LH's take on IRS' Frivolous Arguments

[rachel]

So if I use a fake SSN and work in the same job as those that legally have a SSN are you saying that my wages are not taxable but my coworkers wages are taxable?
Is that a correct application of your analysis, rachel?

No...
If you use a fake ssn you'll still be taxed the same as if you used your correct ssn. The credits will just be credited to someone else........why would you do that?
The only purpose of using a ssn is to gain credits for FICA and retirement.
I'm just saying that SS is the means of "wage" (3121 and 3401)taxation.

[jg]

But if I am not eligible for a SSN (so I use a fake SSN), am I subject to the income tax or not?

Hendrickson lumps the application of the income tax with his interpretation of "includes" being limiting and claims wage workers do not only not pay FICA; but also are not liable for income tax since they are not in the particular activities taxed by an excise (so far as I understand his claims).

[rachel]

But if I am not eligible for a SSN (so I use a fake SSN), am I subject to the income tax or not?

Hendrickson lumps the application of the income tax with his interpretation of "includes" being limiting and claims wage workers do not only not pay FICA; but also are not liable for income tax since they are not in the particular activities taxed by an excise (so far as I understand his claims).

But if I am not eligible for a SSN (so I use a fake SSN), am I subject to the income tax or not?

You will be subject to the 3101 tax for using a ssn which doesnt matter if its a fake one or not. Fake to you anyway. It maybe in use by someone else or maybe was used years ago by someone now deceased. The SSA and IRS computers will find the discrepencies and red flag the employer.
Just think about what your doing though. Your commiting multiple frauds!
I highly doubt you will get away with using a different ssn. Ultimately you are not going to get out from being taxed anyway. Theres no point in it.

Hendrickson lumps the application of the income tax with his interpretation of "includes" being limiting and claims wage workers do not only not pay FICA; but also are not liable for income tax since they are not in the particular activities taxed by an excise (so far as I understand his claims).

That is my whole point. Pete completely misses the point of section 6051 by puting the ox cart before the ox and then calling the ox a camel.
Most Americans are only taxed for earning 3121(a) wages and withheld for 3401(a) wages for payroll. Section 6051 points this striaght out in the open.
Hendrickson doesnt understand that the only statute in Subtitle C that imposes a tax for 3121(a) wages is statute 3101. This imposing section has nothing to do with being presumed a "federal employee" as Pete beleives.
Section 3101 imposes a FICA tax for being "employed" as defined (for purposes of Social Security). See 3121(b)
3401 does not contain any imposing provisions. You just have the deduction provision of section 3402.
3402 just allows deductions for the Section 1 (gross income) tax which the subject thereof is taxable income. See 26CFR1.1-1
Earning 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes is taxable and thereby putting you into Section 1 gross income.
And to prove Hendrickson is "cracked" and that he has cracked nothing just go read the exceptions of 3121(b) employment. You'll see the same exceptions minus the governmental exceptions in 3401(a).
3401(a) "wages" are based around those 3121(b) "Employment" participants.
3401(c) is just including "federal employee's" making "federal wages" of Title 5 into 3402 deduction provisions for having gross income. See 31.3121 regulations for further clarity.
The problem of Hendrickson is that he completely ignores 3401(a) and spot lights 3401(c). His equation is completely way off. You simply can not ignore the provisions of 3401(a) when taking in the consideration of 3401(c).
Hendrickson also beleives that 3401(c) is a defining statute that defines striclty federal and state entities. This fallacy is also way off base because its Title 5 that does the federal defining.
Once you read Title 5 any slow helmet wearing third grader can come to the conclusion that a secretary working hourly for a company thats not particially or wholly owned by the federal government is not a federal employee.
You cant of course, tell that to Pete because he beleives you are somehow presumed to be something you are not for the need to rebut such a presumption.

[jg]

To me, the biggest disconnect in Hendrickson's claims is that whether or not the payments received were wages for purposes of Subtitle C the payments received are nonetheless subject to Subtitle A income tax rules for inclusion in gross income, allowable exclusions and deductions.

There is nothing that says only wages subject to FICA (or other taxes) are included in income subject to the income tax; quite the contrary, section 61 defines gross income as all worldwide income of citizens and residents that is not otherwise excluded or exempted from income tax.

