"Wages" mean wages paid by the federal government to its own "employees."

NOT wages/ salaries / compensation earned in the private-sector NOT wages earned from State/local governments.

If you are NOT working for the federal government, then you are NOT earning IRC "wages"! Private-sector wages (including wages from State/local government) are not "wages"! As you will learn, the entire income tax hoax relies upon your BELIEVING that you make "wages." And it is only "wages" which are subject to the IRC rebate program and the Social Security plan.

To backtrack a bit, observe how the feds used the term "means" in the definitions of "wages" and "employer" but the term "includes" in the definition of "employee." This was no accident! The term "means" is not generally restrictive throughout the entire title (as is the term "includes") and is used to temporarily set aside a general restriction (under "includes") for the purposes of a particular section, paragraph, subtitle, etc. The scribes use "includes" as the master definition and "means" as a temporary expansion of that general restriction in a limited case--after which the "includes" restriction reapplies. Remember in an earlier chapter how the term "State" was generally restricted by "includes" in section 7701(a)(10) to be Washington, D.C., etc.; and then temporarily expanded by "means" in section 6103(b)(5) to also encompass the 50 Union States?

The point of such semantics is this: the IRC term "employee" has been restricted by "includes" to be a federal government employee, whereas the terms "wages" and "employer" have not been likewise "set in stone" since they were only temporarily defined in sections 3401(a) and 3401(d) by the use of "means." This is important because within those temporary definitions of both "wages" and "employer" is contained the generally restricted term "employee." Although an "employee" can only be a federal government employee (unless stated otherwise by the use of "means"), the terms "wages" and "employer" always have flexible meanings and can refer to "wages" and an "employer" outside of federal government employment. Those two terms (like others which you will soon meet) are chameleonic and change their colors depending upon the context involved. Remember, this fraud is all about words. Let the reader beware!

You'll see an example of this later on in section 3402(p) which refers to "remuneration for services by an employee for his employer which...does not constitute wages..." How can such remuneration not constitute "wages"? When a federal government "employee" moonlights for another employer--a private-sector employer. Obviously, such private-sector remuneration "does not constitute wages" within the meaning of section 3401 since the wages are paid by an employer other than the federal government.

The moral of all this is clear: do not take anything in the IRC at face value. The people who wrote it are cleverer; so read it carefully, many times! (Ideally, its au­thors should be rounded up and hung from the highest tree by their dangling modifiers.)

"an individual" is the same thing as an "employee"

Also an individual is a citizen of the United State and subject to it’s jurisdiction (26 cfr §1.1-1)

Notice in the Sec. 3401(d) definition of "employer" that "an individual" performs services "as the employee" of the "employer." The IRC doesn't say "any individual"--it says "an individual." The use of "an" instead of "any" restricts the meaning of "individual" to one who works "as the employee" for an "employer"--the federal government. If the IRC (Title 26) was positive law applying to all natural persons living under the laws of the U.S.A., then it would refer to "any employee" and "any individual." Since, however, the IRC is non-positive law with only specific applicability; it cannot use all-inclusive language such as "any." Behind this smokescreen, the feds defined, in a very clever roundabout way, "an individual" as an "employee" or some other natural person who is conditionally subject to the IRC.

"an individual" means "person"

So far, the daisy chain of IRC definitions is: a federal government employee is an "employee," and an "employee" is "an individual." The next link in this chain of deception is that "an individual" is now also a "person."

26 USC 7701 (a)(1) Person.

The term 'person' shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.

Now the feds have succeeded in defining a federal government employee as any one of three generic sounding words: "employee," "individual," or "person." This accomplished, they can now subject these three IRC people to all sorts of withholding, filing, and payment requirements which could never be legally demanded of anybody working in the private sector.

(NOTE: Some of my sharper readers might have noticed the phrase "mean and include" in the above section. I have not yet realized the significance of using both those words, but, to me, it seems noteworthy as I've never encountered such "belt and suspenders" totality in any other IRC definition. Ideas?)

"person" means "taxpayer"

Since most State Citizens BELIEVE themselves to be those three IRC people who work for an "employer," they read tax literature with the premise that it applies to them. With this mass BELIEF, it is a simple step for the feds to call them a "taxpayer":

26 U.S.C. 7701 (a)(14) Taxpayer.

The term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

How does one become "subject to" an internal revenue tax? As you KNOW by now, by being a " U.S. citizen/resident," or "an employee."  Only "persons" making "wages" or "gross income" are "taxpayers." By using the non-restrictive "means" instead of the restrictive "includes" the defini­tion of "taxpayer" can also encompass people not subject to any internal revenue tax, such as State Citizens, but who ignorantly pay federal taxes anyway. Being a "tax payer" does not make one legally subject to an internal revenue tax, but the IRS will lump a "tax payer" together with "taxpayer" because the non-restrictive term "means" allows it. Sneaky, eh?

Notice how the IRC has defined a federal government officer/employee/elected official as an "employee" as "an individual is a "person" and finally as a "taxpayer."

The origin and constitutionalization of Congress' artificial "person".

On July 1, 1862, when 11 southern states were not represented in Congress due to its Civil War, the remaining members of Congress passed "An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt." Therein Congress assigned an artificial meaning to the word "person" as follows.

"And be it further enacted, That on and after the first day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, every individual, partnership, firm, association, or corporation, (and any word or words in this act indicating or referring to person or persons shall be taken to mean and include partnerships, firms, associations, or corporations, when not otherwise designated or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof,)." Thirty-Seventh Congress. Sess. II. Chap. CXIX. Page 432. Sec. 68. (p. 459.)

 

Subtitle F--Procedure and Administration (§§ 6001--7874) is the how all of the administrative and procedures are to be carried out and with specificity who it applies to... guess what, it is not me, is it you?

26 U.S.C. §6671(b), which reads:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 6671

§ 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties

 (b) Person defined

The term "person", as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

1.     The above definition is the definition of "person" applying to all provisions cited as authority and it supersedes the definition of "person" found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1), because it does not mention that it adds to it.

Title 26 §7701(a)(1)

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--

(1) Person

The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

Title 26 §7343:

TITLE 26>Subtitle F> CHAPTER 68>Subchapter D> §7343 Miscellaneous Penalty and Forfeiture Provisions

§7343 Definition of term "person"

The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.