Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Very Disturbing

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.
Post a reply

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby Cloud9 » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:19:37

Wesley Snipes led a tax revolt. He got three years.
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:26:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SpringCreekFarm', 'S')o are some of you saying that this documentary is complete bullshit?

It sounded like Ron Paul was confirming what Russo was saying. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is lying?

Please explain.


I'm just getting into the second half which is about the Federal Reserve. That's the part that has the Ron Paul interview and it looks much more promising. The bit about there is no income tax law, yeah I'd say that's bullshit.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby midnight-gamer » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:26:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n argument can be technically sound, but legally unpersuasive.


Would you care to elaborate in more detail?
midnight-gamer
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu 01 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Hampshire USA
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby madpaddler » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:29:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'W')esley Snipes led a tax revolt. He got three years.


I believe his conviction was due to the fact he did not file returns after he made himself liable for the tax in question by unknowingly agreeing his income was taxable. He was found not guilty of federal tax-fraud and conspiracy charges. In my mind he almost got it right...

How do each of us unknowingly agree to liability? See below:


Although the average American doesn't know it, they repeatedly declare themselves liable for state and federal income tax.
Whenever a person who is in control of paying you money asks for an "identifying number" (e.g. SSN, TIN, EIN, ITIN; see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(a) for definitions) what that person is really doing is asking you to declare that the money he is about to pay you is subject to federal and state taxing jurisdiction. Because there is no law that allows a third party to determine your tax status, the person who will be paying you is asking a reasonable question (especially if they are a taxpayer). Of course the problem is that the practical application of the process has been perverted into a "demand" as opposed to a "request". This is particularly odd in light of the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his own tax regulations, states that the requester may only request the number.
madpaddler
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of the Mason Dixon Line
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby jlw61 » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:35:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('madpaddler', 'D')o you remember the first time you recognized PO as a real problem? Did you immediately dismiss the idea as concocted by a bunch of paranoid gullible people?


No, not really. It's pretty logical, and there's no viable refutation. The only thing I've ever heard any in depth argument about vis-a-via PO is when it's coming and what it's impact will be.

I brushed off Y2k that way though.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you feel my post is just one of those crazy anti-tax loons trying to get away with paying money, you are wrong. I would gladly pay my "share" to help fund any number of reasonable programs.

Like I said, I think income taxes are a horrible thing, and the ever blossoming federal government they have enable is a monster. I just think it's really naive to think your going to get rid of that monster with some argument about "You didn't use the right word here." If the federal government is good at anything, it is good at passing laws, regulating our behavior, and coming up with inescapable mechanisms to extract taxes from us.

You want to have a march on Washington to repeal the 16th amendment and the Internal Revenue Code, I'm there with you. Let's do it. But for now the code does exist. It does require filling of returns and paying of taxes. Pretending it's not there is not going to solve the problem.


I'm not going to go into my usual "case law vs written law" or "the evils of feature creap in government" or any of my other rants, I'm just going to suggest a good read.

If you all what a really good story about how government "should work" then I suggest you read H. Beam Piper's Lone Star Planet at Project Guenberg. Whenever I'm down over government, I take thirty minutes to enjoy one of the works of a master storyteller.
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
User avatar
jlw61
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 03 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sunny Virginia, USA
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby BigTex » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:42:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('midnight-gamer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n argument can be technically sound, but legally unpersuasive.


Would you care to elaborate in more detail?


For example, if my argument is that an authority is not legitimate, and I make that argument before that authority and the authority is the ultimate arbiter of whether it is legitimate, I guarantee you that no matter how technically sound the argument is, in virtually every case the authority will adopt a legal reasoning for why its authority is, in fact, legitimate.

Technical arguments, as I am using the term, would be akin to logic--e.g., some As are Bs and all Bs are Cs; therefore some As are Cs. Something like that.

A legal argument is more like an appeal to reason that cites similar analyses applied in similar scenarios. A legal argument will contain elements of logic, but will also demonstrate why the desired outcome is also the one that makes the most sense and has the most utility--i.e., it is the most reasonable outcome. Thus, if my legal argument contains ONLY the logical analysis that leads to the conclusion that the income tax regime is not legitimate, but the other side makes a contrary argument AND shows how my desired outcome is, in fact, unworkable, then the other side is likely to win.

