IRS V Hendrickson (Cracking the code)

Right or wrong, Mr. Hendrickson was convicted of knowingly filing false documents with the IRS.

When you read the IRS’ complaint, it specifically points out that Mr. Hendrickson received Forms W-2 from his employer but chose to declare $0 wages earned even in the face of evidence that he did in fact earn wages. How was the DOJ able to declare that Mr. Hendrickson did in fact earn wages contrary to his first-hand knowledge and sworn testimony?

This is the IRS's position, in these cases. That the company has provided an information return, signed under penalties of perjury, that they paid us wages, and that we had taxable income.
The IRS then expects us to accept that information as factual, and to use it on the 1040 form, to declare tax owed and paid, as shown on the w2 forms.


This is Hendricksons Position: Since he is risking felony conviction(s) every time he files a 1040 form, then it is up to him to ensure the information is correct.
Hendrickson does not accept the information return filed by the company (employer) to be legaly accurate. It is accurate as much as the comany worker who filled it out is concerned, but that is based on that individuals belief, not on facts.

Hendrickson then relys on the IRS's own forms, the 4852 which allows a citizen to correct the record given to the IRS by another party, in this case the company he worked for (employer).



Imaginary Direct testimony given by Mr. Holbrok, to the DOJ from the witness stand:

DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, did your company pay Mr. Hendrickson wages?”
MH: “Yes.”
DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are the amounts you paid based on the business
records of your current company?”
MH: “Yes.”
DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, do you have any knowledge or belief that these
records are incorrect?”
MH: “No.”
DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are the amounts you paid Mr. Hendrickson accurate?”
MH: “Yes.”
DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are the Forms W-2, which your company made in the
course of its regular business activities, accurate in every detail?”
MH: “Yes.”
DOJ: “Ms. Halbrook, are you the custodian of these records now?”
MH: “Yes.”


So, let’s be fair to the DOJ here. They actually met their burden of proof. The IRS had a Form W-2 that is presumed correct. Mr. Hendrickson produced a correction to the document using Form 4852. In both instances, each has met the burden of production and they are at a standstill. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that in instances like this, the courts are required to favor Mr. Hendrickson’s claim over the IRS’. And the IRS still has a burden of persuasion. And that’s where 26
U.S.C. § 6201(d) comes into play. The Secretary is now required to provide credible and probative information in addition to the information return (in order to overcome the equality of evidence).


Mr. Hendrickson’s Response:
Mr. Hendrickson’s appeal stated that Ms. Halbrook had no personal knowledge of his activities since he didn’t work there when he worked and he cannot attest to the accuracy or the veracity of the records upon which the assignment of wages was made. Mr. Hendrickson believes his declaration is the DOJ’s sole evidence.

In addition, the form is internally consistent and reinforces the existing presumptions because Mr. Hendrickson included withholding of federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. Withholding (26 U.S.C. § 3402) is defined as amounts deducted from an employee’s wages by his employer in anticipation of a tax liability. Thus, when Mr. Hendrickson declared on his Form 4852 that he had federal income tax withheld, he necessarily declared he was in an employer-employee relationship and earned wages.

Hendrickson belives that he is not an "employee" as defined by 26 U.S.C §3401 and therefor did not recieve wages as defined in chapter 24. Nor did he receive wages as defined for chapter 21 (social security). Thefore the entire w-3 form the Company sent to the IRS, is wrong.

This whole case boils down to 2 questions of Jurisdiction.
1. Does the federal government have the authority to lable citizens so that they can be taxed under that lable?
2. Does the word includes mean expanding a definition or is it a restrictive term?

If the word includes is restrictive, then Henderickson is correct. If it is not then the issue becomes item 1. Does the government have the authoriy to declare people who work for another and get paid, to be labled employees so that the government can impose an excise (privilege) tax upon them?

That is what the courts must decide. Insted, they declared that Hendrickson violated 26 U.S.C § 7206, by filing false information on the 1040 forms. As such Hendrickson should be facing felony conviction under 7206, not the current charges he is under.

In effect, the DOJ is prosecuing Hendrickson for perjury without charging him with the proper statute.