![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Did i ever suggest that it is incongruent with anything in the US Constitution?
Another remark illustrating sitja's law-education-via-Internet. In general, the IRS doesn't sue anyone. They DEFEND law suits in Tax Court. The privilege of suing someone is reserved for the Department of Justice.stija wrote:Yes. Very good. You should try it.But, I'm sure that sending the letter(s) made you feel exceptionally good.
I don't care what they did with it. I have certified proof i sent it and it should be in my administrative record as i requested and their rules require that all returns and affidavits by made part of record. Other than that, i don't care if he burned it. His actions, his choice.
Administrative record has to be used against me when i get sued by the IRS. Can't wait. I've been practicing defenses on the 'internet.'
Actually, that's more absurd than usual. AndyK was demonstrating that you don't know what you were talking about, rather than implying that he knew what you were talking about.stija wrote:@AndyK,
you are very observant. Are we splitting hairs to discredit me? Your own post infers that you understood what i was talking about yet you FELT the need to show how WRONGLY i said what i meant.
Is this a major change of heart from you? You have been clearly told, many times, where you have made mistakes yet you have refused to correct them. Are those days gone? Are you now going to accept factual information as properly cited by subject matter experts even when it contradicts your opinions and allegations?stija wrote:@AndyK,
you are very observant. Are we splitting hairs to discredit me? No hairs to be split nor any discrediting to be done. Merely pointing out a significant error on your part for the benefit of those to whom you refer in your signature. After all, you have been pointing out (albeit sans support or citation) all of our errors. Your own post infers that you understood what i was talking about yet you FELT the need to show how WRONGLY i said what i meant. No. My post infers nothing, Neither does it imply anything. If you choose to infer something, fine. Please remember that inverence is done by the listner or reader. Impliocation is done by the author or speaker. English, especially English used in a legal context is a very precise language.
Good one. +1 for AndyK. Tap on the shoulder. Go through all my posts and let me know if i made any other mistakes. Life is too short. I'd gladly accept responsability and correct my statements. Do let me know. Thank you.
You read my post, you were the reader. You inferred that i was talking about being sued in United States court and you spoke correctly that DOJ sues, and not IRS. When you spoke, you became the speaker or author. Therefore your words implied you KNEW what i was talking about.No. My post infers nothing, Neither does it imply anything. If you choose to infer something, fine. Please remember that inverence is done by the listner or reader. Impliocation is done by the author or speaker. English, especially English used in a legal context is a very precise language.
Yes. Not even David Merrill gummed up the works with posts and threads this inane.Dr. Caligari wrote:Mods:
Is it time to start deleting idiotic threads like this one?
We seriously try to avoid that. You sound as though you would like it.stija wrote:You know you can just banish me from your forum right?
I was merely stating the obvious. Are you sure you would not like that?wserra wrote:I didn't redact a thing. But you don't get to take over the board.
We seriously try to avoid that. You sound as though you would like it.stija wrote:You know you can just banish me from your forum right?
Freedom also requires personal responsability which requires knowledge of the proper order of things:Surely the matters in which the public has the most interest are the supplies of food and clothing; yet can it be that by reason of this interest the state may fix the price at which the butcher must sell his meat, or the vendor of boots and shoes his goods? Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must [can be compelled to] use it for his neighbor's benefit [e.g. Social Security, Medicare, etc]; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
It has been said by someone smarter than Stija that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Nothing could be truer and the 9 black robed priests agreed but rephrased it:"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- James Madison (Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822)
Stija is doing his part, and will be doing his part. Stija's first and most important occupation is 'American citizen.' Stija also tried reaching you guys, to no avail. Therefore Stija failed miserably on these quatloos forums, and also lost to AndyK 3-0. Well maybe 3-1, if AndyK is willing to concede the IID.It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442. (1950)
If you were 1/10 of the student of history and law you claim to be, you would know that the income tax is much older than Social Security. So why is it surprising that you might be subject to income tax but not Social Security?To my surprise, i received an honest answer to a simple question from one Michelle Ziporkin, who informed me that: a) there was no law codified that required a United States citizen to apply for a number or obtain one, b) that one can live and work within United States without such number, and c) that if one does b) then such person cannot participate in the SS benefit program as the work performed cannot be credit to the SS account #.
