Taco Bell ? No W4 required?
john_grinnell
Dusty wrote>
It's long been hammered into most folks that you "have to have" an
> SSN. This is untrue and proven to be so in court. Take the case of
> the kid who was hired and then fired, in a matter of days, from Taco
> Bell. His parents sued and they won. The issue was weather or not it
> was necessary to have or obtain an SSN in order to work. If you go to
> any Taco Bell, ask them for an employment application. You'll find
> that where it asks for your SSN it says "optional".
Is anyone out there reading this employed by Taco Bell? I see this
Taco Bell example all over this newsgroup as to why you don't have to
give an SS number but does anyone really know of any employment not
requiring SS numbers (except possibly illegal immigrants)??
Or is this a numerology thing, like Farrakhan and his pyramids, etc ?
>
Private Citizen
Ypou can write to EEOC of Dallas Texas and get a free copy of the case.
Although settled out of court, (with ICS being fined, and penalized),
The court made some very interesting statements, including but not
limited to:
"This court cannot find, nor did ICS Cite any law that requires an
employer to fire an employe for not obtaining a SSN."
And "Employers can file for relief from the IRS, for failure to obtain
information needed on a W4 form, via IRC 6724."
Write to EEOC of Dallas Texas, and get a copy. I have one. It sure is
interesting reading, and yes, Tacho bell does not require a SSN to work
there.
--
When congress tries to approperate just one percentage point of one
percent of
our private property, we should all rise up and Demand their singular
resignations.
For if we allow congress to approperate at will, even the smallest of
percentages of our propert, then where is the limit? And what is to stop
them from approperating ALL of our property, simply by putting it to a
majority vote? Not one dang thing at all..
A law which impedes a right infringes it. Working for a living is a
common
right, not a governmental granted privilege.
Andrew Lazarus
On 23 Oct 1997 11:06:04 -0700, John Grinnell wrote:
>Dusty wrote>
> It's long been hammered into most folks that you "have to have" an
>> SSN. This is untrue and proven to be so in court. Take the case of
>> the kid who was hired and then fired, in a matter of days, from Taco
>> Bell. His parents sued and they won. The issue was weather or not it
>> was necessary to have or obtain an SSN in order to work. If you go to
>> any Taco Bell, ask them for an employment application. You'll find
>> that where it asks for your SSN it says "optional".
What the decision says is that Taco Bell is required to ASK for the
Social Security Number but if the employee doesn't give a Social
Security Number, Taco Bell can't fire him (or her) for that reason. It
isn't Taco Bell's job to enforce the Social Security tax laws; it's
Uncle Sam's.
It's possible that the employment APPLICATION says that supplying SSN
is optional since, of course, there is no obligation whatsoever to
supply it until actually hired and beginning work. However, on the
forms to begin employment, it will not say optional.
Incidentally, tax protestors like to leave out that Taco Bell still
had to withhold and forward the tax itself without the number, so it
didn't make the employee any richer.
Dusty
On 24 Oct 1997 09:55:35 -0700, Roger Ebert wrote:
>I believe you ricky, don't let those tax lovers confound you.
>I too live on the planet Krypton and have experienced discrimination.
Then yours is a singluar point of view - Krypton was distroyed years
ago, or didn't you read comics as a kid?
Dusty :)
--------------------------------------------------------
"I'd like to know what law says you have to forego your
Fifth Amendment right, which protects you from having
to supply evidence against yourself. Forcing people to
file tax returns is a blatant violation of the Fifth
Amendment. The IRS knows that, and that's why there is
no law that requires us to file."
Danny Hashimoto
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Huskison
If you did so LEGALLY, then you should have no problem giving everybody the
benefit of your experience and ALL the detail necessary to prove your point.
This includes full legal name, address, employer, how you "did it", etc.
If not, we'll just assume your cries for privacy are a thinly veiled means
to try and hide your identity from the IRS bloodhounds you know are coming
after you for evasion of taxes.
Ricky Bennett wrote in message <62qeif$t...@snews1.zippo.com>...
>Why should I tell you all where I work? I like my privacy. I'm sure my
>boss likes his, too.
>
>You say you don't believe me. You want me to prove it. Why should I
>bother? You IRS lovers will just say I'm lying again. I'm sure the
>patriots believe me.
>
>I've saved over $12,000 in the past year by not paying income tax (legally,
>I might add). So I really don't care what you tax lovers think.
>
>Ricky
>
>
Ricky Bennett
I'm not employed by Taco Bell HOWEVER I refused to give my employer my SSN
and was hired anyway. I pay no SS tax, no federal income tax, and no state
tax. No taxes are withheld from my pay, and I receive no W-2 form at the
end of the year. I filed an In-Lieu-Of-W-4 form instead of the standard W-4
form at the beginning of the year and stated that I am exempt from taxes.
And I am completely legal within Title 26 (the tax laws).
--
Ricky Bennett
jor...@NOSCAMendor.com
John Grinnell wrote in message <62o3mc$m...@drn.zippo.com>...
>Dusty wrote>
> It's long been hammered into most folks that you "have to have" an
>> SSN. This is untrue and proven to be so in court. Take the case of
>> the kid who was hired and then fired, in a matter of days, from Taco
>> Bell. His parents sued and they won. The issue was weather or not it
>> was necessary to have or obtain an SSN in order to work. If you go to
>> any Taco Bell, ask them for an employment application. You'll find
>> that where it asks for your SSN it says "optional".
>
john_grinnell
In article <1.zippo.com>, "Ricky says...
>
>I'm not employed by Taco Bell HOWEVER I refused to give my employer my SSN
>and was hired anyway. I pay no SS tax, no federal income tax, and no state
>tax. No taxes are withheld from my pay, and I receive no W-2 form at the
>end of the year. I filed an In-Lieu-Of-W-4 form instead of the standard W-4
>form at the beginning of the year and stated that I am exempt from taxes.
>And I am completely legal within Title 26 (the tax laws).
