Once More Into the Breach

[Quixote]

And rachel's posts continue to show that she will continue to believe her silliness no matter how many times it is pointed out that she is blatantly misreading the law.

And this is in contrary to your interpretation that 422.112 says that the proprietor who is not paying statutory "wages" doesnt have one or more employee's....Hahahah!!
Talk about blatant misreading....sheesh!
Come on brian, get with the program! Quit trying to fit your round interpretive pegs into statutory square holes.

Rachel, that is definitely a contender for non-sequitur of the year. It also suggests that Mr. Rookard was damning you with faint praise. You misread not only the law, but also perfectly straightforward posts.

[Quixote]

Whoa whoa let's don't all talk at once!

33 USC 2902(10) The term "State" means the States of Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.

John,
What does this have to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing. But read Bulten's disclaimer. He has reserved the right not to make sense. I am surprised though that he chose to exercise it so early in the thread. The last time he was here he kept up the pretense of not being a troll for much longer.

[John J. Bulten]

That's better.

Rachel, I discovered last year that the purpose of this forum is no longer fraud analysis as it was five or six years ago, but is now totally in the realm of satire and funnery. So I decided that when I returned (as I have now), I would try to go with the flow, poke fun and have fun (as I am now doing), rather than actually analyze the fraud perpetrated by the IRS. I attempted and failed last year at serious analysis, for lack of a substantive debating partner. So if any forum veterans discover any new truth from the discussion, it will be only as a by-product. Same as last year but with full disclosure.

You can email me if you want to compare notes about positions which are only minority reports at Quatloos.

Anyway, my previous citation is just to show that sometimes Oklahoma is not a State. The following citation, however, has no purpose whatsoever (Demo).

19 USC 1308(a)(1) The term "cat fur" means the pelt or skin of any animal of the species Felis catus.

[John J. Bulten]

Quixote, I believe "troll" is not defined at Quatloos or in the Statutes. Too bad because at Lost Horizons we have a good working definition of "troll", as we do with most other words that have been debated here so hotly. But even if I were trolling, the following specifically excludes "trolling" from prohibition, as well as "using the longline method" (though I am not using an "American vessel"):

16 USC 973d(a) The prohibitions of section 973c of this title and the licensing requirements of section 973g of this title shall not apply to fishing for albacore tuna by vessels using the trolling method or to fishing by vessels using the longline method in the high seas areas of the Treaty area.

[jkeeb]

John, I'd first try to teach Rachel how to make sense.

[LPC]

Anyway, my previous citation is just to show that sometimes Oklahoma is not a State.

Not a state for what purpose?

Section 2902 begins "In this chapter, the following definitions apply: ...."

Section 2902 is part of chapter 42 of Title 33, which is titled "Estuary Restoration."

The list of states in 2902(10) omits not only Oklahoma, but also Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and a number of other states, all of which have something in common, which is that they do not have any coastline on any ocean, gulf, or great lake, and so have no estuaries.

Now, if you could find a state no resident of which has ever received any income, you might have found something relevant to this thread and this forum, but as it is, you are just a useless troll.

[Brian Rookard]

And this is in contrary to your interpretation that 422.112 says that the proprietor who is not paying statutory "wages" doesnt have one or more employee's....Hahahah!!
Talk about blatant misreading....sheesh!

Well, duh, if an employer has no employees, he has no wages to pay.

Thats what Rookard wants everyone to beleive.
The regulation says if a proprietor who doesnt pay "wages" to one or more employee's then the employer isn't required to obtain the EIN.

I am a sole proprietor. I work for myself. I have no employees. Do I pay wages to "one or more" employees?

__ Yes.


__ No.

Remember, I have NO employees. I know, it seems like a tuff trick question. Hmmm ... does Brian pay wages to employees if he has no employees ... (jeapordy theme song plays in background).

The only reason I can come up with why the proprietor is refered to as a proprietor and not a statutory "employer" is because the proprietor is not an EIN holding "employer" who is not engaged in statutory 3121(b) "employing" for the purposes of Social Security.

Not surprisingly, your interpretation coincides with your self interest ... and it is wrong.

Because the regulation is clear ... if you have just one employee (all you need is "one or more") then the sole proprietor has to get an EIN.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I work for somebody, I plan to get paid ... hence, if I work for a sole proprietor, and I am the only employee, and he pays me wages, then he has "one or more" employees that he pays wages to. Hence, he must get an EIN.

The only situation in which the sole proprietor doesn't have to get an EIN is when he does not have "one or more" employees that he pays wages. As was explained to your sorry a_s, the sole proprietor must pay no employees any wages.