Most interesting of all, Ziporkin informed me that Title 26 mandates the use of such number for United States employment purposes and that compliance with such and such section was necessary, and also mandated by law.
From the Tax Protester FAQ:stija wrote:I asked three questions, if a United States citizen or resident is required to have a SSN in order to live and work in United States, and if so, where was the requirement codified in.
The Social Security Act may not require people to apply for Social Security numbers, but the Internal Revenue Code does.
The claim that there is no requirement to apply for, or have, a Social Security number seems to be based on various statements by the Social Security Administration that Social Security is not “mandatory” or that you are not required to provide a social security number except for purposes of Social Security benefits. But both federal law and the Social Security Administration recognize that both federal and state governments can require a Social Security number to comply with laws having nothing to do with the Social security systems.
The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2(C)(i), includes the following:
The “Answers to Your Questions” section of the web pages of the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov) includes the following:“It is the policy of the United States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Commissioner of Social Security.”
(Category: Social Security Numbers and Cards; Answer ID: 78; Last Updated: 12/23/2003 at 6:49 a.m.)Specific laws require a person to provide his/her SSN for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where an SSN might be required or requested, an SSN is required/requested by:
* Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans
* Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes
* States for the school lunch program
* Banks for monetary transactions
* Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number
* Department of Labor for workers’ compensation
* Department of Education for Student Loans
* States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction
* States for child support enforcement
* States for commercial driver’s licenses
* States for Food Stamps
* States for Medicaid
* States for Unemployment Compensation
* States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
* U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds
The Privacy Act regulates the use of SSNs by government agencies. When a Federal, State, or local government agency asks an individual to disclose his or her Social Security number, the Privacy Act requires the agency to inform the person of the following: the statutory or other authority for requesting the information; whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; what uses will be made of the information; and the consequences, if any, of failure to provide the information.
And a Social Security number is clearly required to comply with the filing requirements for the federal income tax.
Section 6109(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code states that, when required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary:
Section 6109(d) states:“Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document shall include in such return, statement, or other document such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.”
Treas. Reg. section 6109-1(a)(1)(ii)(A) states that“The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.”
And Treas. Reg. Section 301.6109-1(b)(1) states:“(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(B) and (D) of this section, an individual required to furnish a taxpayer identifying number must use a social security number.”
I.R.C. section 6723 is titled “Failure to Comply with Other Information Reporting Requirements,” and it provides as follows:“Every U.S. person who makes under this title a return, statement, or other document must furnish its own taxpayer identifying number as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions. A U.S. person whose number must be included on a document filed by another person must give the taxpayer identifying number so required to the other person on request. For penalties for failure to supply taxpayer identifying numbers, see sections 6721 through 6724.”
I.R.C. section 6724(d)(3) defines “specified information reporting requirement” as including “(B) any requirement contained in the regulations prescribed under section 6109 that person (i) include his TIN on any return, statement, or other document (other than an information return or payee statement....”“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.”
It is therefore clear that a Social Security is required for Forms 1040, W-4, and other forms and documents required by the Internal Revenue Code and regulations and that the failure to provide a Social Security number can result in a civil penalty.
Although failing to provide a Social Security number on a tax return might not be a crime in itself, an intentional failure to provide a Social Security number could be construed to be evidence of a willful attempt to evade taxes, and so support a criminal conviction for tax evasion. Although no court decision has been found that addresses that exact issue, there are at least two court decisions upholding the convictions of persons who stopped using their Social Security numbers on tax returns. See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 2005 TNT 167-10 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, No. 05-948 (5/1/2006) (defendant’s convictions for knowingly presenting false refund claims and willfully failing to file tax returns upheld; evidence included testimony “that he did not want his name to appear on documents requiring his social security number”); United States v. Neujahr, 173 F.3d 853, KTC 1999-135 (4th Cir. 1999) (evidence in support of convictions on four counts of tax evasion including the filing of Forms 1040-NR without Social Security numbers and the defendant’s own testimony that he had “stopped using his Social Security number altogether”).
