A Hypothetical for Bulten

[notorial dissent]

Notorial, she told him that two particular theories of the universe, which he never espoused and which are in fact contradictory with each other, were wrong. Those theories were basically "I had no wages because only government workers earn wages" and "I had wages but they're not income".
The judge said that the W-2 showed he had taxable wages, and that the company had verified, under oath, that they had paid him taxable wages, and that as a result he owed money for taxes.

Dan, Pete did contradict the W-2 by filing his 1040 under oath, which is all that should be needed to correct an erroneous W-2.
No, Petey flat out lied, lied just like he has all along. The W-2 was not in error, it was issued in accordance with the standing laws, and was later sworn to under oath by the appropriate person in open court, and it all adds up to Pete lied!!!

Further, you state that a judge's finding of unreported income means that the relevant party definitely has 3121 wages or 61 gross income. I'll ignore your blurriness about these three types of income (the pointing out of which would be both right and pointing out a meaningful distinction, but would not make a larger difference in the argument). The problem is that if a judge's finding makes something so, we don't need a Constitution. Since we have a Constitution, a finding contrary to it can be corrected; and if it is not, then the Constitution is being thwarted.
More obfuscation John, the judge’s constitutional authority is to look at these matters and make a determination according to the law as written, which is just exactly what she did, and she determined that Pete filed a frivolous return, and needed to file a valid one based on what he had been told the law was.

Perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs. Keep in mind there are two counts here for each crime because Doreen got the same order.
Pete was informed that his original 1040 was a nullity, that by basis of the W-2 and sworn testimony he had income that qualified as wages and that he was to fill out the 1040 accordingly. He had been “officially” informed that his beliefs were invalid in this matter, and that he was to fill out the form according to the law as it had been explained to him. The rest is up to him.

You well know that what Pete said amounted to "neither 3121(a) wages nor 3401(a) wages were received".
You’re gibbering again John, Pete claimed he didn’t have wages, the judge said he did, the judge wins, Pete had wages. The company said they paid him, he said he worked for them, and there was nothing said about him not receiving the funds so lose another one John.

Pete does not lie.
Pete lies like most people breath, the judge already called him on one, and stopped short hitting him with perjury charges, which he will get hit with if he doesn’t file a valid 1040. Get over it John, Pete is a liar and a fraud.

[SteveSy]

Perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs. Keep in mind there are two counts here for each crime because Doreen got the same order.

Pete was informed that his original 1040 was a nullity, that by basis of the W-2 and sworn testimony he had income that qualified as wages and that he was to fill out the 1040 accordingly. He had been “officially” informed that his beliefs were invalid in this matter, and that he was to fill out the form according to the law as it had been explained to him. The rest is up to him.

Rather convenient that you didn't answer his question. Instead you construct a fallacy and somehow imply that someone cannot continue to have a belief once someone tells them their belief is invalid.

There are too many examples to list to show that strongly held beliefs which were supposedly shown invalid were not invalid at all even though there was supporting evidence held by those in authority and everyone who mattered in authority agreed. The world is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the universe etc.

No judge or any person of authority has the right or power to force another to admit to something in the form of a jurat which they do not believe to be true, regardless of how omnipotent you personally believe they are. What you suggest is a throwback to the Salem Witch trials. At best he should be allowed to scratch out the jurat and put “signed by order of the judge” or more accurately "Signed under threat of punishment". Both would be accurate and they would get their return with the desired figures.

[wserra]

It is not uncommon for a court to order that a tax return be filed in accordance with the law. Wserra mentioned "as conditions of probation or supervised release in criminal tax cases." See the prior discussion at http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=436

and the cases cited in that thread. Many laws require the filing of accurate statements as to various matters, both for govt and public use. Suppose a public company filed a 10-k with the SEC which failed to mention a lawsuit which could potentially bankrupt it because management decided that it wasn't a real risk. Regulators disagree. Is there no power in either the agency or the courts to direct that the company refile the 10-k, including a description of the lawsuit? Is it a defense for the company's management, upon receiving such a directive, that "Well, we don't believe it is?"

