LH's take on IRS' Frivolous Arguments

[Disilloosianed]

Would someone tell me how anyone's opinion on the interpretation of legal provisions can be "hearsay"?

[Imalawman]

Would someone tell me how anyone's opinion on the interpretation of legal provisions can be "hearsay"?

Depends on when and where the interpretation took place and by whom it is offered. Say that I told you 861 meant that I didn't have to pay taxes. Then you're on trial and to prove that 861 means you don't have to pay taxes you offer my interepretation of the statute. My statement would be hearsay - an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

[rachel]

Next Dan Evens and Brian Rookard will do the usual lawyer cop-out and ask for a cite that would back me up.....the old bait and switch routine!!!
I dont need one, I have the statutes and regulations doing the explaining.
Besides anyone ever see a case brought against the government because the plaintif agree's to the law?
Hahahaha.....I'm sorry please excuse my manners...its to funny!

[Quixote]

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?

He did not refer to any "other" liability. He referred only to the liability for taxes imposed by IRC §1 I think your inability to write coherently has affected your reading ability.

[LPC]

Would someone tell me how anyone's opinion on the interpretation of legal provisions can be "hearsay"?

Oh come on, you're not really trying to make sense out of rachel's rantings, are you?

"Hearsay" is just a word she inserts at random. She has no idea what it means.

[LPC]

Next Dan Evens and Brian Rookard will do the usual lawyer cop-out and ask for a cite that would back me up.....the old bait and switch routine!!!
I dont need one, I have the statutes and regulations doing the explaining.

No, I've already explained that the words of the statutes contradict you.

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."

[rachel]

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?

He did not refer to any "other" liability. He referred only to the liability for taxes imposed by IRC §1 I think your inability to write coherently has affected your reading ability.

Yes I know what he is refering too, but his problem lies with his need to explain further how someone without a ssn is subject to Section "1"'s gross income of "service of what ever nature".
If that person doesnt have a ssn he doesnt have taxable income (see 26CFR1.1-1) from a paycheck, so therefore stroke boy, that person does not fall under section "1" listed no. 1..........."service of what ever nature".
And how the law is written, for your education, that person without a ssn must apply for an ITIN for the other sources of income listed in Section "1".
You have also been bitch slapped!!!

[rachel]

Next Dan Evens and Brian Rookard will do the usual lawyer cop-out and ask for a cite that would back me up.....the old bait and switch routine!!!
I dont need one, I have the statutes and regulations doing the explaining.

No, I've already explained that the words of the statutes contradict you.

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."

Just as I thought........you dont care to explain 26CFR1.1-1 do you?.....only taxable income and the idea 3401 doesnt provide any taxing statutes like those of 3101.
Your free to go to spew your hearsay...I wont hold a moron to something he doesnt understand to explain.

[Imalawman]

If I understand the debate here........

That is a big "IF". I'm not sure anyone really has grasped exactly what Rachy is saying.

[Disilloosianed]

I don't know if I'm convinced Imalawman......If I believed your theory on why tax doesn't apply to me and gave it as my opinion, even if I quoted you verbatim, it would still be my opinion. I just happen to share it.

But you're winning me over, rachel.....putting it in bold and underlining it makes it make much more sense.

[Brian Rookard]

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!!

Section 1 *is* the "imposing" section sh_t-for-brains. Try reading it. The first few words of the first five paragraphs each say: "There is hereby imposed ..."

Of course, I'll allow that you don't know how to express your thoughts in a coherent format and that you meant something else.

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.

Section 3401 has been viewed as a method of collection for the income tax (see Baral v. U.S., 528 U.S. 431). What's your problem?

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".

Wrong.

You are taxed regardless of whether you decide to participate by applying for benefits.

Applying for the benefits is the voluntary part.

Getting taxed to pay for current benefits is not optional.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

You, along with Danny Boy Evens, have been BITCHED slapped!!!
Fitting your squares pegs into statutory round holes doesnt work does it.

If it makes you feel better to think that ...

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.

Wrong.

See section 26 USC 6011(b) and 26 CFR 31.6011(b)-2.

No ssn, no "service of whatever nature".

Wrong.

If an employee does not have an SSN, or does not show the employer the SSN, then the the employer is required to still file the return for taxes withheld, and is required to fill out a form SS-5 on behalf of the employee as best they can. See 26 CFR 31.6011(b)-2(c)(3)(iii).

In other words, the taxes get withheld anyways.

The fact that the employer could not give an SSN is of no real consequence. The taxes are withheld anyway. The only thing that really hurts you at that point is that the wages might not be credited under Social Security (which goes to determine the benefits you'll receive.)

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.

You're just another tax protesting moron who wants to argue that just because you don't have an SSN means that you're not engaged in "service" and therefore you're not taxed under the income tax.

You think that we haven't seen these types of arguments before? You're wrong.

[.]

Hmmm, back on page 1, before it was clear what "rachel" was babbling about, I said:

Geez, another semi-sorta-TP. "I think Hendrickson is deluded, but I'm not, blah, blah, blah."

Yet another moron shows up here. What a surprise.

[Quixote]

What other liability amount are you referring to?

He did not refer to any "other" liability. He referred only to the liability for taxes imposed by IRC §1 I think your inability to write coherently has affected your reading ability.

