Wonderful, see you do have trouble reading after all! What I was saying it that Dr. Adam Smith wrote this hundreds of years prior to the crafting of the IRC, which therein gave the word “wages” a special meaning, thereby creating a legal ‘term’, so when you say “wages” when discussing 26 USC, you are not saying revenue or payment or remuneration, or whatever… though what you are saying is what has been defined within the term “wages”.Isn't WW admitting the truth of what I was saying, that wages in the traditional, ordinary, historical, Adam-Smith sense of the word, really are income?
Now sure 3402(p)(3)(B) permits ones remuneration in the general sense to be treated as if it were “wages” for the purposes of withholding only, but not for the purposes of establishing a taxable liability; which this clause itself, only serves to further substantiate the methodology of CtC... otherwise things being as you believe, there would be no reason to even have it, as it would never apply, because your pay would already qualify under the already established withholding provisions, with exception to qualifying exemptions and the like, though this section never actually makes a direct reference to such types of payments, while 'remuneration' specifically is and never is 'wages' mentioned therein.
Even though 3402(p)(3)(B) permits the person or the taxpayer to prepare for any presumed end of year tax liabilities, having your non-taxable revenue withhold does not in itself create such a liability in itself. If you are entitled to a refund, you are entitled to a refund, period. So it has been written, so it has been said.And, if compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages, is income, why can't it be taxed under the 16th Amendment, and why hasn't Congress taxed it as part of gross income as defined by section 61, if for no other reason than because the wages are "income."
