Once More Into the Breach

[rachel]

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.

Unauthorized practice of the law by untrained people...hahaha. Now thats hysterically funny.
Does every person in America need an attorney when studying for a drivers test?
Hahahaha!!!
"Wages" as defined for the purpose of Social Security are deemed taxable.
Working for "cash", the opposite of taxable defined "wages" for Social Security purposes as you see in 3401(a) is not taxable.

Read 3101 and 3111 and keep in mind when reading these statutes how can anyone force the assignment of a ssn on someone so that they fall into an excise activity!

[Brian Rookard]

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!

Where have I said otherwise? If you have no employees, it is awful hard to be an employer.

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?

It is not a matter of "requiring" ... it is a matter of ... if I am an employer, and I pay employees, is what I pay them wages under the law? We look to the law to determine whether what he pays is wages.

Indeed, an employer may choose to pay his employees solely in the form of health care benefits ... and these are not wages under social security ... but I doubt that most employees would want to do that.

There's an idea for you Rachel ... if you don't want to be paid in "wages" ... then look at the definition of what is excluded from "wages" ... and tell your employer you want to be paid only in those forms that are not wages.

You can choose to be paid in the form of health benefits, 401 contributions, fringe benefits, etc. Those are not wages.

It might be a little hard to live getting paid like that. But you might end up getting quite a bit that way.

You have never answered that question ...why?

Eminently silly question?

§ 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.

No, it doesn't say "any" employer. It says "sole" proprietor. I know you like to read words into a statute ... can you at least try to get it right?

Furthermore, you seem to believe that a person can pay an employee and just say "hey, I'm going to choose not to characterize what I pay him as 'wages' ... if I say he's not an 'employee' and that I'm not paying him 'wages' ... that'll work right"?

Do you really think that your say-so will work? That's kinda like the murderer saying "I know that someone who 'murders' kills another ... but I'll just tell the judge that it wasn't 'murder' because I didn't really 'kill' him ... I can choose to determine whether or not what I did was 'killing' and the judge will be bound by my self-determination."

If a statutes says "wages are all pay you receive as compensation for services" ... who do you think makes the determination that you got paid wages? Do you *honestly* think that you will be able to receive pay from an employer ... and then get to decide whether it was "wages" under the law?

No, you don't get to do that.

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.

Now, I wish you'd also read the regulations which do require an EIN. Start with 26 CFR 31.6011(b)-1. You seem to be fixated on a sole proprietor with no employees.

[Brian Rookard]

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.

Unauthorized practice of the law by untrained people...hahaha. Now thats hysterically funny.
Does every person in America need an attorney when studying for a drivers test?
Hahahaha!!!
"Wages" as defined for the purpose of Social Security are deemed taxable.
Working for "cash", the opposite of taxable defined "wages" for Social Security purposes as you see in 3401(a) is not taxable.

Read 3101 and 3111 and keep in mind when reading these statutes how can anyone force the assignment of a ssn on someone so that they fall into an excise activity!

Sometimes I wonder if she realizes what she's saying.

The requirement is not beforehand ... the requirement comes the minute you decide to engage in activity that is considered employment.

So, if you ... engage in "any service, of whatever nature, performed ... by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, within the United States ..." (see 26 USC 3121(b)) then you are engaged in "employment."

Well, that pretty much covers any type of work in the U.S. ... but it doesn't necessarily cover work done outside the U.S.

Maybe you should move to a foreign country.

[John J. Bulten]

Brian, I'm so glad I'm not trying to rebut every silly mistake you make so I can concentrate on the most ridiculous utterances.

If a statutes says "wages are all pay you receive as compensation for services" ... who do you think makes the determination that you got paid wages?

First, what statute says that? You may fix your quote if you prefer.

Second, obviously, only a party with firsthand knowledge of the transaction (usually only myself and the workplace) can make a determination of whether that transaction generated "wages" according to one or another statutory definition of "wages" (e.g. those in Chapters 21, 23, and 24). That is done by W-2 or 4852. But which Mrs. Peel do you want?

26 CFR 31.0-3(a) The regulations in Subpart B of this part include provisions
26 CFR 31.0-3(b) The regulations in Subpart C of this part include provisions
26 CFR 31.0-3(c) The regulations in Subpart D of this part include provisions
26 CFR 31.0-3(d) The regulations in Subpart E of this part include provisions

26 CFR 31.0-3(a) relating to the definition of terms applicable in the determination of
26 CFR 31.0-3(b) relating to the definition of terms applicable in the determination of
26 CFR 31.0-3(c) relating to the definition of terms applicable in the determination of
26 CFR 31.0-3(d) relating to the definition of terms applicable in the determination of

26 CFR 31.0-3(a) the taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act,
26 CFR 31.0-3(b) the taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act,
26 CFR 31.0-3(c) the tax under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act,
26 CFR 31.0-3(d) the tax under chapter 24 of the Code,

26 CFR 31.0-3(a) such as ``employee'', ``wages'', and ``employment''.
26 CFR 31.0-3(b) such as ``employee'', ``employee representative'', ``employer'', and ``compensation''.
26 CFR 31.0-3(c) such as ``employee'', ``employer'', ``employment'', and ``wages''.
26 CFR 31.0-3(d) such as ``employee'', ``employer'', and ``wages''.

