Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:02.500] Welcome back to the channel. [00:02.500 --> 00:05.920] As many of you likely know, I'm the author of Income Tax Shattering the Myths. [00:05.920 --> 00:10.800] What you may or may not know is that for many years, I assisted people who understand the [00:10.800 --> 00:14.400] truth of the income tax when working with other people in the business community to [00:14.400 --> 00:20.580] make it clear what the law really says, and so that they could live their life correctly [00:20.580 --> 00:24.480] following the law and not have to worry about the income tax. [00:24.480 --> 00:29.780] I did that for many, many years, and I'm going to share something with you today that came [00:29.780 --> 00:36.780] up recently which mirrors my experience in a great many cases back then, so stay with [00:36.780 --> 00:37.780] me. [00:37.780 --> 00:44.740] Pretty sure this is going to blow your mind. [00:44.740 --> 00:56.020] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [00:56.020 --> 00:59.260] I no longer have the time to work with people who understand the truth of the income tax [00:59.260 --> 01:03.660] when I put out some documentation, some handbooks, and some professional guides that can assist [01:03.660 --> 01:07.140] them in the kind of thing we're talking about, working with other companies to make them [01:07.140 --> 01:08.140] understand the truth. [01:08.140 --> 01:10.820] I'll put links to those down in the notes. [01:10.820 --> 01:17.760] But a very good friend of mine, decades-long awesome friend, had something come up unexpectedly, [01:17.760 --> 01:20.100] so I pitched in and I gave him a hand with that. [01:20.100 --> 01:26.740] So I want to share with you the letter that he sent to a particular company and the response [01:26.740 --> 01:28.340] from the company. [01:28.340 --> 01:35.140] We're talking about law, so it might blow your mind when you see this gentleman present [01:35.140 --> 01:38.860] the law, the law, the law, the law. [01:38.860 --> 01:44.980] And then once you see the company say in response, first I want you to know that all of the names [01:44.980 --> 01:45.980] have been changed. [01:45.980 --> 01:50.340] If you hear XYZ Company, then it's not actually XYZ Company. [01:50.340 --> 01:55.300] I've changed the name of the company that my good friend is talking to to simply your [01:55.300 --> 01:56.300] company. [01:56.860 --> 02:04.460] The context of the letter, the construct of presenting law, and then what the company's [02:04.460 --> 02:07.860] attorney says, remember, attorneys are supposed to know the law, right? [02:07.860 --> 02:09.420] They're supposed to be practicing law. [02:09.420 --> 02:16.020] They're supposed to be telling their client or you a somewhat accurate recitation of the [02:16.020 --> 02:22.060] law rather than just making stuff up out of whole cloth, and not just making stuff up, [02:22.060 --> 02:24.700] but completely contradicting the written law. [02:24.700 --> 02:26.580] It's absolutely insane. [02:26.580 --> 02:30.780] So I'm going to begin with the letter that my friend sent over to them, and then we'll [02:30.780 --> 02:32.420] get into the response. [02:32.420 --> 02:33.420] Hi, Jane. [02:33.420 --> 02:36.740] Her name is not Jane. [02:36.740 --> 02:38.300] I hope you are doing well. [02:38.300 --> 02:44.100] I appreciate you sharing with me the Form W-9 that you have on file with John Smith's [02:44.100 --> 02:45.100] signature. [02:45.100 --> 02:50.100] Unfortunately, John does not have any knowledge of tax law. [02:50.100 --> 02:56.580] As you'll see below, a Form W-9 is only to be filled out and signed by a U.S. person [02:56.580 --> 03:04.100] that that's a very specific term in law, a U.S. person who is moving U.S. source income [03:04.100 --> 03:08.820] to its non-resident alien or foreign corporation owner. [03:08.820 --> 03:17.760] The payment made by your company to XYZ has nothing to do with U.S. source income belonging [03:17.760 --> 03:19.060] to a foreign person. [03:19.060 --> 03:24.780] Hence, it is not subject to a Form W-9 or Form 1099. [03:24.780 --> 03:31.300] Because John doesn't have education or knowledge concerning tax law, he executed a Form W-9 [03:31.300 --> 03:35.460] contrary to what the Treasury Secretary's regulations permit. [03:35.460 --> 03:40.220] The Secretary does not permit the use of a Form W-9 for citizens or corporations that [03:40.220 --> 03:45.580] are not involved with the flow of U.S. source income to its foreign owner. [03:45.580 --> 03:51.920] As the operational senior partner at XYZ Company and one who is educated in the proper [03:51.920 --> 03:58.420] application of U.S. income tax laws, I had instructed John not to provide a Form W-9 [03:58.420 --> 04:01.500] to your company concerning XYZ. [04:01.500 --> 04:07.860] As to do so would be in conflict with that which the Secretary's regulations permit. [04:07.860 --> 04:12.060] With John's lack of education or knowledge on the