Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.480 --> 00:06.560]  Welcome to the show. Why do people who have never read a word of income tax law believe
[00:06.560 --> 00:13.520]  the income tax applies to them? One reason is that people think the tax code is indecipherable.
[00:13.520 --> 00:17.840]  What they don't realize is that income tax law has been intentionally written to seem
[00:18.400 --> 00:27.360]  unknowable. More than any other area of law, tax law is filled with legal tricks and gimmicks
[00:27.360 --> 00:32.080]  to confuse the public. Today I'm going to share with you some of the legal tricks used to make
[00:32.080 --> 00:37.440]  the code seem impenetrable, when in reality the whole thing is pretty simple once you understand
[00:37.440 --> 00:44.640]  the gimmicks they've employed. Once you understand how, by using these legal gimmicks, they've pulled
[00:44.640 --> 00:50.000]  the wool over your eyes, you will begin to see the truth, which is that Congress has never imposed
[00:50.000 --> 00:55.360]  the income tax on ordinary hard-working Americans like you. I think you're going to enjoy today's
[00:55.360 --> 01:01.760]  unmasking of some of the methods the government uses to betray the trust of the American people.
[01:17.600 --> 01:23.440]  Let's start with this. I am the author of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, the best-selling book in
[01:23.520 --> 01:28.560]  the country that lays out, in a way everyone can understand, the truth that Congress has never
[01:28.560 --> 01:35.280]  imposed the income tax on ordinary hard-working Americans like you. Because I know what tax law
[01:35.280 --> 01:40.560]  says, including knowing all the smarmy legal tricks the government has used to deceive the
[01:40.560 --> 01:45.680]  American people, I haven't filed an income tax return or paid a penny of income tax in 32 years.
[01:46.400 --> 01:51.680]  Of course, there was a day I didn't know any of this. It took years for me to understand all the
[01:51.680 --> 01:56.800]  gimmicks and deceptions the government has built into the tax code. Today, I'm going to share some
[01:56.800 --> 02:02.640]  of them with you. If you want to understand the entirety of the income tax scam, read Income Tax
[02:02.640 --> 02:08.800]  Shattering the Mist. I'm offering free shipping right now on any order from my Dr. Reality website,
[02:08.800 --> 02:15.200]  drreality.news. Just use the code tariffs at checkout. I'll share more about that later.
[02:15.760 --> 02:19.920]  The first gimmick up to bat is the way the government has defined the legal term
[02:20.720 --> 02:26.960]  includes and how it operates as part of the scam. Before we can get into the specifics of includes,
[02:26.960 --> 02:34.800]  we need to understand what a legal term is. In law, the meaning of what is written can only be found
[02:34.800 --> 02:41.200]  in one of two ways. One way is to use a standard English dictionary. In law, that's called the
[02:41.200 --> 02:48.480]  plain meaning rule, but the plain meaning rule is only applicable in the absence of
[02:48.480 --> 02:56.160]  legislatively provided definitions. When a legislature provides its own definition for a word,
[02:56.160 --> 03:00.400]  then only that definition can be used and the dictionary definition becomes irrelevant.
[03:01.360 --> 03:08.000]  When the legislature has provided its own definition for a word, in law, it ceases to be
[03:08.720 --> 03:16.720]  a word and becomes a legal term. In short, the meaning of words is to be found in the dictionary,
[03:16.720 --> 03:22.240]  while the meaning of legal terms is found exclusively in the legislatively provided
[03:22.240 --> 03:29.120]  definitions. Of course, 99.9% of people who are looking at the law for some reason,
[03:29.120 --> 03:34.080]  never bother to look at the definition section. They don't even know there's such a thing as a
[03:34.080 --> 03:41.200]  legal term which requires them to find the meaning in the definition section. They wrongly assume
[03:41.200 --> 03:46.400]  they already know what the words mean. Because they don't know what you just learned, they end
[03:46.400 --> 03:51.600]  up with an incorrect understanding of what the law actually means. One of the interesting quirks
[03:51.600 --> 03:58.480]  of legal terms is they can appear in the definitions of other legal terms. That means that as you're
[03:58.480 --> 04:05.120]  reading the definition of one legal term, you need to check the entire definition section
[04:05.120 --> 04:12.880]  to see if the definition you're reading contains other legal terms. The use of includes is a perfect
[04:12.880 --> 04:18.400]  example of a legal term that frequently appears in the definitions of other legal terms. If you don't
[04:18.400 --> 04:22.640]  know how includes has been defined, then you won't be able to discern the correct meaning of the
[04:22.640 --> 04:27.920]  definition you're reading. Let's take a look at the definition of includes in the tax code,
[04:27.920 --> 04:35.680]  which is found at 26 USC 7701C and reads, the terms includes and including when used in a
[04:35.680 --> 04:40.160]  definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within
[04:40.160 --> 04:47.440]  the meaning of the term defined. Yeah, so that's a bit of a mind bender, isn't it? That awkward
[04:47.440 --> 04:53.760]  phrasing dates back to the turn of the 20th century. A far more recent definition that has the
[04:53.760 --> 05:02.000]  exact same meaning is found in another area of taxation at 27 CFR 72.11 and reads, the terms
[05:02.000 --> 05:08.480]  includes and including do not exclude things not enumerated, which are in the same general class.
