Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 023

Friday, April 16 1999

• More on tax Cheating
• Re[2]: Yom Tov Day Kiddush aka Kidusha Rabba
• Re: Avodah V3 #20
• RE: Avodah V3 #20
• 30 Day Chazoko v'sain Brocho, etc.
• Is Seeing Believing?
• RE: me'inyana d'yoma
• Re: Tax Evasion
• Dino Demalchuso
• Neveilus biRshus haTorah
• Re: Avodah V3 #22
• Let's Move On
• Re: goyim and olam haba
• Re: Cheating on Taxes

I heard besheim R. Schwab OH that if yhou cheat on taxes you were ipso facto not
frum; IOW frum people cheating on taxes is an oxymoron.  He specifically 
condemned people who "pretended" to be frum in bein odom lamokom while 
neglecting bein odom lachacviero.
I am have also heard that a tax auditor once wrote R. Schwab a letter to the 
effect that his tax forms and receipts were among the most meticulously kept 
documents he had ever seen!  (ok, if it didn't happen, do they say these things 
about you or me <smile>).

Bepashtus, one who cheats on taxes, has a serious flaw in their yir'as shomayim.

Rich Wolpoe

Indeed, when I learned Arvie Pesachim we were told that Kiddusho Rabbo was 
loshon sagei nohor.

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

PS I might have quoted Baer if I had had one handy.. RW
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Yom Tov Day Kiddush aka Kidusha Rabba 
Author:  "Michael Poppers" <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> at Tcpgate
Date:    4/16/99 9:16 AM




(Thanks to RWolpoe for his intermediate and accurate post.  I thought the 
following might be of further interest.)  The author, Y. Baer, of Siddur 
Avodas Yisroel has the following to say re Kiddusha Rabba on Shabbos 
morning: "The Kiddush of the Shabbos-day s'udah is called 'Kiddusha Rabba' 
in BT P'sachim 106.  'Even Yarchai' explains that the appelation comes from 
its b'racha, as 'Borai p'ri haGafen' is the #1 birchas ha'ne'henin -- this 
reasoning is forced.  The best explanation comes via the 'Magid Mishna' on 
RaMBaM Hilchos Shabbos 29: 'Kiddusha Rabba' is in the 'loshon sagi nohor' 
tradition, as it has no Biblical basis.  Checking the Talmud, RaMBaM, and 
all Rishonim, the only text associated with this Kiddush is the b'racha of 
'Borai p'ri haGafen'; moreover, the 'Even Yarchai' explains that one who 
says more than that [one b'racha] is mistaken.  However, the 'Kol Bo' does 
note our custom, which prefaces the b'racha with the stanzas of 
'V'sho'm'ru' (Sh'mos 31:16) and 'Zochor es yom haShabbos' (Sh'mos 20:8) 
[and he also notes the custom to loudly read/sing various mizmorai T'hilim 
after Kiddush]."  I think it's fair to echo RWolpoe's words -- the same 
[that the essence of Kiddusha Rabba is the b'racha] applies re YT -- and 
add that any additional verses/stanzas are probably based in ancient 
customs; to quote from the 'Kol Bo', "v'ha'kol l'fi minhagam."

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 4/16/99 10:25:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
APechman@mwellp.com writes:

<< 
 If I see a Jew committing certain aveiros, I am either permitted or required
 to hate him (gemara I think Pesachim on an amud beis). If I know he did
 teshuva, I am no longer allowed/required to hate him. (This is irregardless
 of any punishment outstanding from beis din (or shamayim).) I don't know
 that the same applies to a non-Jew who committed a crime and then repented.
 
 Avi Pechman
  >>
Any sources on the permitted versus required issue?

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

>   >>
> Any sources on the permitted versus required issue?
> 
> Shabbat Shalom
> Joel Rich
> 

I'll have to get back to you next week on this.

Avi Pechman

Quick point.
Tehcnically we gave up morid hgosehm and v'sain Tal umotor at the same time i.e.
Mussaph of Pesach)

Practically speaking, Chutz lo'oretz did not being saying v'sain Brocho unilt 
the folowing motzo'ei shabbos - about 2.5 days later.