[Brian Rookard]

Brian, I'm so glad I'm not trying to rebut every silly mistake you make so I can concentrate on the most ridiculous utterances.

If a statutes says "wages are all pay you receive as compensation for services" ... who do you think makes the determination that you got paid wages?

First, what statute says that? You may fix your quote if you prefer.

Notice the use of the word "if."

I know you guys don't understand the use of examples ... but you're being silly.

Second, obviously, only a party with firsthand knowledge of the transaction (usually only myself and the workplace) can make a determination of whether that transaction generated "wages" according to one or another statutory definition of "wages" (e.g. those in Chapters 21, 23, and 24). That is done by W-2 or 4852. But which Mrs. Peel do you want?

And the IRS is allowed to determine if your "determination" is in accordance with the law, and can correct your mistake should you make one. For me, if I were an employer, I don't think I want to face fines, penalties, and jail time because an employee doesn't want to pay taxes and is trying to convince me that he's not paid "wages" when he clearly is.

[Brian Rookard]

Brian, I'm so glad I'm not trying to rebut every silly mistake you make ...

You'd get bored waiting for me to make one.

[John J. Bulten]

If a statutes says "wages are all pay you receive as compensation for services" ... who do you think makes the determination that you got paid wages?

See, that's why I'm so much more comfortable not sweating it. Of course I knew you said "if". Look, your example is either alluding to a real statute or not. If you are, you're butchering it. If you're not, you're back in the category with folks who really are trying to deceive by -implying- that your example is what the statutes mean. Either way, using a phony example in one of the very questions in dispute (whether compensation automatically means wages) does not illuminate, it deflects. But since I know what to expect I can have fun with it instead.

Granted, it's less fun to talk with someone who (pretty consistently) uses the right terms of art in just the most misleading way possible, regularly jumping and switching meanings at exactly the point that remains legally accurate but seems to convey more than it does, hinting while remaining plausibly deniable. But that's why I have chosen to ignore some of your other irrelevances. But when I need to intervene with you for the sake of third parties, I'll be ready.

The -real- statutes know when to specify what type of "wages" are being discussed.

26 USC 7701(j)(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to provide that any amount of the employee's or Member's basic pay which is contributed to the Thrift Savings Fund shall not be included in the term "wages" for the purposes of section 209 of the Social Security Act or section 3121(a) of this title.

[wserra]

Second, obviously, only a party with firsthand knowledge of the transaction (usually only myself and the workplace) can make a determination of whether that transaction generated "wages"

That's "obviously" the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Why, only the breeder and the owner can make a determination as to whether that four-legged creature in the corner there is really a dog. And if we agree that it's not - well, then it must not be. After all, who else could decide?

I guess it could be a Bulten.

And, "obviously", only a party with first-hand knowledge of a shooting can make a determination as to whether or not it's murder. Shooting with only the corpse and the shooter as such "parties"? Guess he walks, since nobody else can decide.

This stuff is why it's not worth the time to answer, Brian.

[Quixote]

Have fun feeding the trolls, guys. I'm waiting to see if Bulten or Rachel ever start talking about income tax.

[Imalawman]

This stuff is why it's not worth the time to answer, Brian.

I have to deal with these arguments for a living (thank god not full-time), I see no reason to turn it into my hobby as well. Sometimes, I can't resist and chime in, but I really can't handle their nonsense most of the time.

[John J. Bulten]

Apparently the last three posters are not thinking about the rules of evidence. Only a party with firsthand knowledge of a dog, or of a murder, can provide evidence about it in court. Everyone else, such as IRS employees, can only provide hearsay. Only someone with evidence (such as a party to the event, or a judge) can make relevant determination whether the evidence indicates a statutory test was or was not met. Everyone else, such as Quatloos folk, can only opine.

