How a W-2 Functions as a Gift to Your Employer and Relates to Gift & Estate Taxation: EPISODE 27

How a W-2 Functions as a Gift to Your Employer and Relates to Gift & Estate Taxation: EPISODE 27

The W-2 as an Implied Gift Contract

The IRS Form W-2, commonly used for reporting wages and tax withholdings, actually functions as an instrument that implies you have voluntarily gifted your earnings to your employer and consented to taxation on those earnings. This interpretation arises from the legal definitions and classifications of gift taxation under IRS regulations and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Under contract law principles, consideration (value given in exchange for something) must exist for a transaction to be enforceable as a true exchange. However, when an individual voluntarily signs a W-4, which is a form of election, they essentially authorize their employer to withhold earnings and submit them as taxable income under the assumption that they owe the tax. This creates a presumption that the individual has voluntarily “gifted” their earnings into the federal income tax system rather than engaging in a mandatory exchange for lawful taxation.


W-2 and Gift Tax: Classifying Compensation Under IRS Gift & Estate Tax Rules

The IRS classifies certain types of voluntary transfers of wealth under gift tax rules, which are outlined in 26 U.S.C. (IRC) § 2501 (Imposition of Gift Tax) and 26 U.S.C. § 2511 (Transfers in General).

The W-2 structure aligns with “gifts” as defined under estate and gift taxation laws in the following ways:

1️⃣ Class 2 Gift Tax (Compensation & Estate Planning)

  • Compensation under Title 26 (IRC) Subtitle B, Chapter 12 can be interpreted as a Class 2 transfer, which relates to voluntary transfers that are not direct compensation but rather deemed taxable under IRS-imposed definitions.

  • By failing to rebut the presumption that the wages were “gifted” into the tax system, the IRS assumes the funds were voluntarily surrendered and subjects them to income taxation rather than a lawful exchange of labor for compensation.

2️⃣ Class 5 Gift and Estate Tax (Voluntary Transfer Without Consideration)

  • A W-2 wage report can be classified under a “Class 5 Gift,” which is a voluntary transfer where the receiver (employer) gains control over a portion of the transferred value.

  • Since employers withhold taxes from the employee’s gross earnings and submit them to the government under “voluntary compliance,” this creates an undisclosed trust relationship in which the employee’s compensation is presumed to be placed under federal authority voluntarily.

  • If no consideration (fair exchange of value) is explicitly stated or challenged, the funds are treated as a taxable donation or gift subject to IRS control.


The W-2’s Connection to Estate Tax (Wealth Transfer Taxation)

Under 26 U.S.C. § 2001 (Estate Tax Imposed), transfers of wealth, including lifetime earnings, are considered taxable “gifts” if voluntarily placed into the system without proper legal objection.

  • By signing a W-4 and receiving a W-2, individuals are presumed to have “gifted” their compensation into the federal tax system without rebutting the presumption that they owed the tax.

  • Because the IRS does not classify income taxation as mandatory for private citizens absent a lawful obligation, the silent acceptance of W-2 reporting places the individual’s earnings into a voluntary classification, akin to an estate transfer.

  • The IRS can then assess estate and gift tax liabilities under IRC Subtitle B (Estate and Gift Taxes), Chapters 11-15.


How to Rebut the Gift & Estate Tax Presumption

To challenge the presumption that your earnings were gifted to your employer and subjected to taxation under estate and gift tax rules, an individual must:

1️⃣ Issue a Notice of Revocation & Rebuttal under UCC 1-308, reserving all rights and explicitly stating that no voluntary gift of earnings has been made.
2️⃣ Demand Proper Tax Classification under 26 U.S.C. § 83 (Property Transferred in Connection with Performance of Services), which states that compensation for labor cannot be involuntarily reclassified without contractual agreement.
3️⃣ File a Corrected Form 4852 (Substitute for W-2), challenging the improper classification and requesting a proper record of non-gift compensation.


Conclusion: The W-2 as a Silent Gift Agreement

By default, a W-2 places an individual in a presumed trust relationship where they are deemed to have gifted their earnings to their employer and subsequently to the IRS through voluntary withholding. This classification, falling under gift and estate tax laws, can be rebutted by asserting lawful classification of labor compensation and rejecting the voluntary compliance assumption.

Failing to challenge this presumption results in automatic tax liability under the IRS’s wealth transfer and income taxation rules, effectively treating private earnings as property voluntarily surrendered into the tax system.

Leave your vote

1383738 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish "the People"

Fraud Upon the Court and Judicial Complicity: Judge Marquez Aids RICO Conspirators and Attempts to Punish “the People”

A federal RICO action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unveils a calculated scheme orchestrated by attorneys Barry Lee O’Connor and John Bailey, in concert with MARINAJ PROPERTIES and the Doumit family. The Verified Complaint lays out a detailed pattern of racketeering involving simulated legal proceedings, fraudulent conveyance, and theft of trust assets through a void and defective Trustee’s Deed. Despite perfected title claims and unrebutted affidavits establishing lawful ownership, Judge Rachel A. Marquez has enabled the misconduct by shielding culpable parties and targeting the rightful beneficiaries asserting their rights. The suit cites violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (RICO), 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 1341 (mail fraud), along with California Civil Code §§ 1709 (fraud) and 3346 (treble damages for wrongful injury to property). This case exemplifies judicial corruption—where bar-protected insiders act with impunity while private Americans are silenced. The court’s response will reveal whether justice, equity, and due process remain alive in California.

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

How the UCC is Codified in EVERY State: A State-by-State Codification of the UCC and Core Commercial Law Principles

UCC §§ 1-103, 3-104, 3-601, and 3-603 operate as the foundation of lawful commercial remedy across all 50 states. Section 1-103 ensures equity, common law, and the Law Merchant remain enforceable alongside UCC processes. Section 3-104 defines what qualifies as a negotiable instrument—an essential element in debt discharge. Section 3-601 codifies the principle that all obligations can be discharged by contract, agreement, or valid performance. Section 3-603 delivers the lethal commercial strike: once lawful tender is made—even if refused—the obligation is discharged as a matter of law. These statutes, codified in every U.S. jurisdiction, are the legal artillery that allow secured parties and private trusts to assert control, tender discharge, and permanently terminate fraudulent or unperfected claims. Use them with precision—or be used by those who will.

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!