Not a person and no SSN De-Tax scams

[grixit]

Not to mention: there was an income tax before there was social security.

This TP has lost his entertainment value, i demand a fresh one.

[Pottapaug1938]

The letter looks phony as hell to me -- why would a government agency not have a letterhead better than a simple typewritten line, for one thing?

At any rate, genuine or not, it has nothing to do with one's income not being taxable if one does not have a SSN. Essentially, the letter is saying that, if you do not have a SSN, you are unable to work legally within the US, and are thus unable to receive enough stable and provable income which can be used, among other things, to repay a loan. In no way, shape of form does it imply that your income is not taxable if you lack a SSN. Even if you work for cash, "under the table", you still have to pay taxes on your income -- and make estimated tax payments in the process, at stated intervals.

[fortinbras]

In the case of US ex rel Mozdziak v. Slater (D.Dela., July 8, 1982) 545 F.Supp 179, 50 AFTR2d 5353, 82 USTC ¶9571 aff'd 709 F2d 1496, the defendant pulled out a good many of the lame defenses still used, with futility, by tax dodgers 30 years later. In particular, he claimed that the Internal Revenue laws did not apply to him, on the basis of his notion that the income tax is only an excise on govt benefits - which he denied receiving. This was rejected decisively. At this point the court mentioned how Slater's one loophole might be proving he was not a US citizen.

Actually the court was not being entirely serious or exact on this point. Slater could still be taxed if he were a non-citizen who was residing in the United States. If he were outside the United States, then not being a US citizen might have helped him. Since it appears from the case that he was residing in Delaware, the assumption would be that he was a US citizen, either by birth or by naturalization. To prove that he was not a citizen, I supposed he'd have to show his foreign passport, or his I&NS green card, or his State Dept certificate of loss of citizenship (issued to US citizens who have, while abroad, formally renounced their US citizenship); otherwise the assumption that he was a US citizen and could therefore be taxed by the IRS regardless of whether he was residing inside or outside the US would persist.

I hope this helps.

[Thule]

There's nothing to indicate that the letter is genuine. In any event, the statement that if one doesn't have a SSN one doesn't have taxable income is completely wrong.

I don't think that's what the letter means to say. The "incriminating" statement is given in a paragraph that deals with bank loans. The gist of the letter is something like this:

1. SSN is voluntary
2. Without a SSN, an employer can't report earnings
3. If an employer can't report earnings, he can't continue to employ the person in question.
4. Banks should not require a SSN in order to give a loan
5. However, a person without SSN will have no registered taxable income
6. Therefore the bank is likely to deny the loan, not because you lack a SSN but because to the bank, it would appear you have no income, sir.

Once again, statements that seems to support the TP-cause change their meaning once they are read in the proper context.

[fortinbras]

In any event, the statement that if one doesn't have a SSN one doesn't have taxable income is completely wrong.

I agree. The HHS letter (I presume it's authentic) may be knowledgeable about whether every person MUST have an SSN, but it is not in a position to speak about their tax liabilities. The IRS would be the proper source for an opinion on that.

With regard to Thule's message: The Internal Revenue Code requires employers to report to the IRS their payments to employees, with a substantial penalty for noncompliance. The employers are expected to identify these employees not merely by name but by some reliable means that makes sense to the IRS; this usually means the SSN although some people will have a TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number). The courts have held that employers, being faced with penalties for non-reporting, are entitled to refuse employment or discharge from employment persons who refuse to provide the requisite SSN; in some instance, where the employee appears to be less than candid about this sort of thing, the employer is instructed to take the Maximum possible payroll tax deduction from that employee's paycheck until the matter is straightened out.

Banks are private institutions. My bank lends (at least in theory) my money to other people to enable them to buy homes, etc., and if the bank did so without properly inquiring about the borrowers - the risk of default/fraud, and, potentially, my bank going under with my account screwed up, is unnecessarily increased. So, yes, I want my bank to be able to identify its borrowers by every reliable means, including their SSNs. And if the would-be borrowers are too evasive to provide their SSNs, then let them borrow from your bank.

[Famspear]

Good grief.



Sometimes, the answer is hiding in plain sight.

The statement in the letter is as follows:

However, a person with no social security number would have no taxable income (see paragraph above) and I am sure that this fact would have a bearing on their decision.

