Taxes are almost due...don't fall for the huxsters!

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


I believe the previous poster has it correct in that the IRS wants SSN's for administrative purposes. It's not just to prevent fraud, but sometimes people innocently will double count a child. For example, when a couple divorces, only one parent can claim the children. Yet, many couples divorced couples may innocently double-claim a child.

I can see why you may feel it is not fair that you must get a social security number for a baby in order to get an exemption. The tax law views deductions, credits and exemptions more as a legislative grace than as rights. With that in mind, the law has no qualms with putting the onus on taxpayers to prove they are entitled to a deduction, exemption, or credit.




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by inthesticks
 


You are not necessarily taxed on currency of federal reserve notes you receive. The tax code's definition of income is broad and can include any sort of property or service you receive. For example, if you realize any profit from bartering goods or services, you have taxable income. If your employer gives you stock options, you have income.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I don't have much choice in whether I pay taxes throughout the year, so tax day is a good day for me since I get back 9k of my own money...you are damn right I would never miss it.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


I don't mind at all...you jumping in, makes for good conversation. There is no doubt that people have in the past and even today claim bogus dependants. However, if you look at SSA.gov in the FAQ section, it specifically says that attaining a SS# for an infant is absolutely voluntary.

In my opinion, and I'm guessing many others as well, it is unethical even criminal to force someone into labor....used to be called slavery. The gov't gets around this by not forcing you to work, but forcing you to pay them for your own labor at a time and amount that they determine without you having any say whatsoever. Furthermore, the social security tax applies to every single dollar from the very first one you earn thereby making it a larger burden to the lower and middle classes. Our own gov't admits that the program is unsustainable. You don't have to be a genius to extrapolate that many of us working today will see zero benefit and that would obviously carry on to the younger generations. So, how can I as a responsible parent volunteer my son's labor and earnings when everyone including myself knows that there will be absolutely no benefit for him. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can I volunteer his anything, by definition you must volunteer yourself!!



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


If you owe money to the IRS, you should pay it on April 15. Hold on to your money as long as you can so it can collect interest.

If the IRS owes you money, try and file your return ASAP. Why shouldn't you be collecting that interest?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 

It would be interesting for you to know what the difference is in your tax burden/refund if you chose not to register your child and not claim as a dependent. Perhaps that is worth it, for now... I do hear what you're saying, but *why* it happened won't change that it *has* and so the decisions that we all must ponder are what we are willing to sacrifice for being non-compliant and whether or not that sacrifice is *worth* it to us... If only temporary.

It is a great question...




[edit on 6-4-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


I understand that nobody likes paying taxes. I also understand that there are many flaws in our tax law. However, I do not think it is reasonable to make taxes voluntary.

It costs money to run a government. Even if we had the ideal government (our government is far from ideal) , it would still need taxes to run itself. Our society would need some compulsory taxes because nobody would pay "their fair share" if taxes were strictly voluntary.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


I don't know if you are doing yourself any favors by not getting a social security number. Social Security numbers are necessary to get employment with most reputable employers, get certain government benefits like student loans, and get certain banking services.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by budaruskie
 


The tax law views deductions, credits and exemptions more as a legislative grace than as rights.


Now, I'm really interested. Thank you again for your response. Am I wrong for interpreting the above statement to mean that the gov't sees all of my income as acually being theirs? These "deductions, credits, and exemptions" are really just "allowances" they so graciously afford me to live? After all, if the gov't raised the tax rate to 100%, it would be law, and I would be forced to abide by it regardless of whether or not I agreed with it. Seriously, who or what would stop them from doing so? If you take into account all of the other taxes you pay on everything else your money or labor can buy, you're pretty close to 100% now. Mandatory insurance is another one of these euphamisms the gov't uses instead of the word tax, as well as inflation.

Obviously you did not create the situation and I'm not blaming you. I'm just astounded that the 4th amendment is not upheld in court.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by budaruskie
 

It would be interesting for you to know what the difference is in your tax burden/refund if you chose not to register your child and not claim as a dependent. Perhaps that is worth it, for now...It is a great question...
[edit on 6-4-2010 by LadySkadi]


Last year it cost me exactly $600, I'm a man of principle and have stated why I refuse.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

None of this applies to me -

I was speculating on withholding SSN for infants.