And Danny boy Evens with his personal interpretations to 422.112 suggests that 3121 is not related to 3401 at all. Spite his interpretational round peg beleifs. 3401(a) recognizes those not in 3121(b) "employment" as not earning 3401(a) wages for the 3402 deductions for federal income taxes.

Maybe he relies on the language of the statute ... like the part about the "as used in this chapter" in the definitions sections.

And he along with Rookard intrepret themsleves as experts in this field......................why?

Brian (and Dan) can read ... RIF ... reading is fundamental.

[Brian Rookard]

John, I'd first try to teach Rachel how to make sense.

That should keep him busy ... for a loooooooooonnnnnnnggggggg time.

[LPC]

John, I'd first try to teach Rachel how to make sense.

To Bulten, Rachel already makes sense.

[Brian Rookard]

I attempted and failed last year at serious analysis ....

Congratulations! The first step on your road to recovery ...

[wserra]

I attempted and failed last year at serious analysis

Abysmally, but at the same time at excruciating length.

Still, recognizing that there is a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Edit: Curse you, Brian. Do I have to live here even more than I do to get in the good lines first?

[John J. Bulten]

You recall last year I mostly agreed with everybody.

My friend Dr. Caligari-Werden thinks "money you received for working for a particular workplace" is section 61 "compensation for services". I disagree, but will wait to hear Dr. C's evidence.

My friend JDG apparently thinks the same are 1918/1921 Revenue Act "salaries", or perhaps "salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service". I disagree, but will wait to hear G's evidence.

My friend Nikki thinks PH's position is the same as Dirty Dozen #5 (#1 last year). I disagree, but will wait to hear N's evidence. She also apparently thinks the "feet of clay" (Dan. 2:31-32) means PH's gospel, but I make it my policy not to argue eschatology.

My friend Red Cedar thinks there aren't exclusions from 3401 wages, but, Red, there are 22 of them, aka 3401(a)(1)-(22). But I bet Red meant something else. Red also thinks I asserted a common worker's wages are not taxable, but I would never assert such a frivolous position. I asserted that a common worker's pay is not taxable. Red apparently thinks 3401 wages are the same as pay. I disagree, but will wait to hear R's evidence. Oh, hey, that idea of asserting in court sounds great, I'm actively planning that. After all, Pete wasn't enjoined IIRC. Another victory, right?

My friend Keebler is as usual much more nuanced and restrained. (Spell mine right I'll spell yours right.) Why, yes, it is my premise that I happen to be a technical statutory employee, meaning a 3121(d)(2) employee, subject to employment tax withholding on all my 3121(b) employment. And, yes, it is my premise that I'm not a technical statutory employee, meaning a 3231(b) employee, the reason being that I don't tipple. (Or maybe it's because I do tipple. But see below if anyone wishes to challenge my claim that I'm not a 3231(b) employee.) And, since the language of 3231(b) makes clear I'm not a 3231(b) employee, it should not be surprising if the language of 3401(c) should make clear I'm also not a 3401(c) employee.

He is also open to the fact that "a SSN is not required to work in the US". One source is Annie White, SSA Associate Commissioner, who said, "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States."

He also admits allowances are not income. Is that true even if you give $20 a week or $1000 a year and the kid works for it?

But since I'm being disagreeable, I'll have to disagree on his implicit denial that "3401 had something to do with being an employee", referring to 3401(c). But I'll wait to hear K's evidence.

