e.g. compare the 1040NR to the 1040; why is the former in compliance and the latter not?

Regulations have no binding effect upon the populace until set in compliance with 44 USC pertaining to the Federal Register. This exposes the truth about the IRC, most of all penalty sections apply to Title 27 (which was moved into Subtitle E of Title 26) or is NULL so far as the implementing regulations are concerned. This is why the IRC is noting but a gigantic paper tiger. It has a slight sting with no bite.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
It was a notice to withdraw fully from withholding, stating why and provided citations from the USC, and signed under jurat. As recommended by Hendrickson. It was returned to me about three days later.

Actually I work for a city, their obligation is to the Constitution of California and of the U.S., I reminded them of that, had no effect though.

Again, without an oath of office, the typical employee's obligation is to fulfill the obligations of the city's policies and procedures, which are presumably derived from among other possibilities a charter that is subject to the vagaries of - dare I say it - politicians and their appointees.

There are several possible reasons for withdrawing from withholding, not the least of which is multiple employers. I would suggest that had you not confronted the bureaucracy with a "notice" as an attempt at questionable legal advice you may have had a chance. But you are dealing with a bureaucracy and that's a whole 'nother critter.

One of these days - maybe after you file your return, you might just slip in a W-4 to adjust (not eliminate) your withholding. A VALID reason might be that you have received a substantial return and don't expect a major increase in income, but you've now become something of a sore-thumb.

Yes, it's an oppressive system. It rewards being submissive. It punishes those who kick against the pricks. But there are millions who don't kick against the pricks and are financially better off.

Don't try to label us/them unpatriotic. Sorry, dude. Done my part.

I'm reminded of a t-shirt I still have that is emblazoned with: "He who dies with the most toys wins."

Go for the toy count. The tax thingy eventually falls below the noise floor.