>--
>Ricky Bennett
I think "Ricky Bennett" is a pseudonym for a tax protester, I've never
heard of anyone not earning anything without a social security
number. A form saying "exempt from taxes??????? Yeah, just try that
on a real employer and see how long you last !!!!!
roger_ebert
In article <62.zippo.com>, "Ricky says...
>
>Why should I tell you all where I work? I like my privacy. I'm sure my
>boss likes his, too.
>
>You say you don't believe me. You want me to prove it. Why should I
>bother? You IRS lovers will just say I'm lying again. I'm sure the
>patriots believe me.
>
>I've saved over $12,000 in the past year by not paying income tax (legally,
>I might add). So I really don't care what you tax lovers think.
>
>Ricky
Gwailo
Either (1) you're lying, (2) you're deluded, (3) your employer is breaking the
law, or (4) no one would pay you anything. Which is it?
'Gwailo
Ricky Bennett wrote:
> I'm not employed by Taco Bell HOWEVER I refused to give my employer my SSN
> and was hired anyway. I pay no SS tax, no federal income tax, and no state
> tax. No taxes are withheld from my pay, and I receive no W-2 form at the
> end of the year. I filed an In-Lieu-Of-W-4 form instead of the standard W-4
> form at the beginning of the year and stated that I am exempt from taxes.
> And I am completely legal within Title 26 (the tax laws).
> --
> Ricky Bennett
Paul Laughlin
Andrew Lazarus wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, tax protestors like to leave out that Taco Bell still
> had to withhold and forward the tax itself without the number, so it
> didn't make the employee any richer.
Yes, and they would actually be poorer due to the fact that the
withholding would, in all probability be higher than if the W-4
was completed and there would be no credit for payment of FICA
and no refund of over payment of Income taxes. No social
security benefits accrued. And the requirement to file the
return still exists. Paul
Dan Evans
In <62pet3$g...@snews1.zippo.com>, "Ricky Bennett" <jor...@NOSCAM.endor.com> writes:
>I'm not employed by Taco Bell HOWEVER I refused to give my employer my SSN
>and was hired anyway. I pay no SS tax, no federal income tax, and no state
>tax. No taxes are withheld from my pay, and I receive no W-2 form at the
>end of the year.
According to you previous postings, you claim to be a contractor, not an
employee, so you should receive a 1099 instead of a W-2.
So stop lying about your status as an employee not subject to withholding.
Dan Evans **********************
*This is not legal advice unless
*you agreed to pay for it.
*http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
Dusty
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:25:30 GMT, dm...@flatoday.infi.net (D. Metcalfe)
wrote:
>And he won't give any clues since he knows he will be prosecuted when
>he is caught; he has no faith in his righteous tax avoidance claims.
Give'em one good reason why he should invite trouble from the likes of
your "pals" from the IRS? If you found a pot-o-gold, would you spam
your personal information all over the place so that some nit-wit with
a hair across his butt could make your life a living hell? I think
not.
>Many tax protestors like to lead others down these promised paths
>while quietly paying their own taxes to avoid the consequences of
>breaking the law.... those really doing it keep quiet or hide under
>what they hope are untraceable names/e-mail addresses.
Again, you make a supposition based on absolutely no factual
information, as is quite frequently done by the sheep of the system.
Remember your history? It was real easy for the supporters of King
George to slander and defame those that stood up for their rights.
When it was found that those who had taken the first steeps toward
gaining their freedom where right, the ranks swelled and in the end,
we where free. Which one of those are you? A sheep, a herd animal
all set to be lead to slaughter, or someone that can think for
himself, that will stand by his decision to learn the truth and stand
by that truth?
Dusty
--------------------------------------------------------
"'One's right to Life, Liberty, and property and other
fundamental rights may not be admitted to vote; they
depend on the outcome of no election.' A citizen's
constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply
because a majority of the people choose that it be."
Texas v. United States (384 US 155,252 F.Supp 234, 1966).
The purpose of the Government is to protect our liberties,
not to protect us from folly. So I ask you and the
Government, where does it get its authority to allow
my liberity to be the subject of another Citizens'
conscience?
--------------------------------------------------------
Dusty
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 21:32:39 -0500, "Gill & Co."
<gillco...@visi.net> wrote:
>Dusty wrote:
>
>> Give'em one good reason why he should invite trouble from the likes of
>> your "pals" from the IRS? If you found a pot-o-gold, would you spam
>> your personal information all over the place so that some nit-wit with
>> a hair across his butt could make your life a living hell? I think
>> not.
>
>Aha. So the nonesense that you and your "pals" (your perjorative, not
>mine) are like the pot of gold, eh? Are you then admitting that you
>profit from the propogation and dissemination of disinformation?
As usual, the pro GovCo G.U.R.U.'s can't, or won't, answer a question
with a straight answer. Typical double speak.
Thanks for reminding us, once again, that no one should place any
faith in you.
Gill & Co.
Mark R. James wrote:
> >
> > Now, who is guilty of double-speak?
> >
> > Answer: you and your "pals."
> >
> What sort of proof would you like?
> A paystub, letter from their boss?
>
That might be good for starters. Any other ideas? Mostly I ask for
proof because I am doubtful it exists.
--
- John J. Gill
GILL & COMPANY, CPAs
---------------------------------------------
- TAX SOLUTIONS: IRS problems, international
tax issues, general tax practice.
- TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS: remote access netwk'g
---------------------------------------------
http://www.taxlaws.com jg...@taxlaws.com
Bboilerman
Roger Dilworth (or whatever your name is),
First of all, don't misquote me. I deduct taxes for the majority of my
employees, as they have correctly executed the W-4's I was required by law to
REQUEST they fill out. However, a few of my employees have refused to fill
out W-4's, and, I have followed all IRS Regulations as they have been written.
I didn't write them, I'm just following them. All of you who deem to know
more about it than I do, show me the laws and regulations (not the
publications, not correspondence, not conventional wisdom) that require me to
withhold employment taxes, minus a properly executed W-4. I have found no
such provisions.
