Taxation: Cracking the Code

...that's what it's all about. I can show you all how to pay up to 0% taxes....LEGALLY. Take a look at my videos and/or website.

"Defendant Peter Hendrickson was an employee of Personnel Management, Inc. in 2002 and 2003 within the meaning of IRC § 3401(c). Defendant Peter Hendrickson's employer properly withheld federal income and employment taxes from his wages."

US v Pete Hendrickson (2007)

usdoj (dot) gov/tax/Hendrickson_AmendedJudgPermInj (dot) pdf

---

Pete was found himself to be an employee and recieved wages as defined in 3401, and the decision was affirmed on appeal. Even Pete can't win using CtC.

"Defendant Peter Hendrickson was an
employee of Personnel Management, Inc. in 2002 and 2003 within the meaning of IRC
§ 3401(c). Defendant Peter Hendrickson's employer properly withheld federal income
and employment taxes from his wages."

US v Pete Hendrickson (2007)

"The Hendricksons' remaining claims also plainly lack merit. First, the Hendricksons contend that the district court improperly weighted the evidence in favor of the government when it found that Peter E. Hendrickson was an "employee" who had been paid "wages," and that Doreen M. Hendrickson had received "non-employee compensation." However, this contention is tantamount to a typical tax protester argument that the income at issue is not taxable."

US v Pete Hendrickson (2008)

[The terms ``includes'' and ``including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.]

Here is the big argument. read the last two words 'term defined'. It did not say 'word defined', which would assume Websters version. It did not express common definition either.

It says Term, which is what was just defined. The meaning of the term defined is the defining list just enumerated.

"To the extent Sullivan argues that he received no 'wages' in 1983 because he was not an 'employee' within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. Section 3401(c), which relates to income tax withholding, indicates that the definition of 'employee' includes government officers and employees, elected officials, and corporate officers. The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein."

Sullivan v. United States, (1st Cir. 1986).

"Similarly, Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of 'employee' does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word 'includes' is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others."

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).

It is you who doesn't comprehend the statutory definition of includes, you are wrong, the judge (and the multiple other judges who ruled on this same issue) are correct:

26USC7701:

(c) Includes and including

The terms ``includes'' and ``including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

---

Look up employee in a dictionary.

"Defendants' contention that withholding applies only to government workers is frivolous and false."

If the judge's decision of guilty was based on or part of that statement, that judge should have been objected to based on breaking the defendant's Rights of Due Process. That statement is on record and can be proven that the defendant did not say any such thing. As such he is in rebellion of the constitution he was sworn to uphold. There is a self-enacting penalty for that.

This is because the Judge in this case did not apply the statutory definition of 'includes' while structuring the term 'employee'.

Tax case just ruled on the 8th of this month had a dissertation on defining the term 'court'. The question was if Tax Court was a 'court' as provided by the statute.

It was not.

Tax Court is most obviously a court when applying Webster's meaning, but it was not a 'court' when it did not fit the list of other courts provided within the 'including' definition.

Lets see, you would not find such a case because on being finding out that the defendant can prove that he is not an 'employee', such a case would be dropped, before trial even commenced. On that note, there would be no record of such a trial happening.

eklypse0 -- Please cite one single court case which states anything close to the following:

"Defendant is not liable for the income tax because he is not an 'employee' as defined in 26USC3401" -- You cannot find any such case, it does not exist, yet I can cite more than 5 which reject any such arguement.

26USC3401 pertains to witholding, it is not a liability clause, so even if your reading of the definition were right (which it isn't) it makes no difference, 26USC1 is what makes u liable.

"Plaintiff's next argument is that he is not an 'employee' under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer. Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that this definition of 'employee' excludes all other wage earners."

Peth v. Breitzmann 1985

--

You do know that a good number of refunds Pete has posted have been taken back by the IRS (+penalties + interest) - There are a few examples on Pete's own forum. CtC is a joke and incorrect.

"Defendants' contention that withholding applies only to government workers is frivolous and false."

For one, this is a quote that is a plain falsehood. Pete never said that only government workers owe the tax. That is #1 lie right there. There are many others who also owe the Income Tax, mainly, (federal) Corporate Officers, people who have an investment in a federal corporation, action or property.

It looks like someone beat me to it.

As predicted, Mark - Pete got his ass handed to him by the 6th circuit.

Interesting how after several months of me explaining all this to Mark, he's still drinking the Kool Aid.