An easier way of saying it would be that you're not going to be able to play gotcha with the federal government.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:42:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('madpaddler', 'A')lthough the average American doesn't know it, they repeatedly declare themselves liable for state and federal income tax.
Whenever a person who is in control of paying you money asks for an "identifying number" (e.g. SSN, TIN, EIN, ITIN; see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(a) for definitions) what that person is really doing is asking you to declare that the money he is about to pay you is subject to federal and state taxing jurisdiction. Because there is no law that allows a third party to determine your tax status, the person who will be paying you is asking a reasonable question (especially if they are a taxpayer). Of course the problem is that the practical application of the process has been perverted into a "demand" as opposed to a "request". This is particularly odd in light of the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his own tax regulations, states that the requester may only request the number.


I posted the statute above. It says income is taxable based on nothing more than the fact that it is income. Do you have some rebuttal?

As for a law requiring the filing of a 1040, see 26USC61(a):
"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." link

On that point, Ron Paul is simply wrong.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby madpaddler » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 16:54:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('madpaddler', 'A')lthough the average American doesn't know it, they repeatedly declare themselves liable for state and federal income tax.
Whenever a person who is in control of paying you money asks for an "identifying number" (e.g. SSN, TIN, EIN, ITIN; see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(a) for definitions) what that person is really doing is asking you to declare that the money he is about to pay you is subject to federal and state taxing jurisdiction. Because there is no law that allows a third party to determine your tax status, the person who will be paying you is asking a reasonable question (especially if they are a taxpayer). Of course the problem is that the practical application of the process has been perverted into a "demand" as opposed to a "request". This is particularly odd in light of the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his own tax regulations, states that the requester may only request the number.


I posted the statute above. It says income is taxable based on nothing more than the fact that it is income. Do you have some rebuttal?


On that point, Ron Paul is simply wrong.


Yes, sorry it is long:
Most Americans today feel that the IRC applies to everyone. No matter how many Americans believe it to be true it is still factually and legally inaccurate. The IRC only applies to "taxpayers". This is a pivotal point. Let's see what the federal courts have said on this issue:

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added]
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

As you can see, the IRC does not apply to everyone. Of course we really haven't resolved anything because most Americans also believe themselves to be "taxpayers". Why do they believe that? Because they've been told that they are. And not just told by this person or that, but told by everyone! Geez…everyone can't be wrong - can they? To the chagrin of Americans who have taken the time to actually read the law, they find out that, "yes", everyone who said he or she is a taxpayer was wrong.

What is the general definition of "taxpayer" provided in the IRC?

26 USC §7701(a)(14) - The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. [emphasis added]

So…how do you know if you're "subject to" an internal revenue tax? Ordinarily the first step would be to ask an expert, but as we've already covered, today's "experts" are little more than mouthpieces for the IRS. Asking them would not be terribly useful if you're looking for factual and objective answers. The second way would be to read the law for yourself; but where to start? Unfortunately, the best place to start is with a basic concept that you'll not find stated in any tax law book anywhere.

The first concept that you need to learn about tax law (and law in general) is "context, context, context". This is not the only legal principle you may need to know, but is certainly the preeminent one.

All laws, and the specific words within the laws, must be seen in the context of the subject being addressed and considered within the context of jurisdictional limitations of the government.

The context of the subject should always be considered; e.g. a law dealing with medical care requirements should not be presumed to apply to a human being if the statute you're reading is contained within the Agriculture Code.

Concerning jurisdictional limits; the government may write a law that applies properly to one party, but exceeds its authority when applied to you. A prime example of this is the annual tax that many counties levy upon the personal property of businesses. Such laws are written for corporations and certain other "legal fictions", but do not apply to real live Citizens. Real live Citizens have a Constitutional right to own property and cannot be taxed on the exercise of a Constitutionally secured right except through certain very narrow methods that are not currently being used in this country.

How do we then apply these newly acquired principles (i.e. "contextual setting" and "jurisdictional limits") to income tax? First we must take stock of the following jurisdictional fact:

The IRC only applies to money or other forms of property that are within the lawful reach of federal and state taxing authority.

Read that again. Read it as many times as it takes for that reality to embed itself in your mind. Now, let's turn it over and look at it from the opposite view.

The federal and state governments cannot tax anything that lies beyond their lawful taxing authority.

O.K., we've got that; so how do we now determine what is within the government's authority, and what is not? Fortunately, the question is not too hard to answer.

The federal Constitution only recognizes two categories of taxation. One is a direct tax and the other is an indirect tax. [See the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.] As far as American law is concerned, these are the only two classes of taxation. For us, they are the equivalent of the northern and southern hemisphere - together they are the whole ball of wax.