[05:09.440 --> 05:15.360]  In law school, the meaning of includes, as it operates in the tax code, is referred to as a
[05:15.360 --> 05:23.200]  term of expansion. I prefer using the more accurately descriptive phrase, a term of
[05:23.200 --> 05:29.680]  limited expansion, because it can only be expanded to include items within the class established
[05:30.480 --> 05:35.520]  by the enumerated items. Allow me to illustrate how includes works by offering a fictitious
[05:35.520 --> 05:42.640]  example. Let's say a statute defines the word food. In the definition, pay attention to the
[05:42.640 --> 05:49.040]  enumerated items after includes. The definition reads like this. As used in this chapter, the
[05:49.040 --> 05:57.840]  term food includes apples, pears, apricots, plums, and oranges. All right, what is the class
[05:57.840 --> 06:03.280]  established by the words appearing after includes? Well, fruit, of course. So, under the rules of
[06:03.280 --> 06:08.800]  expansion for includes, items such as watermelon, strawberries, and bananas are to be considered a
[06:08.800 --> 06:15.360]  part of the definition, even though not enumerated. However, based on the class established by the
[06:15.360 --> 06:20.480]  enumerated items, things like steak, bread, eggs, or broccoli cannot be considered part of the
[06:20.480 --> 06:26.080]  definition of food, despite the fact that those would all be food, as the word is commonly understood.
[06:26.800 --> 06:34.000]  Let's look at includes in a definition that may very well impact your life, specifically in the
[06:34.000 --> 06:41.200]  definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding, which is found at 26 USC 3401C.
[06:42.000 --> 06:48.640]  Before we read it, remember the items that appear after includes create a class, and things that do
[06:48.640 --> 06:54.240]  not appear in the definition are still part of the definition, if they fit within the class.
[06:55.120 --> 07:01.520]  Listen carefully to the enumerated items after the word includes. Once we read the definition,
[07:01.520 --> 07:06.800]  you tell me what the class is. Here we go. For the purpose of this chapter, the term employee
[07:06.800 --> 07:10.960]  includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state,
[07:10.960 --> 07:15.680]  or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency,
[07:15.680 --> 07:22.400]  or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. Okay, so what's the class?
[07:23.360 --> 07:29.200]  If you said people holding government jobs with various government entities, you're spot on. So,
[07:30.160 --> 07:37.120]  if that's the definition of employee that legally controls wage withholding, why is the company for
[07:37.120 --> 07:43.440]  which you work withholding from your check? It's okay if you don't know. They don't know either.
[07:44.000 --> 07:50.320]  At this point, I want to switch from income tax statutes passed by Congress to treasury decisions,
[07:50.320 --> 07:57.920]  specifically treasury decisions 8734 and 8881. Treasury decisions are the official determination
[07:57.920 --> 08:03.680]  of the Secretary of the Treasury on various tax issues. Sometimes the statutes and regs
[08:03.680 --> 08:08.400]  don't provide adequate detail, so you have to go to treasury decisions to find the answer.
