IRS Definition of "Employee"
Search for "(c)Employee" it will take you right to it.
If you are NOT an Employee as defined you CAN NOT earn wages.

Here is an example of the word "include". " All my estate that I have acquired over the years is left to my wife upon my death and includes the new car, the horse and the refrigerator." Here I have used my estate as "all" before I used the word includes. So it is expansive to mean those items after the word includes. Now to make it restrictive the word I have to remove is "ALL". Now my estate that is left to my wife is only those mentioned after the word include.

"My estate that I have acquired over the years is left to my wife upon my death and includes the new car, the horse and the refrigerator."

26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p)-1 This is THE LAW about W-4 forms select Title 26 2002 then search for "26CFR31" you will get a list. Look for (26CFR31 PART 31--EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE) select text or .pdf then search for 3402(p)which should be page 245 if you have a .pdf file open.

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this chapter if--

i. the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this chapter; or

ii. the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

B. The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.)"

The following is by: Dave Champion

What is a statute-at-large?

It is a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is a statute-at-large. You can look it up in a compendium called Statutes-At-large. Statutes-at-large do not have any orderly, rational as far as finding something, that is why we have the U.S.C. for instance if a statute-at-large deals with taxation it's just one of a bunch of statutes passed by Congress. So they then take it and codify it into Title (26) because it deals with taxation so you can find it, they put it in the correct subtitle usually in the right chapter so it can be easily found in an orderly fashion.

Now we will look at the 1939 Internal Revenue Code. When the 1939 Internal Revenue Code was passed the law (statute-at-large) that created the 1939 Internal Revenue Code specifically repealed all those (statutes-at-large). Now why is this odd? What does this mean?

Now you've got the difference between statutes at-large the original documents passed by Congress signed by the President. Those are the original law. In most cases the code is merely a reflection of the law, a handy codification a handy form of indexing. In a goodly number of cases the code is not the law is merely a reflection of the law. When a code is not the law is referred to as "prima facie" that is basically Latin for first look or at first glance. So the code is prima facie evidence of the law but it's not the law. The reason it is prima facie on the surface at first glance because the actual law sitting over there in a whole different book is the statutes-at-large passed by Congress, signed by the President. There are occasions when there is a difference in wording between what appears in the code and the statutes-at-large. That's rare but it does happen. In cases where the code is prima facie and there's a difference in wording the wording in the statute-at-large controls because the statute-at-large is "the Law". The code is just merely a reflection. Make sense? Now the 1939 code the 1954 code the 1986 code are all points in history were Congress sort of re-vamped the structure of the internal revenue laws of the United States. For instance prior to 1939 there was no Internal Revenue Code there was just statutes-at-large scattered throughout history as Congress had passed them one after another in a chronological order. To find a law you might have to go back to the 1930 and look for the book, and look to the book, and look to the book trying to find the tax statute. In 1939 Congress took all those statutes that dealt with taxation and compiled them in something called the 1939 Code. The law (now get this, this is very interesting) the 1939 Code as well as the 54 Code and the 86 Code all these codes are prima facie evidence of the law. We know this because we can look it up at the very beginning of the United States Code it tells us which titles are prima facie. So we can see that title 26 is prima facie it's not the law it is merely a reflection of law. So when they created the 1939 Code the law that created it, repealed the actual statutes. "They no longer exist." So you got this thing, which is prima facie, and when you say, "show me the original law" it can't be done cause they've been repealed! They no longer exist. What are the implications of that?

There are certain titles within the U.S.C. that have been declared positive law that means what appears in the code is the law for the purposes of the federal government. However prima facie law is not, even for government a reflection of law. So what do you have if you creat a Code ("this index") and the same time you create this code, this index, you repeal all of the actual laws themselves? Now the code is a reflection of what? "NOTHING".

This is Dave Champions interpretation. So don't runoff and try and argue this in a federal court because the federal court would not be willing to declare the truth. Remember the federal judges are gigantic cowards. The most common thing that federal judges do and say is, "I'm not rockin the boat you're not going get me to make that decision! Oh! NOO! Not me brother I'm not bring the system down!" No matter how factual your argument is. They're cowards. So to go into court and make the argument I'm about to share with you don't be surprised if the judge gives some obscured rationale to rule against you. When you read it you will wonder if he ever got out of the third grade.

