letter is to be sent by employees to their employers.
It should be sent preferably a few months prior to employees filing
their first Request for Refund with either the IRS or the state income tax
authorities. The purpose of
this letter is to establish with your employer the following facts:
That they have misreported “gross income “ numbers appearing on
your W-2 form in the past or that you anticipate or expect that they might
misreport it in the future.
That you would like for them to properly report your “gross
income” as being zero.
That they are liable under the law for misreporting your income and
for violating your privacy and First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights
by requiring you to provide to them a W-4 form or to pay income taxes you
Directed personally to:
Request for Compliance with Federal and State Income Tax Reporting
and Withholding Laws
(1) A book entitled The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax, available for free
This letter is being provided to notify you of my
wishes regarding employment tax withholding and reporting to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) as well as state agencies for my pay and benefits.
As you know, tax season is fast approaching, and you will soon be
mailing out W-2 forms to employees such as myself.
Before you get to work preparing my W-2’s and submitting them to
the IRS and the state agencies for tax reporting, I want to ensure that
the process and methods you use for all employees are in strict compliance
with federal and state tax laws and that the resulting W-2 forms are as
accurate as you can legally make them.
At the same time, I would like to help you minimize your legal
liability, both to government taxing authorities and to your employees.
I will begin by
emphasizing that everything I am about to say in this letter is based on
several continuous months of thorough research studying the Internal
Revenue Code and the state taxation codes on the Internet in the process
of writing a 1,000 page book about income taxes referenced in Ref. (1).
I and/or others have also spoken personally to tax attorneys and
IRS agents about the content of this letter and have personally confirmed
its accuracy and truthfulness. All
of the laws I am about to discuss you can read yourself on the internet at
the following URL:
Below is a summarized
list of the requirements that federal law (26 U.S.C., also called the
I.R.C or Internal Revenue Code) and other Titles of the U.S. Codes impose
on you in the reporting of my taxable wages as revealed by my research.
The Privacy Act of 1974 found in 5
U.S.C. 552a covers the handling of personal information, such as
Social Security Numbers (SSN’s) and personnel records.
This section places clear requirement on government agencies that:
No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system
of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another
agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written
consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure
of the record would be
(1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains
the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their
(3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this
section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;
(7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental
jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil
or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law,
and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written
request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular
portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is
The term ''routine use'' means, with respect to the disclosure of a
record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the
purpose for which it was collected.
In your case, “routine use” DOES NOT include disclosure to the
IRS without my consent or knowledge, as the Privacy Act Statement in my
employee record does not indicate this is one of the purposes for which
such information is maintained or used.
Therefore, you may not disclose my SSN or my address to outside
agencies such as the IRS without my express written consent, which you do
not have, nor am I willing to provide such information on a W-4 form which
you can provide to such agency.
If you insist on disclosing to the IRS or any other outside
agency my SSN or address or anything other than what I explicitly and
personally put on my W-4 form, then you are violating the Privacy Act
and I will take you in court and prosecute you criminally for such
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 1 imposes the income tax
on “taxable income”.
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 63 defines “taxable
income” generally as “gross income” minus deductions.
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 61 defines “gross
income” generally as income “from whatever source derived”.
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) sections 861-865 and related
regulations determine the taxable “sources of income”.
Income and “wages, tips and other compensation” reported by you
to the IRS on form W-2’s must be “taxable income”,
within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 63.
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 3401(c ) defined employee
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.
Any non-governmental employees you may
have are not considered “employees” by the United States Government as
Even more interesting is the definition of “employer” found in
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 3401(d )
of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the person for whom an
individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the
employee of such person
Consequently, if you
don’t pay people under your employ who work for the government, then you
aren’t an “employer” as per the Internal Revenue Code.
The IRS will try to deceive you into thinking that the above
definitions do not apply or are not “inclusive” of everything that is
taxable. However, section
184.108.40.206 of Reference (1) entitled “’Includes’ and ‘Including’
(26 U.S.C. 7701(c ) clearly shows that the courts do not support this
position and that this is an attempt by the Congress and the IRS to exceed
their lawful authority.
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) sections 3401-3406 describe laws
relating to withholding of income taxes by employers.
