HOW TO: Suing for refusal to accept non-withholding agreement in lieu of W-4

By ftsig-admin | March 24, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

  1. Introduction
  2. Strategic Considerations
  3. Application
  4. What NOT to do
  5. Cause of Action
  6. Additional Resources

1. Introduction

Those who wish to lawfully discontinue participation in payroll withholding and reporting are faced with four alternate paths, sequenced in descending priority and importance:

  1. W-8SUB, Form #04.231-as a nonresident alien.
    https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf
  2. Voluntary Non-Withholding Agreement, Form #04.207
    https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/VolNonWHAgmt.pdf
  3. IRS Form W-4 as a nonresident alien notifying them to stop withholding and defining “employee” to EXCLUDE that found in any civil statute and therefore personPRI.
  4. IRS Form W-4 NOT denying “employeePUB” status.

In deciding which of the above paths to take to get standing to sue in court for wrongful withholding and reporting, consider the following questions:

  1. Why does a W-4 have to be involved AT ALL? Why didn’t you just submit a voluntary NON-WITHHOLDING agreement? See Item 2, for instance.
  2. If you don’t use IRS forms/pubs or any public status in doing so, you remain personPRI and federal law becomes irrelevant.
  3. How did you become a personPUB subject to federal law to begin with? The fact that you WORK for someone who has made a personPUB election (an “employerPUB” doesn’t automatically mean YOU are a personPUB. Only by electing to receive a propertyPUB such as a federal privilege or status can you BECOME a personPUB, REGARDLESS of what the people you work for are doing.

It’s generally a HORRIBLE idea to use anything uncle “created or organized”, and especially their forms. The consequences of the above four options are summarized below

#DescriptionI.R.C. 3401(c)
“employee”		“personPRI“
under Subtitle A		personPRI
under
Subtitle C		Anti-Injunction
Act (AIA) applicable
1W-8SUB, Form #04.231NoYesYesNo
2Voluntary Non-Withholding Agreement, Form #04.207NoYesYesNo
3IRS Form W-4 with “employee” disclaimerNoYesYesNo
4IRS Form W-4 with “employee” disclaimerYesYesNoYes

2. Strategic Considerations

26 U.S.C. §3402 starts off with the phrase:

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, ….”

It appears that even the most encountered scenario in this country—that of a U.S. person (an “employee” because a U.S. person is an instrumentality) taking a job in the private sector, would still need to enter into a Voluntary Withholding Agreement (VWA) for withholding to be initiated. Only then does withholding become mandatory. In that instance, it would be  26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(A), again, because of the “employer” and “employee” character of both parties.

But suppose a NRA50 ENTERED a VWA under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(B). There would be no remedy to exit under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(A)—(p)(3)(A) and (p)(3)(B) are different access points. Because the NRA must enter under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(B) to be treated AS IF an “employee,” sometime later, while in that legal “employee” character, the NRA could then access 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(A), because then the NRA would be in an “employee” status and could access the regulatory exit under 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1(b)(2).

But I submit that once the VWA is terminated by the NRA, the AIA becomes irrelevant, because there is no tax anymore to assess or collect. This scenario does not exist for a U.S. person. There is no door to exit in that scenario. Their withholding/taxation loop is perpetual until they change their status. But in the NRA’s case, it’s the employer, through their unwillingness to terminate withholding under 31.3402(p)-1 that is causing the prevention of tax collection, because the “employer’s” rejection of the VWA is removing the legal character of “wages” from the otherwise non-“wage” payments.

You will need to justify a private cause of action through the 4-prong test under Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), for instance, if you are litigating as a transportation worker under the Railway Act.

In determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one, several factors are relevant.

[1] First, is the plaintiff “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted,” Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 39 (1916) (emphasis supplied)—that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff?

[2] Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? See, e. g., National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers, 414 U. S. 453, 458, 460 (1974) (Amtrak).

[3] Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? See, e. g., Amtrak, supra; Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U. S. 412, 423 (1975); Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U. S. 134 (1964).