[08:08.960 --> 08:13.360]  I'm including treasury decisions in this presentation about legal trickery and
[08:13.360 --> 08:18.480]  gimmicks the government uses to fool the American people about income tax, because while most
[08:18.480 --> 08:24.880]  Americans know that statutes and regulations exist, almost no one has ever heard of treasury
[08:24.880 --> 08:30.160]  decisions. The fact that the government fails to provide all the necessary particulars in the
[08:30.160 --> 08:36.800]  statutes and regs, which Americans know about, only to provide those missing critical details
[08:37.440 --> 08:42.320]  in documents virtually no American has ever heard of, clearly shows the government's intent to
[08:42.320 --> 08:47.040]  deceive. We were just discussing wage withholding, so we're going to stick with that as we look at
[08:47.040 --> 08:54.400]  treasury decisions 8734 and 8881. The critical fact to know about 8734 and 8881 is that they
[08:54.480 --> 09:04.720]  both exclusively address US source income paid to foreign persons. Every word is about US source
[09:04.720 --> 09:10.880]  income paid to foreign persons. No other subject is addressed at all. I'll put links to both those
[09:10.880 --> 09:16.640]  treasury decisions down in the notes so you can verify that for yourself. Before we get into what
[09:16.640 --> 09:24.880]  8734 and 8881 say, let's quickly look at the command to engage in wage withholding. We already
[09:24.880 --> 09:30.800]  read the controlling definition of employee, but we didn't look at the command to withhold.
[09:30.800 --> 09:37.120]  That's found in 26 USC 3402 and reads, except as otherwise provided in this section,
[09:37.120 --> 09:42.000]  every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax
[09:42.080 --> 09:48.720]  determined in accordance with blah blah blah. As we look at the treasury decisions, the important
[09:48.720 --> 10:00.560]  thing to keep in mind is that the command for wage withholding is section 3402. 3402. Keep that
[10:00.560 --> 10:04.960]  number in your head as we read the treasury decisions. Here is a passage from treasury
[10:04.960 --> 10:10.800]  decision 8734. Quote, a payer making payments to foreign persons must also be aware of the
[10:10.800 --> 10:17.120]  information reporting provisions under chapter 61 of the code and other withholding regimens,
[10:17.120 --> 10:28.880]  such as section 3406 backup withholding, section 3402 wage withholding, and section 3405 withholding
[10:28.880 --> 10:36.560]  on pensions, annuities, etc. Keep in mind 8734 pertains exclusively to US source income being
[10:36.560 --> 10:42.240]  paid to foreigners. And the passage we just read begins with the words, a payer making payments
[10:42.240 --> 10:48.720]  to a foreign person. Let's read the whole passage again. A payer making payments to foreign persons
[10:49.360 --> 10:54.720]  must also be aware of the information reporting provisions under chapter 61 of the code and other
[10:54.720 --> 11:02.880]  withholding regimens, such as section 3406 backup withholding, section 3402 wage withholding,
[11:02.880 --> 11:10.080]  and section 3405 withholding on pensions, annuities, etc. Let's connect a few more dots.
[11:10.080 --> 11:18.240]  The passage we just read begins with a payer making payments. So then, who's the payer?
[11:18.240 --> 11:28.960]  That's found in 26 CFR 1.1441-1C19 and reads, the term payer is defined in 31.3406A2 of this chapter
[11:28.960 --> 11:42.080]  and 1.6041-4A2 and generally includes a withholding agent. A payer generally includes a withholding
[11:42.080 --> 11:48.880]  agent. In this context, generally means it is always so unless there is an exception specified
[11:48.880 --> 11:53.600]  in some part of the regulation. I've been reading income tax regulations for three decades and I've
[11:53.600 --> 12:00.720]  never found an exception. In other words, payor and withholding agents are synonymous terms.
[12:00.720 --> 12:08.240]  So then, what's a withholding agent? That's found in 26 CFR 1.1441-7A and reads,
[12:08.800 --> 12:13.440]  for the purpose of chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations under such chapter,
[12:13.440 --> 12:19.200]  the term withholding agent means any person, U.S. or foreign, that has the control, receipt, custody,
[12:19.200 --> 12:28.560]  disposal or payment of any item of income of a foreign person. This is probably a good time
[12:28.560 --> 12:34.560]  for a quick recap of what you've just learned from Treasury Decision 8734. You learned that
[12:34.560 --> 12:41.920]  8734 addresses exclusively U.S. source income paid to foreign persons. You learned that in federal
[12:41.920 --> 12:49.040]  income tax regulations, payor is synonymous with withholding agent. You learned that a withholding
[12:49.040 --> 12:54.000]  agent is a person who has custody and control of U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person.
[12:54.720 --> 12:59.360]  You learned that when a payor or withholding agent pays U.S. source income to a non-resident
[12:59.360 --> 13:05.760]  alien in the form of wages, the Secretary of the Treasury says the payor or withholding agent
[13:05.760 --> 13:14.960]  must withhold U.S. income tax from the non-resident alien's wages under authority of Section 3402.