Let's for a moment, remove ourselves from the procedural question of
withholding employment taxes. Let's move into the question of why SS taxes
are withheld. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't SS taxes CREDITED to the
"account" of the employee in order to build credit toward retirement? If an
employee refuses to furnish his/her SS#, or doesn't have one, what purpose
would any withheld taxes have, as they couldn't be properly credited toward
the employee? Or are you asserting that SS is a welfare tax on wages, void of
any true benefit to the employee?
I do issue W-2's at the end of the year (before Jan 31 of the succeeding year,
actually), just as a file my 941's quarterly, and my 940, W-3, and 1120
annually. How many of you in the peanut gallery employ people? How many of
you actually put into practice the regulations that you deem to explain to me?
My company, by the way, has between 30 and 40 people on payroll at any one
time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "understanding" as applied
to my employees.
Bboilerman
Dan Evans
In <19971101003...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, bboil...@aol.com (Bboilerman) writes:
>Roger Dilworth (or whatever your name is),
>
>First of all, don't misquote me. I deduct taxes for the majority of my
> employees, as they have correctly executed the W-4's I was required by law to
> REQUEST they fill out. However, a few of my employees have refused to fill
> out W-4's, and, I have followed all IRS Regulations as they have been written.
> I didn't write them, I'm just following them. All of you who deem to know
> more about it than I do, show me the laws and regulations (not the
> publications, not correspondence, not conventional wisdom) that require me to
> withhold employment taxes, minus a properly executed W-4. I have found no
> such provisions.
You didn't look very far or very hard.
"The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate
[i.e., Form W-4] from each employee, but if the employee fails to provide
such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person
claiming no withholding exemptions." Treas. Reg. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a).
Rick Bryan
Subject:
RE: W4 and withholdings
Date:
Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:00:35 -0500
From:
The Bells <tpb...@ix.netcom.com>
To:
"'bboil...@aol.com'" <bboil...@aol.com>, "'ri...@jerseyguy.com'"
<ri...@jerseyguy.com>
Hello,
My name is Thurston Bell.
I am the former investigator for the National Worker's Rights Committee from
December 1994
to July 1997. In the Three and a half years as Investigator I dealt with this
issue
regarding withholding very intensively, and discovered other facts of law which
reveal that
no returns are legally required to be made regarding payments to U.S. Citizens.
Within your response to this Mr. Dilworth I have inserted a few of my comments. I
hope you
do not find them too disturbing or confusing.
Thurston
Subject:
Re: Taco Bell ? No W4 required?
Date:
1 Nov 1997 00:39:44 GMT
From:
bboil...@aol.com (Bboilerman)
Organization:
AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups:
misc.taxes
Roger Dilworth (or whatever your name is),
First of all, don't misquote me. I deduct taxes for the majority of my
employees, as they have correctly executed the W-4's I was required by law to
REQUEST they fill out. However, a few of my employees have refused to fill
out W-4's, and, I have followed all IRS Regulations as they have been written.
I didn't write them, I'm just following them. All of you who deem to know
more about it than I do, show me the laws and regulations (not the
publications, not correspondence, not conventional wisdom) that require me to
withhold employment taxes, minus a properly executed W-4. I have found no
such provisions.
<<<<<<<< I must point out that 26 U.S.C. § 3401 requires an employer to withhold
from any
employee the wage withholding tax in § 3402 when the employee does not provide a
W4.
<<<<<<<<Still, there is no law which requires a U.S. Citizen to complete and submit
a W4. There is also no law which requires a U.S. Citizen to obtain a Social
Security Number to then
legally meet the definition of an "employee" subject to 3401 and 3402.
<<<<<<<<Additionally, there is no law which requires and employer to assume or
presume that a U.S. Citizen either has a Social Security Number, or even made the
voluntary application for the Social Security Number to then be subject to the
taxes related to the W4.
<<<<<<<<Let's for a moment, remove ourselves from the procedural question of
withholding employment taxes. Let's move into the question of why SS taxes
are withheld. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't SS taxes CREDITED to the
"account" of the employee in order to build credit toward retirement?
<<<<<<<<That is what is claimed, but it is a fact as revealed in the case of
Helvering v. Davis
that all of the money collected for Social Security are placed in the General Fund
and
spent.
If an employee refuses to furnish his/her SS#, or doesn't have one, what purpose
would any withheld taxes have, as they couldn't be properly credited toward
the employee?
<<<<<<<<Here is a great example of how you have been programmed to believe that
everyone working for you is an "employee" as defined by the Social Security Act and
the Internal Revenue
Code, yet I think that you may be writing in the context of the Tort definition,
not the Internal Revenue Code definition.
<<<<<<<<Yes, amounts cannot be credited to accounts that neither exist in
actuality, nor were
legally created. A U.S. Citizens ignorance of his right not to be subject to the
Social
Security Act, and thus be entitled to all of his money cannot be prejudiced by his
application as a minor, since the application was not made with a evidence of a
good faith
attempt by the SSA to inform the Citizen of his rights before application.
Or are you asserting that SS is a welfare tax on wages, void of
any true benefit to the employee?
I do issue W-2's at the end of the year (before Jan 31 of the succeeding year,
actually), just as a file my 941's quarterly, and my 940, W-3, and 1120
annually.
<<<<<<<<I hope that you do not do so regarding people who do not have numbers as it
not only confuses the IRS, but it annoys them when your workers have all of their
paperwork
substantiating the assertion of their rights maintained in their personnel file.
How many of you in the peanut gallery employ people?
<<<<<<<<How about these two questions:
<<<<<<<<How many of you employee people pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code?
<<<<<<<<How many of you employ people under the law of Torts?
<<<<<<<<The point is that if someone is working under you, they are always an
employee as defined under the law of Torts, but this is not always the case
regarding the IRC as that
definition is dependent upon the Social Security Act.
How many of you actually put into practice the regulations that you deem to
explain to me?
IF they do, they probably over comply.
My company, by the way, has between 30 and 40 people on payroll at any one
time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "understanding" as applied
to my employees.