[4] And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law? See Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647, 652 (1963); cf. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 434 (1964); Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 394-395 (1971); id., at 400 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).

[Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14103697533263450234]

There is a tension manifest here though….

  1. Either you are not an “employee” and therefore would submit a W-4 under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(B) in order to be treated AS IF an “employee,” in which case there is no regulatory exit. The regs are silent on 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(B).
  2. Or you are a “employeePUB” and submit a W-4 under 26 U.S.C. §3401(p)(3)(A) and gain access to 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1. But if an “employee,” then you have “wages” and the following phrase locks you out of the remedy: “… (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, …”. In this instance, you cannot assert that your payments do not constitute “wages.” Thus, a challenge here would/could be defeated through the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §2283.

It would seem then that for those who take the W-4 route (Option 3 in the introduction), this creates no exit other than claiming a refund. How do you argue the above in a court proceeding? It’s a “House of Mirrors.” Maybe this is by design, to let individuals who figure it out, escape one-by-one rather than allowing case law to let everyone escape.

Here’s the tension in most cases. The moment you change your status to NRA by filing as an NRA, your status under I.R.C. Subtitle A ceased being a domestic instrumentality. Thus, your status means you are no longer an “employeePUB” by definition in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c). Thus, the second after that in which you submit a Single + 1 W-4 per Notice 1392, you again entered the arena under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(B). There is no way out as long as you elect “employeePUB” status under 26 U.S.C. §3401(c). Now you’re trapped in the franchise and can’t argue your way out beyond the point of consent/election.

Or, do you assert that I submitted the new W-4 while in an “employee” status, therefore gaining access to 26 U.S.C. §3401(p)(3)(A) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1?

3. Application

The previous section presents examples of those trying to find a PUBLIC statutory or regulatory tool for standing but there is none for those who are exclusively personPRI. The reason is that Congress cannot regulate or tax propertyPRI. You become conflicted because you want to a whore and a non-whore at the same time.

  1. For I.R.C. Subtitle A, you’re a non-whore (non-taxpayer).
  2. For I.R.C. Subtitle C you are pretending you are being deprived of the ability to be a whore (a “taxpayer”).

There is ABSOLUTELY no connection between “taxpayer” status under the above two completely independent scenarios.

If your company is withholding and you never submitted a W-4 agreement authorizing it, they are stealing and donating your paycheck without an existing agreement. An agreement/consent/election is needed under I.R.C. Subtitle C to legally classify the amounts withheld as propertyPUB. Since there is none, it must be presumed to be a LOAN to uncle and not a GIFT/DONATION under I.R.C. Subtitle C. So its stolen property in the custody of Uncle that must be “returned” by filing a zero return. And YOU as the absolute owner of that stolen propertyPRI are the ONLY one who can make “rules” controlling the “return”

If in fact the I.R.C. Subtitle C “employment” tax is a quasi-contract and you never became a party to that quasi-contract by submitting a valid, accepted agreement UNDER it and claiming “employeePUB” status under it, you remain a personPRI and this is purely a personPRI lawsuit under the constitution where standing derives from the Fifth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and your right to contract or not contract.

So STOP looking for a statute or regulation providing remedy and start claiming your constitutional/private/foreign rights. Those rights include the power to contract and associate, and a “taxpayer” election is a fulfillment and recognition of those rights.

At this point many of you are thinking:

Do you think the IRS thinks my employerPRI is an instrumentality of the United States? Would they ever admit that?

If “Yes,” then I would be an “employee” by definition, and I would therefore also have “wages.” Therefore, there would be no termination of agreement under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(3)(A).

If my employerPRI is not an instrumentality of the United States, then I can only be an “employee” through 26 U.S.C. §3402(3)(B). Then again, there is no avenue to terminate the agreement that the court could take cognizance of.