[13:15.920 --> 13:20.880]  A quick note before I continue. If you enjoy this kind of knowledge that you'll never get from any
[13:20.880 --> 13:25.600]  source other than this channel, please take a moment to subscribe and then hit the like button
[13:25.600 --> 13:30.880]  so the algorithm show this content to more people. Also, for a limited time you can get free shipping
[13:30.880 --> 13:36.000]  on any of my writings as long as income tax shattering the myths is included in your order.
[13:36.000 --> 13:41.600]  Simply use the code tariffs at checkout. I'll discuss that more later. Now let's take a look
[13:41.600 --> 13:48.480]  at Treasury decision 8881, which also pertains exclusively to U.S. source income paid to foreign
[13:48.480 --> 13:54.720]  persons. When speaking of U.S. source income paid to a foreign person in the form of wages,
[13:54.720 --> 14:00.000]  it says, quote, such compensation should be subject to withholding under Section
[14:00.640 --> 14:10.400]  3402. When speaking of what form to use and when, 8881 says any item required to be reported on a
[14:10.400 --> 14:18.000]  Form W-2, including an item required to be shown on Form W-2 solely by reason of 1.6041-2 relating
[14:18.000 --> 14:22.720]  to returns of information for payments to employees. The Secretary of the Treasury
[14:22.720 --> 14:26.560]  is clearly stating the payments of U.S. source income to a non-resident alien in the form of
[14:26.560 --> 14:32.720]  wages is subject to wage withholding under authority of 3402 and that such withholding
[14:32.720 --> 14:39.040]  must be reported to the IRS on Form W-2. With that under your belt, let me share something I
[14:39.040 --> 14:46.640]  imagine you'll find startling. The income tax was enacted in 1913. That means, as I'm recording
[14:46.640 --> 14:54.800]  this, the income tax has been enforced for 112 years. In those 112 years, not a single Treasury
[14:54.800 --> 15:02.320]  decision exists saying that wage withholding under Section 3402 is to be performed on anyone
[15:02.400 --> 15:09.360]  other than a resident alien receiving U.S. source income in the form of wages. And no Treasury
[15:09.360 --> 15:16.800]  decision says the Form W-2 is to be used to report any withholding other than that affected upon U.S.
[15:16.800 --> 15:24.800]  source income paid to a non-resident alien in the form of wages. Not one in 112 years.
[15:25.440 --> 15:32.240]  Before we head back to the wage withholding statute, let me apply your newfound knowledge
[15:32.240 --> 15:37.360]  that the term payor means a person who has custody and control of U.S. source income
[15:37.360 --> 15:44.240]  belonging to a foreign person. To apply your newfound knowledge, let's look at Section 3406
[15:44.240 --> 15:50.880]  of the code, which discusses something called backup withholding. Due to the ignorance of
[15:50.880 --> 15:56.720]  business owners, accountants, and lawyers, there is the way income tax plays out in the business
[15:56.720 --> 16:05.680]  world versus what the law really says. And the two couldn't be more different. Ignorant shitbags
[16:05.680 --> 16:11.440]  wrongly apply backup withholding by telling a person who refuses to furnish a W-9 that the
[16:11.440 --> 16:20.480]  shitbag will backup withhold 31% from the money the person earned. So then, what does the backup
[16:20.480 --> 16:28.400]  withholding statute say? Backup withholding is at 26 USC 3406 and reads as follows. In the case of
[16:28.400 --> 16:36.560]  any reportable payment, if A, the payee fails to furnish his tin to the payor in the manner required,
[16:36.560 --> 16:43.840]  B, the secretary notifies the payor that the tin furnished by the payee is incorrect, C, there has
[16:43.840 --> 16:51.760]  been a notified payee underreporting described in subsection C, or there has been a payee certification
[16:51.760 --> 17:00.640]  failure described in subsection D. Then the payor shall deduct and withhold from such payment a tax,
[17:00.640 --> 17:08.240]  blah, blah, blah. When a knowledgeable person says, by law, I'm not permitted to give you a W-9,
[17:09.200 --> 17:14.720]  the ignorant person will threaten to steal 30% of the knowledgeable person's money simply because
[17:14.720 --> 17:21.920]  the ignorant person has never read the definition of payor. But ignorance doesn't make people
[17:21.920 --> 17:27.120]  shitbags. What makes them shitbags is that after you show them the law, they'll look you in the
[17:27.120 --> 17:32.960]  face and tell you they don't care. And if you don't commit perjury by signing a form that has
[17:32.960 --> 17:40.560]  zero applicability to you, they will steal 30% of your money. That makes them shitbags.
