Examining The U.S. Income Tax

Preface

Over a decade ago a claim came to my attention. The claim that came to my attention basically alleged that the IRS has been lying about what the US federal income tax laws actually tax.

I was presented with a choice:
Believe what I was indoctrinated to believe;
Or believe what I was told about what I previously believed.

Being the curmudgeon that I have become, I did not accept either claim as being true. I have been a check it for validity type person for a very long time, so that is exactly what I did.

My experiences of researching what I had been exposed to brought me into discussion, arguing even, with lawyers, CPA's and IRS Enrolled Agents.

The claims made by the IRS and its sycophants do NOT correspond with what a diligent scrutiny of the actual words of law and the instructions derived from those laws say.

My purpose in this section is to emphasize the point that compensation for labor, what you are paid when you work for a living, is not Constitutional Income, and is, under the Constitution, not taxable.

I had someone say, "If this is true, why would we all be paying?" How can anybody know if this is true if they refuse to look into it?

This information is plainly findable if one knows where to look. I find the fact that nobody even wants to look at this information as showing the effectiveness of the social engineering and indoctrination by those mere men and women called government.

The disturbing evidence of the indoctrination stared me in the face all those years ago when I filled out my own IRS Form 1040. In other words, I was taken in by the fraud myself by failing to examine the first bit of information presented: The Form 1040 instructions. From there, the inquiry becomes, Is this in accordance with the written law? My conclusion after reading the law is Yes, It is.

To help you know what to focus on, I have bold highlighted the important points, phrases and words in the quotes regarding this issue. To help you know where to look, I have set this page up so that when you mouse over a quote, clicking it will open a government website page where you can validate my quote as being the actual words of law.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

It does not matter to me who the original author is. The logic of the quote stands on its own. Can you be at liberty when 30% of your money is stolen? How much more liberty to do things would you have with $100 than with $70?

I suppose it would be rude of me to point out that government schools do not teach vigilance.

You now have no excuse for being uninformed about the tax law. I have laid out the path of inquiry and discovery for you to follow.

(Yes, my disdain for certain members of the human race has crept into my writing.)

Required Administrative Procedure

There is a law that requires the IRS and other government agencies to publish their structure, organization, and procedural rules in the federal register.

IRS Administrative Procedure Compliance

What follows is proof of IRS compliance with the above cited procedure and written in the Code of Federal Regulations. The CFR's are required to be published in the Federal Register to be properly promulgated as the law to be obeyed.

26 CFR 601.602

Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms

Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.

(a) Tax return forms and instructions. The Internal Revenue Service develops forms and instructions that explain the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. The Service distributes the forms and instructions to help taxpayers comply with the law. The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.
(b) Other forms and instructions. In addition to tax return forms, the Internal Revenue Service furnishes the public copies of other forms and instructions developed for use in complying with the laws and regulations. These forms and instructions lead the taxpayer step-by-step through data needed to accurately report information required by law.

In case you didn't get the point of the highlighted words:

1. The IRS develops instructions that explain the requirements of the tax law.
2. The instructions are to help the taxpayer comply with the tax law.
3. The instructions lead the taxpayer "step-by-step" through the data needed to accurately report information required by the tax law.

The Form 1040 Instructions Say...

On page 9 of the 2019 IRS Form 1040 instructions within Chart A you will find this instruction:

**Gross income means all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax, including any income from sources outside the United States or from the sale of your main home [...]

On page 20 of the 2019 IRS Form 1040 instructions you will find this instruction:

Income
Generally, you must report all income except income that is exempt from tax by law.

This issue of income that IS exempt will be examined later. Before that, the definition of income actually taxed will be examined.

On page 20 of the 2019 IRS Form 1040 instructions you will find this instruction:

Foreign-Source Income
You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and pensions, from sources outside the United States unless exempt by law or a tax treaty. You also must report earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources outside the United States.

These words are in the step-by-step instructions published in every 1040 instruction booklet I have examined. Usually just above the instructions for line 7 on the form.

• This is an instruction regarding what is required to be reported on the 1040.
• Wouldn't the IRS be remiss (negligent) if  such instructions omit telling you to supply data that the law requires?

In every Form 1040 instruction booklet I have examined, there are no words stating: 'You must report earned income,such as wages and tips, from sources INSIDE the United States.

Publication 525 Instructions Say...

You will find this instruction in the online 2018 IRS Publication 525:

Publication 525 (2018), Taxable and Nontaxable Income

Foreign income.
If you're a u.s. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from sources outside the United States (foreign income) on your tax return unless it’s exempt by U.S. law. This is true whether you reside inside or outside the United States and whether or not you receive a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099 from the foreign payer. This applies to earned income (such as wages and tips) as well as unearned income (such as interest, dividends, capital gains, pensions, rents, and royalties). If you reside outside the United States, you may be able to exclude part or all of your foreign source earned income. For details, see Pub. 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad.