Auestion:  which way does it go for the 30 day chazzoko?  IOW,

1) Since in theory we gave them both up at the same time, therefore we use the 
theoretical date to start the 30-day clock running 

OR

2) Do we start the clock running when we actually begin saying the changed nuach
which impllies 2 separate times for the 30-day deadline to complete.

As we know, the omission of morid hagosehm (or morit hatol) is more requent than
v'sain brocho since it is included in al; shabbos/Yon Tov davening and in 
Musaphim (including Rosh Choedesh and chol hamo'ed)  neverthelless, the 30-day 
period for chazoko seems to be the same

Rich wolpoe

>>
If I see a Jew committing certain aveiros, I am either permitted or required
to hate him (gemara I think Pesachim on an amud beis). If I know he did
teshuva, I am no longer allowed/required to hate him. (This is irregardless
of any punishment outstanding from beis din (or shamayim).) I don't know
that the same applies to a non-Jew who committed a crime and then repented.

Avi Pechman<<

Question are these people you SUPSECT of comittin avieros or those hwo have 
adjudicated by a BD to have done an aveiro>

IOW, it this subject to subjective opionion or to objective verification?

And do we suspend be'tzeedke Tishpot es Amisecho and not give them the beneift 
of the doubt that there might be extenuating circumstances?

And do we "convict" on the say-so of an individual?

And do we carry this forth via various froms of Rechilus so that otehrs now can 
hate them too?  

Doesn't this remind one of thethe anti-social behavior that casts a metzora 
michutz lamachna?

Do we really want a kehillo of fault-finders determining how everyone is an 
avaryan some-how?

Rich Wolpoe 

	Just so everyone is clear about the obligation, at least with
respect to babysitters:

	A babysitter would be considered a domestic employee.  As such,
wages paid to a babysitter in excess of the statutory threshold amount are
subject to withholding for FICA.  From 1951 to 1993 that amount was $50 per
calendar quarter.   However, since tax year 1994, that amount has been
$1,000 per year, indexed for inflation.  In 1998 and 1998 that threshold
has, accordingly risen to $1,100.   However, after 1994,  household service
performed by any individual under the age of 18 is also excluded from
employment unless it is the individual's principal occupation.
Nevertheless, if the employee is a student, providing household services is
not considered to be his or her principal occupation.  Under certain
circumstances, a child aged 18, 19, or 20, and a parent are also excluded
from employment for FICA tax purposes.  Also, cash pay from different
employers may not be lumped together to meet the threshold amounts noted.

	For sources see:  Social Security Domestic Employment Reform Act of
1994 (P.L. 103-387, Secs. 2(a)(1)(B). and 2(a)(2)(A).  Also, see:  Internal
Revenue Code Sec. 3121(x),   IRC Sec. 3121(b)(21), and Soc. Sec. Act Sec.
209(a)(6) and 210(a)(21).  Also see IRS Pub. 926.

	//Avi
	Avram Sacks
	Chicago, IL



	From:	"Pechman, Abraham" <APechman@mwellp.com> on 04/16/99 09:24
AM EDT
	To:	avodah@aishdas.org@SMTP@cchntmsd
	cc:	 
	Subject:	RE: me'inyana d'yoma

	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Harry Maryles [mailto:C-Maryles@neiu.edu]
	> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 6:28 PM
	> To: avodah@aishdas.org
	> Subject: Re: me'inyana d'yoma
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> How many people take out withholding taxes when they pay their
baby 
	> sitter?  I'll tell you.  NO ONE! 
	> 

	> 
	> HM
	> 

	At the risk of being accused of thinking that it's okay to speed,
jaywalk,
	change lanes without signalling, back up an entrance ramp, or other
	borderline illegal activities (for the record, I think that all
these
	activities are wrong, and possibly assur as dangerous to oneself and
to
	others), there's a difference between taxes and speeding: taxes
falls under
	the category of dina d'malchusa dina; speeding may not.

	But just to clear up a misconception, there are minimum wage amounts
for
	withholding taxes. See form W-4: if annual income is under $701
(with a
	sublimit of $250 for interest and dividends) and the taxpayer cannot
be
	claimed as dependent on someone else's return, withholding is not
required.
	(However, a tax return might be required. Consult your tax advisor
for
	details).