[17:41.760 --> 17:48.720]  If you'd like to know how to successfully deal with shitbags, shoot me an email at dave at
[17:48.720 --> 17:57.760]  drreality.news. But back to wage withholding. Everything about income tax law begins with a
[17:57.760 --> 18:08.000]  person's status. In income tax law, status means whether a person or entity is domestic
[18:08.960 --> 18:18.640]  or foreign. Every other facet of tax law comes into operation only after one's status is
[18:18.640 --> 18:24.720]  determined. As an example, a few minutes ago, you learned that in 112 years, the secretary of the
[18:24.720 --> 18:32.000]  treasury has said that the only person upon whom wage withholding is to be performed is a non-resident
[18:32.000 --> 18:37.520]  alien receiving U.S. source income in the form of wages. The pivotal distinction of the person's
[18:37.520 --> 18:47.680]  status does not appear in the statutes or the regs, but is found only in treasury decisions.
[18:47.680 --> 18:54.480]  You know, the documents Americans don't know exist. Understanding that, now let's put some
[18:54.480 --> 19:00.240]  pieces together. A bit ago, we read the definition of employee that controls wage withholding.
[19:01.120 --> 19:08.400]  Well, now I'm going to show you that definition really doesn't exist to define employee,
[19:08.960 --> 19:16.160]  but exists to define employer. I know that sounds bizarre, but follow along and you'll see it for
[19:16.160 --> 19:24.960]  yourself. We know from treasury decisions 8734 and 8881 that wage withholding applies only to
[19:24.960 --> 19:30.400]  non-resident aliens receiving U.S. source income. Keeping that reality in mind, let's read the
[19:30.400 --> 19:37.120]  definition of employee again. It reads, for the purpose of this chapter, the term employee
[19:37.120 --> 19:42.880]  includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States. What? Wait, what? Huh?
[19:43.520 --> 19:49.840]  A non-resident alien can't be an elected official of the United States, so what gives?
[19:50.880 --> 19:55.760]  I'm going to break it down into bite-sized pieces, not because you're dumb, but because this is one
[19:55.760 --> 20:01.920]  of the gimmicks, the tricks, legislative draftsmen have played to make it challenging for Americans
[20:01.920 --> 20:11.600]  to understand the law. Point one, the definition of employee is really all about defining employer.
[20:11.600 --> 20:17.520]  Point two, the definition of employee does not limit upon whom payroll withholding can be applied.
[20:17.520 --> 20:25.760]  Treasury decisions 8734 and 8881 do that. Point three, using the definition of employee
[20:26.400 --> 20:33.840]  as a roundabout means of defining employer is a trick intended to limit who is permitted to give
[20:33.840 --> 20:41.680]  workers a form W-4 while preventing a casual reader from catching on to the scam. A moment ago,
[20:41.680 --> 20:51.040]  I said that 3401C, definition of employee, in reality exists only to define employer.
[20:51.040 --> 20:57.760]  Let's read the definition of employer so you can see this for yourself. The definition of employer
[20:57.760 --> 21:04.720]  is found at 26 USC 3401D as in David and reads, for the purpose of this chapter,
[21:04.720 --> 21:09.920]  the term employer means the person for whom any individual performs or performed any service
[21:09.920 --> 21:18.480]  of whatever nature as the employee. I'm confident you noted there really is no
[21:18.480 --> 21:25.840]  definition of employer except that the employer has employees, the definition of which
[21:25.840 --> 21:33.360]  we've already read a couple of times. In short, the definition of employer is established 100%
[21:33.360 --> 21:40.320]  by the definition of employee. Do you recall that earlier we discussed that enumerated items after
[21:40.320 --> 21:47.600]  the term includes create a class? Let's look at the definition of employee again and you tell me
[21:48.240 --> 21:53.840]  what the class is. A quick comment before we read it. The word state in the definition means
[21:54.640 --> 22:02.400]  federal states, not states of the union. The enumerated items in employee are an officer,
[22:02.400 --> 22:07.680]  employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof,
[22:07.680 --> 22:14.080]  or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[22:15.280 --> 22:21.120]  Okay, so what is the class defined by the enumerated items? You're likely thinking the
[22:21.120 --> 22:26.000]  class is people who work for various government entities and you're 100% correct, but for the
[22:26.000 --> 22:34.000]  sake of completeness let me put a finer point on it. The class is people who work for any entity
[22:34.000 --> 22:40.400]  under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. So then, because the definition of
[22:40.400 --> 22:49.760]  employer is established by the meaning of employee, the definition of employer is entities
[22:49.760 --> 22:56.560]  under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. That means the only entities that
[22:56.560 --> 23:01.920]  can engage in wage withholding are entities under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.
