It is important to note that all these taxes are distinct separate unique taxes there's not just one tax. There are different types of taxes and they emanate from a different authority than the other taxes. I draw that to your attention because "subtitle A" the income tax is a completely separate different totally distinct tax from subtitle C "employment tax" so tell me why is it that under subtitle C, working people have money withheld all year long under subtitle C, "employment tax", which is a completely distinct separate tax, and at the end of the year they file a form 1040 for subtitle A tax? I once asked accountants this question and they have no answer. There is only one section in the entire code that has any linkage between those two is one of those situations where if this is so then that is so then you can claim a refund for your subtitle C taxes on your subtitle A return. Of course that would be if you are a person required to file a subtitle A in the first place. And the vast majority of you reading this have never had a requirement to file a 1040 in your life, but you were told to and you did.

So let's talk about employment tax. We could go through all of subtitle "C" it contains FICA which people mistakenly believe is Social Security tax is not. And if you go to payroll and ask what is this they will answer "Oh! That is your Social Security tax" wrong answer! You lose your out of the bonus round it is not Social Security tax. Then we have a bunch of railroad taxes, which we are not going to talk about.

We are going to stick to the subject to tax where you get money yanked out of your check for other than FICA that is supposedly being taken out as "your income tax" when in fact income tax is a completely different subtitle and has nothing to do with subtitles C.

So I will start with the command to deduct and withhold. This is found in section 3402 which is in Chapter 24 which is in subtitle "C". so it begins with subsection a. "Requirement of withholding" really short and easy.

a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general Except as otherwise provided (they give some exceptions later) in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables blah-blah-blah…

That is everything that is relevant to the search. Now I'm going to show it to you again but I am going to emphasize the key words. "Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold blah-blah-blah…"

These are significant words and I will explain what they mean as we go along. First of all "shall" is mandatory language it has to be done. Unless there is something in the statute to indicate otherwise. Shall is always to be construed as mandatory. So the employer shall deduct and withhold. Now I emphasize the word employer and I emphasize the word of wages and I did that because I am looking at section 3402, section 3401 the section just prior has to the definitions in it that controls 3402.

If you have looked at law at all in the sophistry (creativity (Antonym) of taxation and some other areas of law as well what you find is that definitions are used so that Congress tailors the law to mean one particular thing leaving in place the public perception that it applies to or is relevant to somebody else.

Now when I first discovered this years ago I was inflamed! I was burned with anger how could they do that? Now years and years later after studying law I'm not as inflamed, I understand, I get. Redefining words that Congress wants it to mean is not necessarily a bad thing. It allows Congress a tool, so when Congress takes a word out of the dictionary and they redefined to mean something else, I don't have an objection. Congress is trying to tailor the law so that it achieves exactly what Congress is attempting to achieve. In many cases they have to tailor the law to keep within constitutional boundaries.
What are they going to do makeup words?
Congress will take a common word and redefine it to their requirements. It maybe the same word that's in Webster's dictionary but Congress will give it a different meaning, that's how they do things.

My beef now is not with Congress and or any other legislature doing this. The fact that this is done in law is such a tricky thing it should be taught to every child is starting in junior high school and they should have classes all through I'm not saying big intensive classes may be social studies or part of political studies I don't know where they are taught don't look at words in law using Webster's dictionary. Find out if these words are actually defined in law. Because the Supreme Court has said in three separate cases that wants the Legislature provides its old definition you might no longer use or rely upon the dictionary definition. In other words but the Legislature defines the word to mean in law is the sole and exclusive meaning of that word in law. So says the Supreme Court three times not me Dave Champion.

First we will look in the definitions section shall we? Remember the words I keyed on for you were “employer” and “wages” we already took care of the word “shall”. In 3402 the command to withhold. Please remember the entire scheme (I mean that in the legal term not in the doing something evil sense) pivots upon the word “employee” which is not really significant, in the command to deduct and withhold.
Let's take a look at the word “wages” 3401 (a) a) Wages For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (payment) for services performed by an "employee" for his employer, blah-blah-blah…

"Wages means all payment for services performed by an employee for his employer." So you see by an "employee" that is the key right there.