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) section 3403 states the
shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and
withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the
amount of any such payment.
In spite of the above, the liability stated only applies to
employers operating within the District of Columbia, based on the
definition of “United States” given earlier.
The only known portion of the U.S. Codes that imposes a geographical limitation on the applicability of direct (on people rather than
businesses or other “legal fictions”) U.S. income taxes is 26 U.S.
Code Section 861. This is the
section which addresses the “source” issue and imposes a clear
requirement that taxable income not only must be of a taxable type, like
that found in 26 U.S. Code section 61, but it must ALSO come from a
taxable “source” that is tied to some geographical boundary. If you are going to insist that 26 U.S.C Sec. 861 doesn’t
apply to me as a citizen of the USA living in the 50 states with only
income from the 50 states, then you are going to have to find another section of the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a geographical
limitation, because otherwise, the entire tax code would apply to EVERYONE
IN CHINA, which clearly doesn’t make sense!
This finding is consistent with the following case of Graves
v. People of the State of New York, 59 S.Ct. 595 (1939):
“A tax on
income is not economically or legally a tax on its source.”
It is also consistent with
the 26 C.F.R. section 1.861-8(f)(1) as discussed in sections 5.5.6 of
Reference (1), which identifies specific sources that are taxable.
All sources other than those listed in that regulation are, by
definition, excluded as explained in section 5 of Reference (1).
The Internal Revenue Publications are a fraud and cannot be relied
upon to sustain a legal position nor can they be used as evidence of a
“reasonable belief” in a court of law.
This is confirmed in the IRS’ own Internal Revenue Manual (IRM),
Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain
language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of
general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a
position." [IRM, 220.127.116.11.8 (05-14-1999)]
This finding is also confirmed by the following
federal court cases:
For all of the above
reasons, I do not recommend referring to, relying upon, or
using any of the Internal Revenue Publications in the administration
of payroll tax withholding in your organization,, because the IRS or
employees working for the IRS cannot be held liable in any way for
fraudulent, misleading, or downright false advice or information they
provide to you in any of their publications, or over the phone.
13. Taxability of “wages”:
“gross income” within the ambit of Chapters 71 through 86 of
the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S. Code) does not include or
list wages. For
instance, these chapters do not specify wages as “gross income”.
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) Section 61 identifies something
that might be mistaken for wages, namely:
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits,
and similar items;
You will note that
“wages” are not listed or included anywhere in the
definition above, nor are they listed anywhere in the IRC as being part of
Because labor is considered property, per the findings of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (111 U.S. 746), and because wages received for labor rendered constitute a nonprofit exchange of property rather than taxable
“profit” that is part of “gross income”, and because all of my income results from such wages, none of my income is
considered “gross income” subject to direct taxation by the U.S.
Government or the State of California.
This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the federal
courts in Stapler v. U.S., 21 F. Supp. AT 739, which said:
within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means
'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from
property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming
in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and
disposal... Income is not a wage
or compensation for any type of labor."
The jurisdiction of the “United States” government to impose
direct income taxes on my wages is limited to only the District of
Columbia and not the 50 states of the United States of America. For instance, the definition of the term “United States”
appears in the Internal Revenue Code section 7701 as:
''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the
States and the District of Columbia.”
And in that same section,
“State” is defined as follows:
''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where
such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”
You will note that
“States” is the plural of “State”, and that “State” refers
only to federal territories and possessions, and NOT to the 50 states of
the Union. This conclusion is clearly explained (much more clearly than
in even the statutes themselves) in section 5.2.4 “The definition of the
word ‘state’, key to unlocking Congress’ ruse and the limited
application of the Internal Revenue Code” of Reference (1).
Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code DOES NOT apply to me, as it
has jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia.
There is simply no authority delegated to the IRS to enforce the
IRC within the 50 states of the union upon citizens.
This is no accident, but is a direct result of the restrictions
imposed on the U.S. Government in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 1 and 3
and 1:9:4 of the U.S. Constitution. Even
if you want to assert that I am a citizen of the United States, you will
still not be able to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts or your
authority beyond the boundaries of the District of Columbia and foreign
lands for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code because of the above
limitations. This may have
something to do with why the Internal Revenue Code was never enacted into
positive law..because it has no effect on citizens anyway!