[23:02.880 --> 23:07.280]  Because only entities under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress are
[23:07.280 --> 23:13.440]  authorized to perform wage withholding, they are the only entities that can require a worker to
[23:13.440 --> 23:21.840]  furnish a W-4. However, those entities are not legally authorized to require every worker to
[23:21.840 --> 23:28.720]  sign a W-4. As per Treasury Decisions 8734 and 8881, those entities are only permitted to require
[23:28.720 --> 23:35.600]  a W-4 from their workers who are non-resident aliens receiving U.S. source income in the form
[23:35.600 --> 23:40.480]  of wages. In other words, private sector companies in the states of the Union that are not federal
[23:40.560 --> 23:45.600]  instrumentalities have zero legal authority to withhold from the pay of their workers and have
[23:45.600 --> 23:53.440]  zero authority to require a worker to furnish a W-4. Without me making this video much longer by
[23:53.440 --> 23:58.800]  discussing all of Chapter 24, which is the chapter containing the command for wage withholding,
[23:58.800 --> 24:07.600]  let me state unequivocally that the command to withhold on wages is Congress instructing the
[24:07.600 --> 24:15.040]  entities under its exclusive legislative jurisdiction what they must do when they are
[24:15.040 --> 24:21.840]  paying wages to non-resident aliens. The wage withholding statute has zero authority over
[24:21.840 --> 24:25.920]  private sector companies in the states of the Union that are not federal instrumentalities.
[24:25.920 --> 24:33.280]  Another way to phrase it is that Section 3402, the command to withhold on wages, is not a
[24:34.000 --> 24:43.120]  quote law of general applicability. In law 3402 is known as special law, meaning its authority is
[24:43.120 --> 24:48.960]  limited to only certain persons or entities. In the case of 3402, the entities to which its authority
[24:48.960 --> 24:52.480]  is limited are those under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.
[24:54.320 --> 25:00.720]  Okay, so this would be a good time to recap the legal tricks and gimmicks legislative draftsmen
[25:00.720 --> 25:06.480]  have used for more than a century to keep you in the dark about the extremely limited scope of
[25:06.480 --> 25:12.080]  the income tax. Phrased plainly, the income tax has never been imposed on Americans earning a
[25:12.080 --> 25:18.400]  living in the private sector in a state of the Union. First, we discussed that legal terms,
[25:18.400 --> 25:23.440]  which look and sound just like ordinary words, cannot be defined by the English dictionary or
[25:23.440 --> 25:29.200]  your normal understanding of the word, but mean only what the legislatively provided definition
[25:29.200 --> 25:35.520]  says it means, and that meaning is always different from the commonly understood meaning.
[25:36.080 --> 25:40.960]  Second, we discussed how includes works as a term of limited expansion,
[25:40.960 --> 25:46.400]  which leads some people to think they can add to the definition whatever they believe in their
[25:46.400 --> 25:52.000]  brain the word should mean. Third, we discussed that critical information needed to truly make
[25:52.000 --> 25:58.080]  sense of tax law never appears in the statutes or regulations, but only in documents most Americans
[25:58.080 --> 26:03.840]  have never heard of and don't know exist, that of course being treasury decisions. Fourth, we
[26:03.840 --> 26:10.880]  discussed how they structure a definition for one term so they can sneakily use it as the basis
[26:10.880 --> 26:17.520]  of another definition with the goal of concealing from the public the fact that employer for the
[26:17.520 --> 26:23.200]  purpose of wage withholding is limited to entities under its exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
[26:23.360 --> 26:28.800]  Congress. Fifth, the information necessary to correctly understand the income tax
[26:28.800 --> 26:36.080]  has been intentionally strewn across tens of thousands of pages of tax law documents.
[26:38.800 --> 26:44.720]  Actually, no. As I think about it, tens of thousands of pages is a woeful understatement.