When you compare this to the PDF copy of the letter, you will notice I deliberately deleted the underscoring from the phrase "a person with no social security number would have no taxable income" and that I added underscoring to the parenthetical "see paragraph above".

The preceding paragraph to which the reference is made states, in part:

....employers must have the social security numbers of their workers to legally report their earnings.

I suspect that "searcher" erroneously interpreted the words "a person with no social security number would have no taxable income" to mean "a person cannot have taxable income as defined in the Internal Revenue Code unless that person has a social security number".

But that's not what the writer of the letter says.

The writer, Penny Payton of the Department of Health & Human Services, is using the term "taxable income" to refer very specifically to EARNINGS from an EMPLOYER. What she is saying is that if you don't have a social security number, you wouldn't have EARNINGS from an EMPLOYER -- for the simple reason that most employers generally are not going to hire you and pay you without your providing a social security number (or some other valid tax ID number).

Now, searcher, Penny Payton might be wrong in some exceptional cases. That is, there might be employers out there who don't ask for social security numbers and yet they still pay earnings to employees. Gee, that just might happen from time to time.

But Penny Payton's statement, in her capacity as a "Claims Representative" of the Department of Health & Human Services, is not trying to provide an interpretation of U.S. federal income tax law regarding what is or is not "taxable income". Ms. Payton is not saying that "a person cannot have taxable income as defined in the Internal Revenue Code unless that person has a social security number". Penny is just a Claims Representative with the Department of Health & Human Services. She doesn't work for the Internal Revenue Service, and she's not trying to pontificate about federal tax law.

And if someone from the Department of Health & Human Services were to assert that "a person cannot have taxable income as defined in the Internal Revenue Code unless that person has a social security number", that person would be incorrect.

This is not rocket science.

[LightinDarkness]

Searcher here has actually provided yet another example of de-tax and soverign citizens use to provide "proof." These guys seem to think that ANY LETTER received from a government agency is a 100% true and accurate statement of government policy. In reality, we know most of the people who do the letter writing in government agencies are front line customer service people, usually people with a high school education or a at most a 4 year degree in the liberal arts. I know, having been in government management previously, that these public-facing employees are told time and again not to write anything that could in any way be construed as a statement of official agency policy. If asked about it, they are supposed to refer people to official government publications or sources that have people empowered to actually talk about it.

But, since again there these are low level employees who send out dozens of letters a day and talk to hundreds of people on the phones depending on their job, they often don't adhere to that. I have no doubt the letter is real, just like the letter de-taxers show letters from the IRS stating they have no income tax liability. It doesn't mean anything. They essentially got someone in a low level secretarial position to write something they like even though that peron's letter/opinion has no impact on actual policy.

For example, over on ATS the conspiracy lunatic fringe board I saw a thread where a de-taxer was trumpeting a phone call he had with the IRS who told him he had no tax liability. He was taking this as proof that "Cracking the Code"-esque methods of lying about your taxable income worked. I tried to tell him that when you call the IRS you are talking to front line CS people whose information relies totally on you telling them the truth, so if you tell them you had no taxable income they will tell you that you have no tax liability. Of course I got no where with the nutter.

Now if this letter came from someone authorized to comment on government policy, like the SSA's general counsel office, then it would be something else entirely. But there is a reason why they always seem to come from the front line customer service people. Out of the tons of paper responding to de-taxers the government has written over the years, they will find the 1 out of 1 million that makes it look like they have a point and ignore ALL the others. Its amazing when you think about it.

[Burnaby49]

As I said in a post almost a week ago, Seeker is obviously a sovereign just playing around to get everyone worked up. Replying to him is like giving an addict more drugs. You'll have as much chance convincing him of the errors in his arguments as you've had with all the other sovereign posters in the past. They have an endless supply of obscure court references to misquote or take out of context.

[searcher]

lightin DARKNESS
@ >If asked about it, they are supposed to refer people to official government publications or sources that have people empowered to actually talk about it.
RIGHT !!! Like the Attorney General who sent the inquiry to the RIGHT agency to answer. Since this is a Scam exposing Site, why don't you honorable people show the true colors of one if not the biggest scam of all, Social Security, itself ??? Also, I'll beat you 2 it on this one, many of you have, "in a nice way," say I am a liar, so I'll try to live up to your opinion, to some degree, by continuing to respond. You do have the correct name for me, SCALAWAG, anyway. I did not know S.S. was & is a SCAM until today. ALSO, IF I thought the letter signed by Penny Payton was sufficient evidence & proof that No S.S. number = No Taxable Income, I would not have sent it. I would have need to send it. I only wanted your learned opinions. BUT, I do believe S.S. IS a SCAM!!!!