<<<<<<<<Unfortunately in this highly litigious society filled with liberal
socialistic values, the
concept of understanding is subjective. The other unfortunate thing which I have
exposed
is that law have been set in place to trick the employer/lawyer/accountant that
first all
employees of a company meet the IRC definition of "employee", and therefore tricked
into
believing that all Subtitle C taxes and the W4 apply to them all.
Bboilerman
<<<<<<<<Thank you for entertaining my comments.
<<<<<<<<Thurston Bell, Executive Researcher
<<<<<<<<National Institute for Taxation Education
<<<<<<<< http://Taxgate.org
Gill & Co.
Rick Bryan wrote:
>
> Instead of juvenile name calling, show us at Taxgate the statutes which uphold
> your position... or continue to 'call names' for lack of a better argument.
> You guys are CPA's? We have much to teach you!
> Rick
>
> FYI Thurton Bell is the guy at http://Taxgate.org who gets results... he
> practices the old maxim "Don't just talk about it. do it!" He does.
>
Oh, my mistake, indeed. Your original post said it was from Thurston
Bell (an alias no doubt), but it came from your e-mail address. Imagine
that?
At the beginning of the post, Thurston Bell was working for the
"National Worker's Rights Committee." At the end of the post, he was
represented as working for the "National Institute for Taxation
Education." Now, we are advised that he is duh man who WALKS THE WALK.
If he be so wunderful, then tell me where Mr. Bell is published? Is he
listed in some national directory of smart or famous people? I do not
even see his name in your scam of a web site.
Roger Dilworth
Rick Bryan <Ri...@Jerseyguy.com> writes: > Subject:
> RE: W4 and withholdings
> Date:
> Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:00:35 -0500
> From:
> The Bells <tpb...@ix.netcom.com>
> To:
> "'bboil...@aol.com'" <bboil...@aol.com>, "'ri...@jerseyguy.com'"
> <ri...@jerseyguy.com>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> My name is Thurston Bell.
>
> I am the former investigator for the National Worker's Rights Committee from
> December 1994
> to July 1997. In the Three and a half years as Investigator I dealt with this
> issue
> regarding withholding very intensively, and discovered other facts of law which
> reveal that
> no returns are legally required to be made regarding payments to U.S. Citizens.
>
> Within your response to this Mr. Dilworth I have inserted a few of my comments. I
> hope you
> do not find them too disturbing or confusing.
>
> Thurston
I find your info very disturbing and confusing.
Every time I file form 941 without "withholdings"
the IRS puts a lien on my accounts.(after about 1
year) I have been in jail several times over this.
What else am I suppose to do ??
Rick Bryan
Mr. Gill,
You are obviously well paid by the IRS to sit and try to discourage those who are
DOING something to correct this tax situation.
Regarding Mr.Thuston Bell, the IRS, Department of Justice, EEOC, and Bruce
Squillante, Senior Tax Attorney for Amway know who he is...
Thurston doesn't have time for those, like yourself Gil, who wish to call names and
misdirect.
Just post the regulations as we requested and we will correct the site..
Rick
http://Taxgate.org
Gill & Co.
Brad Barnhill wrote:
>
> No, Thurston would not use an alias. He has nothing to hide. I have
> personally spoken with Mr. Bell and know of his work at the NWRC.
Well, he (or somebody holding himself out to be him) e-mailed me
privately. I asked him to post his rediculous comments in public. He
has not done so.
>
> Once again, the rules of civil discourse evade Mr. "Gilco".
> If Mr. "Gilco" has rebuttal to offer then we would like to see it.
> Otherwise ad hominum attacks serve the interests of no one.
I have done that. Take a look. Also, notice the absence of an answer
or of the correction to the website that was promised by the author, Mr.
"Ricky the Jersey Guy."
Brad Barnhill
"Gill & Co." <gillco...@visi.net> wrote:
>Rick Bryan wrote:
>>
>> Instead of juvenile name calling, show us at Taxgate the statutes which uphold
>> your position... or continue to 'call names' for lack of a better argument.
>> You guys are CPA's? We have much to teach you!
>> Rick
>>
>> FYI Thurton Bell is the guy at http://Taxgate.org who gets results... he
>> practices the old maxim "Don't just talk about it. do it!" He does.
>>
>Oh, my mistake, indeed. Your original post said it was from Thurston
>Bell (an alias no doubt), but it came from your e-mail address. Imagine
>that?
No, Thurston would not use an alias. He has nothing to hide. I have
personally spoken with Mr. Bell and know of his work at the NWRC.
>At the beginning of the post, Thurston Bell was working for the
>"National Worker's Rights Committee." At the end of the post, he was
>represented as working for the "National Institute for Taxation
>Education." Now, we are advised that he is duh man who WALKS THE WALK.
I believe it was the NWRC was the entity which represented the patriot
in the EEOC v ISC case in Dallas.
Thurston just set out on his own recently and founded this NITE.
Ask Thurston if he is a person liable and so required to file a
return.
>If he be so wunderful, then tell me where Mr. Bell is published? Is he
>listed in some national directory of smart or famous people? I do not
>even see his name in your scam of a web site.
Once again, the rules of civil discourse evade Mr. "Gilco".
If Mr. "Gilco" has rebuttal to offer then we would like to see it.
Otherwise ad hominum attacks serve the interests of no one.
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
========================================================
"Manfully maintain our good old principle of cherishing
and fortifying the rights and authorities of the people
in opposition to those who fear them, who wish to take
all power from them and to transfer all to Washington."
--Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1826.
http://pages.prodigy.com/jefferson_quotes/
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
bboil...@aol.com (Bboilerman) wrote:
>Roger Dilworth (or whatever your name is),
>First of all, don't misquote me. I deduct taxes for the majority of my
> employees, as they have correctly executed the W-4's I was required by law to
> REQUEST they fill out. However, a few of my employees have refused to fill
> out W-4's, and, I have followed all IRS Regulations as they have been written.