subject matter and his disregard for [04:12.060 --> 04:19.620] my specific instructions, he improperly and unlawfully provided you with a signed W-9. [04:19.620 --> 04:23.100] John's error, however, does not change the law. [04:23.100 --> 04:28.020] It does not change what the Secretary permits by regulation. [04:28.020 --> 04:32.620] In Subtitle A of the Tax Code, that's what people typically refer to when they talk about [04:32.620 --> 04:33.620] income tax. [04:33.620 --> 04:34.620] Change the file, your income tax returns. [04:34.620 --> 04:38.860] They don't know it, but it's actually Subtitle A of Title 26, which is euphemistically called [04:38.860 --> 04:39.860] the Tax Code. [04:39.860 --> 04:47.540] So in Subtitle A of the Tax Code, the sections pertaining to Form W-9 are contained in the [04:47.540 --> 04:48.540] following. [04:48.540 --> 04:50.220] Now, excuse me, I'm going to throw out a couple of citations. [04:50.220 --> 04:53.180] You can go look these up at your leisure if you want and we'll get to the meat of the [04:53.180 --> 04:54.540] issue. [04:54.540 --> 05:00.540] The sections of the Code and the regulations that pertain to use of the Form W-9 are 26 [05:00.540 --> 05:14.900] U.S.C. 1441A, 26 U.S.C. 1473, Subsection 4, 26 U.S.C. 1473, Subsection A1, 26 CFR, that's [05:14.900 --> 05:21.620] the Code of Federal Regulations, so now we switch from statutes to regs, 1.144, 1-7, [05:22.060 --> 05:35.020] 26 CFR, 1.144, 1-1, Subsection C16, and 26 CFR, 1.1471-1, Subsection B148. [05:35.020 --> 05:42.820] The above statutes and regulations are all found in Chapter 3, entitled, are you ready? [05:42.820 --> 05:50.460] Withholding of Tax on Non-Resident Aliens and Foreign Corporations, or in Chapter 4, entitled, [05:50.460 --> 05:55.260] taxes to enforce reporting on certain foreign accounts. [05:55.260 --> 06:00.220] These statutes and regulations apply only to non-resident aliens and foreign corporations, [06:00.220 --> 06:07.660] U.S. source income owners, as made clear in Congress' statutes and the Secretary's regulations. [06:07.660 --> 06:15.140] There are no other alternate or different regulations governing information reporting. [06:15.620 --> 06:21.300] be such as filing a W-2 or filing a 1099. [06:21.300 --> 06:27.420] Please note that a Form W-9 is a withholding certificate. [06:27.420 --> 06:31.660] I'm going to guess, if you own your own company and you've been asked to fill out W-9, you [06:31.660 --> 06:36.100] were never aware it's a withholding certificate. [06:36.100 --> 06:39.540] This is going to be a little complex in the language, just bear with me, it's a paragraph, [06:39.540 --> 06:46.100] I'll highlight, I'll emphasize the critical part, okay, so this is 26 CFR 1.1441-1, Subsection [06:46.100 --> 06:52.260] C16, and it says, the term withholding age, I'm sorry, the term withholding certificate [06:52.260 --> 06:59.260] means a Form W-8 described in paragraph E-2, lowercase i, of this section relating to foreign [06:59.260 --> 07:07.660] beneficial owners, paragraphs E-3i or E-5i of this section relating to foreign intermediaries [07:07.660 --> 07:17.500] or qualified intermediaries, Section 144, 1-5, Subsection C24, C33, and I'm sorry, it's [07:17.500 --> 07:22.180] hard for me to translate sometimes how these regulations and citations are written into [07:22.180 --> 07:27.300] something that makes sense verbally, so I apologize, and E53 relating to flow through [07:27.300 --> 07:28.300] entities. [07:28.300 --> 07:40.260] a Form W-9, remember, this is a list, this is the Secretary of the Treasury saying which [07:40.260 --> 07:47.380] documents, which forms are considered by the Secretary-in-law to be withholding certificates, [07:47.380 --> 07:50.180] and we get through all that nonsense, all that gibberish I just shared with you, and [07:50.180 --> 07:56.980] then a Form W-9 as described in paragraph D of this section below, on it goes, okay. [07:57.020 --> 08:07.980] In the second regulation, 26 CFR, 1.1471-1B148, the term withholding certificate means a Form [08:07.980 --> 08:15.140] W-8, Form W-9, or any other certificate that under the Code of Regulations certified or [08:15.140 --> 08:22.180] establishes the Chapter 4 status of a payee or beneficial owner, and what was the title [08:22.180 --> 08:29.540] of Chapter 4? Right. Taxes to enforce reporting on certain foreign accounts. Continuing with [08:29.540 --> 08:37.100] the text of the letter, a withholding certificate can only be submitted to a withholding agent. [08:37.100 --> 08:45.180] Here are the definitions of withholding agent. This is a statute, 26 USC-1441, Subsection [08:45.180 --> 08:50.220] A, which says, except it's otherwise provided to Subsection C, all persons in whatever capacity [08:50.260 --> 08:54.260] acting, I'm going to skip a lot of this that's in parentheses and stuff because it's just going to [08:54.260 --> 08:58.100] make this video very long, so let me start again, and I'm going to skip right past that. Except it's [08:58.100 --> 09:03.860] otherwise provided in Subsection C, all persons in whatever capacity acting, having the control, [09:03.860 --> 09:11.460] receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of any items of income specified in Subsection B of any [09:12.100 --> 09:19.700] non-resident, alien, individual, or foreign partnership, and it rolls on from there. [09:19.740 --> 09:24.140] So a withholding agent is somebody who has care, custody, control, et cetera, of U.S. source income [09:24.140 --> 09:28.780] belonging to a foreign person. Pretty clear, right? I mean, the statute, it's not hard to [09:28.780 --> 09:33.100] understand, and you can go look it up for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. [09:33.100 --> 09:38.300] All right, so the next definition, the first one was from the statutes. This is from the regs. [09:39.980 --> 09:46.220] Withholding agent is also defined to 26 CFR 1.1441-7, Subsection A, which says, [09:47.020 --> 09:51.020] For purposes of Chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations under such chapter, [09:51.020 --> 09:57.100] the term withholding agent means any person, U.S. or foreign, that has control, receipt, custody, [09:57.100 --> 10:06.540] disposal, or payment of an item of income of a foreign person. Clear? Continuing with the letter, [10:06.540 --> 10:12.780] because monies paid by your company to XYZ was not U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person, [10:12.860 --> 10:17.740] your company could not possibly be fulfilling the role of a withholding agent. Unless your company [10:17.740 --> 10:21.980] was fulfilling the role of a withholding agent, there is no provision of law that permits XYZ [10:21.980 --> 10:27.340] to have furnished your company with a withholding certificate. This is what John did not understand [10:27.340 --> 10:35.260] when he improperly and outside the law provided a Form W-9 to your company. Absent a Form W-9 [10:35.260 --> 10:40.940] submitted in compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, a 1099 may not be [10:40.940 --> 10:47.020] lawfully issued. This is what I am writing to correct. I am aware that your company did not [10:47.020 --> 10:51.500] know the Form W-9 submitted by John was outside what the law permits. The purpose of this letter [10:51.500 --> 10:56.220] is to make your company aware of John's unlawful submission, which led to your company issuing a [10:56.220 --> 11:01.900] 1099 in error. I am seeking that error to be corrected now that your company understands [11:01.900 --> 11:07.340] the facts and the law. Fortunately, the error is easy to correct. Here are the IRS provided [11:07.340 --> 11:11.900] instructions to rectify that error, and then he closes with those instructions. [11:13.260 --> 11:19.660] I think that is pretty clear, right? There is a good deal of law quoted there. It could have been [11:19.660 --> 11:24.540] filled with so much more law because there was so much more to be said on the subject. I mean, [11:24.540 --> 11:30.140] the statutes and the regs are crystal clear, but whenever you are communicating with somebody else [11:30.140 --> 11:35.260] who, for instance, has not read Income Tax Shattering the Miss, you have to be a little [11:35.260 --> 11:40.380] judicious in how much information you provide them. For instance, one of the issues that we [11:40.380 --> 11:45.900] could have raised was the definition of payor, which in English, right, we would say payor, [11:45.900 --> 11:54.380] P-A-Y-E-R. Congress had to make up its own word, payor, P-A-Y-O-R. Had they used payor, E-R, [11:55.340 --> 12:01.100] any statute that involved that word in plain English would have been instantly unconstitutional. [12:01.180 --> 12:06.700] I mean, the first court would have laughed the government out of the courtroom, so they had to [12:06.700 --> 12:12.700] create a separate word, payor, and give it a completely distinct definition, but of course, [12:12.700 --> 12:17.580] people see it. They think payor, well, that is a payer. Yeah, this is how the scam is played. [12:17.580 --> 12:21.900] All right, so with all that said, I am not going to share with you the response of the attorney. [12:21.900 --> 12:26.060] It is only two paragraphs, and anything that matters is actually addressed in the response [12:26.060 --> 12:32.540] from my good friend back to the company. So here we go. This is the part. I mean, [12:32.540 --> 12:38.620] the first part was just law. I mean, it is not exciting. It is not dramatic. It is just the law. [12:39.500 --> 12:44.860] This, referring to what the attorney said, is something entirely different. [12:45.980 --> 12:51.660] Hi, Jayden. I received your email containing your company attorney's response. Thanks for [12:51.660 --> 12:58.220] sharing it with me. Were it not for the shocking lack of professionalism, his remarks would be [12:58.220 --> 13:04.700] amusing. Allow me to share what I see. I am confident you will see the same thing. [13:05.420 --> 13:12.540] First, in