[Cathulhu]

Yeah, when you can't answer a question or make a point, veer off into left field.

[searcher]

Burnbabyburn
Re: >As I said in a post almost a week ago, Seeker is obviously a sovereign.

If I thought I was a sovereign, I certainly would not hide it. I have said, REPEATEDLY, that I AM A SUBJECT !!! A SUBJECT IS SUBORDINATE to a SOVEREIGN or ANYONE "ACTING" in a SOVEREIGN CAPACITY. Who gave who, "Sovereign IMMUNITY ?" I KNOW who claims at least to have SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, & I DO NOT !!! That is why I have to get PERMISSION from a "HIGHER AUTHORITY" to at least TRY to "PURSUE" some things IN THE "PURSUIT of HAPPINESS."
And, here is something else, I KNOW that in certain situations I NEED your PERMISSION to do "certain things" & this is only RIGHT & PROPER. Are you so dense to have to ask me what I mean by saying that? I don't think so. You know exactly what I mean. & yet, I know I will be asked why I say S.S. IS a SCAM. ALL of you KNOW. YOU MUST KNOW !! At least ONE Quatloos member WILL, in behalf of ALL the others, ask me why I say S.S. IS a SCAM. See IF you can understand this. I am not a saint and I am in no hurry to become one.

[searcher]

cat...
@Yeah, when you can't answer a question or make a point, veer off into left field.
Shame on you. That is not a very nice thing to say to your cohorts.

[Pottapaug1938]

Burnbabyburn
Re: >As I said in a post almost a week ago, Seeker is obviously a sovereign.

If I thought I was a sovereign, I certainly would not hide it. I have said, REPEATEDLY, that I AM A SUBJECT !!! A SUBJECT IS SUBORDINATE to a SOVEREIGN or ANYONE "ACTING" in a SOVEREIGN CAPACITY. Who gave who, "Sovereign IMMUNITY ?" I KNOW who claims at least to have SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, & I DO NOT !!! That is why I have to get PERMISSION from a "HIGHER AUTHORITY" to at least TRY to "PURSUE" some things IN THE "PURSUIT of HAPPINESS."
And, here is something else, I KNOW that in certain situations I NEED your PERMISSION to do "certain things" & this is only RIGHT & PROPER. Are you so dense to have to ask me what I mean by saying that? I don't think so. You know exactly what I mean. & yet, I know I will be asked why I say S.S. IS a SCAM. ALL of you KNOW. YOU MUST KNOW !! At least ONE Quatloos member WILL, in behalf of ALL the others, ask me why I say S.S. IS a SCAM. See IF you can understand this. I am not a saint and I am in no hurry to become one.

I'm not going to bother, searcher; and frankly I hope that no one else on Quatloos feels the need to do so, either. I'm not interested in knowing your opinion of Social Security being a scam, because nothing you've said gives me any confidence that your opinion will be based on fact. You have been given repeated explanations as to why you, the "subject" of a police report, are not thus transformed into a "Subject" of a sovereign; but you are either unable or unwilling to understand that; and I see no reason why your opinions on Social Security should be any different.



Try the Saving to Suitors club, searcher. You will find many kindred souls over there.

[searcher]

pottypaug,et.al.,
You say you disagree with the following court excerpts because it/they are dicta & not dictum. Then the courts are superfluous, OR, the dicta is only used so those of us unlearned in the "Law" & especially procedure, will grab on to the dicta because it "seems right" but in reality only leads to a rabbit trail & worse. I call this deceitful IF that is all dicta IS. If you will not agree on the following excerpts, & I don't care if it's only dictation, how can we who are unlearned become smart & "enlightened" as you & yours are. Oh, that's right,it's a "trade" secret. WHAT'S THE "OTHER" REASON YOU DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS ?


a) "The purpose of a license (Statutory privilege) is to make lawful what would be unlawful without it." State v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Airports Corn 'n, 25 NW. 2d 718, 725

b) "A license is a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful". Payne v. Massey, 196 S.W. 2d 493; 145 Tex 237, 241.

c) "A license confers the privilege to do that which without the license would be unlawful." Littleton v. Burgess, 82 P.864, 866; 14 Wyo. 173.

d) “The object of a license is to confer a right (Statutory privilege) or power which does not exist without it and exercise that which without the license would be illegal.” Inter City Coach Lines v. Harrison, 157 S.E. 673, 676; 172 Ga. 390.