> I didn't write them, I'm just following them. All of you who deem to know
> more about it than I do, show me the laws and regulations (not the
> publications, not correspondence, not conventional wisdom) that require me to
> withhold employment taxes, minus a properly executed W-4. I have found no
> such provisions.
You are correct. There are none. However you must be careful not to
emply non-resident aliens. Then you would become liable under
Subtitle A Section 1446. If you get an I-9 form from aliens, you are
protected.
>Let's for a moment, remove ourselves from the procedural question of
> withholding employment taxes. Let's move into the question of why SS taxes
> are withheld. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't SS taxes CREDITED to the
> "account" of the employee in order to build credit toward retirement? If an
> employee refuses to furnish his/her SS#, or doesn't have one, what purpose
> would any withheld taxes have, as they couldn't be properly credited toward
> the employee? Or are you asserting that SS is a welfare tax on wages, void of
> any true benefit to the employee?
This is also correct.
>I do issue W-2's at the end of the year (before Jan 31 of the succeeding year,
> actually), just as a file my 941's quarterly, and my 940, W-3, and 1120
> annually. How many of you in the peanut gallery employ people? How many of
> you actually put into practice the regulations that you deem to explain to me?
For your employees who do not have W-4's on file, You should not use
W-2 to report. Actually, there is no requirement to report any
payment for the non W-4 employees. If you feel a need to report these
payments (not income), you should be using the 1099, with the word
"none" written into the TIN field, and you should also provide an
affidavit of request and transmittal showing that you asked for the
number and do not have it, and request a waiver based upon this
reasonable cause. Be sure to refer to 301.6676-1 and 301.6019-1(c)
>My company, by the way, has between 30 and 40 people on payroll at any one
> time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "understanding" as applied
> to my employees.
You exhibit a keen understanding of the proper application of the law.
Congratulations.
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
e:bra...@chv.mindspring.com
========================================================
"Let common sense and honesty have fair play, and they
will soon set things to rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786.
http://pages.prodigy.com/jefferson_quotes/
========================================================
Brad Barnhill
"Gill & Co." <gillco...@visi.net> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>>
>> bboil...@aol.com (Bboilerman) wrote:
>>
>> >My company, by the way, has between 30 and 40 people on payroll at any one
>> > time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "understanding" as applied
>> > to my employees.
>>
>> You exhibit a keen understanding of the proper application of the law.
>> Congratulations.
>>
>No he does not. Neither of you have any rational idea of what you
>speak.
And you continue to ignore the written law which evidences the
voluntary nature of the taxes within Subtitle C
Show me the law WITHIN TITLE 42 where I, a Citizen must apply for an
SSN. You cannot.
Show me the law which states I must make an agreement in the form of
W-4 with an employer in the face of:
31.3402 (p) -1 Voluntary withholding agreements.
a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an
agreement under section 3402 (p) to provide for the withholding of
income tax...
b) ... an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under
section 3402 (p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding
exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of
section 3402 (f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of
such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding...
This language is "may" permissive, optional. I do not have to provide
a W-4. I need not request withholding.
Furthermore, 26 C.F.R. 31.3402 (P) -1(2) states:
"An agreement under Section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period
as the employer and the employee mutually agree upon. However, either
the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the
end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the
other."
So it is revocable by either party at will.
Please show me the purpose of these regulations if a W-4 is required
or an SSN is required.
Also, take notice of 3402(n):
(n) Employees incurring no income tax liability
Not withstanding any other provisions of this section, an employer
shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this
chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect
with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in
such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may
prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that
the employee -
(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under Subtitle A
for his preceding taxable year, and
(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax
imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year..."
So I provide such an affidavit as I have no Subtitle A liability.
26 C.F.R. Sec. 301.6109(c) states:
"when the person ... does not know the number of the other person ...
and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, he
shall sign an affidavit on the transmittal document..."
So sign the affidavit to absolve the company of penalties.
and 26 C.F.R. Sec. 301.6676-1 Penalty for failure to supply
identifying number states:
"... If after such request has been made, the payee does not furnish
the payer with his identifying number, the penalty will not be
assessed against the payer."
So, if I have no SSN, and am not required to get one, and need not
file a W-4 or provide an SSN and there are provisions which keep the
International Representatives of Satan off the back of the employer,
how much more voluntary can you get than that?
Please answer each and every point or admit that you have not read the
law.
Brad Barnhill
>> they accept a "Statement of Citizenship". This statement is required in
>> order to claim to be a person not subject to witholding. It is for
>> people who can not fill out a w-4 because they have no SSN. It relieves
>> the witholding agent of the duty to withold tax according to Pub. 515.
>Oh, okay, good. That would be interesting to see.
So go by any Taco Bell and see for yourself. Do they have a Taco Bell
near where you work or live? No fax necessary.
>You are saying that you have a copy of an application for employment
>from Taco Bell (not Thurston Bell) upon which there is a statement that
>that they will accept a "Statement of Citizenship" which they will
>accept as an exemption from withholding? I would really like to see
>that.
>At least you have offered to provide us with proof of something. I
>admire that. Could you possibly fax it to me, or do you have a scanner
>that you could send me an image of the application ?
Howard McFarlane Duffy
Do you work for Taxo Bell? How
do you come to know this?
Duffy
Gill & Co.
> >speak.
>
> And you continue to ignore the written law which evidences the
> voluntary nature of the taxes within Subtitle C
You are right: I cannot, because taxes are not volutary. I cannot
prove a negative.
>
> Show me the law WITHIN TITLE 42 where I, a Citizen must apply for an
> SSN. You cannot.
Not me. I am a tax guy -- Title 26 -- I am not familiar with Title 42.
Now, what that has to do with the non-sense you write here, is beyond
me. You have a knack for quoting federal laws and regulations which are
quoted out of context and prove NOT your positions.
david_merritt
In article , "Gill says...
>> >> they accept a "Statement of Citizenship". This statement is required in
>> >> order to claim to be a person not subject to witholding. It is for
>> >> people who can not fill out a w-4 because they have no SSN. It relieves
>> >> the witholding agent of the duty to withold tax according to Pub. 515.