Judge Edmonds found that Hendrickson failed to report income which, under the law, he should have reported. Unless appealed and reversed, it is the law of his case that he should have reported it. All her order does is direct Hendrickson to comply with the law. Will one of you legal wizards who finds this nefarious please cite to me any case at all in which "I won't do it because I don't believe it" is found to be a lawful defense to compliance? And don't wrap yourselves in the cloak of grandiosity and proclaim that this is a unique situation. As the cases I cited before show, it isn't.

One case in specific is worth looking at. On one of the occasions (1985) that a certain Irwin Schiff was convicted of tax evasion, he also was directed as part of his sentence to file accurate returns and pay what he owed. He challenged tha power of the District Court to enter such an order. United States v. Schiff, 876 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1989). As I noted above in relation to other cases, the Second Circuit upheld the power of the DC to do so, finding that the order "mandates no more than the law requires."

Good luck, guys. Have fun.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Pete does not lie.

MUHAHAHAH!! HAHAHA!! LOL!!! ROFL!!! OMG YOU'RE KILLING ME!!

(regains composure)

Sure, and he doesn't do mail bombings.

[.]

Aw, c'mon, Wes. It's not fair to throw the actual state of the law in their faces. Poor Pete will look silly. Not to mention JJ Bullshite.

[rachel]

Perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs. Keep in mind there are two counts here for each crime because Doreen got the same order.

Pete was informed that his original 1040 was a nullity, that by basis of the W-2 and sworn testimony he had income that qualified as wages and that he was to fill out the 1040 accordingly. He had been “officially” informed that his beliefs were invalid in this matter, and that he was to fill out the form according to the law as it had been explained to him. The rest is up to him.

Rather convenient that you didn't answer his question. Instead you construct a fallacy and somehow imply that someone cannot continue to have a belief once someone tells them their belief is invalid.

There are too many examples to list to show that strongly held beliefs which were supposedly shown invalid were not invalid at all even though there was supporting evidence held by those in authority and everyone who mattered in authority agreed. The world is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the universe etc.

No judge or any person of authority has the right or power to force another to admit to something in the form of a jurat which they do not believe to be true, regardless of how omnipotent you personally believe they are. What you suggest is a throwback to the Salem Witch trials. At best he should be allowed to scratch out the jurat and put “signed by order of the judge” or more accurately "Signed under threat of punishment". Both would be accurate and they would get their return with the desired figures.

Steve and Mr. Bulton
Do you guys understand the law form the judge was operating under and what law form Pete and everyone with a ssn is under?
Its not the constitutional "common-law" form that you think and want the judge to recognize.
Under the statutory "civil-law", everyone with a ssn is working under the Social Security "Employment" rules and regulations, which is "servie of whatever nature". Meaning everything you do for a living minus any exceptions is "income", "gain","profit", "wealth", ect. and taxed the 3121 and 3401 taxes.
The judge is compelled to operate and obey the Social Security "employment" "civil-law" statutes and issue any "civil penalties" because you chose to operate in that law form for having the ssn in regards to ss benefits.

[Nikki]

Its not the constitutional "common-law" form that you think and want the judge to recognize.
Under the statutory "civil-law", everyone with a ssn is working under the Social Security "Employment" rules and regulations, which is "servie of whatever nature". Meaning everything you do for a living minus any exceptions is "income", "gain","profit", "wealth", ect. and taxed the 3121 and 3401 taxes.
The judge is compelled to operate and obey the Social Security "employment" "civil-law" statutes and issue any "civil penalties" because you chose to operate in that law form for having the ssn in regards to ss benefits.

It's astonishing how a single person can pack so many errors into so few words.

Ignoring the blatant confusion [or misdirection] of "constitutional 'common-law'" versus (by implication) unconstitutional "statutory 'civil-law'" we can focus on her misunderstanding of the social security system, the social security number and its relationship to taxation.

To start, Rachel's theory completely misses how income taxes are imposed on entities without social security numbers -- corporations, etc. But, let's give her a little wiggle room and assume that she intends her theory to apply only to natural people.

Again, it misses how the taxes are imposed on a person without a social security number.

Let's posit a foreign national, resident in the United States, with all of his multi-million dollar annual income from investments. He doesn't have a social security number since he's a foreign national and doesn't need one because he has no intention of ever working.