my earlier email to you, the one we just read, I provided you the actual [13:12.540 --> 13:18.220] law. I cut and pasted the relevant sections of law into the email so you could read them [13:18.220 --> 13:27.980] for yourself. In contrast, your company's attorney provided you no law, zero. He simply told you, [13:27.980 --> 13:35.260] quote, a story. That is literally in quotes. He wants you to believe. He offers you no law [13:35.980 --> 13:43.180] because there is no law supporting the story he is telling you. Respectfully, he provided you [13:43.180 --> 13:49.660] a zero law because he believes you are foolish enough to simply believe his story rather than [13:49.660 --> 13:56.380] telling him you need to see the law. After all, this is a matter of law, not storytelling, right? [13:57.500 --> 14:03.980] Second, he made numerous statements you can verify for yourself are completely false. To it, [14:04.620 --> 14:10.860] the attorney states, quote, a W-9 is not a withholding certificate, close quote. [14:12.060 --> 14:16.620] The highest authority in the United States concerning tax law is the Secretary of the [14:16.620 --> 14:22.460] Treasury. The Secretary informs the public what tax law requires and how it is to be understood [14:22.460 --> 14:29.260] by publishing regulations. The federal courts have held that in questions of tax law, regulations [14:29.260 --> 14:34.860] controlled. In my earlier email, I shared with you regulations promulgated by the secretary, [14:34.860 --> 14:41.420] which state the Form W-9 is a withholding certificate. I will share those regulations [14:41.420 --> 14:45.340] with you again now. Now, I'm not going to take your time to read the same things we just read [14:45.340 --> 14:56.540] a moment ago, but I'll give you the sites again. 26 CFR 1.1441-1 subsection C-16 and 26 CFR 1.147 [14:56.540 --> 14:59.900] subsection B-148. These are the things you heard in the initial letter. [15:01.740 --> 15:12.140] And then he goes on to clarify, if we remove all the verbiage from 26 CFR 1.1441-1 subsection C-16 [15:12.140 --> 15:21.580] that is extraneous, such as Form W-8 and Form 8233, the reg reads as follows. The term withholding [15:21.580 --> 15:27.260] certificate means a Form W-9. That would be a quote. All I did is take out all the extraneous [15:27.260 --> 15:35.980] language between the first clause and the words a Form W-9. 26 CFR 1.1471-1 subsection B-148 [15:35.980 --> 15:42.780] is crystal clear. So, the highest government authority in the nation regarding tax law says [15:42.780 --> 15:50.700] a Form W-9 is a withholding certificate, but your company's attorney says it isn't. You just read [15:50.700 --> 15:56.620] the secretary's regulations with your own eyes. It cannot be both a withholding certificate and [15:56.620 --> 16:02.620] not a withholding certificate. In this matter, someone is right and someone is wrong. Your [16:02.620 --> 16:07.500] choice is between accepting the regulations of the secretary of the treasury and treasury's fleet of [16:07.500 --> 16:14.860] professional tax lawyers or accepting your attorney's story unsupported by any law. [16:15.660 --> 16:23.020] Further, the attorney states that quote, if one W-9 is not provided, payments are subject to [16:23.020 --> 16:29.900] withholding. That issue was covered in my earlier email. In my email, I shared with you the [16:29.900 --> 16:37.100] congressional statute as well as the regulation of the secretary on this exact subject. Here they are [16:37.100 --> 16:45.500] again, statute first, followed by the regulation. 26 U.S.C. 144-1-1, except it's otherwise provided [16:45.500 --> 16:49.660] in subsection 3, all persons in whatever capacity having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, [16:49.660 --> 16:55.020] or payment of any items of gross income in subsection B to the extent that any such items [16:55.020 --> 17:01.420] constitute gross income from sources within the United States of any nonresident alien individual [17:01.420 --> 17:09.500] or of foreign partnership. And then the regulation again, 26 CFR 144-1-7A. For purposes of chapter 3, [17:09.500 --> 17:12.780] the internal revenue code and regulations under such chapter, the term withholding agent means [17:12.780 --> 17:16.460] any person U.S. or foreign that has control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of an [17:16.460 --> 17:23.820] item of income of a foreign person. So this has been repeated from the first letter. Continuing, [17:23.820 --> 17:29.820] as you can see, your company's attorney is saying the opposite of what the statutes and the [17:29.820 --> 17:37.020] regulations make clear. The attorney then stated that a form 1099, quote, has nothing to do with [17:37.020 --> 17:43.180] moving income to foreign corporations. Now, to be clear, that wasn't exactly what the statutes and [17:43.180 --> 17:48.700] the regs said. It said to a nonresident alien or foreign corporation, but the attorney is, he's an [17:48.700 --> 