In other words, some people think that that because the parties they are working for are DOMESTIC U.S. persons, they have to file their action in court with the same personPUB status as the company they work for. This is a repeated sticking point for many people. We must remember, however, that:

  1. If in fact the income tax is quasi-contractual, then the only parties to it are those electing to do so.
  2. If it behaves like any other contract, then the only parties that can be affected are those with a privity to it by election, and not third parties.
  3. United can’t contract FOR you, but they can contract WITH you. The fact that they made a domestic election only affects their relation to UNCLE and not your relation to THEM.
  4. How do I know it doesn’t affect you? Because eartnings can only be effectively connected for a U.S. national by election, regardless of the payor. YOU OWN YOURSELF!

So we don’t care what the company you work for THINKS they are or what the IRS THINKS they are. In relation to me, I’m foreign and private and everyone is foreign until I make an election. Everything else is just mental masturbation and pure speculation not backed by any evidence we have ever seen.

We know what you’re going to say: Brushaber was just a stockholder and he was held accountable. But in fact, he STILL filed domestic or he wouldn’t have owed a tax to begin with. I’ve seen no evidence that he actually filed as an NRA. And SCOTUS probably wants to make sure that scenario never gets in the public record so they have to tell the truth on the matter.

It’s not your job to:

  1. Be making legal determinations or guesses about the status of others.
  2. Allow others to change your status from PRIVATE to public through THEIR elections or force you to litigate with a public status. That’s THEFT if you allow them to do that.

All you do by going down the above roads is falsely make yourself appear privileged and help the enemy.

4. What NOT to do

The most important path NOT to take is Option 4 in the Introduction of this article: Submitting a standard IRS Form W-4 without an “employeePUB” disclaimer. Why?

  1. Electing to be a “taxpayer” whore and offering them a bribe in doing so in order to have your case even heard and not censored or unpublished is an immoral and criminal event. They should never be in a position to be bribed to begin with. If they had stuck to only allowing U.S. persons abroad to be “taxpayers” as the constitution requires, that bribe would be IMPOSSIBLE and the integrity of the system would return.
  2. Real law would not even permit this criminal financial conflict of interest, to hide it, or to pretend that its not happening or allowing people like you to make the crime happen.
  3. There is no “moral high ground” in this approach. That’s our biggest problem with the whole attitude of people who would even consider this approach.

You need to look at this issue beyond your own commercial concerns to see clearly for what it is. It’s not about you. It’s NEVER been only about you or your “benefit” or even your personal safety. Its about having INTEGRITY to the word and law of God.

The battle belongs to the LORD, and NOT you. HE is the only one who should get credit for any of this.

Option 4 means you want to do it YOUR way, instead of GOD’s way. That’s what Satan insisted on as well.

The Character of Those Who May Dwell with the Lord
A Psalm of David.

Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle?
Who may dwell in Your holy hill [MOUNTAINS are political kingdoms in the Bible]?

He who walks uprightly,
And works righteousness,
And speaks the truth in his heart;
3 He who does not backbite with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor does he take up a reproach against his friend;
4 In whose eyes a vile person is despised,
But he honors those who fear the Lord;
He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5 He who does not put out his money at usury,
Nor does he take [or OFFER] a bribe against the innocent.

He who does these things shall never be moved.

[Psalm 15, Bible, NKJV]

By “dwell”, God means “be domiciled” in His Kingdom with HIM as your King and CIVIL protector, rather than Caesar and thus to be TRULY foreign in a theological and legal and even CIVIL sense.

Option 4 means you walk into court as a man-pleaser (friend of the world, James 4:4) who pays bribes like King Saul, rather than as the truly foreign stranger and full time officer of Heaven that God calls you to be.

If you don’t believe that, we question whether you really are a Christ follower. You’re either:

  1. Domestic to Caesar and foreign to God
  2. Domestic to God and foreign to Caesar.

You can’t be both. Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13. Apostle Paul confirmed this when he said:

The New [FOREIGN, NRA50] Man

This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the [DOMESTIC] Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened [by “words of art”], being alienated from the life of God [meaning DOMESTIC rather than FOREIGN in relation to Caesar], because of the [LEGAL] ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man [FOREIGN in relation to Caesar but DOMESTIC to God] which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

[Eph. 4:17-24, Bible, NKJV]

Our approach is as follows:

“Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve [ONLY] Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve [ONLY] the Lord.”