Yes I know what he is refering too, but his problem lies with his need to explain further how someone without a ssn is subject to Section "1"'s gross income of "service of what ever nature".
If that person doesnt have a ssn he doesnt have taxable income (see 26CFR1.1-1) from a paycheck, so therefore stroke boy, that person does not fall under section "1" listed no. 1..........."service of what ever nature".
And how the law is written, for your education, that person without a ssn must apply for an ITIN for the other sources of income listed in Section "1".
You have also been bitch slapped!!!

A quibble about your style: I don't know why you put the phrase "service of whatever nature" in quotes. It's your phrase. You're not quoting someone else.

An observation about your knowledge of the subject.

subject to Section "1"'s gross income of "service of what ever nature".

Section 1 contains no reference to gross income. No section in the IRC makes reference to "service of what ever nature".

Many people without SSNs have income from services. Certain religious groups have been granted a waiver of the requirement to have an SSN. In addition, SSA will not assign SSNs to undocumented aliens, many of whom perform services for pay. Some native self employed people have never applied for an SSN.

Even if everyone who ever received payment for services had an SSN, that does not support your thesis that possession of that SSN made them liable for taxes. I have good reason to believe that they all had a beating heart. My hypothesis that it was the incessant beating of their hearts that made them liable is better supported than your SSN hypothesis. No one without a functioning heart has ever been liable for income taxes.

[Dr. Caligari]

If that person doesnt have a ssn he doesnt have taxable income (see 26CFR1.1-1)

What part of 1.1-1 says that? Please quote the applicable language.

I'll wait.

[Brian Rookard]

I'll wait.

... and wait ...

...

...

...

... and wait ...

...

...

...

... and wait ...

[The Observer]

Wait a minute! What did you do with the crickets, Dr. C?!!!

[rachel]

I'll wait.

... and wait ...

...

...

...

... and wait ...

...

...

...

... and wait ...

Heres what you overlooked Rookard!!

Title 20: Employees' Benefits
PART 422—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
Subpart B—General Procedures


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 422.112 Employer identification numbers.
(a) General. Most employers are required by section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code and by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations at 26 CFR 31.6011(b)–1 to obtain an employer identification number (EIN) and to include it on wage reports filed with SSA. A sole proprietor who does not pay wages to one or more employees or who is not required to file any pension or excise tax return is not subject to this requirement. To apply for an EIN, employers file Form SS–4, “Application for Employer Identification Number,” with the IRS. For the convenience of employers, Form SS–4 is available at all SSA and IRS offices. Household employers, agricultural employers, and domestic corporations which elect social security coverage for employees of foreign subsidiaries who are citizens or residents of the U.S. may be assigned an EIN by IRS without filing an SS–4.

These "wages" this section is talking about is 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes.
If the employee's do not wish to participate in Social Security then the employwer EIN is not required as the law states.
Without an EIN the employer is not required to report any income on behalf of the employee....... because why Rookard?
Wouldnt be because the employee being employed (common-word employed) doesnt have taxable income would he?
Of course not, because the employee is not employed for the purposes of Social Security and therefore isnt supplying his ssn for the purpose of those SS benefits. Therefore Rookard, this employee doesnt make 3121(a) which then is not considered taxable income via section 3101 as 26CFR1.1-1 requires to have in order to be required to file 1040's for gross income.
So Rookard,
No ssn, no taxable income and no required EIN for reporting income (W3) because no 26CFR1.1-1 taxable income exists for a 1040 to be filed.
Dont you just find it very interesting that the Social Security Administration trumps the IRS collection agency!
If you ever pull your head out of your ass you COULD see the difference between the two. But I highly doubt you know how to pull your head out of your ass. You are not demonstrating it anyway. Nothing but hearsay out of you.
Are you going to still try and fit your square personel interpretations pegs of the law into round statutorial law?

[Tax Guest]

rachel, I can't believe no one has ever had the insight you have. Pure brilliance at work. Package this up and sell it please, you are depriving the world of your genius. You will make millions!

[rachel]

rachel, I can't believe no one has ever had the insight you have. Pure brilliance at work. Package this up and sell it please, you are depriving the world of your genius. You will make millions!

Its not brilliance!
I just followed section 6051 imposing section. Section "3101". Its in the first three opening sentences. The law is right in front of you. You just need to read it with an open mind! Leaving out pro and anti-tax hearsay idiots.
I only kept this statute from Brain Rookard and Danny boy Evens to see how far they would go spewing their hearsay LIES about the law. Boy did they!!!! head over heals as if they are looked upon.....YYYYYAAAAAA RIGHT!
They've only proven they are hiding behind court decisions they know nothing about. Muchless the actual law itself!
As the old saying goes " Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves".

[agent86x]

rachel, I can't believe no one has ever had the insight you have. Pure brilliance at work. Package this up and sell it please, you are depriving the world of your genius. You will make millions!

Its not brilliance!
I just followed section 6051 imposing section. Section "3101". Its in the first three opening sentences. The law is right in front of you. You just need to read it with an open mind! Leaving out pro and anti-tax hearsay idiots.
I only kept this statute from Brain Rookard and Danny boy Evens to see how far they would go spewing their hearsay LIES about the law. Boy did they!!!! head over heals as if they are looked upon.....YYYYYAAAAAA RIGHT!
They've only proven they are hiding behind court decisions they know nothing about. Muchless the actual law itself!

As the old saying goes " Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves".

Whooshhhh!!! What a laugher.