	Avi Pechman

Many thanks to REC for his masterful exposition. I would like to note one
quibble, however, a sizable one:

If DDMD does not bar you from shopping in a store that does not charge you
sales tax, then (only then) I do not believe Halacha does either. As the
Tzitz Eliezer points out in a teshuva on renting apartments and stores to
non-Jews, almost every commercial activity b'zman ha'zeh entails soem
degree of potential mesayei'ah. Thus, examples range from renting
apartments to Hindus or Homosexuals, to - let us say in may case - woning
shares of K-Mart and Microsoft - companies that undoubtedly facilitate
Chillul Shabbos and Achilas Devorim Assurim of many employees and
customers.

I will look for the mareh makom later, bl"n, but the TE clarifies:
Mesayei'ah Yedei Ovrei Aveira does not apply to commercial activity with
an avaryan (except, of course, in the cases Chazal prohibited in Mes. AZ
and elsewhere) - rather to assistance in the literal sense.

I need to say, however, that it may be, as one of the individuals I most
admire on this list wrote me privately, that all this conversation in
public is fraught with danger - of Chillul Hashem, and of
misunderstanding. It may well be that even the note that a matter is not
so pashut is in the geder of "posh'im yikashlu bam" - i.e., people may
take a quibble k'pischo shel machat and turn it into a pesach she'agolos
v'kronos nichnasin bo. The bulk of REC's comments are clearly emes
l'amitta.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Many of you have heard the story of R. Levi Yitzchok who on Erev Peseach asekd 
his shammos for smuggled goods (silk perhaps)? and had no problem acquiring 
them, while when he asked for a loaf of bread the shammos was stumped since it 
was erev Pseach there was no bread to be found in Berditchev.

This story illustrates various  POV's.
R. Zvi Weiss might point out that the smuggling was considered ok due to the 
nature of the oppresive czarist regime.

Another POV might say that lich'ora frumkeit was more of a function of keeping 
the dinim of chometz and not of smuggling.  IOW dino demalchuso was NOT so 
important

Another POV might say that R Levi Yitzchok was demonstarting that the cup was 
half-full as opposed to half-emtpy (apparently he had the unusual idea of 
finding zechuoys in people as opposed to finding faults <smile>); and that he 
while knew that smuggling was no better than having chometz, he just wanted to 
make a point about what people DID keep rather thatn what they did NOT keep.

Rich Wolpoe

Re: shopping in a store that doesn't charge sales tax. Even if DdMD doesn't
prohibit you from shopping there, if it does prohibit the salesman then you
can't shop at a Jewish store that doesn't charge sales tax because of lifnei
iver.

I was intrigued by the story of the speaker who permitted "helping yourself".
The way we currently educate our children, so that we play down the issues of
aggadah, blind people to the application of the broader issurim. We're so
busy with -- let me not even call it the trees, but the twigs -- of pilpul
and halachic process that we tend to overlook the forest.

That's not to say that there's something wrong with studying the details of
halachah. I'm just saying the pendulum is currently too far in that direction,
causing a lack elsewhere.

In looking at the problem of taxes, therefore, the posek is going to look at
the exact envelope of when gezel akum applies. The basic issurim of chillul
Hashem, neveilus birshus haTorah, midvar sheker tirchak, the chiyuv of
vihalachta bidrachav, etc... don't come to mind. They're nebulus issurim,
without any exact parameters to analyze, so they don't fit the image of
religion we're are imparting our children.

(This might also be true of bein adam lachaveiro in general, as it doesn't
lend itself as readily to bi'iyun as bein adam laMakom.)

A simple rule of thumb: if you need to describe the action using a euphamism
(hahndling, "helping yourself", etc...) it's almost certainly assur.

I think this is a basic definition of neveilus birshus haTorah.

BTW, note that Rashi makes a point of explaining the to'eivah of even va'aven
to be in owning them -- even if you don't use the modified weights. The whole
concept should be so "mi'us" that no Jew should want to even own the tools for
being fiscally dishonest.