Title 26 known as the Internal Revenue Code has never been declared positive law it is prima facie it is a reflection of. Dave Champion's personal belief is when, any logical, rational thinking human would have to agree. If you create something that is not the law it is merely a reflection of the law and then you repealed the actual law so you can never revert back to the real law because they are gone. They don't exist. Gone as if they never were. You just have this index over here that talks about what used to exist in law. Dave's take on it is that a government code may well have the authority to bind the government. To control government to constrain or compel performance on behalf of a federal officer or employee. Possibly a federal code where the actual laws have been repealed may apply to a federal territory such as those places that are controlled under article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the United States Constitution those are federal places a military base, Washington D.C., forts and so forth. Once you get off or out of the military base or Washington D.C., once you get out of being a federal employee codes cannot apply to the real world. Title 26 is a reflection of nothing. The actual laws have been repealed.

What Is a Person?

We commonly think of a person is someone you can walk out to and shake hands with. The law that's not necessarily true. The "Law" uses the word person in a much more flexible manner. In law a person can be a corporation, it can be a trust, it/they can be a partnership, it can be a company, it can be an association. In other words it can be an entity, a thing. Typically in law a flash and blood human somebody you can shake hands with, hug that type of person is referred to in law as a natural person as opposed to a fictitious person such as a corporation. There is the distinction. And in the 39 statutes person included amongst other things a natural person. Now we fast forward to the 54 code. That phrase natural person is missing in place of that we find the word "individual" which is a very slippery definition. The definition of individual can include a natural person by it may not include a natural person. How's that for specificity? And the term individual is never defined in the internal revenue code. The Code says a person includes an individual but it never defines individual.
So as we see from "person" words in law don't necessarily mean what they mean to us out here in the real world. You thought you knew what individual or person meant. Not in law you don't! Not unless it's defined.

Now Dave Champions opinion within the context of tax law looking at it for 15 years is this. An individual is a singular entity or a singular flesh and blood creature who is compelled to do this or such by the code, is made liable by the code and has the tax imposed on him her or it by the code. But speaks in a singular sense. Attorney Larry Becraft and Dave agree on the following point they both believe that the term individual as used in U.S. tax law (clarification) in the context of U.S. tax law the word individual means a "nonresident alien". Congress has imposed subtitle "A" on one class of person that happens to be nonresident aliens deriving U.S. source income. That's one of the classes, of person.

Just for illustrations sake if you read through the instruction manual on the form 1040 for about the first 40 pages it says individual shall, individuals must, individual may, individuals will, all of a sudden at page 41, or 42 it changes language and it says U.S. citizens must declare their foreign earned income. Dave's and Larry's opinion is that the term individual is used as a mask to conceal the fact that the party being spoken of is a "nonresident alien". Of course you're not going to find that defined anywhere except possibly contextually, if you know you're reading a section and you know that section applies only to a "nonresident alien" and they're using the word "individual" "Hello" there's a tip-off. Yes?

The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires one state to honor the legal process of another state. For instance you live in North Carolina. The word resident is one of the most flexible, sneaky terms in all of law. Look in the book "words and phrases" at the law library. There are about 56 separate and distinct definitions of resident. That is how flexible that term can be. That's why I didn't use it.

Okay you get married in North Carolina and after you are married you decide you want to move to Colorado. So you move to Colorado. Now the good faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution to which North Carolina and Colorado are both parties. Colorado is bound to respect the fact you are married. Now if you drive from North Carolina to Colorado across all the intervening states you are still considered a licensed driver in all those states you passed through. However why isn't your permit "license" to carry a concealed weapon, honored? Why is it not embraced under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution? What is the difference between a driver's license, marrage license and a concealed carry license? Dave said "I don't have the answer."

Thank you Dave Champion for ALL of the above. Which I agree with also.

AMERICAN PATRIOT NETWORK

The United States Constitution

U.S. House Of Representatives

Senate

The Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service

Law Library

Here are some great search tools for finding things on the Internet:
Alta Vista

InfoSpace

Webcrawler

HotBot

MediaFinder

Ixquick is a metasearch engine

Meta-search
If you can't decide where you want to search, let this tool search everything for you.
MetaCrawler

Internet Sleuth