It's been a fun 24 hours. Since wserra wants me to be topical I'll close with the following email I got today:

From Miss Aisha Muhamed / Abidjan,Cote d'ivoire / West Africa / Dear, / In confidence,I have to introduce myself for I am Aisha Muhamed, the only child of late Chief and Hassan Muhamed, I wish to request for your assistance in my efforts to procure the transfer of my inherited funds for investment ventures Overseas. I have Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00) here in my name with one of the prime banks here and I will require your assistance in receiving the transfer of the funds in your local account for investment purposes. As it is my desire to come over to your country to further my education while you take care of the investment of the money.I will be glad to give you 15% of the total sum for your co-operation. I will be very appreciative if you can return to me with urgent dispatch to enable me advise you on the modalities. I await in anticipation to receive your immediate response. My Kind Regards! Miss Aisha Muhamed aisha_muhamed9@yahoo.com

[Quixote]

Apparently the last three posters are not thinking about the rules of evidence.

Nor the rules of parcheesi.

[Nikki]

John:

Unless I'm mistaken, "compensation for services" is considered a portion of gross income.

How do any of your paralegal (para as in paranormal) logical macinatations manage to remove "compensation for services" from income?

[Dr. Caligari]

John:

Unless I'm mistaken, "compensation for services" is considered a portion of gross income.

How do any of your paralegal (para as in paranormal) logical macinatations manage to remove "compensation for services" from income?

I asked him that back on page 1 of this thread. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[rachel]

If a statutes says "wages are all pay you receive as compensation for services" ... who do you think makes the determination that you got paid wages?

See, that's why I'm so much more comfortable not sweating it. Of course I knew you said "if". Look, your example is either alluding to a real statute or not. If you are, you're butchering it. If you're not, you're back in the category with folks who really are trying to deceive by -implying- that your example is what the statutes mean. Either way, using a phony example in one of the very questions in dispute (whether compensation automatically means wages) does not illuminate, it deflects. But since I know what to expect I can have fun with it instead.

Granted, it's less fun to talk with someone who (pretty consistently) uses the right terms of art in just the most misleading way possible, regularly jumping and switching meanings at exactly the point that remains legally accurate but seems to convey more than it does, hinting while remaining plausibly deniable. But that's why I have chosen to ignore some of your other irrelevances. But when I need to intervene with you for the sake of third parties, I'll be ready.

The -real- statutes know when to specify what type of "wages" are being discussed.

26 USC 7701(j)(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to provide that any amount of the employee's or Member's basic pay which is contributed to the Thrift Savings Fund shall not be included in the term "wages" for the purposes of section 209 of the Social Security Act or section 3121(a) of this title.

John,
Do you have any idea who and what title the "Thrift Savings Fund" applies to?
You havent a clue do you!
If you have any smarts as for thinking for yourself and actually read 3121(a) and the regulations thereof instead of idolizing the idiot named Pete Hendrickson. You'd easily come to the conclusion that 3121(a) and the 31.3121 regulations specifically exclude those individuals who contribute to that fund. Those who contribute to the "Thrift savings Fund" are from Title 5. You know the Government Organizations and Employees title.......hmmm probably and most likely dont know.
You and your statutory "employer" contribute into Title 2 Social Security not Title 5 for government employee's.
Lets not get started off in the wrong direction either. A good portion of government employees contribute into Title 2 Social Security.
Abandon Hendricksons theory that only federal and state individuals make 3401(a) "wages" and read 3401(a) entirely to understand what it is saying.

[Red Cedar PM]

John:

Unless I'm mistaken, "compensation for services" is considered a portion of gross income.

How do any of your paralegal (para as in paranormal) logical macinatations manage to remove "compensation for services" from income?

I asked him that back on page 1 of this thread. I'm still waiting for an answer.

We discussed this at great length the last time Johnny boy was here. The general gist of John's position is that "compensation for services" has a totally different meaning in his alternate universe.

Good luck in court, John. Let me know how it goes.

[Florida]

Apparently the last three posters are not thinking about the rules of evidence. Only a party with firsthand knowledge of a dog, or of a murder, can provide evidence about it in court. Everyone else, such as IRS employees, can only provide hearsay. Only someone with evidence (such as a party to the event, or a judge) can make relevant determination whether the evidence indicates a statutory test was or was not met. Everyone else, such as Quatloos folk, can only opine.

It's been a fun 24 hours. Since wserra wants me to be topical I'll close with the following email I got today:

From Miss Aisha Muhamed / Abidjan,Cote d'ivoire / West Africa / Dear, / In confidence,I have to introduce myself for I am Aisha Muhamed, the only child of late Chief and Hassan Muhamed, I wish to request for your assistance in my efforts to procure the transfer of my inherited funds for investment ventures Overseas. I have Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00) here in my name with one of the prime banks here and I will require your assistance in receiving the transfer of the funds in your local account for investment purposes. As it is my desire to come over to your country to further my education while you take care of the investment of the money.I will be glad to give you 15% of the total sum for your co-operation. I will be very appreciative if you can return to me with urgent dispatch to enable me advise you on the modalities. I await in anticipation to receive your immediate response. My Kind Regards! Miss Aisha Muhamed aisha_muhamed9@yahoo.com

"Hey, brother don't hassle me with details I'm just a cook."

