JAN. 8, 2001
Click Here for
Last time, we were asking whether the bookkeepers at Edgewater Technology in
Wakefield, Mass. -- who had informed co-worker Michael McDermott they intended
to start sending his paycheck to the IRS this week based on receipt of a
government "Notice of Intent to Levy," and many of whom subsequently
paid a tragic price for their ignorance when said 42-year-old misfit quite
wrongfully shot and killed them in their workplace the day after Christmas --
were aware that IRS "notices of intent" to seize paychecks or bank
accounts are not legally binding unless accompanied by a court order signed by a
Did those now-deceased bookkeepers bother to ask why "paragraph A"
of the legal code citation is always deleted from the "authorizing"
fine print on the back of the IRS' standard "seize-his-paycheck" Form
668W (it starts with "paragraph B") -- the reason being that paragraph
A specifies that said law authorizes the use of such onerous methods only
against employees of the federal government?
Here is that carefully deleted paragraph:
"Levy and distraint. TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 64, Subchapter D,
"STATUTE: (a)Authority of Secretary
"If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the
same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the
Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to
cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to
property ... belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in
this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued
salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United
States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the
United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the
employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected
(See web site http://www.getawarrant.com
-- which contains a citation from Clark County, Nevada Magistrate Victor
Miller's historic opinion in "Williams vs. Boulder Dam Credit Union.")
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1917 alimony decision in Gould vs.
Gould, 245 US 151, (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&in
"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established
rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of
the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not
specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly
against the government and in favor of the citizen."
This means that, for instance, the word "includes" in a tax law is
a "term of limitation" -- it means "includes only."
Thus, the paragraph above means paycheck and bank account levies can be made only
"any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the
District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or
the District of Columbia."
Furthermore, under Title 26, United States Code, the Social Security tax is
imposed in chapter 21, subtitle C, in which Section 3121 defines
"any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an EMPLOYEE for the
person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either,
(I) WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" ...
and then continues in Section 3121(e)(2) to declare that, for purposes of
this specific statute,
"The term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American
How can this be?
"The FICA tax is administered by the IRS as if it were a direct tax on
individuals," responds Gordon Phillips of the tax education group Inform
"To be constitutional, any direct tax on individuals must be imposed by law
only outside the 50 states of the Union: i.e., only in the four island
possessions ... despite the IRS' deception of the public into falsely believing
the tax applies within the 50 states of the union."
So, under the bizarre definition of "United States" adopted to
purposely mislead us in this part of the Internal Revenue code, it would appear
neither Michael McDermott, nor most of the rest of us, live in "the United
States" as defined for this section -- or thus fall under its requirements.
In addition to which, Mr. Phillips points out, the tax regulations to enforce
the aforementioned paycheck seizure statute -- applying only to federal
employees -- are not promulgated under 26 CFR (the Code of Federal Regulations
for Title 26 "Internal Revenue Code"), but instead appear in 27 CFR
("Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms"), meaning the provision "applies
only to taxes due on those excise taxable products, anyway."
"None of us in the tax education division of the constitutional revival
movement have ever heard of any recrimination or retribution whatsoever
befalling the plucky participating employer" (who voluntarily applied for
and chooses to use use an Employer Identification Number) "who dishonors --
that is to say, refuses -- a 'Notice Of Intent To Levy' based on the IRS'
failure to include the Warrant of Distraint -- the court order as required by
law before the government can take the property of a citizen," Phillips
But, "Ninety-nine percent of all American employers are, as are most
loyal Americans, deeply chicken ..." Phillips continues. "Upon
receiving the bogus 'levy,' they drop their pants to their ankles, snap briskly
to attention, smartly salute the IRS and, fearing that they may be
audited for failure to comply, begin shoveling the hapless worker's daily bread
to the government as fast as their busy little fingers can cut the checks to the
IRS. Can you spell 'due process'?"
Yet is any reporter calling the IRS today, asking them "How do you feel
about the outcome of your purposeful misapplication of the tax laws in the case
of Michael McDermott of Wakefield, Mass.? Is it true that the suspect Mr.
McDermott was under no legal obligation to apply for a Social Security
number or fill out a so-called 'W-4' form, in order to take a job in one of the
50 states, in the first place? That he may well have been self-assessing himself
for the income tax in error?
"When the employer's bookkeeper called and asked you what to do about
your seize-the-paycheck notice -- the notice you sent out which led directly to
these seven deaths, without telling them you're only authorized under that
statute to seize paychecks of federal employees -- did you point out to them
it's not valid or binding without a signed court order? Do you have that
court order and could you show it to us, today?"
Of course not. Questions like these are never asked.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report (subscribe by calling
Nicholas at 612-895-8757.) His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on
the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available by dialing 1-800-244-2224;
or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
Vin Suprynowicz, email@example.com