[26:44.720 --> 26:51.920]  Here's why. There are 11 treasury decisions stating a form 1040 is to be used by a non-resident alien
[26:51.920 --> 26:57.760]  with U.S. source income or the non-resident alien's domestic agent. There are zero treasury
[26:57.760 --> 27:03.920]  decisions saying anyone else is to use a form 1040, but here's the thing. The first treasury
[27:03.920 --> 27:09.120]  decision instructing non-resident aliens with U.S. source income or the non-resident alien's
[27:09.120 --> 27:16.800]  domestic agent to use a 1040 was published in 1913 and many of the others were published in the
[27:16.800 --> 27:23.760]  1920s and 30s. My point is that the necessary information is not just strewn across current
[27:23.760 --> 27:32.320]  legal documents but in reality it's strewn across 112 years of tax law documents which constitutes
[27:32.320 --> 27:40.080]  hundreds of thousands of pages. If that isn't intentional deceit, I don't know what is.
[27:40.720 --> 27:48.400]  The good news is I spent 17 years finding out all the facts and organizing them in a way
[27:48.400 --> 27:54.000]  every American can understand. That 17-year effort produced Income Tax Shattering the Mist,
[27:54.000 --> 27:59.360]  which gives you the knowledge to safely walk away from the income tax if, after learning the truth,
[28:00.080 --> 28:04.560]  you decide to exit the scam. Before I tell you how to get free shipping on my books,
[28:04.560 --> 28:09.440]  I want to make sure you are aware that the kind of legal trickery and gimmicks we've discussed
[28:09.440 --> 28:16.240]  today don't just apply to wage withholding. They are also used extensively throughout the tax code.
[28:17.360 --> 28:22.880]  Years ago, a retired FBI agent made a statement about the tax code. He said that he'd been
[28:22.880 --> 28:28.560]  working with federal law his whole career and every area of federal law was clear
[28:28.560 --> 28:35.840]  and easy to understand, but the tax code was just the opposite. He said it seemed as if the
[28:35.840 --> 28:42.800]  tax code had been written with the intent of being inscrutable. When he made that statement
[28:42.800 --> 28:48.560]  all those years ago, he didn't know how right he was. A concerted effort has been made to keep
[28:48.560 --> 28:57.600]  the American people in the dark and thus compliant to a massive lie. The position held by most of
[28:57.600 --> 29:03.280]  the public is if they can't make sense of tax law, the only safe thing to do is whatever the
[29:03.280 --> 29:09.360]  government says. I get where they're coming from, but that mindset is 180 degrees backwards.
[29:09.360 --> 29:14.560]  The last thing you want to do is trust the people who are intentionally deceiving you.
[29:15.440 --> 29:22.000]  Intentionally deceiving you is the proof that they're manipulating you so they can steal your
[29:22.000 --> 29:28.480]  property. And for you business owners, the scam the government is pulling also involves you,
[29:28.960 --> 29:36.080]  such as people demanding Form W-9 from you. In fact, business owners being ignorant of what
[29:36.080 --> 29:41.600]  the W-9 actually means in law is what brings the IRS to your doorstep, claiming you have to pay the
[29:41.600 --> 29:50.320]  tax. A tax you don't owe, never have. So then, how do you safely walk away from the income tax scam
[29:50.320 --> 29:58.080]  when 99.9% of those with whom you do business are the shitbags we discussed earlier? It's far more
[29:58.080 --> 30:03.600]  simple than you might imagine. One might even say it's shockingly simple. Do you want out of the
[30:03.600 --> 30:09.200]  scam? Do you want to keep 100% of what your intelligence and ability have earned you? Do
[30:09.200 --> 30:16.000]  you also want to correct the false legal presumptions raised by having signed under penalty of perjury
[30:16.000 --> 30:23.200]  that you're someone you're not engaged in something you're not, if that's what you want?