[edit on 6-4-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


It is not that the law sees 100% of your income as belonging to it, it just sees a portion of your income as being subject to tax. It gives you deductions, credits, etc. to decrease that portion more as a matter of grace than as a matter of right.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


yes, but isn't that portion "subject to tax" 100% of my income? They do not take all 100%, but I do not in any way have any say in what portion of that 100% they do take. They take 30% this year, ten years from now maybe 50%, 20 years from now maybe 60+%. That is speculation, but 10 and 20 years from now, barring some major changes legally and politically I will have just as little say then as I do now.
If you live in another country, say Iraq, and Saddam takes part of your income without permission and gives you the protection of the state in return, we view that as authoritarian or even totalitarian. If the fruits of your labor is really the state's property, what keeps the state from expanding its domain into your car, land, food, personal being, children? I honestly cannot see this being any different than the state saying, we don't want 100% of your child's life, just that a portion of his life is subject to the state's desires.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


If you owe money to the IRS, you should pay it on April 15. Hold on to your money as long as you can so it can collect interest.

If the IRS owes you money, try and file your return ASAP. Why shouldn't you be collecting that interest?


True, but as I said I do not have a choice in the job that I have.... BTW I do it long before the 15 of April....hehe

I really have no problem paying, I just have issues with how much compared to everyone else and what it is spent on.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


I don't know if you are doing yourself any favors by not getting a social security number. Social Security numbers are necessary to get employment with most reputable employers, get certain government benefits like student loans, and get certain banking services.


There is no law that requires a bank to demand a Social Security Number and indeed, Social Security numbers are intended for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is Social Security. A S.S. # is not a defacto national I.D. number, it is a S.S. number and if a bank is telling anyone that it is required by law, then demand to speak to the bank manager and speak to that person and insist they show you the exact portion of the law that requires them to obtain a S.S.#. They will relent and a special PIN number can be worked out, but one must zealously and tenaciously assert ones rights, or fuggedaboutit.

Sorry buddy, no flaming intended, I just know that this is true. Further more, the Code itself seems to inform both employer and employee on what to do in the event no Social Security Number is available and for this reason no Form W-4 will be filed by that employee. Consider the text of Section 3402:




(2) Exemption certificates (A) On commencement of employment On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.


26 USC 3402

There is no language at all in the Internal Revenue Code asserting anything to the effect that an individual must complete a Form W-4 in order to obtain a job. What the section says precisely is that the individual is to furnish one of these forms for any withholding exemptions he/she claims. If the individual makes no claim at all, just what where the hell is a requirement to furnish the form in the first place? In such an event, Section 3401 clearly shows that if there is no such withholding certificate in effect, the employer is required to mark such an employee as if he had claimed zero exemptions:




e) Number of withholding exemptions claimed For purposes of this chapter, the term "number of withholding exemptions claimed" means the number of withholding exemptions claimed in a withholding exemption certificate in effect under section 3402(f), or in effect under the corresponding section of prior law, except that if no such certificate is in effect, the number of withholding exemptions claimed shall be considered to be zero.


26 USC Section 3401(e)

There just, quite simply, is no excuse for the employer, or any so called "tax accountant" or even a "tax attorney" to be unaware of this section. Given that most employers have at least an accountant to advise him or her, if not an attorney, the full weight of responsibility lies upon the employer to understand this law if they expect to legally refuse employment based upon this law. Further, Section 3401 clearly states that it is for "purposes of this chapter". "This Chapter" is part of the Internal Revenue Laws which relate only to persons subject to a tax.

The employer would also be well advised to be aware of the regulation issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 3402(f)(2)(A).




(a) On commencement of employment. On or before the date on which an individual commences employment with an employer, the individual shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to his marital status and the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which number shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled, or, if the statements described in §31.3402(n)–1 are true with respect to an individual, he may furnish his employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate which contains such statements. For form and contents of such certificates, see §31.3402(f)(5)–1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.


26 CFR 31.3402 (F)(2)-1(A)26 CFR 31.3402(f)(2)-1(A)

The first thing that should be noted is that the regulation tells the employer to request a certificate. It does not, in any form of language nor even through implication, demand that the employer refuse to hire an individual who does not furnish a certificate. It does not instruct the employer to punish such an individual in any way. It just says, in quite clear language, that the employer must request the certificate. The regulation also gives the employer an option if the employee fails to provide the certificate, which states: "shall be considered as a single person claiming no exemptions, proving, as a point of law, there is no law requiring the certificate in the first place.