-mi

PS: While I'm posting, let me add my "me too" to the "us vs them" sociological
    observation. It explains, but doesn't justify.

PPS: An example of both a minhag that people have written "halachic guides" to
     and a bein adam lachaveiro (outside the lips) that people are machmir in
     is ma'aser kisafim.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Apr-99: Shishi, Sazria-Metzora
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 312:9-313:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 66a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

The question about a NOchri getting Olam Habah was already discussed here
some time ago.  I amnot overly surprised at the statement attribute to the
Steipler ZT"L that the Non-Jew who saved Jews would -- in effect --
receive no reward in Olam Habah for his actions.  However, I find it
representative of the sort of thinking that will cause even "nice"
Non-Jews to hate us.  With the exception of ChaBaD (and a few other
groups) we do NOT go out to try to teach the Non-Jews the 7 Noachide Laws
and we bend over backward to tell them that one need not be Jewish to get
in to Heaven... yet -- IN EFFECT -- we "preach" (if I understood the quote
correctly) that even the RIGHTEOUS nochri will end up in Hell...  It does
nto take much imagination to think that any Non-Jew who heard this would
think that we are an UNGRATEFUL and SPITEFUL people who essentially
DESPISE everyone else.

One would think that simple HAKARAS HATOV toward  a non-Jew who risked his
life for Jews (and thus enabled the JEW to keep performing Mitzvot) would
mean that we would try to judge his actions as FAVORABLY as possible (such
as that he was raised in a particular religion and is -- perhaps -- NOT a
true Oved Avoda Zarah) such that it WOULD be possible to cosider such a
person as meriting Olam Habah.

I do not claim to understand this -- but I think that it reveals a
mean-spirited trait within ourselves that we should do well to think
about.

Even if it is TRUE that such a person does not merit Olam Habah, there
should be a sense of sorrow (of some sort) rather than the dismissal
involved.

I am troubled by this spirit and wonder if -- perhaps -- the Steipler was
not taken out of context....

--Zvi

Since I bet (if that be permitted) that we are a self-selected group that
does adhere to the tax code more or less properly, why don't we move on to
an interesting po'al yotzai of this conversation:

We assume DDMD applies to most American law. If that is the case, is civil
disobedience - of the type that led to mass arrests in the Diallo protests
in NYC, or that Thoreau, for that matter - assur or muttar? Does this fall
into the category of "mitzva", "aveira" or "aveira lishma".

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Eli Turkel writes:
> The present discussion remins me of a question that has long bothered me. I
> once saw in a letter of the Steipler the statement that a priest who saved
> Jews in the holocaust would burn in hell (my paraphase not his words) because
> he is an idol worshipper.  The fact that he risked his life to save Jews is
> nice and we give him a yasher koach but no more. He strongly critcizes earlier
> sources that give goyim "credit" for activities beyond the 7 mitzvot.  I
> assume that is all the more so of Mother Teresa (for example).

I'm not sure how the rest of the paragraph follows from the first. I'm therefore
very interested to see where the paraphrase ends.

All the first line says is that the priest will be punished for his sins. No
surprise there. It's not like we're saying that he won't /also/ be rewarded for
the positive things he did.

Aside from that, I'm pretty sure the issur of shefichas dam for b'nei Noach
includes an equivalent to "lo sa'amod". I don't see how saving Jews in WWII
can be considered beyond the seven mitzvos.

Third, who cares whether or not we give him a "yashakoiach"? Sure, the man's
not an observant ben Noach. So, lihalachah, we need to treat him like real
akum. (Unless you hold like Tos' about Christianity and shutfus.) However,
in terms of s'char va'onesh, what we want or think is irrelevent, no? Are we
going to claim that Hashem's means of judging people is the one decision of
His we finite human beings are capable of understanding?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Apr-99: Shishi, Sazria-Metzora
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 312:9-313:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 66a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Avi Pechman wrote:

> Section one of the Internal Revenue Code states that a tax is hereby imposed
> on certain categories of people in accordance with a specific formula.
> Assuming most of us are in any of the following categories: married, single,
> surviving spouse, etc., the code applies to us.