The IRS Publication 525 does not have these words anywhere in the Publication:

If you're a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must report income from sources inside the United States (domestic income) on your tax return unless it’s exempt by U.S. law.

• The step-by-step instructions for complying with the law do NOT say to report earned income from sources INSIDE the United States.
• If the law requires you to report earned income from sources INSIDE the United States, wouldn't the IRS be remiss (negligent) if the instructions failed to state, 'You must report earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources INSIDE the United States'?

A Lie by Omission?

Under the concept of the statutory construction canon Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes all others), the express mention of income from sources outside the United States is meant to exclude income from sources inside the United States.

It is my opinion that the intent of who ever is in control of the IRS wants people to read the above instruction as if it stated:

Foreign or Domestic Source Income
You must report all unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and pensions, from sources inside or outside the United States unless exempt by law or a tax treaty. You also must report all earned income, such as wages and tips, from sources inside or outside the United States.

Do Not Read What Is Not There

An English legal guy made a statement which was quoted by the US Supreme Court in 1886.

Lord Camden says: "Such is the power, and, therefore, one would naturally expect that the law to warrant it should be clear in proportion as the power is exorbitant. If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

If it is not in the law books, it is not law. Just as you should not read into the law, that which is not there; You should not read into the official instructions for complying with the law, that which is not there.

Stating the obvious:

• Law must specify who and what it applies to.
• If the law doesn't specify that it applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
• If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that the law applies to you or your property, then it doesn't apply to you or your property.
• If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that you are required to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States, then you do not have to report income earned from sources INSIDE the United States.

16^th Amendment Constitutional Income

These are the words of the 16^th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Odds are quite good that almost all the people living in any of the fifty states united know about those words.

I would bet that almost none of those same people who know those words of the Sixteenth Amendment know anything of the following words about the words of the Sixteenth Amendment.

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income,"as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 199 (1920)

In other words, because income is a word in the constitution, the meaning or definition of the word is now fixed. Congress is not allowed to change the definition of income.

If you think income is everything that comes in, you are not using the definition of 16^th Amendment Constitutional Income. The Supreme Court was very clear on this point.

We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of1909 (Doye v. Mitchell Brothers Co., ante, 179, and Hays v.Gauley Mountain Coal Co., ante, 189) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts--everything that comes in-are income, within the proper definition of the term "gross income," and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in what ever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918)

Not everything that comes in is income in its constitutional sense.

These are the words of the United States Senate Committee on finance dated June 18, 1954:

H. R. 8300
Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes "all income from whatever source derived. This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word "income" is used in its constitutional sense.

These are the words of the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means dated March 9, 1954:

H. R. 8300
Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes "all income from whatever source derived. This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word "income" is used in its constitutional sense.

These reports give rise to the term "Constitutional Income".

In another case the United States Supreme Court again defined what Sixteenth Amendment Income is.

After examining dictionaries in common use [...], we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 ([...]; [...])-"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be under-stood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case([...]).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy.

The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived-from-capital ";-" the gain-derived-from-capital," etc.

Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal;--that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 199 (1920)

What I read in the quote is that Constitutional Income is gain; profit available to its owner after being severed from the capital used to create the income.

Per that definition, Constitutional Income is a profit derived from invested property. This is known presently as a return on investment (ROI).

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

I find undeniable accessions to wealth to be gains in capital that no labor was exerted in acquiring, much like lottery winnings would be. I find  undeniable accessions to wealth to be gains in capital that no labor was exerted in acquiring, much like returns on investments would be.

⁸ The long history of departmental rulings holding personal injury recoveries nontaxable on the theory that they roughly correspond to a return of capital cannot support exemption of punitive damages following injury to property.
[Cites omitted]
Damages for personal injury are by definition compensatory only. Punitive damages, on the other hand, cannot be considered a restoration of capital for taxation purposes.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

I find the Supreme Court statement that personal injury recoveries roughly corresponding to a return of capital to be an admission that human capital is, in fact and deed, capital.

Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income.
Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports, as-used here, something entirely 'distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
As was said in Straton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399,- 415: "(Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."Understanding the term in this natural and obvious sense, it cannot be said that a conversion of capital assets invariably produces income.
If sold at less than cost, it produces rather loss or outgo. Nevertheless, in many if not in most cases there results a gain that properly may be accounted as a part of the "gross income"received "from all- sources"; and by applying to this the authorized deductions we arrive at "net income." In order to determine whether there has been gain or loss, and the amount of the gain, if any, we must withdraw from the gross proceeds an amount sufficient to restore the capital value that existed at the commencement of the period under consideration.

Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918)

Based upon some study I find that the term wealth is the abundance of valuable financial assets (capital assets) or physical possessions which can be converted into a form that can be used to create more wealth gain (Constitutional Income).

Based upon the what the Supreme Court has stated I find that:

• The entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets is not Constitutional Income;
• Amounts sufficient to restore the capital value must be withdrawn from the gross proceeds before tax can be computed on the Constitutional Income;
• The purpose of deductions from gross income is to replenish the capital assets consumed in the creation of such income;
• Not every item of revenue created by a conversion of capital assets is a clear accession to wealth.

Instead, the courts have chosen to use the meaning given the term "income" by its everyday use in common speech. Helvering v. Edison Bros. *1191 Stores, 133 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1943); 1 Mertens, supra, n. 5, p. 2. And the meaning of income in its everyday sense is "a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also: the amount of such gain recovered by an individual in a given period of time." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 425 (1965Emphasis Added). Income is nothing more nor less than realized gain. Shuster v. Helvering, 121 F.2d 643 (2nd Cir. 1941). It is not synonymous with receipts. 47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue § 98, p. 226.

Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the sixteenth amendment became effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. McComber, supra, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is likewise true under section 61 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain, there is no income.

George E. and Dorothy E. Conner v. UNITED STATES of America.
303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969)

Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.
[...]

Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.
[...]
Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed.
[...]
Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.

Jack Cole Company v. MacFarland 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)

Compensation for labor is not profit.

The word "profit" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (3rd ed.) as "The advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. The gain made by the sale of produce or manufactures, after deducting the value of the labor, materials, rents, and all expenses, together with the interest of the capital employed." There is a clear distinction between "profit" and "wages" or compensation for labor. "Compensation for labor can not be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word 'profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor." The Commercial League Association of America

The People ex rel. Thomas B. Needles, Auditor, 90 Ill. 166. "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit." Laureldale Cemetery Association Matthews, 354 Pa. 239, 47 A.(2d) 277.

Oliver v. Halstead 196 Va. 992 (1955)

The payment by the Association of salaries to its president, superintendent, and secretary afford no basis for denying exemption. The president receives, $2400, the superintendent $2600, and the secretary $1400 per annum. In each case the salary is in the same amount paid for the same work by Laureldale Cemetery Company, a shareholder's company organized for profit, and considering the nature and extent of the Association's business they are not excessive. Like wages paid the gravediggers such outlays are chargeable as necessary expenses incident to the proper maintenance of the cemetery. Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the exemption statute.

Laureldale Assn. v. Matthews, 47 A.2d 277 (Pa. 1946)

After reading the quotes shown on this page, and after reading other quotes not presented here, I find that revenue, gross income,  and everything that comes in is not Constitutional Income.

In studying this issue, I find that "income" has two meanings: (1) everything that comes in, and (2) gain or profit which the 16^th amendment allows to be taxed without apportionment.

Equivocation is the logical fallacy of using a word having two distinct meanings leading to a false conclusion. I submit that deliberately equivocating is fraud.

Compensation is not profit though IRS sycophants will try to equivocate exactly that.

Direct or Indirect?

One can not examine and understand the issues of Constitutional Income without examining the issue of whether the tax is direct or indirect. The Supreme Court spent some time and a lot of words on this issue of direct or indirect taxation in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

The Pollock case is the reason for the sixteenth amendment being brought into existence. The case is only mentioned here because my focus is on the limitations on direct taxation.

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107, 151-152 (1911)

The quoted case was about a tax on corporations prior to the sixteenth amendment. As such, the tax was laid on the privilege stated.

Do you agree with the IRS sycophants that working for a living is a privilege? Me neither.

By the criteria of absolute and unavoidable demand, any tax on the following listed items is a direct tax.

• Right to Life;
• Right to Liberty;
• Right to Property;
• The value of real estate property owned;
• The value of personal property owned;
• The value of Labor;
• The value of Federal Reserve Notes owned;
• Property traded for like valued property;
• The value of revenue;
• The value of money owned;
• The value of gold owned;
• The value of silver owned;
• The value of anything owned;
• Body;
• Mind;
• Soul.

This page does not examine individual state tax law.

Statutory Construction

This could be alternatively titled,

Exposing the tricks used to make you read what is not there.

First, the rules so that you can properly read what is there.