What truly needs to be remembered when relying upon the CFR is regardless of what it says, it can not legally go beyond the scope of the statute itself. The Code of Federal Regulation is not the law it is in pursuance of the law. The statute 3402(f)(2)(A) applies only to those subject to the applicable revenue law, and furthermore, only applies to those claiming exemptions or allowances under the law. The employer has no authority to determine who is or who is not subject to a revenue law.

Even more importantly, none of the statutes or regulations quoted above has required the employer to withhold a tax. That said, Section 3402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, (Which only applies to "taxpayers" as defined), does require the employer to withhold a tax providing the individual is subject to a tax. Consider Section 3402(a):




(a) Requirement of withholding

(1) In general Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall—

(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and

(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.


26 U.S.C. 3402(a)(1)26 USC 3402(a)(1)(B)

No part of Section 3402(a)(1) imposes a tax on anyone or anything. Neither the employer nor the Secretary has the authority to determine who would be subject to a tax. It is quite clear, however, that the Secretary does have authority to prescribe tables and computational procedures which would apply to the withholding from one who is subject to a tax. Which individuals would be subject to a tax is not so clear. Please take note of 3402(a)(1)(B), which very clearly states:

"...reflect the provisions of chapter 1..."

26 USC 3402(a)(1)(B)

Chapter 1 of the Code is the part of that code that involves this so called "income" tax. The tax is not imposed in Chapter 24, but imposed in Section 1 of Chapter 1. The only possible way that any withholding from an individual could possibly reflect the provisions of Section 1 of the Code is if the individual is subject to a revenue tax. Naturally, if the employee has not provided any prima facie evidence of being a "taxpayer", the employer has absolutely nothing to support any conclusion that the individual is subject to and/or liable for any tax.

Since Social Security withholding actually does involve a tax, and not some sort of "savings" plan, another item that can provide prima facie evidence of being subject to a tax is a Social Security Number. However, a close review of the Code and the regulations pursuant to that code will reveal there is no law requiring an individual to provide an employer with a Social Security Number.

There is not, however, near enough space to post that Code and regulation in this post so I must continue in another....



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Continuing...

Just as it is with supplying a Form W-4, so it is with Social Security Numbers in that the most the employer is required to do is request a Social Security Number:




(3) Furnishing number of another person Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document with respect to another person shall request from such other person, and shall include in any such return, statement, or other document, such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person.


26 USC 6109(a)(3)

The CFR interprets this code as such:




(c) Requirement to furnish another's number. Every person required under this title to make a return, statement, or other document must furnish such taxpayer identifying numbers of other U.S. persons and foreign persons that are described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions. The taxpayer identifying number of any person furnishing a withholding certificate referred to in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) or (viii) of this section shall also be furnished if it is actually known to the person making a return, statement, or other document described in this paragraph (c). If the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section, such person must request the other person's number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating. A person required to file a taxpayer identifying number shall correct any errors in such filing when such person's attention has been drawn to them. References in this paragraph (c) to paragraph (b)(2)(viii) of this section shall apply to partnership taxable years beginning after May 18, 2005, or such earlier time as the regulations under §§1.1446–1 through 1.1446–5 of this chapter apply by reason of an election under §1.1446–7 of this chapter.


26 CFR 301.6109-1(c)

Thus, IF a document must be filled out and the employer has been unable to obtain the number but has made the request, then the employer needs only include an affidavit stating that the request was made.

Now, consider this: Section 6723 of the Code states:




In the case of a failure by any person to comply with a specified information reporting requirement on or before the time prescribed therefor, such person shall pay a penalty of $50 for each such failure, but the total amount imposed on such person for all such failures during any calendar year shall not exceed $100,000.


26 USC 6723

Thus, any failure on the part of the employer to comply with a specified reporting requirement on or before the date specified will have to pay a fine of $50 for each such failure, BUT such failure during any calender year shall not exceed $100. However, Section 6724(a) of that same code provides:




(a) Reasonable cause waiver No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.


