Fuzzrabbit's thread (continued)

[LPC]

When would wages not be income?

If you're referring to the statement by the Supreme Court that wages are "usually" income, you can find the answer in the footnote, which provides section 911 as an example.

Section 911 provides an exclusion from gross income for foreign earned income. So the Supreme Court was not saying that some wages are not be "income" in the generic sense, but that some wages might not be "income" in the taxable sense because the wages have been statutorily excluded from gross income.

Which is not the most artful expression of tax law, but is consistent with the context of the opinion, which was comparing the taxation of "income" with the taxation of "wages."

[rachel]

Dan:

Allow me to ask one simple question, please:

Does the definition of gross income in section 61 have anything to do with the definition of wages in 3401?

I think this is an important question that needs an answer.


Neckbone

Neckbone, I beleive your capable of comprehending what I'm asserting.

§ 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.

Neckbone ask yourself why would the employer need an EIN if one or more employee's are not making 3121(a) "wages" for Social Security purposes. If you are a not making statutory "wages" then no liability as in any liability exist including federal income liability.

Understand what 6011(b) is saying here.

§ 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list

(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.
(b) Identification of taxpayer
The Secretary is authorized to require such information with respect to persons subject to the taxes imposed by chapter 21 or chapter 24 as is necessary or helpful in securing proper identification of such persons.

Chapter 21 is FICA or 3121(a) for Social Security purposes and the imposing section is 3101 for the employee and the imposing section for the employer is 3111 for the excise tax.
Chapter 24 is about 3401(a) "wages"and does not impose any tax at all. All it consists of are provisions (3402) for withholding amount against any tax under chapter 1 for gross income.

§ 3402. Income tax collected at source

(a) Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall—
(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.

Now please go back up to 422.112 and reread about the sole proprietor that is not required to obtain an EIN. See if you can figure out why Congress allows a sole proprietor to skip the EIN and not pay any taxes in respect to "wages"!
Remember that every employer is a proprietor. A proprietor is untaxed and is not a statutory "Employer" until the proprietor pays 3121(a) "wages" to one or more employee's. Which then an EIN is required because now the proprietor is in an excise activity (see 3111) for paying 3121(a) wages. The EIN is for purposes of reporting.
A proprietor does not pay pay statutory 3121 or 3401 "wages". A statutory "employer" does pay 3121 and 3401 wages to one or more employee's.
That is what regulation 20CFR 422.112 is saying.

[Nikki]

Rachel:

Could you please enlighten us as to how definitions, specific to one section ot the Tax code, magically jump free of their constraints and apply to any other section?

And, while you're at it, please try to remember that 26USC imposes several different kinds of taxes, such as income, estate, gift, wage, and so on. Please try to keep the distinctions straight.

Rachel: You still there? I asked a question.

[LPC]

Dan:

Allow me to ask one simple question, please:

Does the definition of gross income in section 61 have anything to do with the definition of wages in 3401?

I think this is an important question that needs an answer.


Neckbone

Neckbone, I beleive your capable of comprehending what I'm asserting.

WHOOOOSH!!!

[Brian Rookard]

Now please go back up to 422.112 and reread about the sole proprietor that is not required to obtain an EIN. See if you can figure out why Congress allows a sole proprietor to skip the EIN and not pay any taxes in respect to "wages"!

I explained this to you in the other thread (noting that you skipped the first line of your quote).

The only time a sole proprietor doesn't have to get an EIN is when he has no employees that he is paying any wages to.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the employer doesn't pay any taxes (it just means that he is not collecting or paying any social security/medicare taxes since he has no employees). Since he is a sole proprietor though, he DOES have to pay the self employment taxes FOR HIMSELF under 26 USC 1401 et seq.

Furthermore, that does not mean he has to get no identification number - he uses his SSN as his TIN. He just doesn't have to get an EIN.

Remember that every employer is a proprietor.