[Joshua 24:14-15, Bible, NKJV]

SOURCE: https://ftsig.org/how-to-litigation-strategy-to-secure-return-of-unlawfully-withheld-earnings-using-the-laws-of-property/

5. Cause of Action (COA)

As we often say, standing must be based on a deprivation of rightsPRI and propertyPRI and a claim that Your employerPRI, in acting as a state actor by withholding as an “employer” without your consent, is STEALING and instituting a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment and a common law tort. Civil “employersPUB” are state actors. That’s the only reason they can be held “liable” in 26 U.S.C. §3403. Otherwise, they would be foreign and private and beyond the control of Congress.

We know that most people don’t like going down this more risky road, but it’s the only reasonable approach we’re aware of. It’s more confrontational than many people seem to like. The’re hunting for something less confrontational as a risk avoidance scheme, but we don’t know how else you’re going to attack this without compromising your integrity, bribing a judge (with withholdings you don’t intend to convert into a tax obligation under I.R.C. Subtitle A), or being a friend of the world. James 4:4.

But the Anti-Injunction Act clearly applies only to personPUB subject to federal law to begin with by virtue of a voluntary election. There are remedies for those who are NOT, because Congress cannot, by legislation, enjoin constitutional remedies under the First or Fifth Amendment. That would be an oxymoron. Only your own consent or election can REMOVE those protections, which is NOT evident in this case:

How You Lose Constitutional or Natural Rights, Form #10.015
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/HowLoseConstOrNatRights.pdf

In other words, for those who remain personPRI and NRA^50 by virtue of making NO elections, whether “effectively connected” or not:

  1. The Public Rights Doctrine doesn’t apply.
  2. The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine doesn’t apply.
  3. The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine DOES apply.
    Microsoft Copilot: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine applied to Federal and State Income Taxation, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine-applied-to-federal-and-state-income-taxation/
  4. Taxation is a PROPRIETORIAL rather than a SOVEREIGN power.
  5. Uncle has offered no consideration and you have ACCEPTED none and would be stealing to ask for compensation without it under principles of equity.
  6. They retain constitutional protections, which need no statutes to enforce or protect.

AIA only filters DOMESTIC “U.S. person” litigants, not U.S. national NRA50s who make no elections described above. DOMESTIC “U.S. persons” making IDIOT elections covers 99% of the litigants. Those people are summarily dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because they joined the matrix through an election and are therefore trapped within it. That is why why many legal AI sources often say that the Anti Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §2283 will interfere with the refund suit.

But there are NO examples we have ever seen in caselaw whereby those whose administrative record consistently describes the litigant as an NRA50 with no elections who is protected by the Bill of Rights by virtue of standing on land within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional State where the AIA has been applied. The AIA can’t be applied without an election because states of the Union are legislatively foreign UNLESS and UNTIL the FOREIGN people within them make an election to connect either THEMSELVES or their PROPERTY to a legislatively created and owned PUBLIC privilege. Those who want to challenge us on this subject are emended to prove that the AIA applies to an NRA50 personPRI. That would be unconstitutional.

This doc explains how to get a constitutional remedy and defeat the Anti-Injunction Act:

Civil Court Remedies for Sovereigns: Taxation, Litigation Tool #10.002
https://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/CivCourtRem-Tax/CivCourtRem-Tax.htm

We won’t rewrite the above book on this page to save you the trouble of studying it.

6. Additional Resources

  1. Using Form W-4 as a Nonresident Alien, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/using-w-4-as-a-nonresident-alien/
  2. Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001
    https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/FedStateWHOptions.pdf
  3. W-8SUB, Form #04.231-as a nonresident alien.
    https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf
  4. Voluntary Non-Withholding Agreement, Form #04.207
    https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/VolNonWHAgmt.pdf
Posted in Litigation