Strangely, however, his income is still taxable.

Rachel, any ideas why your social security nexus totally fails?

[SteveSy]

Judge Edmonds found that Hendrickson failed to report income which, under the law, he should have reported. Unless appealed and reversed, it is the law of his case that he should have reported it. All her order does is direct Hendrickson to comply with the law. Will one of you legal wizards who finds this nefarious please cite to me any case at all in which "I won't do it because I don't believe it" is found to be a lawful defense to compliance? And don't wrap yourselves in the cloak of grandiosity and proclaim that this is a unique situation. As the cases I cited before show, it isn't.

I don't think anyone suggested he doesn't have to comply with filling out the return because he doesn't believe it's true. However, the judge can't make him sign it stating he believes its an accurate return under penalties of perjury. What's wrong with scratching out the jurat and signing it "Signed under threat of punishment", isn't that an accurate reflection of what's happening? They'll get their form and figures as directed by the judge.

[Nikki]

The form, with the altered jurat, will be returned as invalid.

[SteveSy]

The form, with the altered jurat, will be returned as invalid.

Well then it's a coerced admission plain and simple, extortion really.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete

Certainly the above does not imply or include the judge's belief or his knowledge of the law. It does specifically state it’s the signors belief or knowledge of the law. It's rather amusing that people on here dance around insisting that the judge's position on the law is relevant concerning signing a return. The statement above clearly and unambiguously states the exact opposite.

What's even worse is that these very same forms signed by order of the judge can be used against the signor later to show their belief is invalid. Obviously they can't hold a belief that X is true if they signed a form stating something else. Kinda makes me wonder what kind of country we have become.

[Nikki]

He is free to fill out the form however he sees fit and sign it.

However, since he has been shown the law and been notified that his position is not only incorrect, but frivolous, his return will be subject to the frivolous filing penalty.

His belief may be that his cockamamie theory is correct, but his knowledge is that it has been ruled against.

You believe that the normal expenses of living should be deductible from a person's income. Would you ever file a return making that claim? No, because your knowledge (that it is not a permissible deduction) overrides your belief that it should be.

But, then again, you're not as stupid and obstinate as he is.

[Famspear]

Sunday, June 3, 2007
From: Famspear

Dear SteveSy

Your comments above highlight some of the aspects of the thought processes of many tax protesters.

For example:

--“Certainly the above [signing a tax return containing the standard jurat language] does not imply or include the judge's belief or his knowledge of the law. It does specifically state it’s the signors belief or knowledge of the law.”

Now, let’s look at this verbiage:

--“What's even worse is that these very same forms signed by order of the judge can be used against the signor later to show their [sic] belief is invalid. Obviously they can't hold a belief that X is true if they signed a form stating something else.”

The statement that the signature specifically states that it's the signor's belief or knowledge of the law is incorrect, at least in the sense that you apparently mean.

Here’s why.

I have studied Federal income taxation for about thirty years, and I am aware of many provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and how the courts have interpreted them. The act of signing my own return -- with the jurat language -- and filing that return with the IRS does not necessarily constitute a representation by me that I agree with the courts that my wages are taxable (although I do happen to agree). Instead, I am making a representation that I received wages, that I included all those wages on the return, and that I am aware that THE COURTS have ruled that those wages are taxable. A taxpayer does not need to “agree” with the courts’ interpretation of the constitution and the statutes in order to sign his name next to that jurat in good conscience.

Now, I want to say something about how tax protesters arrive at their conclusions.

The tendencies of tax protesters to mistake their own interpretations of the law as being “the law” – and the tendencies of tax protesters to confuse the protesters’ own idiosyncratic interpretive PROCESSES (they way they "reason things out") with the correct processes inherent in formal legal analysis – are pervasive.

Law, like other complex disciplines, involves a formal process of analysis. This process cannot be learned by reading stuff on the internet. The process cannot be learned merely by reading statutes. The process cannot be learned by reading only, one, or ten, or even a hundred court cases. The failure to learn the process, and the failure to correctly follow the process, of formal legal analysis are part of what dooms tax protesters and their arguments.

