A company, incorporated in Alaska, falsely stated that I made x dollars of "wages" (statutorily defined in IRC Section 3104) I in fact, made $0 in "wages" (as defined in the relevant law), I informed the company, and the company has refused to cease its misrepresentation to the IRS. Therefore, the company has knowingly published a false statement about me--to my damage both monetarily (they have given away a large quantity of my money to a third party) and to my reputation. Depending upon the laws available in Alaska, "conversion" or "civil theft" could be involved as well.
The company's defense, which is an absolute defense in libel, is "truth" -- but they have to prove their defense, which means not that they have to prove that they paid me x dollars of money (they, in fact, did pay me x dollars of money), but that they paid me x dollars of "wages as defined...." (the reporting requirement for a W-2). I am not contesting that they wrongly asserted a payment of money -- I am contesting the characterization that funds paid to me were reportable "wages," subject to withholding and taxation (and painting me in the false light of a "taxpayer" or, worse, a "tax defier", both are terms statutorily defined). Citations below are just FYI:
Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(14): "Taxpayer: The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax."
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws."
United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)
The evidence that I can submit to prove my own case (that the company's statement is false and damaged me) is my IRS Form 4852, and a sworn affidavit concerning all the elements that go into it: I am not an "employee", they are not my "employer", etc., demand letters I have sent to the payer, and my paper trail showing that the IRS refused to give me my money (overpayments) in reliance on the company's false representations.
The paralegal, who reviewed my tax returns prior to my filing them (to ensure that nothing on my return fit the Treasury Secretary's published list of "frivolous" items) who recommended that I seek out a libel attorney (not a tax attorney, because she has plenty with whom she works), mentioned the following when I told her that I expected a libel/defamation attorney to get hung up thinking 'tax attorney' when he hears me mention the IRS, instead of listening carefully and dealing with the libel part of the issue:
"You can anticipate the sticking point in the conversation. [The payer] will tell you that "truth is an absolute defense to libel." [The payer] will assume that when [the payer] reported that [the payer] paid you money, on the W-2, and you admit that [the payer] did pay you that amount of money, that this will be the end of the matter. It will be a trick to explain to them [the payer and the libel attorney] that the W-2 does NOT report an amount of money paid to a worker, but the amount of "wages as defined in section 3121 and 3401" -- and that you did not receive "wages." When they balk at this, you can remind them that such a defense must be proved by the Defendant. They will have to prove that what they paid you was "wages," and not just money. That is where it might get interesting for the attorneys, especially if they are listening. If they wave you off, act arrogant like they know the tax law better than you do, or in any way act like there isn't enough money here for them to take the case, smile, shake their hand, and tell them that you will continue to look for the right attorney, and that you definitely don't want to be represented by attorneys who don't listen to their clients. (It will be a good learning opportunity for you, and you may have to go through a number of them before you hit on one with bigger ears than ego.)"
So, I would like help finding a libel/defamation attorney, who would be willing to consider this case "pro hac vice" (Alaska).