17:55.660] idiot. So while he provided no law whatsoever in telling you that story, because there is no [17:55.660 --> 18:02.700] law supporting it, a form 1099 can only be lawfully issued based on a valid form 1099 [18:02.700 --> 18:08.620] submitted in accordance with the regulations of the secretary. And as you just saw, a form [18:08.620 --> 18:15.740] W-9 is a withholding certificate that is to be provided to a withholding agent when the payment [18:15.740 --> 18:22.940] is from a U.S. source and it is owned by a foreign person. This isn't rocket science. Yes, literally [18:22.940 --> 18:30.780] says that. The secretary has been quite clear as you saw with your own eyes. Your company's attorney [18:30.780 --> 18:37.500] is saying things that are in direct conflict with the regulations of the secretary, which you've [18:37.500 --> 18:43.900] just read with your own eyes. He is also not providing any law to support the story he's telling [18:43.900 --> 18:49.100] you. Perhaps it's time your company acknowledges its attorney has no knowledge in this area. [18:49.980 --> 18:56.540] I'm going to mail you the highly informative business handbook for forms W-9 1099 in U.S. person. [18:57.500 --> 19:02.380] I will put the links to that handbook, the handbook on withholding, [19:02.380 --> 19:09.180] and income tax salary down in the notes. But continue. It's a quick read, being just 15 pages. [19:09.180 --> 19:14.700] The main reason I'm sending it to you is found on page 12, which provides five key questions a [19:14.700 --> 19:18.940] company can ask its attorney or accountant to determine if that paid resource has any [19:18.940 --> 19:24.140] knowledge or expertise in the subject matter. Why would a company want to pay for advice from [19:24.140 --> 19:30.140] someone who lacks knowledge or expertise in the subject matter? The factual legal response to [19:30.140 --> 19:36.060] each of the five questions are clearly laid out in the preceding pages. On a strictly emotional [19:36.060 --> 19:40.140] level, company employees want to believe their paid resources have the required knowledge [19:40.140 --> 19:45.500] or expertise, even when they don't. The five questions in the handbook allow the [19:45.500 --> 19:52.380] basis of that assessment to change from emotion to intellect. Since bad legal advice can lead to [19:52.380 --> 19:58.300] legal problems, isn't it best to know, not guess, that your paid resource has knowledge in the [19:58.300 --> 20:05.420] subject matter or does not? The five questions allow you to make a factual determination. [20:06.060 --> 20:10.620] Now that you have seen with your own eyes that the attorney's statements are in direct conflict [20:10.620 --> 20:15.100] with the law, you can understand why I opened this letter by referring to his, quote, [20:15.100 --> 20:21.340] shocking lack of professionalism, close quote. You can expect the handbook in the mail within [20:21.340 --> 20:29.020] the next few days. End of letter. I imagine people who haven't read income tax shattering the myths, [20:29.740 --> 20:35.260] they're probably scratching their head because a lot of this cuts across the grain of the [20:35.660 --> 20:41.820] societal narrative that they've heard their entire life because they've never actually read what the [20:41.820 --> 20:49.260] law says. And a number of people may be saying to themselves, okay, so Dave and this gentleman, [20:49.820 --> 20:56.620] they structured this document, this letter, and they cherry picked the laws they wanted to present [20:56.620 --> 21:05.500] and there must be other laws somewhere else that claim that the purpose of a W-9 and the [21:05.500 --> 21:12.540] purpose of a 1099 are what the general public imagines, having never read the law. There's [21:12.540 --> 21:17.500] got to be that other stuff. Okay, so first of all, I want to go back and read a key sentence [21:18.060 --> 21:25.180] from the first letter that was sent over. That sentence is, there are no other alternative [21:25.260 --> 21:32.140] or different regulations governing information reporting. There are no other alternative [21:32.140 --> 21:39.580] or different regulations. I've been at this since 1993. And I cannot tell you how many times somebody [21:39.580 --> 21:43.980] has said to me, well, there's got to be others. As a matter of fact, when I first discovered the [21:43.980 --> 21:50.140] truth of the income tax, I owned a business and I had an accountant on retainer. And when I sat [21:50.140 --> 21:55.660] down with him and I went through this and much, much more with him, I took like an hour of his [21:55.660 --> 22:02.940] time. And I said, okay, so Ira, now that you've seen all of this, and of course, I had it all [22:02.940 --> 22:09.740] printed out and so forth. I said, now that you've seen all of this, what do you have to say? I mean, [22:09.740 --> 22:15.500] this guy's been preparing my tax returns up to 1993, right? So my sort of thought is, [22:16.460 --> 22:21.740] why were you doing that? If I'm