>>
>> >Oh, okay, good. That would be interesting to see.
>>
>> So go by any Taco Bell and see for yourself. Do they have a Taco Bell
>> near where you work or live? No fax necessary.
>>
>
>simple. It is either true or it is not true. He either has the
>evidence or he doesn't. He made a statement that is quite hard to
>believe is actually true, and has referenced a Taco Bell document.
>
>If such a document exits, then I would like to see it. The author of
>this post claims to be an attorney. Then certainly it will not be
>difficult for him to fax the document from his office to mine. Then I
>will sing with you, the choruses of praise for his ascertation. I might
>even be won over, and tell the entire world that I have been wrong. Now
>that would be coup for you and your buddies -- win over my pen for your
>cause -- and all Mr. Szipsky has to do is fax a mere document to me.
>
>Now, let the reader draw his or her own conclusion on Mr. Szipsky's
>silence. He has the opportunity to put up or shut up.
I would like to see this "statement of citizenship" - It seems easy
enough to determine if Taco Bell employees have the option of
opting out of the tax withholding system. Does anyone
have any objective evidence of this policy with Taco Bell ?? (not
tax protester stuff, real evidence?)
Gill & Co.
Mr. Szipsky,
I am still waiting for that Taco Bell application. If you will fax it
to me on Monday, at least tell us that, so that we are not waiting and
wainting and waiting.
Howard McFarlane Duffy
Mr. Gillco:
I hope that you will take the time to post the fax you
recieve to this group, when Mr. Szippunko send yo
eth fax on Monday. I hope we can see
it for outselves.
Duffy
Gill & Co. <in...@taxlaws.com> wrote in article
<345C90...@taxlaws.com>...
>
> Why should I have to research someone else's case? It should be quite
> simple. It is either true or it is not true. He either has the
> evidence or he doesn't. He made a statement that is quite hard to
> believe is actually true, and has referenced a Taco Bell document.
>
> If such a document exits, then I would like to see it. The author of
> this post claims to be an attorney. Then certainly it will not be
> difficult for him to fax the document from his office to mine. Then I
> will sing with you, the choruses of praise for his ascertation. I might
> even be won over, and tell the entire world that I have been wrong. Now
> that would be coup for you and your buddies -- win over my pen for your
> cause -- and all Mr. Szipsky has to do is fax a mere document to me.
>
> Now, let the reader draw his or her own conclusion on Mr. Szipsky's
> silence. He has the opportunity to put up or shut up.
>
Brad Barnhill
"Gill & Co." <in...@taxlaws.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>>
>> "Gill & Co." <gillco...@visi.net> wrote:
>> >> The proof is on the Taco Bell application for employment. It says that
>> >> they accept a "Statement of Citizenship". This statement is required in
>> >> order to claim to be a person not subject to witholding. It is for
>> >> people who can not fill out a w-4 because they have no SSN. It relieves
>> >> the witholding agent of the duty to withold tax according to Pub. 515.
>>
>> >Oh, okay, good. That would be interesting to see.
>>
>> So go by any Taco Bell and see for yourself. Do they have a Taco Bell
>> near where you work or live? No fax necessary.
>>
>Why should I have to research someone else's case? It should be quite
>simple. It is either true or it is not true. He either has the
>evidence or he doesn't. He made a statement that is quite hard to
>believe is actually true, and has referenced a Taco Bell document.
Are you too lazy to spare someone the expense of a fax in order to see
for yourself? Just go to the drive thru and ask for an employment
application.
>If such a document exits, then I would like to see it. The author of
>this post claims to be an attorney. Then certainly it will not be
>difficult for him to fax the document from his office to mine. Then I
>will sing with you, the choruses of praise for his ascertation. I might
>even be won over, and tell the entire world that I have been wrong. Now
>that would be coup for you and your buddies -- win over my pen for your
>cause -- and all Mr. Szipsky has to do is fax a mere document to me.
He should not have to go to this expense. Anyone can drop by a Taco
Bell and ask for an employment application to see for themselves.
>Now, let the reader draw his or her own conclusion on Mr. Szipsky's
>silence. He has the opportunity to put up or shut up.
I wanted to say: Get off your butt and do something for yourself, but
then I reconsidered.
Brad Barnhill
"Gill & Co." <in...@taxlaws.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>>
>> "Gill & Co." <gillco...@visi.net> wrote:
>>
>> >No he does not. Neither of you have any rational idea of what you
>> >speak.
>>
>> And you continue to ignore the written law which evidences the
>> voluntary nature of the taxes within Subtitle C
>You are right: I cannot, because taxes are not volutary. I cannot
>prove a negative.
You cannot state that taxes are not voluntary without substantive
proof.
>>
>> Show me the law WITHIN TITLE 42 where I, a Citizen must apply for an
>> SSN. You cannot.
>Not me. I am a tax guy -- Title 26 -- I am not familiar with Title 42.
hten you admit that you do not know the whole story.
>Now, what that has to do with the non-sense you write here, is beyond
>me. You have a knack for quoting federal laws and regulations which are
>quoted out of context and prove NOT your positions.
What is out of context? 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i) clearly shows that
resident aliens are required to be number in order to work. and
otherwise, only federal tit suckers need apply.
Brad Barnhill
eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote:
>In <63gmie$k...@camel12.mindspring.com>, bra...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) writes:
>>bboil...@aol.com (Bboilerman) wrote:
>>
>>>Roger Dilworth (or whatever your name is),
>>
>>>First of all, don't misquote me. I deduct taxes for the majority of my
>>> employees, as they have correctly executed the W-4's I was required by law to
>>> REQUEST they fill out. However, a few of my employees have refused to fill
>>> out W-4's, and, I have followed all IRS Regulations as they have been written.
>>> I didn't write them, I'm just following them. All of you who deem to know
>>> more about it than I do, show me the laws and regulations (not the
>>> publications, not correspondence, not conventional wisdom) that require me to
>>> withhold employment taxes, minus a properly executed W-4. I have found no
>>> such provisions.