Here's a solid definition of "direct tax" from the US Supreme Court:

"Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights"
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41

Virtually all taxes in this country are indirect taxes and not direct taxes. While many people will tell you that the test for determining if a tax is indirect is that it can be passed along to another person (such as sales tax), we feel that the more useful and accurate test is if you can choose to avoid the "taxable activity", and thus avoid the tax altogether. If one cannot avoid a tax without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but is direct. [See the section on Sales Tax within this site for common misconception concerning that tax.]

Without going into the complete legal history of taxation and its Constitutional limits (which can be viewed within this site at Constitutional Issues of Taxation), suffice it to say that the only direct tax that may currently exist in this country is the tax allegedly authorized by the 16th Amendment. We say, "may currently exist", because the federal courts are in conflict as to whether the 16th Amendment authorized a special direct tax, or simply reinforced a pre-existing government power concerning an indirect tax. However, we need not get sidetracked with that issue because the 16th Amendment has no bearing on the ordinary compensation of the average American. Taxes under the 16th Amendment only deal with corporate dividends and other forms of distribution of corporate profit derived from capitol investment.

This is clearly expressed in various court rulings, such as;

"The sixteenth [amendment] does not justify the taxation of persons or things (their property) previously immune . . .it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens…it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary." [emphasis added]
Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920)

As for a law requiring the filing of a 1040, see 26USC61(a):
"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." link

Requiring and demanding are virtually the same. You think you must do or else, correct? The actual wording is "request" the number. You have the ability to deny the request as your salary for labor is not "income" Interest, dividends and money made via corp activity is a "taxable" item. A salary is earned from labor and does not include any gains as the term income requires.


Ron Paul is not wrong.
Last edited by madpaddler on Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:02:41, edited 1 time in total.
madpaddler
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of the Mason Dixon Line
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:00:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('madpaddler', 'R')on Paul is not wrong.


Well....that clears it all up. :roll:

Never mind that I just read it to you, if Ron Paul says he can't point to it, then it must not exist.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby madpaddler » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:10:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('madpaddler', 'R')on Paul is not wrong.


Well....that clears it all up. :roll:

Never mind that I just read it to you, if Ron Paul says he can't point to it, then it must not exist.


Sorry, must have missed something in the translation. Had an issue with the post, apparently responded inside the quote I was answering. I'm not that big an idiot thank you.
madpaddler
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of the Mason Dixon Line
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby BigTex » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:21:54

Please don't waste your time on this topic.

I know the reasoning. I understand the arguments.

Even if it sounds good. Even if it starts to make sense.

You are not a lawyer.

It doesn't work.

Don't try it.

You will lose.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby Dreamtwister » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:22:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'W')esley Snipes led a tax revolt. He got three years.


That doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. It just means that the judge (You'll notice Snipes was denied the right to a jury) chose to uphold the status quo. The fact that Snipes sounds like a raving lunatic didn't help his case, either.

The Snipes trial was predetermined. Not because this or that law says something, but because if he were found not guilty, it would set precident and the entire tax system would collapse. Look at an excerpt from this article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')rosecutors said Snipes' case was important to send a message to would-be tax protesters not to test the government.


"Don't test us" isn't a very compelling legal argument, but it sums up the situation nicely. Translation: "We will do what we want, whether it's legal or not."
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Dreamtwister
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:29:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('madpaddler', 'M')ost Americans today feel that the IRC applies to everyone. No matter how many Americans believe it to be true it is still factually and legally inaccurate. The IRC only applies to "taxpayers".


That is factually incorrect. "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:" (There are separate tables for surviving spouses, heads of household, and married individuals that use the same language)

Every individual who has income is liable for the tax, and every individual who is liable for the tax is required to file forms as required by the secretary of the treasury.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o…how do you know if you're "subject to" an internal revenue tax? Ordinarily the first step would be to ask an expert, but as we've already covered, today's "experts" are little more than mouthpieces for the IRS. Asking them would not be terribly useful if you're looking for factual and objective answers. The second way would be to read the law for yourself; but where to start?

Not hard at all. If you have a copy of the Internal Revenue Code, start at the front. The first paragraph of chapter 1 tells you that if you are an individual, and you have income, you are liable for the tax.

The only way that the Code doesn't govern is if it's ruled unconstitutional. That, of course, has never happened. Anything else is just people talking smack and trying to mislead the gullible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')equiring and demanding are virtually the same. You think you must do or else, correct? The actual wording is "request" the number. You have the ability to deny the request as your salary for labor is not "income" Interest, dividends and money made via corp activity is a "taxable" item. A salary is earned from labor and does not include any gains as the term income requires.