[ashlynne39]

It wasn't hard to find this letter -- here's a link: http://privateaudio.homestead.com/Docum ... 3_2012.pdf

There's nothing to indicate that the letter is genuine. In any event, the statement that if one doesn't have a SSN one doesn't have taxable income is completely wrong.

I don't know if the letter is authentic or not but I don't think on its face searcher thinks it does - perhaps in part because it is very awkwardly written. The sentence that says without a ssn you don't have taxable income does not stand on its on. It specifically refers to the previous paragraph. When you look at the preceding paragraph it basically says that without an ssn you can't get hired because an employer can't pay you. So I think what that sentence is referring to is that you won't have taxable income because you can't be hired. There are of course some flaws in that logic because it ignores the possibility of under the table payments. And as I said the whole paragraph is just badly written but my rationale makes sense to me.

[ashlynne39]

The letter looks phony as hell to me -- why would a government agency not have a letterhead better than a simple typewritten line, for one thing?

At any rate, genuine or not, it has nothing to do with one's income not being taxable if one does not have a SSN. Essentially, the letter is saying that, if you do not have a SSN, you are unable to work legally within the US, and are thus unable to receive enough stable and provable income which can be used, among other things, to repay a loan. In no way, shape of form does it imply that your income is not taxable if you lack a SSN. Even if you work for cash, "under the table", you still have to pay taxes on your income -- and make estimated tax payments in the process, at stated intervals.

And here I thought I was so clever. I should have read the whole thread before writing a response and I would have seen that you wrote essentially the same thing.

[searcher]

To:ashlynn39
I am going to call the 800 number on Monday,unless something unforseen happens,& ask IF there is or ever was a Penny Payton. I wish I knew to begin with,what the inquiry asked of the Attorney General, who sent the inquiry to the "RIGHT" agency to answer, IF he did,that is. Anyway, many quatloos comments are strong evidence to me that this S.S.N. could very well be the mark of the Beast,e.g., that no man might buy or sell unless he has the "number." If we have to have the "number" to work so we can earn money, so we can buy what we need. We cannot sell anything we don't have, & if we can't buy anything because we don't have the "number" we won't have anything to sell.

[Pottapaug1938]

pottypaug,et.al.,
You say you disagree with the following court excerpts because it/they are dicta & not dictum. Then the courts are superfluous, OR, the dicta is only used so those of us unlearned in the "Law" & especially procedure, will grab on to the dicta because it "seems right" but in reality only leads to a rabbit trail & worse. I call this deceitful IF that is all dicta IS. If you will not agree on the following excerpts, & I don't care if it's only dictation, how can we who are unlearned become smart & "enlightened" as you & yours are. Oh, that's right,it's a "trade" secret. WHAT'S THE "OTHER" REASON YOU DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS ?


a) "The purpose of a license (Statutory privilege) is to make lawful what would be unlawful without it." State v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Airports Corn 'n, 25 NW. 2d 718, 725

b) "A license is a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful". Payne v. Massey, 196 S.W. 2d 493; 145 Tex 237, 241.

c) "A license confers the privilege to do that which without the license would be unlawful." Littleton v. Burgess, 82 P.864, 866; 14 Wyo. 173.

d) “The object of a license is to confer a right (Statutory privilege) or power which does not exist without it and exercise that which without the license would be illegal.” Inter City Coach Lines v. Harrison, 157 S.E. 673, 676; 172 Ga. 390.

I don't "disagree" with dicta, searcher. It can be very useful to explain the holding in a case, which is why it's there in the first place. However, you have fallen into the trap of seizing upon dicta and deciding that it is authoritative on a particular subject. For the cases you mention, I would first look to the HOLDING in the case, to see what it was about, before I cited it as authoritative. If you could cite a case in which the HOLDING is some variation of what the above dicta say, and that case has not been overturned by subsequent decision or by subsequent laws, THEN that would mean something.