Let's be clear, the "sole proprietor" referred to in the regulation you cite refers to an unincorporated business. It does not mean incorporated businesses or LLC or other entities. And the regulation says nothing about them not having to get an EIN.

As I also mentioned before, the only reason they would exempt the sole proprietor is because he would file a Schedule C using his SSN as his TIN - and he has no need for an EIN at that point (especially in the one case they exempt - he has no other employees he's paying wages to).

A proprietor is untaxed and is not a statutory "Employer" until the proprietor pays 3121(a) "wages" to one or more employee's.

Let's go with this argument for just a second. If he has no employees, then OF COURSE he is not paying SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES (because he has no employees). Instead, as a sole proprietor, he is likely "self-employed" and must pay self-employment taxes instead.

[rachel]

Now please go back up to 422.112 and reread about the sole proprietor that is not required to obtain an EIN. See if you can figure out why Congress allows a sole proprietor to skip the EIN and not pay any taxes in respect to "wages"!

I explained this to you in the other thread (noting that you skipped the first line of your quote).

The only time a sole proprietor doesn't have to get an EIN is when he has no employees that he is paying any wages to.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the employer doesn't pay any taxes (it just means that he is not collecting or paying any social security/medicare taxes since he has no employees). Since he is a sole proprietor though, he DOES have to pay the self employment taxes FOR HIMSELF under 26 USC 1401 et seq.

Furthermore, that does not mean he has to get no identification number - he uses his SSN as his TIN. He just doesn't have to get an EIN.

Remember that every employer is a proprietor.

Let's be clear, the "sole proprietor" referred to in the regulation you cite refers to an unincorporated business. It does not mean incorporated businesses or LLC or other entities. And the regulation says nothing about them not having to get an EIN.

As I also mentioned before, the only reason they would exempt the sole proprietor is because he would file a Schedule C using his SSN as his TIN - and he has no need for an EIN at that point (especially in the one case they exempt - he has no other employees he's paying wages to).

A proprietor is untaxed and is not a statutory "Employer" until the proprietor pays 3121(a) "wages" to one or more employee's.

Let's go with this argument for just a second. If he has no employees, then OF COURSE he is not paying SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES (because he has no employees). Instead, as a sole proprietor, he is likely "self-employed" and must pay self-employment taxes instead.

Rookard you are such a freaken toad!
What does 422.112 say ya idiot?

§ 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.

For sake of arguement the social security administration which this regulation is written for, and about, is only concerned about statutory 3121(a) "wages".
Furthermore you retard, the regulations is clearly addressing the fact that the sole proprietor "HAS" employees. Matter of fact one or more employee's.
Wheres any law that you can identify that forces the employer to make the employee's participate in 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes?
You will not find one because there is none! Nobody can force someone into an excise activity for the purpose of taxing them.
Everything you address thus far is purely speculation on your part. Your just interpreting your famous hearsay theories which go against the law.

[Nikki]

Rachel: do you intend to answer my question?

[natty]

For sake of arguement the social security administration which this regulation is written for, and about, is only concerned about statutory 3121(a) "wages".
Furthermore you retard, the regulations is clearly addressing the fact that the sole proprietor "HAS" employees. Matter of fact one or more employee's.
Wheres any law that you can identify that forces the employer to make the employee's participate in 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes?
You will not find one because there is none! Nobody can force someone into an excise activity for the purpose of taxing them.
Everything you address thus far is purely speculation on your part. Your just interpreting your famous hearsay theories which go against the law.

rachel is playing the chicken and egg game.
Which came first?- Social Security or the Income Tax?
The claim that you have "wages" because you voluntarily participate in SS is backwards.

For example, section 3101 imposes an ADDITIONAL income tax on the income of every individual as a percentage of wages. The benefits of SS may be voluntary, but the tax is clearly mandatory.

rachel just "reads" the law in order to fulfill her self-serving conclusions.

