LEGAL
DISCLAIMER I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
Does it stand to reason, that if one is to understand IRC section 3402(f)(2)(A), one must look to the statutes that define the terms used in IRC section 3402(f)(2)(A)?
If you are NOT an "employee", can you have "wages" as defined? If you do NOT have an "employer", can you have "wages" as defined? Is this statutory definition of "wages" defined by the statutory definitions of "employer" and "employee"? Does this definition hold for ALL of Chapter 24, including the requirements of IRC section 3402 on the last page?
"If the remuneration ... constitutes wages, ... if the remuneration ... does not constitute wages" proves that NOT all compensation for labor is wages as that term is statutorily defined.
If you are NOT an "employee", do you have a person for whom you perform(ed) any service for "as the employee" of such person? Is this statutory definition of "employer" defined by the definition of the "employee"? Does this definition hold for ALL of Chapter 24, including the requirements of IRC section 3402 on the last page?
The root word of includes means to enclose. Much like the fence of a corral includes (encloses) the herd of horses, the term "employee" includes (encloses) the herd of workers listed. Unless used with supporting words such as "includes but is not limited to" or "also includes", the term includes is a word of limitation. Elsewhere on this web site is an expansive examination of the words includes and including.
If the correct understanding of the statutorily defined term employee is only a government employee, does it then stand to reason that only a government employee has statutorily defined "wages"?
If the correct understanding of the statutorily defined term employee is only a government employee, does it then stand to reason that only the government or a government agency can be a statutorily defined "employer"? If the correct understanding of the statutorily defined terms employee, employer, and wage are respectively, someone who works for the government, the government, and what the government pays its workers, does it then stand to reason that the requirement of filling out a Form W-4 only applies to government employees? If the correct understanding of the statutorily defined terms employee, employer, and wage are respectively, someone who works for the government, the government, and what the government pays its workers, does it then stand to reason that the mandatory requirement of deducting and withholding from "wages" only applies to the statutorily defined "wages" of a government employee? There is corroborating evidence of this fact that will be shown in other chapters. (Note to self: cross ref to those chapters with levy provisions; The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939) |