Somehow, invoking the definition of an excise tax from Flint v. Stone Tracey and imagining that the income tax is limited to the definition in that case ( which dealt with a tax that was described as not being an income tax by the same judges save one that decided Flynt), Hendrickson claims that there are only certain activities that are subject to the income tax as if the tax is not imposed on taxable income.

[rachel]

To me, the biggest disconnect in Hendrickson's claims is that whether or not the payments received were wages for purposes of Subtitle C the payments received are nonetheless subject to Subtitle A income tax rules for inclusion in gross income, allowable exclusions and deductions.

There is nothing that says only wages subject to FICA (or other taxes) are included in income subject to the income tax; quite the contrary, section 61 defines gross income as all worldwide income of citizens and residents that is not otherwise excluded or exempted from income tax.

Somehow, invoking the definition of an excise tax from Flint v. Stone Tracey and imagining that the income tax is limited to the definition in that case ( which dealt with a tax that was described as not being an income tax by the same judges save one that decided Flynt), Hendrickson claims that there are only certain activities that are subject to the income tax as if the tax is not imposed on taxable income.

There is nothing that says only wages subject to FICA (or other taxes) are included in income subject to the income tax; quite the contrary, section 61 defines gross income as all worldwide income of citizens and residents that is not otherwise excluded or exempted from income tax.

I can only find the exemptions of 3121(b) "employment" of 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes from being excluded in gross income.
Problem with Social Security is that the SSA admits that a ssn is not required for merley obtaining one needed for working in the U.S.
Which indicates that participation in Social Security is not mandatory.

[jg]

I can only find the exemptions of 3121(b) "employment" of 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes from being excluded in gross income..

Where do you find that those wages are not subject to the tax imposed in section 1 on taxable income?

Problem with Social Security is that the SSA admits that a ssn is not required for merley obtaining one needed for working in the U.S. Which indicates that participation in Social Security is not mandatory.

There are some types of employment not subject to FICA. See "Work Excluded From Employment" at http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/regs/20cfr404.htm

My understanding is that members of certain religious groups opposed to insurance are the only individuals not required to pay into the system; but that all others are required to pay (when involved in work not excluded, as above) and that no one is required to accept a benefit.

So, participation (or at least payment of the tax) does appear to be mandatory except for those members of certain religious groups opposed to insurance and those working in some excluded types of employment.

[rachel]

I can only find the exemptions of 3121(b) "employment" of 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes from being excluded in gross income..

Where do you find that those wages are not subject to the tax imposed in section 1 on taxable income?

Problem with Social Security is that the SSA admits that a ssn is not required for merley obtaining one needed for working in the U.S. Which indicates that participation in Social Security is not mandatory.

There are some types of employment not subject to FICA. See "Work Excluded From Employment" at http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/regs/20cfr404.htm

My understanding is that members of certain religious groups opposed to insurance are the only individuals not required to pay into the system; but that all others are required to pay (when involved in work not excluded, as above) and that no one is required to accept a benefit.

So, participation (or at least payment of the tax) does appear to be mandatory except for those members of certain religious groups opposed to insurance and those working in some excluded types of employment.

Where do you find that those wages are not subject to the tax imposed in section 1 on taxable income?

I'm not sure what you are asking?
But those who are not subject to 3121(b) employment for 3121(a) wages are not included in 3401(a) for 3402 deductions relating to Section 1 liability either. You will have to read the regulations of 31.3121 and 3401(a) and related regulations to understand.
(I'm not sure if you are aware that the deductions of 3402 related to 3401(a) wages go towards the liability of Section 1.)
This is not to get confused with the federal and state officer, employee, and elected official found in 3401(c). These 3401(c) individuals are not statutorily included in 3121(b) employment except for some after 1983 and a few other circumstances. Most of these individuals are under another insurance (welfare if you will) program so therefor are not included in Title 2 welfare benefits, but are deducted the 3402 for off set to Section 1 liability.
Basically, I found that 3401(a) has the same excepted individuals also found in 3121(a) minus the idividuals under a different benefit program of the United States federal government (Title 5).

My understanding is that members of certain religious groups opposed to insurance are the only individuals not required to pay into the system; but that all others are required to pay (when involved in work not excluded, as above) and that no one is required to accept a benefit.