I wish to remind you quite clearly that federal income taxes, when
enforced directly upon citizens of the united States of America, without
apportionment, for income from domestic (within the 50 states) sources, do
indeed constitute direct taxes and are unconstitutional as ruled in the
Supreme Court case of Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157
U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601) and Evens v. Gore (253 U.S. 245).
These cases have never been overruled, and are also consistent with
the fact that no where in the indexes of 26 U.S.C. (the Internal Revenue
Code) is there a reference to the fact that U.S. citizens (or natural born
persons) are liable for the payment of taxes on income.
The 16th Amendment, which allegedly authorized “taxes
on income” (even though it was fraudulently ratified) did not remove the
constitutional prohibition against direct taxation of citizens without
apportionment to the states. The
only type of income tax the 16th Amendment authorized was indirect income taxes imposed on businesses and other “legal fictions” as an
“excise tax” (that is to say, a tax on a business transaction or event
paid by a business entity and not an individual directly). This was confirmed in the following two Supreme Court cases:
16.1. Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad (240 U.S. 1).
16.2. Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 U.S. 103)
The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawed slavery.
Slavery is an involuntary condition where one does not have control
over the fruits of his own labor, and has no property rights.
A condition of slavery is imposed by direct income taxes on people
in direct violation of the 13th Amendment.
For instance, if I am in the 28% marginal tax bracket, which I
believe that I am, and federal income taxes are imposed directly on my
wages, then in effect, I am a slave for 28% of the year. Either I’m entirely free or I’m a slave, but I can’t be
both! The only thing
necessary to make me a complete slave would be for congress to increase
the federal income tax rate to 100%.
And by the way, if they did this, the rights of the State of
California would be completely suppressed and thereby the balance of
powers envisioned by the founding fathers in the constitution would be
completely eliminated! This
would in turn violate the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
You might be tempted to say that any kind of tax is slavery, but in
fact this is not true. The
U.S. Constitution allows for excise taxes, which are also called indirect
taxes within the Constitution. These
taxes are on business transactions or events (like sales taxes).
The payment of these types of taxes is discretionary,
as all you have to do to avoid them is not buy something or not perform
the event that is taxed. What
other rational way is there to interpret this?
See the U.S. Supreme Court case of Butchers' Union Co. v.
Crescent City Co. (111 U.S. 746) for further details on this
issue. Here is a quote from
these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence
is the right of men to pursue their
happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not
inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their
prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest
enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY
MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER
PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND
As documented in chapters 4 and 5 of Reference (1), the U.S.
Constitution, the U.S. Codes, and the CFR’s are completely consistent
with all of the above conclusions of law, and in particular, specify in 26
U.S.C. section 861 the only legitimate “sources” of “gross income”
for which a U.S. Citizen may become liable to pay federal taxes. The content of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 861 limits taxable
“sources” to foreign income and is entirely consistent
with the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 through 3.
This taxable source of income occurs primarily when citizens are
overseas and as a result of international commerce, which are the only
type of commerce within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The above findings are also confirmed under the 4-1-94 edition of
26 C.F.R. 602.101, which listed the applicable forms for 26 C.F.R. section 1.1-1
(tax imposed) as OMB form 1545-0067.
If one looks up the form associated with that control number, it is
form 2555, which is Foreign Earned Income.
Interestingly enough, this form also is the ONLY income tax form
which lists “citizens” as being liable.
Furthermore, the IRS form 1040 is actually an addendum to that
form. After tax freedom
advocates discovered this connection, the IRS, to “cover-up” the
truth, removed this reference
and now in the latest version of 26 C.F.R. 602.101 NO form is associated with
26 C.F.R. 1.1-1. See section 6.5.3 of Reference (1) for more details on this
issue. This would imply that
filing of income tax forms is no longer required!
I certify, under penalty of perjury, that NONE of my income has
ever derived from the taxable “sources” identified in IRC section 861.
Therefore, I have no “gross income” from taxable sources.