>>
>>You are correct. There are none.
>Did you forget your reading glasses today?
>"The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate
>[i.e., Form W-4] from each employee, but if the employee fails to provide
>such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person
>claiming no withholding exemptions." Treas. Reg. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a).
And you ignore 3402(n), which quite obvioulsy supercedes 3402(f).
Brad Barnhill
eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote:
>In <63gv0c$i...@camel15.mindspring.com>, bra...@mindspring.com (Brad Barnhill) writes:
>>And you continue to ignore the written law which evidences the
>>voluntary nature of the taxes within Subtitle C
>>
>>Show me the law WITHIN TITLE 42 where I, a Citizen must apply for an
>>SSN. You cannot.
>It doesn't have to be within Title 42. It could be within the
>Internal Revenue Code, such as section 6109 and the regulations under
>section 6109.
>>Also, take notice of 3402(n):
>>(n) Employees incurring no income tax liability
>>
>>Not withstanding any other provisions of this section, an employer
>>shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this
>>chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect
>>with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in
>>such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may
>>prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that
>>the employee -
>>(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under Subtitle A
>>for his preceding taxable year, and
>>(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax
>>imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year..."
>>
>>So I provide such an affidavit as I have no Subtitle A liability.
>When tax protestors avoid withholding be providing these kinds of
>affidavits, the affidavits can be used as evidence of criminal evasion.
>It provides an overt act that takes the failure to file and pay income
>taxes out of section 7203 (willful failure to file, punishable by not
>more than one year in prison) and into section 7201 (attempt to evade
>tax, punishable by not more than FIVE YEARS in prison).
>Not a good choice.
Do you admit that a Citizen could (attempt) to make himself not
subject to withholding using 3402(f) or not? In this case, the
"employer" is not liable, as they have been relieved of the duty. Why
should the "employer" not use the affidavit and let the Citizen take
his chances.
My question is this: If an "employer" attempts to use 4302(f) to
withhold at single-zero, would he be in violation of the law should
the Citizen provide the affidavit under 3402(n) and the "employer"
still withholds? It seems to me that the improper conversion of part
of the Citizen's pay withoput the proper legal authority is
conversion. This is a crime.
Brad Barnhill
Gwailo <rdan...@sirius.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>> Gill:>Now, what that has to do with the non-sense you write here, is beyond
>>
>> >me. You have a knack for quoting federal laws and regulations which are
>> >quoted out of context and prove NOT your positions.
>>
>> What is out of context? 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i) clearly shows that
>> resident aliens are required to be number in order to work. and
>> otherwise, only federal tit suckers need apply.
>Wrong again (can't Brad get anything right?) Aliens and applicants
>forprograms financed in any part by federal funds get SSN's under the
>section he quotes; workers get them under the tax laws Gill and I quote.
>No "only" in either provision: Brad's pretending that word is there because
>it feeds his fantasies.
I have no need for federal programs. The taxes under subtitle C
finances them. Unless I wish to participate, these taxes are
voluntary as evidenced by 3402(n) and 3402(p).
>I hope Brad will keep us posted on the progress of the tax case against
>him.
I certainly will.
>'Gwailo
Jenn e fir
>The proof is on the Taco Bell application for employment. It says that
>they accept a "Statement of Citizenship". This statement is required in
>order to claim to be a person not subject to witholding. It is for
>people who can not fill out a w-4 because they have no SSN. It relieves
>the witholding agent of the duty to withold tax according to Pub. 515.
Mr. Szipsky J.D.:
Just curious. If you are a lawyer why does your name not show up in the
Martendale-Hubble listing of attorneys?
jennifer
Jenn e fir
>> Mr. Szipsky J.D.:
>>
>> Just curious. If you are a lawyer why does your name not show up in the
>> Martendale-Hubble listing of attorneys?
>
>money. Contrary to popular opinion, all lawyers aren't rich--some work on
>sliding scales, and many clients just don't pay.
>
>Martha Brummett, E.A.
>Denver CO
Thank you for the response...but I wasn't inquiring about most lawyers. Nor
was I implying anything about most attorney's income. I was asking about Mr.
Szipsky, J.D. His recent postings which take the form of expert opinions give
me reason to question the education he claims. Are you a lawyer Mr. Szipsky?
Do you hold a Juris Doctor?
jennifer
Howard McFarlane Duffy
Mr. Burnhill:
That is a stupid comment. The ather fellow, Mr. Bell, not, Bell, Mr.
Snatchcky,
shoeuld provide
the source documents. He said it. Le t him pfoof it.
I think it is not true.
Duff
Brad Barnhill <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<63iu5u$m...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
John S. Szipszky, J.D.
Gill & Co. wrote:
>
> Mr. Szipsky,
>
> I am still waiting for that Taco Bell application. If you will fax it
> to me on Monday, at least tell us that, so that we are not waiting and
> wainting and waiting.
>
Go to taco bell and pick one up for yourself. I do not have the time nor
desire and personally, I don't care if you believe it or not. Prove me
wrong, go pick one up yourself.
John S. Szipszky, J.D.
Jenn e fir wrote:
>
> >>Mr. Szipsky J.D.:
> >>
> >>Just curious. If you are a lawyer why does your name not show up in the
> >> Martendale-Hubble listing of attorneys?
> >>
> >
> >simple explanation - Mr. Szipsky is a common-law sovereign lawyer
> >not subject to the same standards as Federalist lawyers.
> >
> >
> >
>
> >>Mr. Szipsky J.D.:
> >>
> >>Just curious. If you are a lawyer why does your name not show up in the
> >> Martendale-Hubble listing of attorneys?
> >>
> >
> >simple explanation - Mr. Szipsky is a common-law sovereign lawyer
> >not subject to the same standards as Federalist lawyers.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Many voices...none of them belonging to Mr. Szipsky, J.D., CLSL, CBL.