not the guy? Okay. I mean, it's great that I guess I paid [22:21.740 --> 22:26.540] you money. And that's cool for you. But if I'm not the guy, basically, you just stole it from me. [22:28.060 --> 22:34.300] And I didn't approach it in that way. I was really looking for him to say something like, [22:35.500 --> 22:40.300] Dave, if you want to tell me that you're not the guy, I'm out. Okay. Something honest like that. [22:40.300 --> 22:47.180] Or I disagree. Okay, because I was new to the material, right? So his response to me was, [22:48.540 --> 22:55.260] there are other statutes and other regulations. Okay, so I want you to be clear. [22:55.980 --> 23:01.020] What was specified in this letter, that there is no other alternative statutes or regulations [23:01.020 --> 23:10.060] concerning Form W-9 and 1099. That's not a new theme. This goes back to what Ira said to me in 1993. [23:10.060 --> 23:17.660] There's other statutes and other regulations to which I replied, okay, great. If I'm off base, [23:17.660 --> 23:22.780] that's from 1993, right? Now, I wouldn't even bother. But back then, I was like, if I'm off base, [23:22.780 --> 23:27.820] I should know. Because I don't want to go down some nutball road where I have part of the facts, [23:27.820 --> 23:30.940] but I don't have the real facts, right? I don't have all the facts, right? I didn't want to go [23:30.940 --> 23:36.620] there. So I said, great. If there are other statutes and other regulations that would show [23:36.620 --> 23:41.500] that what I just presented to you is somehow not the law that's applicable to me or not valid in [23:41.500 --> 23:48.540] my circumstance, what have you, I should see those, right? So I said to Ira, great, I'm glad those [23:48.540 --> 23:55.580] exist. Where are they? To which he said, well, I can't put my finger on them right now. [23:58.300 --> 24:01.180] I think at the time that we were having this conversation, he'd been an accountant for 32 [24:01.180 --> 24:08.620] years and couldn't lay his hands on the statutes or the regulations that would show that what I [24:08.620 --> 24:14.860] had presented was false. Okay, but hey, yeah, look them up. If you don't know them right now, [24:14.860 --> 24:21.500] look them up. So I said, Ira, I pay you monthly for your service. How long will it take you [24:22.300 --> 24:29.420] to locate those statutes or those regulations that would prove that what I showed you is not [24:29.420 --> 24:34.300] valid in my circumstances or I am the guy rather than my thinking I'm not the guy? [24:35.500 --> 24:40.780] He said a couple of weeks. Fair enough, right? I mean, he's a busy man. Okay. A couple of weeks [24:40.780 --> 24:51.420] later, I called him, left a message, no call back. A week later, called him, left a message [24:51.420 --> 25:00.620] through the secretary. No call back. I finally went to his office and he refused to see me. [25:01.340 --> 25:05.980] He was supposedly in a meeting, right? I've never spoken to Ira since that day because [25:06.620 --> 25:11.820] I'm sure he's passed away by now. He was a bit old at the time. There was no more communication [25:11.820 --> 25:15.900] between Ira and I after that day. He wouldn't have it. He wouldn't talk to me on the phone. [25:15.900 --> 25:20.060] He wouldn't respond to my emails. He was always in a meeting if I stopped by his office and [25:20.860 --> 25:24.700] I sent him a letter at one point. I'm like, okay, so we're not talking. We're not communicating. [25:24.700 --> 25:29.420] This is a problem. Obviously, I stopped paying him. I wrote him a letter. I said, [25:29.420 --> 25:34.540] I'll be happy to start your monthly retainer again as soon as we start communicating again. [25:34.540 --> 25:37.180] I said, you told me you would locate the statutes and the regulations. [25:37.980 --> 25:45.420] It's been several weeks now. We're now into a couple of months. Not only do I not have the [25:45.420 --> 25:49.020] statutes and the regulations from you, but you're not communicating with me at all. [25:49.660 --> 25:53.580] I never got a response to that either. Why? Because he knew the jig was up. [25:53.580 --> 25:59.580] He had been an accountant. He was a CPA for 32 years. He did know that what I brought to him [25:59.580 --> 26:04.460] was the absolute truth. I think one of the last things he said to me was, [26:05.420 --> 26:11.340] I'm going to fix your wagon. I'm sending you upstairs to see a tax attorney. His name was [26:11.340 --> 26:16.940] John Barlow and I was like, great. If you don't have the information, send me to somebody. I [26:16.940 --> 26:22.540] don't care. Let's get this sorted out. I went upstairs. Mr. Barlow was very gracious. He was [26:22.540 --> 26:28.540] not busy at the time. He had me into his office. He had a great office, very handsomely decorated [26:28.540 --> 26:34.700] office, this huge presidential looking desk. He was, again, very gracious. I had to have a seat. [26:34.700 --> 26:39.340] Mr. Champion, we sat down. I