So, participation (or at least payment of the tax) does appear to be mandatory except for those members of certain religious groups opposed to insurance and those working in some excluded types of employment.

Your understanding is correct only if you are within the confines of the Social Security system in respect to "wages", but as the SSA points out. "A ssn is not required to live and work in the United States".
Therefore if an individual doesnt have a ssn then that individual doesnt have 3121 taxes deducted nor is that individual liable for Section 1 taxes in respect to "wages".
Congress is only allowed to tax income. Gross income consists of "service" of whatever nature which is defined at 3121(b) employment for 3401(a) Social Security purposes.
I have yet to come across any court case that convicted any person of tax evasion that didnt have a ssn. I havent come across any yet anyway.
Its very odd that the Social Security Administration will say that a ssn is not required, but the IRS make it that all employee's are to get a ssn?
Seems that the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing.
How does a collection agency override the Social Security Administration?

[Nikki]

Income taxes are imposed on INCOME, not wages -- although wages are a component of income.

It doesn't matter if a person has a SSN, ITIN, or EIN or not. Income is taxable.

Most sources of income; such as employers, interest-paying banks, stock brokers, etc; require some form of identification number from the payee so they can report the payments to the IRS and (as appropriate) SSA.

If the payee doesn't provide an acceptable identification number, there are requirements to withhold up to 20% of the payments against a possible tax liability.

So, you are correct in that it is not necessary to have a SSN, ITIN, or any other identification number to live in this country.

It is just extremely difficult to get any kind of employment without one.

It is also not possible to avoid, or evade, income taxes just by failing to have a taxpayer identification number.

[jg]

Therefore if an individual doesnt have a ssn then that individual doesnt have 3121 taxes deducted nor is that individual liable for Section 1 taxes in respect to "wages".

This seems to conflict with my scenario of an undocumented worker in the same job as those that do have a legal SSN. Where is it found that this indiviudal is not liable? Got a cite?
So far as I can see, having a SSN or not does not determine if the payments received are or are not subject to taxes.

Your understanding is correct only if you are within the confines of the Social Security system in respect to "wages"

How is one not within the confines of the system? Was the undocumented worker (using a fake SSN) in my scenario not within the confines?

Earlier it was said that the one without an SSN (using a fake SSN) would be subject to tax in the same manner as those doing the same job that do have a SSN; which makes sense.

The reason for the scenario of the fake SSN is to try to understand the correct application of the regulations.

I can only find the exemptions of 3121(b) "employment" of 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes from being excluded in gross income..

Here were you saying some income is not subject to the imposition of the income tax on taxable income? If so, where does it say that?

My main point is that regardless if the payment received is or is not wages subject to FICA, and regardless if the worker does or does not have a SSN the imposition in section 1 of the IRC of a tax on taxable income is not affected by what is the item of income or the status of the worker.

[agent86x]

Income taxes are imposed on INCOME, not wages -- although wages are a component of income.

It doesn't matter if a person has a SSN, ITIN, or EIN or not. Income is taxable.

Most sources of income; such as employers, interest-paying banks, stock brokers, etc; require some form of identification number from the payee so they can report the payments to the IRS and (as appropriate) SSA.

If the payee doesn't provide an acceptable identification number, there are requirements to withhold up to 20% of the payments against a possible tax liability.

So, you are correct in that it is not necessary to have a SSN, ITIN, or any other identification number to live in this country.

It is just extremely difficult to get any kind of employment without one.

It is also not possible to avoid, or evade, income taxes just by failing to have a taxpayer identification number.

Actually, it should be impossible to be employed without a SSN with a few exceptions. While the SSA doesn't require you to have a SSN, the IRS does:

26 CFR Sec. 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers.
(a) In general--(1) Taxpayer identifying numbers--(i) Principal types. There are several types of taxpayer identifying numbers that include the following: social security numbers, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) individual taxpayer identification numbers, IRS adoption taxpayer identification numbers, and employer identification numbers. Social security numbers take the form 000-00-0000. IRS individual taxpayer identification numbers and IRS adoption taxpayer identification numbers
also take the form 000-00-0000 but include a specific number or numbers designated by the IRS. Employer identification numbers take the form 00-0000000.