26 USC 3231(a)-(b) (a) Employer For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means any carrier (as defined in subsection (g)), and any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by one or more such carriers or under common control therewith, and which operates any equipment or facility or performs any service (except trucking service, casual service, and the casual operation of equipment or facilities) in connection with the transportation of passengers or property by railroad, or the receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit, refrigeration or icing, storage, or handling of property transported by railroad, and any receiver, trustee, or other individual or body, judicial or otherwise, when in the possession of the property or operating all or any part of the business of any such employer; except that the term "employer" shall not include any street, interurban, or suburban electric railway, unless such railway is operating as a part of a general steam-railroad system of transportation, but shall not exclude any part of the general steam-railroad system of transportation now or hereafter operated by any other motive power. The Surface Transportation Board is hereby authorized and directed upon request of the Secretary, or upon complaint of any party interested, to determine after hearing whether any line operated by electric power falls within the terms of this exception. The term "employer" shall also include railroad associations, traffic associations, tariff bureaus, demurrage bureaus, weighing and inspection bureaus, collection agencies and other associations, bureaus, agencies, or organizations controlled and maintained wholly or principally by two or more employers as hereinbefore defined and engaged in the performance of services in connection with or incidental to railroad transportation; and railway labor organizations, national in scope, which have been or may be organized in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C., chapter 8), and their State and National legislative committees and their general committees and their insurance departments and their local lodges and divisions, established pursuant to the constitutions and bylaws of such organizations. The term "employer" shall not include any company by reason of its being engaged in the mining of coal, the supplying of coal to an employer where delivery is not beyond the mine tipple, and the operation of equipment or facilities therefor, or in any of such activities. (b) Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" means any individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation; except that the term "employee" shall include an employee of a local lodge or division defined as an employer in subsection (a) only if he was in the service of or in the employment relation to a carrier on or after August 29, 1935. An individual shall be deemed to have been in the employment relation to a carrier on August 29, 1935, if - (1) he was on that date on leave of absence from his employment, expressly granted to him by the carrier by whom he was employed, or by a duly authorized representative of such carrier, and the grant of such leave of absence was established to the satisfaction of the Railroad Retirement Board before July 1947; or (2) he was in the service of a carrier after August 29, 1935, and before January 1946 in each of 6 calendar months, whether or not consecutive; or (3) before August 29, 1935, he did not retire and was not retired or discharged from the service of the last carrier by whom he was employed or its corporate or operating successor, but - (A) solely by reason of his physical or mental disability he ceased before August 29, 1935, to be in the service of such carrier and thereafter remained continuously disabled until he attained age 65 or until August 1945, or (B) solely for such last stated reason a carrier by whom he was employed before August 29, 1935, or a carrier who is its successor did not on or after August 29, 1935, and before August 1945 call him to return to service, or (C) if he was so called he was solely for such reason unable to render service in 6 calendar months as provided in paragraph (2); or (4) he was on August 29, 1935, absent from the service of a carrier by reason of a discharge which, within 1 year after the effective date thereof, was protested, to an appropriate labor representative or to the carrier, as wrongful, and which was followed within 10 years of the effective date thereof by his reinstatement in good faith to his former service with all his seniority rights; except that an individual shall not be deemed to have been on August 29, 1935, in the employment relation to a carrier if before that date he was granted a pension or gratuity on the basis of which a pension was awarded to him pursuant to section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 (45 U.S.C. 228f), or if during the last payroll period before August 29, 1935, in which he rendered service to a carrier he was not in the service of an employer, in accordance with subsection (d), with respect to any service in such payroll period, or if he could have been in the employment relation to an employer only by reason of his having been, either before or after August 29, 1935, in the service of a local lodge or division defined as an employer in subsection (a). The term "employee" includes an officer of an employer. The term "employee" shall not include any individual while such individual is engaged in the physical operations consisting of the mining of coal, the preparation of coal, the handling (other than movement by rail with standard railroad locomotives) of coal not beyond the mine tipple, or the loading of coal at the tipple.

[buck09]

in the realm of satire and funnery.

Funnery, eh? Noun? Verb? Adjective?

I'm sure it's a perfectly cromulent word...

(Yeah, we're all about the funnery here.)

[jkeeb]

He is also open to the fact that "a SSN is not required to work in the US". One source is Annie White, SSA Associate Commissioner, who said, "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States."

I say again, cite would be nice. It may be that the SS title does not require a person to have an SSN to work in the US, but is there no requirement to do so?

[rachel]

Well, duh, if an employer has no employees, he has no wages to pay.

Thats what Rookard wants everyone to beleive.
The regulation says if a proprietor who doesnt pay "wages" to one or more employee's then the employer isn't required to obtain the EIN.

I am a sole proprietor. I work for myself. I have no employees. Do I pay wages to "one or more" employees?

__ Yes.


__ No.

Remember, I have NO employees. I know, it seems like a tuff trick question. Hmmm ... does Brian pay wages to employees if he has no employees ... (jeapordy theme song plays in background).

The only reason I can come up with why the proprietor is refered to as a proprietor and not a statutory "employer" is because the proprietor is not an EIN holding "employer" who is not engaged in statutory 3121(b) "employing" for the purposes of Social Security.

Not surprisingly, your interpretation coincides with your self interest ... and it is wrong.

Because the regulation is clear ... if you have just one employee (all you need is "one or more") then the sole proprietor has to get an EIN.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I work for somebody, I plan to get paid ... hence, if I work for a sole proprietor, and I am the only employee, and he pays me wages, then he has "one or more" employees that he pays wages to. Hence, he must get an EIN.

The only situation in which the sole proprietor doesn't have to get an EIN is when he does not have "one or more" employees that he pays wages. As was explained to your sorry a_s, the sole proprietor must pay no employees any wages.