Wages can only be (earned) if you are providing services as an "employee". The word employee is the key you must know what that is.

By the way services comes from a law back during the Civil War when working for the government was determined to be a service. That is where this comes from. Jumping ahead to sub section "C" (remember only the definition Congress gives is applicable nothing else)

sub section "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.)
Don't get wrapped around the axle on this last one I'll explain it later. Because it does not mean what you think it means. Of course because it's law. Let's leave the last sentence out for this part of the discussion will get to it later.

Let's read this again. 3401 (a)

“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.”

Do you hear anything in there no matter how you twist it, mangle it or bend it do you see anything in there that could be construed as a person in the private sector? Leaving the last sentence out of course about that "(officer of a corporation.) As you can see you must be in the employ of the United States of America to be an employee. It's not private sector its public if you're working for the government. Let's talk about the word “includes” some people will say that the word employee "includes” “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State we don't know there could be something else going on that aren't mentioned”. That is typically what you get from tax attorneys and accountants who have rectal cranial inversion. That's their answer because they don't know the truth. They really don't know how to answer it so they make up that answer and give it to you.

Includes has a theoretical as well as a practical level. In a practical level includes can be used in one of two ways first way is a term of containment, in court it is called strict limitation, that means whatever is enumerated (a fancy word for “listed”) after includes, is the sole and exclusive meaning, nothing else can be added in "strict limitation". The second way it may be construed is a term called “limited expansion” limited being a key. If the wording included were to be all-expansive then the law would be unknowable.

“Limited expansion” means that you can consider things that are not enumerated to be part of that law provided that they fit into the category established by those things that are enumerated. So for instance in this it talks about “officer employer elected official of the United States” clearly it doesn't say anything about someone who works for the national park service. Doesn't say anything about anyone who works for the US border patrol doesn't say anything about anyone working for the FBI doesn't say anything about anyone who works for the EPA it doesn't say any of that. Doesn't say anything about someone who works in the military. But it sets up a category so someone can't come along later and say “I work for US geological survey and it's not named there so you can't withhold from my check” no you are in the category. That's how limited expansion works. Although not enumerated it can be included.

Let's take this a little bit further “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, blah-blah-blah yadah yadah.” Could this embrace the governor of the Virgin Islands which is a US protectorate? Well I don't know I've never looked it up but certainly I could imagine that it does, because the Virgin Islands are stated again and again and again in various parts of federal law as a state of the United States it is not a State of the Union but it is a state of the United States. Again this describes limited expansion the governor of the Virgin Islands could be “included” as an “officer or employee or elected official of the United States a state or any political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia”. Could you then say based on the category which has been created by those items enumerated which are all people who work for the government that's the category "various government workers" how I would describe the category. Is it possible that that the guy working as a framer building homes for a private developer in say Wisconsin could be embraced by this under limited expansion? The answer is No!

The use of the word include or includes in the Internal Revenue Code is "limited expansion" this is how it is use in the Internal Revenue Code.

At this point you should be clear that “wages” can only be earned by employee's. And the term "employee" includes certain government workers.

Now on to the last sentence of that code section 3401 (c) “The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.” That means a corporation established by “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 reason I say that there are things called "rules of construction" and rules of construction are used to create statutes to phrase them properly, organize them properly and they are used to decide later to interpret what the statute means.

Wages can only be earned by "employees". Employees are various government workers. An example of officer of a corporation would be the president of the FDIC or the president of the agricultural insurance fund is similar to the FDIC it is a government corporation that has been created by Congress not a private corporation.

So you can see this whole thing has nothing to do with the vast majority of Americans. It is sophistry but it is not sophistry that we can't understand. It is in fact sophistry that is understandable if we take a look at it, we read we inform ourselves and we understand. The problem is communicating the truth to people who don't want to hear it.