presented essentially the same things I had to Ira a couple of floors [26:39.340 --> 26:48.460] down. I said, so is an ordinary American living and working in one of the 50 states? [26:50.300 --> 26:56.780] Has Congress by its statutes or the regulations promulgated by the secretary made that person [26:57.340 --> 27:02.380] liable for income tax when he or she is doing nothing more than earning his or her own [27:02.380 --> 27:09.260] domestic source income? He sat there for a long time. I'm going to guess it was probably a full [27:09.260 --> 27:13.900] minute, which between two complete strangers in a silent room that just met one another. [27:14.540 --> 27:22.940] And then he said to me, I only work with people who are liable for the income tax. [27:23.820 --> 27:31.420] And in that moment, I knew that I was right. Not that I was right, that the information [27:31.420 --> 27:37.260] I uncovered was factual. That's a better way to put that. I knew that because if I was wrong, [27:37.980 --> 27:41.580] and he spent all that time questioning exactly what his answer should be. So like Ira downstairs, [27:41.580 --> 27:45.500] he must have known what the truth was. So he had to figure out how much he wanted to say, [27:45.500 --> 27:51.260] how little he wanted to say. And eventually he came out with that singular sentence. I only work [27:51.260 --> 27:56.700] with people who are liable for the income tax. Again, in that moment, I knew that the information [27:56.700 --> 28:00.700] was accurate, that the average American is not, Congress has never made the average American [28:00.700 --> 28:05.180] liable for the income tax. I stood up, I thanked him for his time. We shook hands and I went on my [28:05.740 --> 28:12.380] way. And here we are now as I'm making this video in 2022. There's I suppose two takeaways [28:12.380 --> 28:19.260] I'd like you to leave with from this video. Number one, the experience that I just shared with you of [28:19.260 --> 28:27.740] that attorney working for that company, that is fairly common. It's fairly common because [28:28.940 --> 28:34.220] although the average person assumes attorneys know the law, it has been my experience over [28:34.220 --> 28:39.260] the last 30 something years, that there are a few people who know less about the actual law [28:39.260 --> 28:43.100] than attorneys. They're great at procedure if they go to court and filing documents. [28:44.140 --> 28:51.420] But what the law actually says, especially tax law, they don't know. So the first point [28:52.220 --> 28:57.660] is that if you imagine attorneys know what they're talking about, even tax attorneys, [28:57.660 --> 29:04.140] when it comes to tax law, you would not be correct. And that's one of the interesting and [29:04.140 --> 29:07.580] cool things about reading income tax shatter in the mist. And I've been telling people this since [29:07.580 --> 29:11.340] the day it came out about 12 years ago. I said, look, you read income tax shatter in the mist, [29:11.340 --> 29:15.180] you will be the expert in the room. It doesn't matter whether there's a bookkeeper in the room, [29:15.180 --> 29:18.300] an accountant in the room, a certified public accountant in the room, a tax attorney in the [29:18.300 --> 29:24.060] room, or an attorney working for the US Department of Justice tax division. It doesn't matter who's [29:24.060 --> 29:30.140] in the room. If you read income tax shatter in the mist, you will be the expert in the room. [29:30.140 --> 29:35.420] And you just got a very brief glimpse of that from that letter. The second point I'd like you [29:35.420 --> 29:42.780] to take away is, I think sometimes people find it very hard to accept that the societal narrative [29:42.780 --> 29:47.100] that if you go to work, you earn some money, and you get a check, you get paid for your time or [29:47.100 --> 29:51.900] effort that you owe some to the federal government, I think it's really, really tough for people to [29:51.900 --> 30:02.220] acknowledge that that is completely false. Not a little bit, not by some degree. It is utterly [30:02.220 --> 30:08.460] and completely false. Because I think people think, well, from the time I was old enough to [30:08.460 --> 30:12.060] like hear these words income tax and have some sense of what they meant, what would that be? [30:12.060 --> 30:17.180] Maybe eight, nine, 10, 12. From that time forward, I've heard one narrative in society, [30:17.180 --> 30:22.220] one narrative only. Let's say somebody's 60 and they understood what they were hearing about [30:22.220 --> 30:28.220] income tax at the age of 10. That means for half a century, they've been brainwashed. That's the [30:28.220 --> 30:35.180] bottom line. They've been brainwashed with a false societal narrative. And I totally get that that's [30:35.180 --> 30:40.220] really, really hard to let go of it. It's hard to even imagine it's wrong. That's where people get [30:40.220 --> 30:48.940] it's hard to even imagine it's wrong. So what do you do