[I]t is well-settled law that when a statutory definition contradicts the everyday meaning of a word, the statutory language generally controls: judges should "construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman."

Tenn. Prot. & Advocacy Inc. v. Wells, 371 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2004).

This well settled law has a name.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a Latin phrase that means express mention of one thing excludes all others. This is one of the rules used in interpretation of statutes. The phrase indicates that items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. When something is mentioned expressly in a statute it leads to the presumption that the things not mentioned are excluded. This is an aid to construction of statutes.

If you did not know this, how you read and understand a definition in the law could be in error.

It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. Cites omitted.
[...]
As judges, it is our duty to construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.

Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 485 (1987)

In some cases, things excluded are meant to be excluded.

In other cases, things are not actually excluded because the terms in the definition are for the purpose of example as shown next.

In Broom's Legal Maxims,p. 450, it is said: "It is a rule laid down by Lord Bacon, that copulatio verborum indicat acceptationem in eodem sensu, -the coupling of words together shows that they are to be understood in the same sense. And where the meaning of any particular word is doubtful or obscure, ... the intention of the party who has made use of it may frequently be ascertained and carried unto effect by looking at the adjoining words."The same author says (p. 455): "In the construction of statutes, likewise, the rule noscitur a sociis is very frequently applied ; the meaning of a word, and, consequently, the intention of the legislature, being ascertained by reference to the context, and by considering whether the word in question and the surrounding words are, in fact, ejusdem generis, and referable to the same subject-matter."

Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 708-09 (1878)

The above concepts are codified (written) in the tax law.

Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 79 - DEFINITIONS

(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.

When the meaning of the term defined lists different items that are in the same class of items, other unlisted items in the same class are still within the definition. This does not include items that are not within the same class.

In other words, statutory definitions of items that have a common property are not the same as dictionary definitions that do not share that property.

This will be expounded upon next.

W-4 §3402

This is the PRA notice on the form W-4.

Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.
We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. Internal Revenue Code sections 3402(f)(2) and 6109 and their regulations require you to provide this information; your employer uses it to determine your federal income tax withholding.

Reminder: 

• Do not read into law, nor assume into law, that which is not there.
• If the law doesn't specify that it applies to you, then it doesn't apply to you.
• If the instructions for complying with the law do not state that the law applies to you, then it doesn't apply to you.
• These instructions do not state who the you is to which the code sections and regulation apply to. This means one must actually read those codes and regulations to know who is required to provide the information requested.

§3402(f)(2) Allowance certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding allowance certificate relating to the withholding allowance claimed by the employee, which shall in no event exceed the amount to which the employee is entitled.

At first read, this certainly looks like a command to almost everybody who works for a living to furnish a signed withholding allowance certificate.

As Ron Popeil would excitedly say: BUT WAIT! There's more.

"Allowance" Certificate...? You are commanded to allow...? Ah, never mind.

§3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—[...]

Statutory wages are what a statutory employer pays his statutory employee.

I hope you did not assume that you are a statutory employer or a statutory employee paying or being paid statutory wages because you have never read this law. Remember as they keep saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." You must read the law to become not ignorant of the law. So...

You need to read the statutory definitions in order to understand who is required to fill out a Form W-4.

It is quite clear to me that the definition of statutory wages is subordinate to actually being a statutory employer or a statutory employee as shown in the following statutory definitions.

§3401. Definitions
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—[...]

And I hope it will be as clear to you as it is to me, that the definition of a statutory employer is subordinate to the definition of a statutory employee.

§3401. Definitions
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

This is the reason for the lesson on Statutory Construction in the previous section. All the things on the list are within the class of people working for, and being paid by the government.

Please note that this statutory definition of employee does not list the common usage, dictionary definition of employee.

I present this next quote because it applies to the descriptive label / title of chapter 24 and it applies to the descriptive label / title of section 3402 which is contained in that chapter.

26 USC §7806. Construction of title
(b) Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the side notes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

Descriptive matter, which is the description in the label / title relating to the contents shall not be given any legal effect. Collecting a tax on income (a tax on profit) at the source of statutory wages can not be a profit tax regardless of where it is intercepted before delivery to its rightful owner.

Regardless, remember, a statutory wage is not a dictionary wage.

CHAPTER 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES

§3402. Income tax collected at source
(a) Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall-
(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.

Remember that "the provisions of chapter 1" relate to taxing Constitutional Income, that is, the provisions of chapter I relate to taxing profit. Also remember that compensation for labor when working for a living is not profit, is not Constitutional Income and is not taxable as such.

Exemption from withholding. You may claim exemption from withholding for 2020 if you meet both of the following conditions: you had no federal income tax liability in 2019 and you expect to have no federal income tax liability in 2020.