Section one of Title 26, USC relates the formula by which the taxes are
calculated for those who are liable for the tax. It's a small difference
from what you said, but an important one. For those on whom the tax is
imposed, section one prescribes how the tax is computed.

As I said yesterday, I don't believe this to be the appropriate forum for
a discussion of the details of the Internal Revenue Code, but the
following is the main body of the text of a letter I wrote to my employer
six years ago stating my case. I have not filed an income tax return in
those six years, and do not plan to in the future unless I find myself in
a position where I am required to. I have had an IRS hearing regarding the
matter, and have not had any charges filed aginst me, nor been fined or
billed for non-payment.

Please note; I am not in any way condoning or engaging in any unlawful
activity. My point is that the code as written does not apply to me, nor
most of you. I do not encourage anyone to lie or cheat. Certainly one who
is required to file should, and must be as honest in this as in all other
matters, as is halachically requred.



> > But assuming what I said is true, and the law is misapplied, 
> > would that
> > mitigate the potential halachic problems in "cheating"?
> 
> I don't think so. From a dina d'malchusa dina standpoint, the government has
> a right to demand tax payments from people living in the country. If they
> desire to do so, we have an obligation to pay. If the supreme court decides
> that the treasury department overextended its authority by demanding tax
> payments, then the treasury department will stop asking for tax payments,
> and we will not be obligated to make any.


Yes, unquestionably. But the code itself says that the code must be
followed by the IRS. If the government institutes another system of
taxation, that would be an entirely different case. But proper application
of the current system results in the following.


I will happily discuss this further with you, but not on avodah. My
apologies to all for the length of this post. This will be my last post on
this topic in this forum. The text of my letter to my employer follows.

---sam

-----------------

This letter is my response to your request for me to sign and submit a new
IRS Form W-4 to permit the withholding of money from my earnings by you
for the payment of federal income/excise tax. There are certain facts of
which you should be aware in order to understand the law and my position
in this matter. I am submitting this letter to inform you of these facts. 

The United States courts of law have ruled very clearly that the Internal
Revenue Code (26 USC) applies to only those persons who are in the legal
status of a "taxpayer" and that it does not apply to nontaxpayers.
"Taxpayer" is a legal term that is defined in Section 7701 (a)(14)
of the IR Code, which states: 

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

When an individual voluntarily files his first tax return, files his first
W-4 form, or first pays an "income" tax, the IRS thereafter considers him
to be a "taxpayer". As a "taxpayer", he is considered to have voluntarily
waived his constitutionally secured rights and to have privileges
only, in relation to the administration of the tax and the IR Code to
which he is then considered to be subjected. The change in status similar
to when one voluntarily takes the oath to join the military service; he
thereby voluntarily waives his rights in his relationship with the
military service and he thereby subjects himself to military law. 

A nontaxpayer in respect to the IR Code is one who is not subject to any
internal revenue tax and is therefore not subject to any provisions
of the IR Code nor to the jurisdiction of the IRS. This fact is shown by
the ruling in the case of Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470
F.2d 585, at 589 (1972) wherein the Court reaffirmed and quoted from the
decision in the case of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F 236, at 238
(1922) which stated: 

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessments
and collection. THEY RELATE TO TAXPAYERS, AND NOT TO NONTAXPAYERS. The
latter are without their scope. NO PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR
NONTAXPAYERS, and NO ATTEMPT is made TO ANNUL any of THEIR RIGHTS and
remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal,
and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue
laws." (Emphasis added) 

This letter is my legal notice to you of my legal status as a free
sovereign individual citizen possessing all of my constitutionally secured
rights, a nontaxpayer in respect to all federal income/excise taxes and
the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC), who is not engaged in any revenue
taxable activity. My status as a nontaxpayer is a matter of public
record in the County of Baltimore, State of Maryland. The Secretary of the
Treasury, and the IRS through him, has been notified of this fact and has
been sent a copy of an affidavit executed by me further establishing this
fact, along with a copy of a cover letter relating to the affidavit. A
copy of these documents are included with this letter for the information
of your company and your company's counsel. Neither the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Commissioner of the IRS, nor any of it's agents or counsels,
have taken any exception to any of the statements in the affidavit, nor
have they ever made any claim that I am one who is in the legal status of
a "taxpayer" or that I am subject to the provisions of the IR Code. 