You realize that you are talking out your anus right? Those things are clearly defined, and I've posted the definitions. Income is explicitly defined to include payment for services (i.e. labor). You are REQUIRED by the statute to file whatever form the IRS decides. It's there in very plain language and the only reason to have any confusion about this is some obtuse denial process.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby madpaddler » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:29:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'P')lease don't waste your time on this topic.

I know the reasoning. I understand the arguments.

Even if it sounds good. Even if it starts to make sense.

You are not a lawyer.

It doesn't work.

Don't try it.

You will lose.


So, if I was a lawyer, it would work? I'm starting to think you may be a tax attorney with, say... ? :) I am not an attorney, but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The waste of time is happening every day we sit back and sip our Corona's, am yes I am ok with paying the tax on them. We are ALL losing right now and against very big odds, why not try?
madpaddler
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of the Mason Dixon Line
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby BigTex » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:38:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('madpaddler', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'P')lease don't waste your time on this topic.

I know the reasoning. I understand the arguments.

Even if it sounds good. Even if it starts to make sense.

You are not a lawyer.

It doesn't work.

Don't try it.

You will lose.


So, if I was a lawyer, it would work?


No. If you were a lawyer you would realize how dumb it is.

Sorry, I don't like saying things like that to fellow members here, but you are talking about taking risks with very heavy penalties when there is virtually no benefit associated with the risk.

I want to be helpful here. Trust me. If there was a way to make these arguments work, I would be out there making them.

I'm not going to post any more to this thread, but in almost 10 years of law practice I have seen these arguments trotted out in one form or another many times, and they always lose. Always. Every single time. It's not even close.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby Dreamtwister » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:45:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'T')rust me. If there was a way to make these arguments work, I would be out there making them.

I'm not going to post any more to this thread, but in almost 10 years of law practice I have seen these arguments trotted out in one form or another many times, and they always lose. Always. Every single time. It's not even close.


If you want to make these arguments work, you have to convince your state's legislature to stand up for it's citizens. AFAIK, "Mack/Printz v USA" is still the controlling precident when it comes to states' rights. Of course, that will mean convincing them to give up all of those big, fat federal subsidies. Difficult, but not necessarily insurmountable. Get out there and lobby.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Dreamtwister
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby gnm » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:50:26

Tex, SPG, heres a brain twister for ya. How can they tax someone without a social security number? TIN right? Only you can't get a TIN if you are eligible for a SSN. So if you are a natural born US citizen who has CHOSEN not to get a SSN they have no way of withholding and no way for you to file a return other than to tell you "get an SSN" - which is not mandatory. Note - if you have an SSN you cannot get rid of it.

-G
gnm
 
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby BigTex » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 17:54:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'T')ex, SPG, heres a brain twister for ya. How can they tax someone without a social security number? TIN right? Only you can't get a TIN if you are eligible for a SSN. So if you are a natural born US citizen who has CHOSEN not to get a SSN they have no way of withholding and no way for you to file a return other than to tell you "get an SSN" - which is not mandatory. Note - if you have an SSN you cannot get rid of it.

-G


The withholding obligation is on the employer. You would have to apply for a refund without a SS# or a TIN and that wouldn't work.

Red flag.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby gnm » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 18:00:31

Only you cannot file a W2 so the withholding is not on the employer as the potential employee is exempt from withholding/filing. You could also work self employed. I should add that I didn't have an SSN until I was 18. And I worked before that. Stupid me went and got one because some numbnutz told me it was _required_.

-G
gnm
 
Top

Re: Very Disturbing

Unread postby BigTex » Mon 28 Apr 2008, 18:09:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'O')nly you cannot file a W2 so the withholding is not on the employer as the potential employee is exempt from withholding/filing. You could also work self employed. I should add that I didn't have an SSN until I was 18. And I worked before that. Stupid me went and got one because some numbnutz told me it was _required_.

-G


I don't understand your first sentence. Employers are required to withhold on wages, regardless of who they are paid to (so long as they meet the definition of wages--it's defined in two places in the Code for this purpose).

As for an independent contractor not making quarterly estimated payments based upon the theory that they are somehow not liable for income taxes if they don't have a SS# or a TIN, that gets us back to the issue of whether an income tax evasion scheme makes sense, and I'm saying it doesn't.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests



cron