(ii) Uses. Social security numbers, IRS individual taxpayer
identification numbers, and IRS adoption taxpayer identification numbers are used to identify individual persons. Employer identification numbers are used to identify employers. For the definition of social security number and employer identification number, see Sec. Sec. 301.7701-11 and 301.7701-12, respectively. For the definition of IRS individual taxpayer
identification number, see paragraph (d)(3) of this section. For the definition of IRS adoption taxpayer identification number, see Sec. 301.6109-3(a). Except as otherwise provided in applicable regulations under this chapter or on a return, statement, or other document, and related instructions, taxpayer identifying numbers must be used as follows:

(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) and (D) of this section, and Sec. 301.6109-3, an individual required to furnish a taxpayer identifying number must use a social security number.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(D) of this section and Sec. 301.6109-3, an individual required to furnish a taxpayer identifying number but who is not eligible to obtain a social security number must use an IRS individual taxpayer identification number.

It continues:

(d) Obtaining a taxpayer identifying number--(1) Social security number. Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS-5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

[Quixote]

While the SSA doesn't require you to have a SSN, the IRS does:

It isn't clear to me why SSA ever told anyone that he doesn't need an SSN to work. While that is hypertechnically accurate, it is not, as a practical matter, true. SSA is required by 42 USC 405(c)(2)(A) to "maintain records of the amounts of wages paid to, and the amounts of self-employment income derived by, each individual and of the periods in which such wages were paid and such income was derived ..." The way SSA tells those records apart is by assigning each worker an SSN.

[agent86x]

While the SSA doesn't require you to have a SSN, the IRS does:

It isn't clear to me why SSA ever told anyone that he doesn't need an SSN to work. While that is hypertechnically accurate, it is not, as a practical matter, true. SSA is required by 42 USC 405(c)(2)(A) to "maintain records of the amounts of wages paid to, and the amounts of self-employment income derived by, each individual and of the periods in which such wages were paid and such income was derived ..." The way SSA tells those records apart is by assigning each worker an SSN.

But there is nothing in that section that says that they have to maintain those records using Social Security numbers. SSA doesn't collect the tax, the Treasury/IRS does. In fact, 405(a) states:

"(2)
(A) On the basis of information obtained by or submitted to the Commissioner of Social Security, "

SSA gets the information from the IRS. Stupid? Probably. Confusing? Definitely. Technically correct? Unfortunately, yes.

[rachel]

Income taxes are imposed on INCOME, not wages -- although wages are a component of income.

It doesn't matter if a person has a SSN, ITIN, or EIN or not. Income is taxable.

Most sources of income; such as employers, interest-paying banks, stock brokers, etc; require some form of identification number from the payee so they can report the payments to the IRS and (as appropriate) SSA.

If the payee doesn't provide an acceptable identification number, there are requirements to withhold up to 20% of the payments against a possible tax liability.

So, you are correct in that it is not necessary to have a SSN, ITIN, or any other identification number to live in this country.

It is just extremely difficult to get any kind of employment without one.

It is also not possible to avoid, or evade, income taxes just by failing to have a taxpayer identification number.

Actually, it should be impossible to be employed without a SSN with a few exceptions. While the SSA doesn't require you to have a SSN, the IRS does:

26 CFR Sec. 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers.
(a) In general--(1) Taxpayer identifying numbers--(i) Principal types. There are several types of taxpayer identifying numbers that include the following: social security numbers, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) individual taxpayer identification numbers, IRS adoption taxpayer identification numbers, and employer identification numbers. Social security numbers take the form 000-00-0000. IRS individual taxpayer identification numbers and IRS adoption taxpayer identification numbers
also take the form 000-00-0000 but include a specific number or numbers designated by the IRS. Employer identification numbers take the form 00-0000000.

(ii) Uses. Social security numbers, IRS individual taxpayer
identification numbers, and IRS adoption taxpayer identification numbers are used to identify individual persons. Employer identification numbers are used to identify employers. For the definition of social security number and employer identification number, see Sec. Sec. 301.7701-11 and 301.7701-12, respectively. For the definition of IRS individual taxpayer
identification number, see paragraph (d)(3) of this section. For the definition of IRS adoption taxpayer identification number, see Sec. 301.6109-3(a). Except as otherwise provided in applicable regulations under this chapter or on a return, statement, or other document, and related instructions, taxpayer identifying numbers must be used as follows:

(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) and (D) of this section, and Sec. 301.6109-3, an individual required to furnish a taxpayer identifying number must use a social security number.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(D) of this section and Sec. 301.6109-3, an individual required to furnish a taxpayer identifying number but who is not eligible to obtain a social security number must use an IRS individual taxpayer identification number.