For the purposes of state income tax, the State of California uses
the same definition of “gross income” and “taxable income” as the
federal government. See
sections 17071, 17072, and 17073 of the California Revenue and Taxation
Code, available at:
For all of the above
reasons, you are obligated to report my taxable income to the IRS on form
W-2 as “zero”, because:
It is wages, which as we have explained does not constitute
of my income derives from a taxable “source” within the meaning of
Internal Revenue Code section 861 or the supporting regulations found in
26 C.F.R. 1.861-1-1.861-14.
3. The U.S. government has no jurisdiction within
the Internal Revenue Code to tax receipt of income, because it was not
received in the District of Columbia by a resident of the District of
Columbia in accordance with 26 U.S.C. section 7701 (see definition of the
terms “State” and “United States”).
I also wish to clearly
emphasize several things:
I am not trying to be difficult or create any trouble for you or
anyone else. I only wish to
have my Constitutional and legal rights respected.
It would gravely concern me if you contacted any of the people
above me in my chain of authority about this request, as it is none of
their concern and once again would violate my privacy and destroy trust
and morale in my team. Any
attempt to involve others will simply be interpreted by me as an effort to
coerce and slander me, as there is no other reason to get anyone else
involved with my personal affairs or my privacy, nor can anyone above me
help this situation any more than you can.
My Constitutional rights as a sovereign citizen which I want
respected in this case include:
The First Amendment right of free speech, which means that I cannot
and should not be taxed, harassed, penalized, or criminally prosecuted
because of my beliefs or any statements I might make. This right of free speech also includes my right to NOT communicate with the IRS on a W-4 form or a tax return.
The Fourth Amendment right to privacy and the security of my papers
and personal effects. This
means that my private and personal personnel record ought to be exactly
that, and my SSN or other personal information should NOT be disclosed to
third parties without my express written consent.
That is why you make ME fill out the W-4
instead of the government doing it for me.
The Fifth Amendment right of not being compelled to incriminate
myself (by being compelled to file a tax return against my will or to
provide an SSN) or be deprived of property or any part of my paycheck
without my consent. This
means that the government has no jurisdiction to order you to withhold my
pay without my consent, regardless of whether I give you a W-4 form or
Remember that the essential aspect of being a
“right” is that the free exercise of rights CANNOT be penalized,
taxed, or regulated in any way by anyone, including
employers or the government. Any
attempt to silence or punish or fire me for the exercising
Constitutionally protected rights is a violation of rights.
The below Supreme Court case emphasizes this in Harman v.
Forssenius, 380 U.S 528 at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965):
"It has long been established that a State may not
impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the
Constitution." Frost & Frost
Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583.
"Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be
indirectly denied,' Smith v. Allwriqht, 321 US. 649, 644, or
manipulated out of existence,' Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S.
An important outcome of the above considerations is
that if you attempt to undermine, penalize, tax, or coerce me in the
exercise of the above rights, then you are liable under the following
sections of the U.S. Codes for civil damages:
Table 1: Abbreviated
List of Laws Violated for infringing upon Constitutionally protected
sectionSupreme Court Case(s)
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both
two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same
protected rights being violated
be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or
threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with,
or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with -
any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such
person or any other person or any class of persons from -
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service,
privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered
by the United States;
(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite
thereof, by any agency of the United States;
(D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with
possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,
or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed
$1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both.
being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department
or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act
as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or
attempts an act of extortion.
Other considerations apply to the exercise of the
rights we just discussed above, especially as it pertains to the use of
and disclosure of Social Security Numbers.
I will therefore like to provide formal legal notice to you of your
obligations relating to the compelled disclosure of Social Security
Federal Law, Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides
that: It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government
agency to deny to any individual any right [First, Fourth,
Fifth Amendment], benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.
Federal courts have ruled the Privacy Act applies equally to the private
The law provides that you can be held personally
responsible and liable, as well as your company or agency for violating
these privacy rights.
There is no law requiring an individual to obtain or use
a social security number. Your requirement and/or demand that I provide a
social security number to you is a violation of one or more of the
following laws: 4 C.F.R. 83.9; 5 USC Sec. 552a; 7 C.F.R. 1.123; 7 USC Sec.