[Brian Rookard]

From Miss Aisha Muhamed / Abidjan,Cote d'ivoire / West Africa / Dear, / In confidence,I have to introduce myself for I am Aisha Muhamed, the only child of late Chief and Hassan Muhamed, I wish to request for your assistance in my efforts to procure the transfer of my inherited funds for investment ventures Overseas. I have Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00) here in my name with one of the prime banks here and I will require your assistance in receiving the transfer of the funds in your local account for investment purposes. As it is my desire to come over to your country to further my education while you take care of the investment of the money.I will be glad to give you 15% of the total sum for your co-operation. I will be very appreciative if you can return to me with urgent dispatch to enable me advise you on the modalities. I await in anticipation to receive your immediate response. My Kind Regards! Miss Aisha Muhamed aisha_muhamed9@yahoo.com

$50 bucks says he fell for it.

[John J. Bulten]

Even assuming I accepted your premise about 3401 (and I don't-- and, more importantly, neither do the courts), section 3401 has nothing to do with section 61. Section 61 doesn't even mention "wages." Section 61 says that, except to the extent otherwise provided in the Code, "gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services..." So, yes, the money you received for working for a particular workplace is, indeed, "gross income."

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.

John: Unless I'm mistaken, "compensation for services" is considered a portion of gross income. How do any of your paralegal (para as in paranormal) logical macinatations manage to remove "compensation for services" from income?

I asked him that back on page 1 of this thread. I'm still waiting for an answer.

We discussed this at great length the last time Johnny boy was here. The general gist of John's position is that "compensation for services" has a totally different meaning in his alternate universe. Good luck in court, John. Let me know how it goes.

Nikki, of course compensation for services is income. I also said above that pay for work is not always compensation for services.

Hearer of crickets, I didn't see your ask and I didn't see my nonanswer. But I did see your nonanswer to my nonask. But then you seem to be obsessed with the previous Dr. Caligari.

Red, you almost have it! "Compensation for services" has whatever technical meaning is applied to it by the context of the original statutes that use the term. (This meaning is, of course, not necessarily "pay for work" just as the meaning of State does not necessarily include Oklahoma.) Which original statutes those are and what they say is a partially complete research project. I am satisfied with the partial results but will someday have more substantial proof (or perhaps disproof) of my results, which are that the term does NOT in fact simply mean "pay for work". This forum has been unable to provide me with that potential disproof.

Brian, please mail your 50 federal reserve notes to an appropriate charity, like Aisha.

Rachel, please email me so we can have an amicable offline discussion of your points.

FedReg 9/07/43 p12267 The term "employee" includes every individual performaing services
26 CFR 31.3401(c)-1(a) The term employee includes every individual performing services

FedReg 9/07/43 p12267 if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs
26 CFR 31.3401(c)-1(a) if the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs

FedReg 9/07/43 p12267 such services is the legal relationship of employer and employee.
26 CFR 31.3401(c)-1(a) such services is the legal relationship of employer and employee.

FedReg 9/07/43 p12267 The term specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the United States ....
26 CFR 31.3401(c)-1(a) The term includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States ....

[Agent Observer]

Bulten wrote:

It's been a fun 24 hours. Since wserra wants me to be topical I'll close with the following email I got today:

From Miss Aisha Muhamed / Abidjan,Cote d'ivoire / West Africa / Dear, / In confidence,I have to introduce myself for I am Aisha Muhamed, the only child of late Chief and Hassan Muhamed, I wish to request for your assistance in my efforts to procure the transfer of my inherited funds for investment ventures Overseas. I have Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00) here in my name with one of the prime banks here and I will require your assistance in receiving the transfer of the funds in your local account for investment purposes. As it is my desire to come over to your country to further my education while you take care of the investment of the money.I will be glad to give you 15% of the total sum for your co-operation. I will be very appreciative if you can return to me with urgent dispatch to enable me advise you on the modalities. I await in anticipation to receive your immediate response. My Kind Regards! Miss Aisha Muhamed aisha_muhamed9@yahoo.com

And the day you get the 15% of that $7 million is the day that the IRS, DoJ, and the Supreme Court, etc, will all suddenly realize that the wacky "IRC according to Bulten" interpretations were dead on and they were all wrong.

But until that day, you, like "Miss Aisha Muhamed," are simply greedy scammers employing different methods to achieve your goal of personal enrichment.