A possible economic (not legal) consequence of failing to provide a Social Security number to an employer is termination of employment, because an employer has the right to fire an employee who fails to provide a Form W-4 with the employee’s Social Security number. And this is true even if the employee refuses to apply for or provide a Social Security number for religious reasons, as numerous courts have confirmed.
Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1999) (also rejecting claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act).“It is uncontested that (1) Plaintiff sincerely believes that his religion prevents him from providing a social security number, (2) Plaintiff informed Defendant of his belief, and (3) Defendant refused to hire Plaintiff because he did not provide Defendant with a social security number. Nevertheless, Defendant argues, and the district court held, that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case, because Defendant is required by law to obtain Plaintiff’s social security number. Specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(a) & (b)(1)(i), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.10(b)(2); Immigration Form I-9; and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 6109(a)(3) & (d), require employers to provide the social security numbers of their employees.
“Although they have disagreed on the rationale, courts agree that an employer is not liable under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] when accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs would require the employer to violate federal or state law.”
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has also upheld the dismissal of a suit alleging a violation of civil rights when the plaintiff was fired by her employer, State Stores, after refusing to provide a signed Form W-4 with her Social Security number.
Edwards v. Stringer, 2004 TNT 34-10, No. 03-2207 (10th Cir. 2/12/2004), (unpublished).“Moreover, State Stores is not only authorized, but also legally bound to withhold and pay federal income taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. See United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982) (upholding the constitutionality and uniform application of the Social Security Act, which requires employers to withhold social security taxes from employees’ wages, even when such withholding conflicts with an employer’s or employee’s religious or other beliefs); Payne v. Dixie Elec. Co., 330 S.E.2d 749, 750 (Ga. App. 1985) (“an employer is not only authorized but required to withhold federal income taxes from his employees’ pay”); Wilhelm v. United States, 84-1 USTC 1700, *3 (E.D. Tex. 1983) (same). Thus, State Stores’ compliance with its legal obligation to withhold taxes from its employees is not a violation of Edwards’ civil rights.”
See also, Weber v. Leaseway Dedicated Logistics, Inc., 1999 WL 5111, at *1, No. 98-3172 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished); Ron Seaworth v. Bob Pearson, et al., 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-459, 2001 TNT 23-9, No. 99-3014MN (8th Cir. (employer not required to accommodate employee’s refusal to use Social Security number as “mark of the beast”; employer not required to apply for waiver of penalties under I.R.C. section 6724), E.E.O.C. v. Allendale Nursing Ctr., 996 F.Supp. 712, 717 (W.D. Mich. 1998) (requirement that employee obtain SSN is requirement imposed by law and is not employment requirement; provision for waiver of penalties under I.R.C. section 6724 does not exist to benefit employee who caused penalties to be imposed, and employer is not required to take steps to accommodate employee who caused penalty); Shelly L. Baltgalvis v. Newport News Shipbuilding Inc., et al., 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-609, 2001 TNT 48-59, No. 4:00cv55 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Va. 2/22/2001).
A federal district court has also rejected a challenge to a tax of 31% that was withheld from the redemption of a U.S. savings bond when the bond owner refused to provide a Social Security number, despite the sincere religious (“mark of the Beast”) beliefs of the bond owner. Donald Louis Steckler v. United States, 81 AFTR2d Par. 98-495, 98 TNT 54-11, No. 96-1054 (U.S.D.C. E.D. La. 1/26/1998).
My high school and college years were VietNam war days. I was pretty smart in some ways, not so smart in others. An example of the latter: I was part of many anti-war activities, including the Moratorium march on Washington. A chant from those days, which I admit I chanted too: "Two, four, six, eight, fight to end the fascist state". Now, I have no love for Richard Nixon, but to call him "fascist" is not only pretty dumb, it dishonors the memory of those who died at the hands of the real fascists. I obviously didn't see that then.stija wrote:it is apparent to me that you guys are convinced that no man in this union can earn a living without incurring income, which said another way means that you believe you are slaves.