26 USC 6724(a)

Since the Internal Revenue Code provides a waiver of any penalties for any "failure" to obtain a Social Security Number, it is NOT MANDATORY that the employer obtain such number or supply such number to the Internal Revenue Service. The very real FACT that an individual WILL NOT sign a tax form or supply a number after the employer made the request, eliminates any willful neglect on the part of the employer.

Further, there is the matter of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)(C), which states:




(C) Documents evidencing employment authorization A document described in this subparagraph is an individual’s—

(i) social security account number card (other than such a card which specifies on the face that the issuance of the card does not authorize employment in the United States); or

(ii) other documentation evidencing authorization of employment in the United States which the Attorney General finds, by regulation, to be acceptable for purposes of this section.


8 USC 1324a(b)(1)(C)

Clearly an immigrant is offered an either or situation where they may supply a Social Security Number if they have one, or some other documentation evidencing authorization of employment for that immigrant. If an immigrant does not have to supply a Social Security Number, and can prove legal residence through some other means, this is acceptable to the IRS, and since an immigrant is not required to supply such a number, surely those naturalized citizens residing in the U.S. don't have to do so either.

The most important thing to consider when studying these sections of the code is that if the individual is not subject to a tax, there can be no requirement to furnish a number, nor can there be any "failure" to do something that is not required to begin with.

For further evidence that no Social Security Number is required in order to obtain employment, (by a reputable employer or otherwise), please consider the following case of EEOC v. ISC:




The defendant ... shall be permanently enjoined from terninating an employee or refusing to hire an individual for failure to provide a social security number.... If an employee or applicant for employment advises the defendant that he does not have a social security number....., the defndant shall request, pusuant to Section 6724 of the Internal Revenue Service Code {sic}, 26 USC 6724, a waiver of any penalties that may be imposed for failing to include an employee social security number on forms and documents submitted to the IRS.


EEOC v. ISC CA3-92-0169-T

This is the law, however, just as my respected colleague, and trusted friend with the self depreciating user name of Hotpinkurinalmint has advised, I will do the same and insist that nothing I have posted or stated in this thread should be construed as legal advise in any way. I am not an attorney such as my friend HPUM. I am, however, a person presumed to know the law, and as such, it must be presumed I am more than capable, (assuming I am of sound mind and average intelligence...I know big assumption there), of interpreting the laws as written, and this is precisely what I have done.

It should be perfectly clear, upon reading the actual Code that no requirement to fill out and sign a W-4 Form exists for an employee, (although the employer is most certainly required to request a completed and signed form), nor is there any requirement for any employee to provide a Social Security Number, unless they are a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by the Code and therefore subject to any applicable revenue laws. For clarification I will now post the two separate definitions that Code provides for the term "taxpayer":




(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


26 U.S.C. 7710(a)(14)

and...




(b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.


26 U.S.C. 1313(b)

There is no denying that neither one of these definitions supplied have described how a person became liable for the tax to begin with in order to be subject to the applicable revenue laws, and merely defines the term "taxpayer", who is one subject to and liable for a tax. Whether everybody who earns income is a "taxpayer" as defined by the IRC, is another question entirely. My good friend HPUM and I have gone around and around the question of liability before in this thread:

HERE

It has been my contention and continues to be, that not a single living soul can comprehend The Internal Revenue Code, including myself, and in all likelihood my friend HPUM. The tautological nature, or circumlocution of the Code rivals that of Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" routine, and I would suggest "Who's on First" is infinitely easier to understand than this five volume set of a horribly written piece of legislation. If the IRS doesn't understand it, if judges and lawyers don't, then why should we be expected to understand it?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I am not saying it is impossible to get a job or a bank account without a social security number, but, as you pointed out, it is more difficult to get these things. Some banks and many employers would much rather turn you away than do things the "hard" way.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I am not saying it is impossible to get a job or a bank account without a social security number, but, as you pointed out, it is more difficult to get these things. Some banks and many employers would much rather turn you away than do things the "hard" way.


Again you are 100% correct! Relying upon the information I provided in an attempt to challenge the system will only make a persons life extremely difficult. Of course, the problem is, many people are finding life extremely difficult without even challenging the system and when it gets to a point where there is nothing left to loose, then the system will be challenged. But, your clearheaded compassion and willingness to engage in open dialogue while defending the system, gives me hope.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join