Here's an example of what I mean: in the case of Zorach v. Clauson , found at 343 US 306 (1952), Justice William O. Douglas said, among other things, "(w)e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Many people have tried to use that quote, that piece of dicta, as the foundation for an assertion that organized school prayer is constitutional, that the display of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is constitutional, and so on. However, in his dicta, Justice Douglas was simply trying to explain that the secular and the religious elements of our lives are not necessarily in conflict, and that there was no need for any government to be hostile to efforts to increase a student's religious knowledge. Accordingly, the Court's holding in the case was that it is not unconstitutional for a school to release students from school for the purpose of receiving religious instruction elsewhere (as opposed to having the instructors come to the school, which was held unconstitutional in the earlier McCollum case.

In short: if you want to become enlightened on a legal subject, find valid, unreversed court cases and look for the holdings in those cases. Dicta can help you to understand the holdings, but they can also lead you down a legal false trail.

[LPC]

WHAT'S THE "OTHER" REASON YOU DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS ?

Back onto the "right to travel" hobby-horse?

The problem is not that I (or anyone else) "disagree" with your quotations out of context; I just don't know to what subject you want to apply your collection of generalities.

For example, I believe it is true that "all men are created equal," but I don't believe that the statement in any way implies that you and I are the same height.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (Jr.) so aptly put it, “General propositions do not decide concrete cases.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75 (1905) (dissenting).

Jurisprudence is all about deciding what things should be treated the same way and what things should be treated differently. The word "license" does not mean the same thing in every context, and what might be a "license" for one purpose is not a "license" for another purpose.

[LPC]

Turning to the concept of a "license" in the world of taxation, tax deniers sometimes argue that Congress can only tax "privileges," and that you don't need a "license" for a privilege, and so Congress can't tax the income from an activity if Congress can't regulate or license the activity. These arguments are totally wrong.

The argument that Congress cannot tax something that it cannot regulate was expressly raised (and rejected) in 1866 in the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 5 Wall. 462 (1866). In that case, the Supreme Court was asked to consider the validity of a “special tax” imposed by Congress in the form of a fee for a “license” to sell lottery tickets and liquor, activities that were already illegal in several states. In describing the the extensive power of taxation given to Congress by the Constitution, the Supreme Court stated:

“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.” License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866).

The court agreed that Congress could not prohibit or regulate the activities that were being taxed, and also agreed that the “license” granted by the payment of the federal tax did not authorize anyone to do anything that was prohibited by state law, concluding that Congress could nevertheless impose a tax on activities that were regulated or prohibited by the states:

“[T]he recognition by the acts of Congress of the power and right of the States to tax, control, or regulate any business carried on within its limits, is entirely consistent with an intention on the part of Congress to tax such business for National purposes.” License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 475 (1866).

So it is quite clear that Congress can tax activities regardless of whether it can regulate them.

Attempting to establish that “rights” cannot be taxed, tax deniers will also cite:

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, 113 (1943).

But the court in the very next sentence declared that “Thus, it [the state] may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (citation omitted), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory.” Which means that, regardless of whether a state can tax the “right to work,” the state can still tax the income from the exercise of that right. Accord, Allison McCoy v. United States, 88 AFTR2d ¶2001-5607, 2001 TNT 236-16, No. 3:00-CV-2786-M (U.S.D.C. N.D.Tex. 11/16/2001).

And the courts have uniformly rejected the argument that the income tax must be based on a “privilege” or a “revenue taxable activity”:

“Turning first to their basic contention, indeed the one on which all the others rest, that the relation of domestic employment does not come within Art. 1, Section 8, and is therefore immune from the imposition of federal taxes and burdens, we find ourselves in no doubt that appellants are neither historically nor etymologically correct in their claim in substance that excises are limited to taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges only. It is true that taxes of the kind referred to are excise taxes but it is also true, as was held in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, that the excises which Congress has power to impose are not limited to vocations or activities which may be prohibited altogether or to those which are the outcome of a franchise, but extend to vocations or activities pursued as of common right. The term ‘excise’ is and was before and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution a term of very wide meaning.” Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954).

So, the whole subject of "licenses" is irrelevant to the federal income tax.