The certification line on the IRS Form W-4, that your company requested me
to sign and submit, states that the signer is one who is "entitled"
(allowed or privileged) to make a "claim" for exemptions under the IR Code
for determining how the withholding of the signer's money is to be
computed. Only those people who are in the legal status of a "taxpayer" in
respect to a federal excise tax are "entitled" to make an exemption claim
to the IRS for exemptions under the IR Code. As a nontaxpayer, in respect
to the federal income/excise tax, I am not a person who is "entitled" to
make a claim under the IR Code, and I am not a person required to sign and
submit an IRS Form W-4 to give your company my permission to withhold my
money from earnings due to me. 

Due to the wording of the statement, which is signed under penalty of
perjury of the IRS Form W-4, I cannot sign it without making a false
statement because I am not one who is "entitled" to make a "claim" to the
IRS under the IR Code. Under federal law in 28 USC 1746, a statement
certified "under penalty of perjury" has the same force of law for federal
procedures as a sworn oath or a notarized affidavit; thus, signing and
certifying a false statement "under penalty of perjury" on the IRS Form
W-4 would be a felony. I positively refuse to commit such a violation of
the law by voluntarily signing any IRS Form W-4. 

As a free sovereign individual citizen, I have the constitutionally
secured right not to be deprived of my property without due process of
law, a right secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of
the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Due process of law means
having an opportunity for a lawful hearing in a court of competent
jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in controversy. No form letter,
notice, directive or other document from a government employee or agency,
nor even a statute passed by Congress, can nullify my right to due
process. An order from a court of competent jurisdiction, that is
issued after a gearing to adjudicate the validity of a claim, is the only
document that could give you lawful authority to take money from my
earnings without my consent. Without such a court order, any
withholding of money from my earnings without my permission would violate
my right to due process and could make your company and any of its
involved employees liable for both civil and criminal penalties. 

Because of the confusion about the law in the minds of most employers,
there are some important points of which you should be aware.
Subsection 3402 (f)(2)(A) of the IR Code, which applies to withholding,
states: 

"...the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding
exemption certificate..." 

The statute does not state that an employee is required to furnish one.
Subsections 3402(a) and (b) also use the directory word "shall". Those
sections state that employers "shall" deduct and withhold from employee's
earnings. They do not state that employers are required to deduct
and withhold. Unless there is a valid IRS Form W-4 in force to give the
employer permission to take an employee's money for taxes, THE
EMPLOYER HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER.
Courts have repeatedly ruled, that in statutes the word "shall" must be
defined as meaning "may" if necessary to avoid constitutional conflicts. 

In the decision on Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 US 170, the U.S.
Supreme Court stated: 

"As against government the word 'shall' when used in statutes is to be
construed as 'may', unless a contrary intention is manifest." 

In the decision of George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7
N.W. 2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated: 

"'Shall' in a statute may be construed to mean 'may' in order to avoid
constitutional doubt." 

In the decision on Gow v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 A 136, the
Court stated: 

"If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, 'shall' will be
deemed equivalent to 'may'..." 

These decisions and others very clearly show that in respect to me, the
word "shall" must be defined as meaning "may" in 26 USC 3402. To
interpret the words "shall deduct and withhold" as meaning that your
company is "required to deduct and withhold" my money without my
permission and without an order from a court of competent jurisdiction,
would require your company to commit a violation of my right not
to be deprived of my property without due process of law. This situation
would create a clear constitutional conflict and would make the
statute unconstitutional, according to the court decisions. 

Those in your company who determine policy should understand that as an
individual possessing all of my constitutionally secured rights, I
have the right not to be deprived of my property without due process of
law. No statute can constitutionally require or authorize anyone to
violate this right, thus the words "shall furnish the employer with a
signed withholding exemption certificate" and "shall deduct and
withhold" cannot be defined as statements of requirements, but must be
interpreted as meaning "may furnish" and "may deduct and
withhold". 