From all the preceding, I find tax on statutory wages or a tax on compensation for labor to be a direct tax requiring apportionment because such a tax is not on unearned profit to which the sixteenth amendment's suspension of apportionment applies.

Calling a direct tax on wages a tax on Constitutional Income could be considered an act of fraud.

Please note that an income tax liability is not a wage tax liability.

§3402. Income tax collected at source
(n) Employees incurring no income tax liability
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding allowance certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee—
(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and
(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.

Is withholding required if there is no Constitutional Income tax liability?

15 USC §2651 (b)
Any public or private employee or representative of employees who believes he or she has been fired or otherwise discriminated against in violation of subsection (a) may within 90 days after the alleged violation occurs apply to the Secretary of Labor for a review of the firing or alleged discrimination.

38 USC §4323 (a)(1) A person who receives from the Secretary a notification pursuant to section 4322(e) of this title of an unsuccessful effort to resolve a complaint relating to a State (as an employer) or a private employer may request that the Secretary refer the complaint to the Attorney General.

While you read the next quote, ask yourself if it is possible that you have voluntarily agreed to pay taxes you don't owe.

§3402. Income tax collected at source
(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
(3) Authority for other voluntary withholding
The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding—
(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and
(B) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter,
if the employer and employee, or the person making and the person receiving such other type of payment, agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is in effect.

Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily allow withholding on non-taxable revenue? Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily donate money to the IRS that is not payment of a tax?

26 CFR 601.602
Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms
Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.

(a) Tax return forms and instructions.
The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.

W-4 §6109

This is the PRA notice on the form W-4.

Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.
We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. Internal Revenue Code sections 3402(f)(2) and 6109 and their regulations require you to provide this information; your employer uses it to determine your federal income tax withholding.

§6109. Identifying numbers
(a) Supplying of identifying numbers

When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary:

(1) Inclusion in returns
Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document shall include in such return, statement, or other document such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.

(2) Furnishing number to other persons
Any person with respect to whom a return, statement, or other document is required under the authority of this title to be made by another person or whose identifying number is required to be shown on a return of another person shall furnish to such other person such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing his proper identification.

(3) Furnishing number of another person
Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document with respect to another person shall request from such other person, and shall include in any such return, statement, or other document, such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person.

Clearly this section transfers authority to the Secretary of Treasury to prescribe regulations for complying with this section of code.

But before we continue, a quick look at the words of the 2018 IRS Form W-9 is in order.

Use Form W-9 to request the taxpayer identification number (TIN) of a U.S. person (including a resident alien) and to request certain certifications and claims for exemption.

If a U.S. person includes a resident alien then in such case a U.S. person is a resident alien.

301.6109-1(b) Requirement to furnish one's own number—(1) U.S. persons.
[...]
A U.S. person whose number must be included on a document filed by another person must give the taxpayer identifying number so required to the other person on request.

So this could be read as A resident alien whose number must be included on a document filed by another...

If a U.S. person was stated as a U.S. Citizen or a resident alien, then this regulation would not look like it is hiding something.

Notice that the requirement to provide an identifying number to another person is subordinate to an actual requirement that the other person must file a document about you.

Please note that the following does not say who the person is who is required to send information to the IRS. The following tells us that one must read paragraph (b)(2) in order to know whose information is required.

301.6109-1(c) Requirement to furnish another's number. Every person required under this title to make a return, statement, or other document must furnish such taxpayer identifying numbers of other U.S. persons and foreign persons that are described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions. The taxpayer identifying number of any person furnishing a withholding certificate referred to in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) or (viii) of this section shall also be furnished if it is actually known to the person making a return, statement, or other document described in this paragraph (c). If the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section, such person must request the other person's number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law.

Please note that the request for an identifying number "under authority of law" only pertains to a request for a number from the people listed in the cited paragraphs.

301.6109-1(b)(2) Foreign persons. The provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section regarding the furnishing of one's own number shall apply to the following foreign persons—
(i) A foreign person [...];
(ii) A foreign person [...];
(iii) A nonresident alien [...];
(iv) A foreign person [...];
(v) A foreign person [...];
(vi) A foreign person [...];
(vii) A foreign person [...]; and
(viii) A foreign person [...].

The identifying numbers required "under authority of law" are numbers required from foreigners.

Calling a foreign person a U.S. person could be considered an act of fraud. And if the intent was to mislead Americans living and working solely within the borders of the fifty states united, then this is a deliberate act of fraud.

This page was written and intended as a simplified introduction. There is further examination of the IRS machinations elsewhere on this web site.