2204g; 14 C.F.R. 1212.604; 17 C.F.R. 249.501a; 19 C.F.R. 118.11; 19 C.F.R. 122.25; 19
C.F.R. 24.5; 24 C.F.R. 5.212; 28 C.F.R. 16.53; 28 C.F.R. 513.31; 28 C.F.R. 700.25; 29 CFR
70a.10; 29 C.F.R. 71.12; 31 C.F.R. 1.32; 31 C.F.R. 501.806; 32 C.F.R. 270.19; 32 CFR
310.20; 32 C.F.R. 311.5; 32 C.F.R. 316.6; 32 C.F.R. 317.20; 32 C.F.R. 323.5; 32 CFR
505.2; 32 C.F.R. 701.108; 32 C.F.R. 806b.9; 38 C.F.R. 1.575; 38 C.F.R. 3.216; 38 USC
Sec. 5101; 39 C.F.R. 266.4; 45 C.F.R. Part 801; 47 C.F.R. 0.554; 49 C.F.R. 10.29.
Because of the above considerations, it is NOT my
wish that my SSN be put on any correspondence you provide to the
government EXCEPT to the Social Security Administration.
You are not authorized and you do not have my consent, with or
without a valid and signed W-4 form, to disclose my Social Security Number
to the Internal Revenue Service, as this would violate the Privacy Act of
1974 and the above laws.
Finally, as you consider how to respond to this
letter, I’d like to remind you, of the moral and ethical
obligations, we both have, which are clearly stated in the Code
of Ethics for Government Service, which is prominently displayed in
every U.S. Government Federal workplace.
Here they are:
Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above
loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United
States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their
Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay;
giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of
Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of
getting tasks done.
Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors
or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never
accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits
under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as
influencing the performance of governmental duties.
Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of
office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be
binding on public duty.
Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or
indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of
Never use any information gained confidentially in the
performance of governmental duties as a means of making private profit.
Expose corruption wherever discovered.
Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a
In particular, the fraud that is being perpetrated by
the IRS that U.S. citizens are liable for tax on income from sources in
the United States or that you as an employer are obligated to withhold
them is a violation of rules I, II, V, VII, IX, and X.
As a government servant, this letter is also my way of fulfilling
rule IX above, where I am expected to expose corruption wherever
discovered. I’m stating
these to emphasize that I am doing everything I can to live up to my own
moral and ethical obligations and that everything in this letter is aimed
at upholding these obligations. Like
me, the Department of the Navy as an organization, and you as a government
servant and you as an individual need to work hard to deserve the public
trust, which means you should stand up for what is right, even over the
objections and misinformation of your supervisors if need be and over your
own personal financial interests and job security.
We have to realize that the IRS is a federal
government agency and you and DFAS are also agencies of the federal
government. There is a clear
and perceived conflict of interest here, as far as I can tell that is my
duty to point out under the ethics rules identified above.
On the one hand, the Navy needs me to serve, but on the other hand,
the very same money I pay in taxes also pays me through the IRS. The DFAS and DOD undoubtedly would like to cooperate in
forcing employees to have and use SSN’s (SOCIALIST SECURITY NUMBERS)
because that is what the IRS and the Social Security Administration (their
sister agencies) want. But
I’m here to report that I won’t use my SSN and I can’t be forced to
provide it to the IRS because it would violate my rights.
SSN’s are un-American and violate my religious and moral beliefs
as well (see Rev. 13:16-18 in the Bible).
Finally, if you wish to free yourself of the need to
pay federal income taxes and free yourself from slavery to the
extortionists at the IRS, I invite you to visit my website at:
Click on “The Great
IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe
Income Tax” in the upper left corner and download my book free
of charge. It very thoroughly
documents why NO ONE is liable for federal income taxes, and why the law
agrees with me. I’d also
encourage you to share what you learn from the book with your fellow
officers, coworkers, and family members.
I certify under penalty of perjury within the United
States of America that the facts, statements, and claims made in this
letter are true, correct, and complete in every respect and accurately
represent the law, and the basis for my reasonable belief that both I and
my employer have no liability for federal income taxes on individuals like
myself and that the only accurate and legal way to report income from my
employer is to indicate “zero” on my W-2 tax forms.
reserved, UCC 1-207
COUNTY OF SAN
On __________________________ before me
___________________personally appeared ______________________ personally
known to me (proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged
to me that he executed same in his authorized capacity, and that by his
signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which
the person acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.