The words, "Requirement of Withholding", are used as descriptive headings
of Subsections 3402(a) and (b) of the IR Code. These words are deceiving
and confusing unless the reader understands that in Subsection 7806(b) of
the IR Code, it states: 

"No...table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline,
analysis or descriptive material relating to the contents of this title
shall be given any legal effect." 

Therefore, the descriptive headings which state, "Requirement of
Withholding", legally create no requirement to withhold, but do create
misunderstanding by employers who are not familiar with the provisions of
Section 7806(b) above. 

As further evidence that there is no requirement to file an IRS Form W-4,
notice the wording in the instructions that are attached to the
blank Form W-4. Nowhere in the instructions does it say that anyone is
"required" to file the form; instead, it repeatedly uses the word
"must" in relation to filing. If employees were required to file the IRS
Form W-4, the word "required" would be used in the instructions to
eliminate any question as to whether or not filing is required. In the
definition of the word "must" in the Fifth Edition of Black's Law
Dictionary, which is in current use, it states: 

"...it is often used in a merely directory sense, and consequently is a
synonym for the word 'may' not only in the permissive sense of that
word, but also in the mandatory sense which it sometimes has." 

According to this definition, it is clear that the word "must" does not
mean "required" by law, but the word "must" is used to deceive
employees into believing that they are required by law to sign and submit
W-4 forms to their employers. 

The IRS deceives and intimidates uninformed employers into unauthorized
withholding by citing Section 3403 of the IR Code, which scares them into
submission. Section 3403 states: 

"The employer shall be liable for the payment of tax required to be
deducted and withheld under this chapter..." 

Without an employee's consent to withhold, there can be no "tax required
to be deducted and withheld", so there can be no liability on the
employer for not withholding. No law can constitutionally require an
employer to deprive an employee of his property without due process
of law. 

The enclosed copy of the affidavit is directed to you for your attention.
I suggest that you and your personnel read the affidavit carefully.
This document is on the utmost importance, as it revokes and rescinds all
my signatures on any W-4 withholding authorization forms ever
signed by me, rendering them null and void. This revocation specifically
applies to any W-4 forms in your possession which I have signed,
thereby giving my permission to your company to withhold funds from my
earnings. 

AS OF THIS DATE YOUR COMPANY NO LONGER HAS MY PERMISSION TO DEDUCT ANY
MONEY FROM MY EARNINGS. I DEMAND TO RECEIVE MY FULL PAY AT ALL TIMES WITH
NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ANY FEDERAL OR STATE TAX, AND NO DEDUCTIONS OF THE FLAT
RATE FEDERAL INCOME/EXCISE TAX (social security), deceptively called
F.I.C.A. (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) TAX. 

Please note that according to the Court's statements in the Economy
Plumbing decision (supra), no procedures are available to a nontaxpayer
under the IR Code, thus a nontaxpayer has no standing to make a claim for
a refund. As evidence of this see the decision on the case of
Morse v. U.S. 494 F.2d 876 (1974) wherein the IRS denied a claim for
refund on the grounds that the claimant allegedly was not in the legal
status of a "taxpayer". Therefore, as a nontaxpayer, I have no legal
standing under the IR Code to make a claim to the IRS for refund of any
monies paid in my name by your company, so please do not try to lead me to
believe that I can get my money back from the IRS by filing a
claim for a refund. 

If it is the position of the company that it has the authority to withhold
funds from my earnings without my permission, I must insist that
the company notify me IMMEDIATELY in writing of what statute, regulation,
directive or other basis they rely on to take the position that
it gives them the authority to override my constitutionally secured right
not to be deprived of my property without due process of law as
guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the Bill of rights of the Constitution
of the United States. 

In the event that I should be discharged from my employment with the
company as a direct or indirect result of exercising my
constitutionally secured right to demand full payment of my earned
property, such discharge could involve the company and its personnel
in violation of my civil rights as protected by federal and state laws and
create violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1986 and 18 U.S.C. 241 which
provide for both civil and criminal penalties. 

I am sending this information to you in hopes of preventing a violation of
my rights as a result of ignorance of the applicable law. It is my
desire and intention to maintain friendly relations and cooperation with
the company and its personnel. 

(There's more, but it deals with maintaining friendly relations with my
employer and is irrelevant here.)

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]