[rachel]

For sake of arguement the social security administration which this regulation is written for, and about, is only concerned about statutory 3121(a) "wages".
Furthermore you retard, the regulations is clearly addressing the fact that the sole proprietor "HAS" employees. Matter of fact one or more employee's.
Wheres any law that you can identify that forces the employer to make the employee's participate in 3121(a) wages for Social Security purposes?
You will not find one because there is none! Nobody can force someone into an excise activity for the purpose of taxing them.
Everything you address thus far is purely speculation on your part. Your just interpreting your famous hearsay theories which go against the law.

rachel is playing the chicken and egg game.
Which came first?- Social Security or the Income Tax?
The claim that you have "wages" because you voluntarily participate in SS is backwards.

For example, section 3101 imposes an ADDITIONAL income tax on the income of every individual as a percentage of wages. The benefits of SS may be voluntary, but the tax is clearly mandatory.

rachel just "reads" the law in order to fulfill her self-serving conclusions.

HA..ha..!
What other taxes do you have other than the deductions of 3402 for 3401(a)?
All there is is FICA and Federal thats it!
So which did come first, and which prexisting taxes applied to whom that you are asserting before Social Security was enacted in the 1930's?
All 3401(a) is is 3121(b) employment individuals with those federal and state individuals for the chapter 1 liability.
Keep in mind for your answer that the subject is 3121 and 3401.
Any real reader of 3401 can see that 3121(b) is incorporated into 3401(a). They both have the same exclusions except that 3401(a) includes the federal and state individual that 3121(b) excludes as they are in another welfare program established by the United States government. In short certain federal and state individuals are not allowed to participate in Title 2 Social Security. Some are as the law has changed over the years to include them, but not all of them.

For example, section 3101 imposes an ADDITIONAL income tax on the income of every individual as a percentage of wages. The benefits of SS may be voluntary, but the tax is clearly mandatory

Spoken like a complete fool!
422.112 clearly says the EIN is not mandatory from any pension or excise tax return thats not required to be filed with respect to statutory "wages" for Social Security purposes not being paid to one or more employee's.
So, if the proprietor is not paying statutory "wages" to his employee's then the section 3111 (FICA) excise tax on the employer is not imposed. Therefore you idiot the law says that the EIN is not required as he's not required to file any excise tax return.
The regulation says "ANY" excise tax in regards to "wages" as statutorily defined.

[Brian Rookard]

Rookard you are such a freaken toad!
What does 422.112 say ya idiot?

Let me again highlight the part you insist on ignoring ...

§ 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.

Now, please address this ... or shut up.

For sake of arguement the social security administration which this regulation is written for, and about, is only concerned about statutory 3121(a) "wages".

Furthermore you retard, the regulations is clearly addressing the fact that the sole proprietor "HAS" employees.

Sigh ... it says ...

A sole proprietor who does not pay wages to one or more employees ...

Meaning, that if you don't pay wages to an employee, then this might apply to you.

The converse being, if you DO pay wages to employees, then this section has no application to you.

Of course, that would depend on the whether the sole proprietor pays "wages" to an "employee".

And I guess if you have some tortured understanding of "wages" and "employee", you might say "well, he's not paying me 'wages' and I'm not an 'employee'".

But if he does have employees ... and he pays them wages ... then obviously he needs to get an EIN.

Furthermore, you do not appear to dispute that what you attempt to quote has no application to corporations or llc's or other entities (since they are clearly not "sole proprietors").

I suppose the plumber who does his work on his own as a sole proprietor and who has no employees wouldn't have to get an EIN. But the minute he has employees he pays wages too ... oops, this regulation has no application to him anymore.

And I'll note that you do not address the whole "self-employment" tax issue for sole proprietors.

You're still a tax protestor spouting nonsense.

[Nikki]

Rachel has yet to explain how the definition magically jumps to section 1

[Quixote]

What other taxes do you have other than the deductions of 3402 for 3401(a)?
All there is is FICA and Federal thats it!

I pay many taxes other than FICA and federal withholding tax. I suspect you do too. Of particular interest is the federal income tax, imposed in IRC §1. That is the main tax Hendrickson says he doesn't owe, so it is presumably the subject of this thread. What do you think the subject of this thread is, Rachel?