[30:24.160 --> 30:32.320]  I've got you. Drop me a line at Dave at DrReality.News. Alexander Solzhenitsyn famously said,
[30:32.880 --> 30:42.160]  the simple step of the courageous individual is to not take part in the lie. I will show you how to
[30:42.160 --> 30:47.920]  safely step away from the lie and live the truth. But again, that all begins by reading income tax
[30:47.920 --> 30:53.760]  shattering the myths so that you aren't taking anyone's word for the facts because you've read
[30:53.760 --> 31:00.880]  the mountains of incontrovertible evidence with your own eyes. If you order now, I'll pay the
[31:00.880 --> 31:07.520]  shipping. In fact, right now I'm offering free shipping on any order from my DrReality.News website
[31:07.520 --> 31:12.960]  if the order contains a copy of income tax shattering the myths. I'm going to suggest
[31:12.960 --> 31:19.200]  you purchase the four-pack containing income tax shattering myths, the business guide to payroll
[31:19.200 --> 31:27.440]  withholding, the business handbook for forms W-9, 1099, a U.S. person, and body science. The first
[31:27.440 --> 31:33.200]  reason to get the four-pack is the price is already deeply discounted from purchasing the four items
[31:33.200 --> 31:38.560]  individually. The second reason is that in addition to it being deeply discounted, you get free shipping
[31:38.560 --> 31:43.120]  something by using the code tariffs. Here's a quick overview of each item in the four-pack.
[31:43.760 --> 31:47.120]  Income tax shattering the myths. You already know what that's going to give you.
[31:47.760 --> 31:52.800]  Mountains of incontrovertible proof that the income tax has never been imposed on ordinary
[31:52.800 --> 31:59.200]  hard-working Americans like you. Did I mention I haven't filed an income tax return or paid a
[31:59.200 --> 32:05.200]  penny of income tax in 32 years? And many readers of income tax shattering the myths have safely
[32:05.200 --> 32:10.880]  walked away from the scam. The business guide to payroll withholding is a 13-page item intended
[32:10.880 --> 32:15.520]  to help workers convey the truth we've been discussing today to the company for which they
[32:15.520 --> 32:21.200]  work in order to ask them to follow the law and stop withholding. Not everyone is articulate or
[32:21.200 --> 32:25.680]  can recall legal citations on the spur of the moment, so I wrote the business guide to payroll
[32:25.680 --> 32:30.880]  withholding to help with that. It's also a great primer if you want to just wake someone up to the
[32:30.880 --> 32:38.560]  truth of the income tax. The business handbook for form W-9 1099 a U.S. person is also 13 pages
[32:38.560 --> 32:43.760]  and intended to help self-employed people communicate to those with whom they do business
[32:43.760 --> 32:50.560]  why they are not required to furnish a form W-9 and why the person or entity paying them is not
[32:50.560 --> 32:56.320]  legally required and in fact is not legally permitted to file a form 1099. The handbook
[32:56.320 --> 33:00.080]  is also a great primer if you want to just wake somebody up to the truth of the income tax.
[33:00.720 --> 33:08.000]  Body science is my groundbreaking work on human physiology that is the key to what so many people
[33:08.000 --> 33:14.640]  say they want which is to turn around the health of the American people. Sadly, the vast majority
[33:14.640 --> 33:20.160]  of Americans prefer to get their views on nutritional physiology from a corrupt media
[33:20.160 --> 33:25.040]  rather than a physiologist who tears down the false establishment health narratives
[33:25.040 --> 33:30.960]  and gives you the science of getting and staying healthy presented in a way everyone can understand.
[33:31.840 --> 33:36.960]  If you are sincere about getting and staying healthy and you want that for the people you care
[33:36.960 --> 33:41.760]  about, you need to read body science. I practice what I preach. I adhere to everything you'll
[33:41.760 --> 33:48.720]  discover in body science. In a few weeks, I'll be 66 and I'm as healthy as I was when I was 26.
[33:48.720 --> 33:53.120]  I'm in perfect health, no chronic diseases, no big pharma products, and I haven't been sick
[33:53.120 --> 33:58.560]  a day in years. Among many other benefits, that's how your immune system will function
[33:58.560 --> 34:05.440]  if you follow what you learn in body science. So go to drreality.news and pick up Income Tax
[34:05.440 --> 34:10.880]  Shattering the Mist or the four-pack. Remember to use the coupon code tariffs to get free shipping
[34:10.880 --> 34:16.160]  on any order that contains Income Tax Shattering the Mist. Also, purchasing any of my writing
[34:16.160 --> 34:21.360]  has helped me to continue to be here for you with these revealing and thought-provoking presentations.
[34:22.000 --> 34:25.600]  If you found today's content intriguing and compelling,
[34:25.600 --> 34:29.200]  please help spread the word by sharing this video far and wide.
[34:29.200 --> 34:33.200]  Thanks for spending your time with me today. I hope you consider it time well spent.