Employees Of The Federal Government Are Subject To Federal Income Tax
Subject To Federal Income Tax – Are Federal Employees Subject To The Same Tax Laws?
Some argue that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal income tax liability. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of section 3401, which imposes responsibilities to withhold tax from “wages.” That section establishes the general rule that “wages” include all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer.Section 3401(c) goes on to state that the term “employee” includes “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof . . . .”
Subject To Federal Income Tax – Joe Mastriano, CPA Discusses The Law
The Law: Section 3401(c) defines “employee” and states that the term “includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States . . . .” This language does not address how other employees’ wages are subject to withholding or taxation. Section 7701(c) states that the use of the word “includes” “shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Thus, the word “includes” as used in the definition of “employee” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It clearly makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of “employee,” which generally includes private citizens. The Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2006-18, 2006-1 C.B. 743, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.In June 2006, a federal district court in California permanently barred Christopher M. Hansen (using the business names of the “Family Guardian” and the “Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry) frompromoting a fraudulent tax scheme based on the frivolous theory, among others, that only federal workers are subject to the Internal Revenue Code.In March 2007, a federal court in Michigan issued a temporary restraining order barring Donald A. Gray from preparing federal income tax returns for others. The court found that the Portage, Michigan, man had been preparing income tax returns for customers based on the frivolous theory that wages are not income for federal tax purposes unless the wage earner works for the government.In May 2007, a federal court in Michigan permanently barred Peter and Doreen Hendrickson from filing tax returns and forms on which they falsely report their income as zero. The injunction order also requires the couple to repay more than $20,000 in federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes that they had obtained by filing false tax returns with the IRS. The order notes that the couple based their improper conduct on a book Peter Hendrickson wrote called “Cracking the Code.” The bookstates that federal tax withholding and income taxes on wages are applicable only for a limited class of people, primarily government employees.In November 2008, a federal court in Michigan arraigned Hendrickson on an indictment charging him with submitting false documents to the IRS. The 10-count indictment charges that Hendrickson filed IRS Forms 1040 and/or IRS Forms 4852 stating that he had received no wages for those years. On October 26, 2009, a jury found Hendrickson guilty of all 10 counts.
Relevant Case Law:
Montero v. Commissioner, 2009 WL 3929916 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 2009) – the court affirmed a $20,000 section 6673(a) penalty against the petitioner for advancing frivolous arguments that he is not an employee earning wages as defined by sections 3121 and 3401.Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1st Cir. 1986) – the court rejected Sullivan’s attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating “to the extent [he] argues that he received no ‘wages’. . . because he was not an ’employee’ within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein.” The court imposed sanctions on Sullivan for bringing a frivolous appeal.United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) – calling the instructions Latham wanted given to the jury “inane,” the court said, “[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ’employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument “that he is not an ’employee’ under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer,” stating, “[he] mistakenly assumes that this definition of ’employee’ excludes all other wage earners.”Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994) – the court characterized Pabon’s position – including that she was not subject to tax because she was not an employee of the federal or state governments – as “nothing but tax protester rhetoric and legalisticgibberish.” The court imposed a penalty of $2,500 on Pabon for bringing a frivolous case, stating that she “regards this case as a vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and espouse her own misguided views.”