[Dr. Caligari]

Rachel has yet to explain how the definition magically jumps to section 1

....(crickets).....

[rachel]

What other taxes do you have other than the deductions of 3402 for 3401(a)?
All there is is FICA and Federal thats it!

I pay many taxes other than FICA and federal withholding tax. I suspect you do too. Of particular interest is the federal income tax, imposed in IRC §1. That is the main tax Hendrickson says he doesn't owe, so it is presumably the subject of this thread. What do you think the subject of this thread is, Rachel?

Besides state tax which are relying on the federal and medicare which is a part of FICA...no I dont pay anymore.

Of particular interest is the federal income tax, imposed in IRC §1.

Would you so kindly explain this to Nikki. Nikki seems to think I'm talking about some other tax that the 3402 deductions are withheld for???????

[Dr. Caligari]

...and still no answer to the question...

[Quixote]

Of particular interest is the federal income tax, imposed in IRC §1.

Would you so kindly explain this to Nikki. Nikki seems to think I'm talking about some other tax that the 3402 deductions are withheld for???????

If that were so, and of course it's not, Nikki would still be one up on me, because up to your last post I couldn't tell what tax you were talking about. If we're talking about liability for the tax imposed by IRC §1, why do you keep discussing the method by which it is collected. The tax is the same whether paid by withholding credit, check, or credit card.

[Brian Rookard]

If we're talking about liability for the tax imposed by IRC §1, why do you keep discussing the method by which it is collected. The tax is the same whether paid by withholding credit, check, or credit card.

This was pointed out to her in the other thread.

She thinks that if there's no withholding, no tax is owed.

Of course, that's ridiculous.

[rachel]

Of particular interest is the federal income tax, imposed in IRC §1.

Would you so kindly explain this to Nikki. Nikki seems to think I'm talking about some other tax that the 3402 deductions are withheld for???????

If that were so, and of course it's not, Nikki would still be one up on me, because up to your last post I couldn't tell what tax you were talking about. If we're talking about liability for the tax imposed by IRC §1, why do you keep discussing the method by which it is collected. The tax is the same whether paid by withholding credit, check, or credit card.

No the tax is not the same. Regulation 1.1-1 says that IRC 1 is imposed only on taxable income.
Tell yourself how can you make two such wages (3121 and 3401) from one employer? You dont, and you, like Pete Hendrickson have never thought of that have you. Your both hearsay interpreters of the law to fit your causes.
The only taxable income for most American in respect to wages is 3121(a) for participation in Social Security. Because why?..... Its because if the Fedeal government is going to take care of you then the Social Security laws, as written, say everything you do is going to be taxed and defined as statutory term called "employment" and labeled as a "service of whatever nature".
Besides, between the two wages (3121 and 3401) only 3121 has a tax imposed section. That section is 3101 for the employee and the imposed excise for the employer at section 3111.
Ask yourself if every American was taxed the same using the tables before Social Security was enacted?
Was every American liable for a IRC 1 before Social Security?
And show me where any law that compels Americans to participate in an excise activity such as Social Security to have 3402 deductions being withheld for the off-set of the IRC 1 liability?
You wont find any such law anywhere...period!

[Tax Guest]

rachel, your posts sound like they are created by a random word generator that simply spews nonsensical partial answers that sound somewhat like the question. Are you aware that there is a subject known as law, that is studied in schools, and has general rules and terminology that has been agreed upon for generations? Have you ever heard of a principle known as res judicata?

BTW grammar is also a subject that occasionally has uses.

[natty]

And show me where any law that compels Americans to participate in an excise activity such as Social Security to have 3402 deductions being withheld for the off-set of the IRC 1 liability?
You wont find any such law anywhere...period!

Your question (as well as all of your unintelligible posts) is premised on the assumption that participation in Social Security is the prerequisite to liability.
You have never proven that and just made it up out of thin air.