Now, let’s look at your argument that forcing the taxpayer to file the return with the jurat under the circumstances you described is results in a “coerced admission plain and simple, extortion really.” A “coerced admission” under our legal system would probably be analyzed primarily in contemplation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

As a matter of law, requiring a tax protester (or anyone else) to file an income tax return reporting the gross amount of wages as taxable – even if the tax protester believes that this treatment is incorrect – is not “coercion” or “extortion” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Even threatening the taxpayer with jail time, etc., would not be coercion or extortion.

Let me illustrate with a fact pattern.

Suppose that I am a drug lord who illegally imports tons of cocaine from South America into the United States. Suppose that for the year 2006, I realized ten million dollars in sales (ignore expenses, cost of sales, etc.), and that under the law I am required to report the ten million dollars as income.

Now, as a really smart drug lord I realize that even though the income is illegal, I’m required by law to report it and pay tax on it. I am aware of the criminal penalties for willfully filing a false tax return as well.

So, silly me, I report the income on my tax return on a line labeled “INCOME FROM SALES OF COCAINE $10,000,000”, and I sign the return, file the return, and pay the tax, all by the due dates provided by law.

The IRS processes the return, and happens to see the drug sales entry on my return, and I am prosecuted for the illegal drug sales (not for tax crimes, as I reported all the income, filed the return, and paid all the tax).

At the illegal drug sales trial, the government seeks to introduce a copy of my tax return as evidence to show that I was aware of the sales of cocaine, to prove willfulness or intent or whatever the mens rea requirement happens to be for drug sales. I argue that my tax return should not be introduced as evidence, pointing out that the Fifth Amendment should protect me from compelled self-incrimination. After all, I had faced criminal penalties for failure to file the return, report the income, and pay the tax.

I lose. Under the law, the return – my own statement -- is admissible against me.

First of all, under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), individuals may be legally required to file tax returns that call for information that may be used against them in criminal cases.

Second, I made the most fundamental mistake of all. I failed to claim the privilege against self-incrimination ON THE RETURN ITSELF. This is the Garner Doctrine.

In Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976), Mr. Garner was convicted in connection with a conspiracy to fix sporting contests and to transmit illegal bets. (He was not charged with tax crimes, and there is no indication he was guilty of any tax crimes.) During the trial the prosecutor introduced, as evidence, Garner’s Federal income tax return. The taxpayer showed his occupation on the return to be “professional gambler.” Garner had reported income from “gambling” or “wagering.” The prosecution used this to help contradict Garner’s argument that his gambling involvement was innocent.

Garner tried unsuccessfully to keep the prosecutor from introducing the tax returns as evidence, arguing that since he was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns (and could have gone to jail for failure to report the income), he was being compelled to be a witness against himself.

The Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Garner was legally required to report the illegal income on the returns. The Court ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination STILL DID NOT APPLY.

The Court stated that "if a witness [e.g., the taxpayer] under compulsion to testify makes disclosures [i.e., in the tax return] instead of claiming the privilege, the Government has not 'compelled' him to incriminate himself."

In other words, compulsion for one legal purpose (taxation) is not always compulsion for another legal purpose (Fifth Amendment).

In other words, if you file the return, whatever you disclose in the return itself is NOT "compelled," within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment –and that’s the rule even though you could go to jail under the TAX LAWS for failure to report it.

If you want the protection of the Fifth Amendment, then you must assert the privilege by reporting the amount of the income -- but labeling the income as “FIFTH AMENDMENT” (instead of “drug sales, etc.).

There are gazillions of laws requiring that people disclose things to the government in situations where willful failure to disclose can be punished with jail time. As a matter of law, that in and of itself does not violate the Fifth Amendment, and does not constitute “coercion” or “extortion” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Whether it seems like "coercion" or "extortion" to you or to me is of no moment.

Now, a few more words about the process of legal analysis.

Under our legal system, the determination of “what the law is” is made by a judge in a court of law. There is no provision under our legal system for you or me to make our own determination and have that determination be legally “correct” merely on that basis.

Further, proper legal analysis is not a process of sitting down and, using some sort of “logic,” coming up with my own interpretation or conclusion of what the law “really is.” Proper legal analysis involves a lot – but for our purposes we may think of legal analysis as the process of using elaborate, complex rules to determine how THE COURTS will rule on the issue (not a process for determining what you or I think the correct answer should be). To perform correct legal analysis, you have to use the rules that the legal system actually uses, not the rules that you personally believe are “correct.”