It continues:

(d) Obtaining a taxpayer identifying number--(1) Social security number. Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS-5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

Actually, it should be impossible to be employed without a SSN with a few exceptions. While the SSA doesn't require you to have a SSN, the IRS does:

Your statement lacks clarity.

Being "employed" as defined is for Social Security purposes of getting and/or receiving Title 2 benefits...nothing more!
So yes a ssn is required for "3121(b) employment" only, but what about the person who doesnt wish to participate in 3121(b) "employment" for Social Security purposes?
A ssn is not required for getting a paycheck outside Social Security. If a person is not eligable or doesnt want to participate in Social Security then that person is only required to get a ITIN for other sources of income thats not related to "wages". If hes not involved in "employment" then he makes no "wages"
Section 3401(a) doesnt list any taxable activity other than "Social Security" ("service" of whatever nature) and "federal employment".
Section 61 lists "service of what ever nature"
If you are not involved with Social Security then you are NOT "3121(b) employed" therefore you have no "service of what ever nature".

[LPC]

But there is nothing in that section that says that they have to maintain those records using Social Security numbers. SSA doesn't collect the tax, the Treasury/IRS does. In fact, 405(a) states:

"(2)
(A) On the basis of information obtained by or submitted to the Commissioner of Social Security, "

SSA gets the information from the IRS. Stupid? Probably. Confusing? Definitely. Technically correct? Unfortunately, yes.

The differences between Social Security and the federal income tax are clearer when you look at the chronology of the Social Security number at http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html

The Social Security system was enacted in 1935, and the Social Administration began issuing SSNs in 1936. But it was not until 1961 that the Internal Revenue Code even required the use of a taxpayer identifying number, and it was not until 1962 that the IRS adopted the SSN as the identifying number for individuals.

That means that, from 1913 to 1935, the IRS was collecting income taxes even though there was no social security system, and from 1936 to 1962, the IRS was processing income tax returns without social security numbers on them, even though social security taxes had been withheld.

Very strange.

[LPC]

Being "employed" as defined is for Social Security purposes of getting and/or receiving Title 2 benefits...nothing more!
So yes a ssn is required for "3121(b) employment" only, but what about the person who doesnt wish to participate in 3121(b) "employment" for Social Security purposes?

You have finally written something coherent enough to be demonstrably wrong.

The definitions of "employment" and "employee" in section 3121(b) and (d) have nothing to do with "getting and/or receiving Title 2 benefits" for the majority of American workers.

The definition of "employment" states (in relevant part):

"(b) Employment. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (i) within the United States, ...."

And the definition of "employee" states (in relevant part):

"(d) Employee. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” means— ... (2) any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee...."

So *ANY* common law employee performing services for his/her employer within the United States is engaged in "employment" within the meaning of section 3121(b) *regardless* of whether the employee is "getting and/or receiving Title 2 benefits" and *regardless* of whether the employee does or doesn't "wish to participate in 3121(b) 'employment' for Social Security purposes."

[Quixote]

SSA gets the information from the IRS. Stupid? Probably. Confusing? Definitely. Technically correct? Unfortunately, yes.

Huh? SSA gets self employment information from the IRS. All other information is received directly from employers.

[Brian Rookard]

So what I seem to gather from Rachel's blathering is that if someone is not engaged in "3121" service or whatever, then they're not subject to "3401" withholding, and no section "1" tax can be determined.

Of course this is just plain wrong.

Withholding under section 3401 is merely one method of collecting the tax under section 1. It is counted as a credit towards your liability under section 1.

But that in no way means that just because they didn't collect the tax under section 3401 that you still are not liable for the amount owed under section 1.

The withholding system has always been considered a "pay-as-you-go" type system, and is merely a form of collecting the tax due. In some cases, however, Congress may have determined that no withholding was required. But that does not mean that because you're not subject to withholding that you will not owe the tax under section 1.

Congress could've said "we're only going to impose withholding on brick-layers" ... but just because the brick-layers are the ones having the tax withheld does not mean that the carpenters won't have to pay. The only thing it means is that they're not having taxes withheld from their wages (and that they better have the money to pay when it comes time to pay).