when, like, people who are more dynamic [30:48.940 --> 30:51.820] in their thinking and have purchased income tax shattering the mess and have read it, they feel [30:51.820 --> 30:59.820] like, holy crap, that narrative I've heard my whole life was indeed complete and utter BS. [30:59.820 --> 31:07.020] And now I've seen the law, the treasurer's treasuries, regulations, statutes, internal IRS [31:07.020 --> 31:10.780] documents that the IRS never thought anybody outside the agency would ever see. And I got my [31:10.780 --> 31:16.780] hands on them and so forth and on and on we go. And the whole story from 1913 until right now, [31:16.780 --> 31:24.060] as we're sitting here talking to each other, have been 100% consistent. The law, the Supreme Court [31:24.060 --> 31:29.340] cases, the regular, everything has been completely consistent that Congress never imposed the income [31:29.340 --> 31:33.420] tax on the average American, lives in one of the 50 states, gets up, goes to work, earns a living, [31:33.420 --> 31:38.860] gets some money. That person has never had the income tax imposed upon them. So people who are [31:38.860 --> 31:45.820] more dynamic in their thinking and just don't succumb to a false societal narrative and say [31:45.820 --> 31:51.660] the false societal narrative must be true, those people have learned something phenomenal. [31:51.660 --> 31:56.380] And many of them have walked away from the scam. Now, I'm not telling you, [31:56.940 --> 31:59.980] even if you were to purchase and read income tax shattering mess, I'm not telling you to walk [31:59.980 --> 32:04.540] away from the scam. That's a personal decision. I haven't filed an income tax state or federal [32:05.340 --> 32:13.660] return since 1993 and I haven't paid a penny of income tax since 1993. Why? Because I'm an American [32:14.700 --> 32:22.220] and in my opinion, an American does not allow the government to steal from them based on a lie, [32:22.220 --> 32:29.100] based on a false societal narrative. Can you imagine somebody like George Washington or [32:29.100 --> 32:36.620] Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and on and on I could go with the original generation that was [32:36.620 --> 32:43.740] striking out for freedom. Can you imagine any of them acquiescing to having money taken from them [32:43.740 --> 32:49.420] by fraud? And I suppose legally it's not really fraud because all the information's out there. [32:49.420 --> 32:52.060] If it wasn't all out there, it wouldn't be contained in income tax shattering the mess. [32:52.700 --> 32:57.980] But the narrative that's going around society is absolutely fraudulent. So I want to encourage you [32:57.980 --> 33:02.220] to run over to DrReality.News. Grab yourself a copy of income tax shattering the mess while you're [33:02.220 --> 33:09.100] there. Get a copy of body science. Does the same thing to the false societal narrative concerning [33:09.100 --> 33:15.580] human physiology, especially with an emphasis on nutritional physiology and explains why despite [33:15.580 --> 33:20.700] all of our technology, all of our medical advances, America is at this time the most chronically ill [33:20.700 --> 33:28.220] society in the entire history of mankind by far. And it's because of the lies you've been told, [33:28.220 --> 33:32.540] just like we've been talking about the income tax. And it breaks down the lies and then it tells you [33:32.540 --> 33:39.180] exactly how human physiology really works. So your odds of ever getting a chronic disease, [33:40.620 --> 33:44.780] other than the fact if it's something like genetic, like type one diabetes, other than that, [33:45.740 --> 33:50.620] you read body science, you follow what it says, your odds of getting any chronic disease are [33:50.620 --> 33:55.900] about as statistically close to zero as humanly possible. And you can live a happy, healthy life [33:55.900 --> 34:01.420] and for many, many, many, many, many more years than otherwise would be the case. [34:02.140 --> 34:08.140] Speaking just for myself, I happen to love life and I don't intend to go one minute [34:08.140 --> 34:14.140] sooner than I have to. And I think the way I was going before I started studying physiology, [34:14.300 --> 34:18.380] I think I probably would have been like most people, I would have died somewhere in my 70s. [34:19.340 --> 34:24.140] I think there's an absolutely excellent chance knowing what I know, I can go to 100, maybe even [34:24.140 --> 34:30.300] 110, maybe even further and be healthy because it's not about living a long life, it's about [34:30.300 --> 34:35.740] living a long life and still being robust and healthy. So body science can do that for you. [34:36.300 --> 34:40.060] Also, when you go to DrReality.News and you pick up a copy of Income Tax Shout-out to the Most [34:40.060 --> 34:45.580] Body Science for both, what you do is you assist me to continue to be here for you [34:45.580 --> 34:56.220] sharing these sort of fact-based presentations. Thank you.