And Danny boy Evens with his personal interpretations to 422.112 suggests that 3121 is not related to 3401 at all. Spite his interpretational round peg beleifs. 3401(a) recognizes those not in 3121(b) "employment" as not earning 3401(a) wages for the 3402 deductions for federal income taxes.

Maybe he relies on the language of the statute ... like the part about the "as used in this chapter" in the definitions sections.

And he along with Rookard intrepret themsleves as experts in this field......................why?

Brian (and Dan) can read ... RIF ... reading is fundamental.

What a toad you are Rookard!
Does this regulation say "all" employers are required as you interpret Rookard? No!.... It say most employers. You cant be considered an employer unless you are employing one or more employee's now can you...JACK A*S!
And wheres the law that requires every proprietors to pay 3121(a) "wages" as defined for 3121(b) "employment" as defined for purposes of Social Security to every employee?
You have never answered that question ...why?

§ 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.

This regulation is stating three things Rookard!
First, its saying that any proprietor who doesnt pay any "wages" for Social Security purposes to one or more employee's is not required to obtain the EIN.
Secondly, its stating a proprietor who is not required to file any pension returns is not obligated to get an EIN. Probably do to having no employee's or not paying "wages" as defined for Social Security purposes to one or more employee's.
And thirdly, its stating a proprietor who is not required to file any excise returns is not obligated to get an EIN. Probably do to having no employee's or not paying "wages" as defined for Social Security purposes to one or more employee's.

[jkeeb]

So, you don't work for the railroad. You are not an employee under IRC 32xx.

[Duke2Earl]

The main reason I don't take part in these "debates" is that in order to participate you first have to start with the proposition that every court in the land that has held that wages are taxable income.... over and over and over again for more than 90 years are simply wrong. And even better, you have to accept that untrained people engaged in the unauthorized practice of law are better able to interpret statutes than either the people who wrote them or trained jurists. I'm simply not willing to start there.

[wserra]

And even better, you have to accept that untrained people engaged in the unauthorized practice of law are better able to interpret statutes than either the people who wrote them or trained jurists.

And that it's worth your time "debating" the untrained but convinced. Don't forget that.

[Brian Rookard]

He is also open to the fact that "a SSN is not required to work in the US". One source is Annie White, SSA Associate Commissioner, who said, "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States."

Of course, it usually helps when you also point out what the next few sentences say in that standard form response ... context is everything.

And since you're busying "agreeing" with everyone, don't forget what you also agreed to last time around ...

“Why Brian, of course I agree that ‘Those who live in the States of the Union are taxable on their income by the Federal government.’” – John Bulten

[John J. Bulten]

Hey Duke and wserra, of course I agree with 90 years of rulings that wages are income. And Brian, of course I still agree that union-state citizens are taxable on income. But I disagree with your implication that I have wages. Please don't strawman me. Too funnery.

He is also open to the fact that "a SSN is not required to work in the US". One source is Annie White, SSA Associate Commissioner, who said, "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States."

I say again, cite would be nice. It may be that the SS title does not require a person to have an SSN to work in the US, but is there no requirement to do so?

Jkeeb said, "Please cite your source". I cited my source, with a link, a high-placed SSA official. Since it's a form letter, it must have passed every last AUSA just as stated. (If anyone thinks the context of my quote changes its meaning, please explain why.)

"Source" does not mean SAL or USC (or are we reopening 861?). So I'm mystified why you imply I haven't cited a source; and more stumped as to what your question means, as it sounds like citing a negative.

I think you mean to imply that ordinary workers in the 50 states are required to get an SSN, and you're sure there's a law to that effect somewhere. No, actually the law states that the following person is required to get an SSN: a person who wants to engage in "employment" for the purpose of giving their money away to the Fed Reserve for interest payments, which payments are promised to be balanced by equal payments from the SSA to current SS recipients, in the hopes that someday the original donor may be able to request and even more hopefully receive somehow-comparable payments from whatever form of the SSA will then exist under whatever restrictions will then exist. And at about 2% interest over the 40 years to boot. I've summarized rather than cited. If someone else could trouble to find the actual law I'd be thankful.

Anyway, I'm glad that my manful, irreverent approach is working more successfully in getting acceptance of certain apparently unrelated propositions:

Sometimes Oklahoma is not a "State" (e.g. for estuary purposes).

Sometimes employees are not "employees" (e.g. for railroad retirement purposes).

So can we agree that sometimes a term, even in Title 26, does not include what you would ordinarily think of as that term's meaning, and that sometimes “employee” does NOT include what you would normally think of as employees?

Good, thanks.

Somebody's webpage: “Employee” includes what you would normally think of as employees.