The persona known as "." had it right ... Rachel is nothing more than a TP calling another TP an idiot ... all the while advancing her own brand of stupidity.

[Brian Rookard]

And for goodness sake Rachel ... proof read your posts and at least attempt to write in an intelligent manner (if that's possible).

[agent86x]

SSA gets the information from the IRS. Stupid? Probably. Confusing? Definitely. Technically correct? Unfortunately, yes.

Huh? SSA gets self employment information from the IRS. All other information is received directly from employers.

Employers file form 941 to the IRS every quarter reporting the Social Security and Medicare taxes. The SSA gets their information on individuals from the IRS form W-2 at the end of the year. The SSA doesn't know if what is on the W-2s has actually been paid (maybe they don't even care) until the IRS reconciles it with the 941 submittals. It's all done through the tax system. Like I said, it's confusing.

[rachel]

So what I seem to gather from Rachel's blathering is that if someone is not engaged in "3121" service or whatever, then they're not subject to "3401" withholding, and no section "1" tax can be determined.

Of course this is just plain wrong.

Withholding under section 3401 is merely one method of collecting the tax under section 1. It is counted as a credit towards your liability under section 1.

But that in no way means that just because they didn't collect the tax under section 3401 that you still are not liable for the amount owed under section 1.

The withholding system has always been considered a "pay-as-you-go" type system, and is merely a form of collecting the tax due. In some cases, however, Congress may have determined that no withholding was required. But that does not mean that because you're not subject to withholding that you will not owe the tax under section 1.

Congress could've said "we're only going to impose withholding on brick-layers" ... but just because the brick-layers are the ones having the tax withheld does not mean that the carpenters won't have to pay. The only thing it means is that they're not having taxes withheld from their wages (and that they better have the money to pay when it comes time to pay).

The persona known as "." had it right ... Rachel is nothing more than a TP calling another TP an idiot ... all the while advancing her own brand of stupidity.

Ahh....rookard! You really do stroke Mr. Evans dont you with your hearsay theory.
You and Dan Evens both do what you claim Pete Hendrickson is guilty of. That is, guilty of trying to fit square pegs into round holes for your own interpretation of the law.
You no more understand the law than Pete himself does.
The regulation say that only taxable income is subject to Section "1".
Go reread 26CFR1.1-1 if you havent read it........What does 1.1-1 say? Care to tell everyone on this forum what this regulation says or are you ashamed of your stupidity?
1.1-1 only says "taxable income". 3401 is not taxable income! Matter of fact Rookard, 3401 has no imposing section found in it at all. 3401 is just about witholding for a possible section "1" liability.
Please find an imposing IRC section in section "1" for me please!!

All 3401(a) is is just a combination of 3121(b) and federal employee's together for a withholding for section "1". Notice any imposing tax section as that found at 3101 for 3121(a) wages in 3401 anywhere?......NOPE!!!!!..none what so ever is there.
So now we are back to 3121(a) wages for Social Security PURPOSES providing the taxable income statutes!
Hey!!! idiotic moron...definitions dont mean squat outside the purposes of the titles and subchapters they are written for. So whats your point that you are colaberating with Dan Evens??? other than spewing garbage to this forum.
Gosh!!!! Rookard.... didnt someone post a regulation that says an individual doesnt need to get a ssn if that person doesnt want participate in the benefits, but is required to an ITIN for other sources income because the first listed article of gross income is "service".
We know that "service" is defined in 3121(b) for what Rookard?...........For the purpose of this title(26) or subchapter "7" of title 42.
That means if you are not, in it for benefits you cannot have any taxable income for Section "1".
You, along with Danny Boy Evens, have been BITCHED slapped!!!
Fitting your squares pegs into statutory round holes doesnt work does it.

But that in no way means that just because they didn't collect the tax under section 3401 that you still are not liable for the amount owed under section 1.

What other liability amount are you referring to?
You need to understand that the IRS, cannot in anyway, force a ssn on anyone for "service of whatever nature". That is why they provide ITIN's for the other possible sources of gross income.
No ssn, no "service of whatever nature".
The IRS is just merely a "collecting agency" that does not trump the " Social Security Administration".
Know the differences of the two and you wont have to stroke DBE anymore.