Sorry. --Famspear

[John J. Bulten]

Steve and Rachel, it's so good to see you back and recognizing what is going on here. All the bluster above by the others (excluding Famspear's latest) can be answered with two observations.

First, every case which JG solicited on the former thread, as I noted there, was about judges ordering accurate testimony. In this case the judge is ordering particular testimony ("I believe X") without regard to whether the testimony is true. She can be nailed on this. To address this point, someone should show another case where a judge has said "you must fill out X on your return" instead of "you must fill out your return accurately".

Second, I have pointed out that the judge changed Pete's argument. It is exactly parallel to a student submitting a homework answer as "2+2=4" and a teacher replying "Your answer '2+2=0' is incorrect and has been judged frivolous by every other teacher too. Now go fill it out '2+2=20,000'." (Since you think Pete is also wrong, please note the exact same subornation case applies if the teacher replies similarly to "2+2=5".) To address this point, someone should show why what Pete said and what the judge said Pete said are identical.

Famspear, I skimmed yours and it sounds relatively fair, but keep in mind the two observations above, as well as the fact that Pete read the laws and cases and stated he had zero wages as defined in 3401(a) and 3121(a) and as supported by every law and case on the topic. It was not a matter of having income required to report, because the judge neither stated a law demonstrating that the payments to Pete derived income equal to their value, nor demonstrated any frivolousness in Pete's argument (instead relying on two strawmen).

While we're at it, perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs.

[jg]

First, every case which JG solicited on the former thread, as I noted there, was about judges ordering accurate testimony. In this case the judge is ordering particular testimony ("I believe X") without regard to whether the testimony is true. She can be nailed on this. To address this point, someone should show another case where a judge has said "you must fill out X on your return" instead of "you must fill out your return accurately"..

That someone is you because you claim there is significance in the distinctions you attempt to draw.

Second, I have pointed out that the judge changed Pete's argument. It is exactly parallel to a student submitting a homework answer as "2+2=4" and a teacher replying "Your answer '2+2=0' is incorrect and has been judged frivolous by every other teacher too. Now go fill it out '2+2=20,000'." (Since you think Pete is also wrong, please note the exact same subornation case applies if the teacher replies similarly to "2+2=5".) To address this point, someone should show why what Pete said and what the judge said Pete said are identical.

That someone is you because you claim there is significance in the distinctions you attempt to draw.
Hendrickson's inability or unwillingness to present an argument with any legal basis is not a fault of the judge. The decision is that Hendrickson received and must report income from the payment for work. The decision denies any and all arguments Hendrickson made in the case - whether stated, unstated or incorrectly stated in the opinion. There is no requirement for the judge to particularly mention (or refute) each and every argument made in the case.

Famspear, I skimmed yours and it sounds relatively fair, but keep in mind the two observations above, as well as the fact that Pete read the laws and cases and stated he had zero wages as defined in 3401(a) and 3121(a) and as supported by every law and case on the topic. It was not a matter of having income required to report, because the judge neither stated a law demonstrating that the payments to Pete derived income equal to their value, nor demonstrated any frivolousness in Pete's argument (instead relying on two strawmen).

See above. There is no requirement for the judge to particularly refute each and every argument made in the case by reference to a particular law. Even so, the the judge did refer to section 61 of the IRC (as I recall).

[Nikki]

Section 3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid -
{laundry list of exclusions omitted}

"This chapter," as cited above, refers to Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages of Subtitle C -- Employment Taxes. For those not familiar with 26USC, the portion related to income taxes is contained in Subtitle A -- Income Taxes, which has its own set of definitions.

Which of the specific exceptions pertains to you and Pete so that your compensation is not wages?


26USC3121 contains definitions for the purpose of the Chapter of the Internal Revenue Code specifically related to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act -- a chapter also within Subtitle C -- Employment Taxes.

How do you or Pete magically expand this restricted definition to apply to other Chapters of the Internal Revenue Code, such as those defining the income tax and income subject to taxation under the income tax?

Did you find something specific in the legislative histories of the various laws which created 26USC which clearly showed that Congress intend the income tax to only apply to a restricted subset of employees or are you just pulling this logic from the same location where monkeys fly?

[natty]

While we're at it, perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs.

That's easy- When someone's beliefs are contrary to the law.

[wserra]

While we're at it, perhaps one of you can demonstrate when, where or why it's lawful for someone's jurat testimony to be dictated contrary to his or her beliefs.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? Here's a free hint, Bulten: when you're in court, you don't get to insist that your particular question, framed the way you want it, gets answered. You only get to make the rules someplace like that collections of nitwits and anonymous patriots you call Lost Horizons. There you can play Talmudic Moderator to your heart's content, posting page after page of what people can and can't say and what moderators should do in the event of transgression. When you wind up in court - as you will unless you fold up your tent in advance - you will find that judges care even less about your game of twenty questions than do the folks here.

Courts have ruled that what you earn is income upon which taxes must be paid. Every court. You can frame it however you wish and it will make no difference - just as it didn't to Hendrickson - because the law is settled. Judge Edmonds can direct Hendrickson to file per her rulings because the law is settled that she can do so, and you saying that it's really a to-MAH-to rather than a to-MAY-to will make no difference.

The answer to your question: I've demonstrated it several times in this thread. Nothing in the Constitution requires courts to phrase their rulings in the way you would like in order for those rulings to be valid.

[LPC]

Bulten should be reminded at least once every thread that there is a court decision that is directly on point and that is completely adverse to his every contention:

United States v. Hendrickson, Case No. 06-11753 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Mich. 2/26/2007).

[Paul]

Well then it's a coerced admission plain and simple, extortion really.

And it's built into our Constitution. What else do you think it means to allow a defendant to compel witnesses on his or her behalf? And the notion that he doesn't believe he earned wages is pure nonsense. He may believe that, as a legal matter, his wages aren't taxable income, but that is a legal conclusion, not a fact and the court has ruled that he is wrong on that belief. His signing the jurat is attesting to the fact that he had wages in the amount shown. Compelling him to state that under oath is no different from compelling him to show up as a witness and state under oath what he saw, regardless of what his beliefs about the legal meaning of what he saw.

[rachel]

Its not the constitutional "common-law" form that you think and want the judge to recognize.
Under the statutory "civil-law", everyone with a ssn is working under the Social Security "Employment" rules and regulations, which is "servie of whatever nature". Meaning everything you do for a living minus any exceptions is "income", "gain","profit", "wealth", ect. and taxed the 3121 and 3401 taxes.
The judge is compelled to operate and obey the Social Security "employment" "civil-law" statutes and issue any "civil penalties" because you chose to operate in that law form for having the ssn in regards to ss benefits.

It's astonishing how a single person can pack so many errors into so few words.

Ignoring the blatant confusion [or misdirection] of "constitutional 'common-law'" versus (by implication) unconstitutional "statutory 'civil-law'" we can focus on her misunderstanding of the social security system, the social security number and its relationship to taxation.

To start, Rachel's theory completely misses how income taxes are imposed on entities without social security numbers -- corporations, etc. But, let's give her a little wiggle room and assume that she intends her theory to apply only to natural people.

Again, it misses how the taxes are imposed on a person without a social security number.

Let's posit a foreign national, resident in the United States, with all of his multi-million dollar annual income from investments. He doesn't have a social security number since he's a foreign national and doesn't need one because he has no intention of ever working.

Strangely, however, his income is still taxable.

Rachel, any ideas why your social security nexus totally fails?

One thing Nikki,
Where did I say anything about a foreign national?
If you could read and comprehend it would make you NOT look like a total ass!
What I said was:
" Under the statutory "civil-law", everyone with a ssn is working under the Social Security "Employment" rules and regulations" in regards to social security benefits.

Its astonishing , Nikki, how you could confuse what I said to a foreign national who's, in your example is not working in regards to ss benefits, but investing?

Furthermore, Nikki said"

"To start, Rachel's theory completely misses how income taxes are imposed on entities without social security numbers"

Show me anywhere in my post that infers that I was talking about someone without a ssn?
Care to explain dipshit?
Strangely, however, Nikki probably wont answer to explain.