>
> jenn
Are you telling me that you people honestly have nothing better to do
with your time than to try and look up my name of some guy that is on a
newsgroup. You can't be serious. I do not have the time to participate
in ridiculous conversations. If you would like to argue the law, that is
fine. I have not the time to address anything other than the law.
p.s. A resort to a personal attack on the person presenting a argument
is a sign of a very weak factual rebuttal.
Brooks Martin
Andrew Lazarus wrote in message <345e1ebc....@news.dnai.com>...
>I don't know of any law that requires SSN for an APPLICATION for
>employment. It is required when hired and paid.
No it is not. See EEOC v. ISC. This case clearly shows that=20
a SS# is not required to work or get paid.
>>This statement is required in
>>order to claim to be a person not subject to witholding. It is for
>>people who can not fill out a w-4 because they have no SSN.
>
>No, it is generally for people who are FOREIGN CITIZENS who may be
>exempt from tax because of tax treaties, or who are non-resident
>aliens with US bank accounts. It is very unlikely that an employee of
>an American branch of Taco Bell would be W-4 exempt because of a tax
>treaty.
>
>> It relieves
>>the witholding agent of the duty to withold tax according to Pub. 515.
Who is the withholding agent?=20
>
>This form is online at ftp://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p515.pdf. It
>states that if an employer is given a statement of RESIDENCE (not
>citizenship), then the employer is relieved of withholding according
>to the rules for non-resident aliens in Pub. 515 AND INSTEAD SHOULD
>USE THE USUAL WITHHOLDING RULES FOR AMERICAN RESIDENTS in Pub. 15
>Cirecular E!!!!! Left that part out, didn't you!!!!!
Hey, read Title 5 of the USC and discover what it says about
Agency publications being published in the Federal Register.
Of course, we all know that the "Circular E" has NEVER been=20
published in the Federal Register. No force of law attached to the=20
"Circular E". Try again!
David Marc Nieporent
In <01bce870$d7f0e080$5d2a40d1@dtorvtwg>,
Martha Brummett <mo...@diac.com> claimed:
>> Mr. Szipsky J.D.:
>> Just curious. If you are a lawyer why does your name not show up in the
>> Martendale-Hubble listing of attorneys?
>Many lawyers aren't in the Martindale-Hubbell directory because it costs
>money. Contrary to popular opinion, all lawyers aren't rich--some work on
>sliding scales, and many clients just don't pay.
Especially when one takes sovereign citizens -- er, Sovereign Citizens --
for clients.
--
David M. Nieporent How about that! I looked something up!
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu These books behind me don't just make the
1L - St. John's School of Law office look good, they're filled with
useful legal tidbits just like that! - L Hutz
Andrew Lazarus
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 00:37:08 GMT, bra...@mindspring.com (Brad
Barnhill) wrote:
>So let the IRS decide. When the Phila office receives a statement of
>citizenship. Given proper and timely notice of 6724 and 26 CFR
>part?.6676-1, it is up to the District Director to order the
>withholding.
When you file your statement of citizenship, what will you claim to be
a citizen OF?
If, as I suspect, you are going to claim to be a citizen of the
California Republic, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or so forth, your
chances are very slim. Congress has been able to tax Pennsylvanians
since the earliest days of the Republic!
LQuest
"Gill & Co." <in...@taxlaws.com> wrote:
>Brad Barnhill wrote:
>>
>> "Gill & Co." <gillco...@visi.net> wrote:
>> >> The proof is on the Taco Bell application for employment. It says that
>> >> they accept a "Statement of Citizenship". This statement is required in
>> >> order to claim to be a person not subject to witholding. It is for
>> >> people who can not fill out a w-4 because they have no SSN. It relieves
>> >> the witholding agent of the duty to withold tax according to Pub. 515.
>>
>> >Oh, okay, good. That would be interesting to see.
>>
>> So go by any Taco Bell and see for yourself. Do they have a Taco Bell
>> near where you work or live? No fax necessary.
>>
>
>Why should I have to research someone else's case? It should be quite
>simple. It is either true or it is not true. He either has the
>evidence or he doesn't. He made a statement that is quite hard to
>believe is actually true, and has referenced a Taco Bell document.
>
>If such a document exits, then I would like to see it. The author of
>this post claims to be an attorney. Then certainly it will not be
>difficult for him to fax the document from his office to mine. Then I
>will sing with you, the choruses of praise for his ascertation. I might
>even be won over, and tell the entire world that I have been wrong. Now
>that would be coup for you and your buddies -- win over my pen for your
>cause -- and all Mr. Szipsky has to do is fax a mere document to me.
>
>Now, let the reader draw his or her own conclusion on Mr. Szipsky's
>silence. He has the opportunity to put up or shut up.
FWIW Gill, I HAVE seen the Taco Bell employment form to which he refers. I
heard about this over three years ago and promptly went down the street to our
local TB and asked for a copy of their form. Sure enough there it was in
black and white: "SSN (optional):_____________". I then called the director
of our local EEOC office and asked about this. She confirmed that it is
illegal to deny someone a job simply because they don't have and/or won't
obtain a SSN!. Once in a while, the right hand of government does not know
what the left hand is doing. Nowhere is that phenomena more prevalent than in
tax law. If you are too lazy to check it out for yourself then who the fuck
cares? You and your kind will eventually be dealt with in the streets.
--Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to
make laws in the first place." --Frederic Bastiat
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Psycho Joe
That's a CPA for you. Brainwashed and rich off of the brainwashed who
aren't rich.
Gill & Co. <in...@taxlaws.com> wrote in article
<345C8E...@taxlaws.com>...
> Brad Barnhill wrote:
> >
> > "Gill & Co." <gillco...@visi.net> wrote:
> >
> > >No he does not. Neither of you have any rational idea of what you
> > >speak.
> >
> > And you continue to ignore the written law which evidences the
> > voluntary nature of the taxes within Subtitle C
>
> You are right: I cannot, because taxes are not volutary. I cannot
> prove a negative.
>
> >
> > Show me the law WITHIN TITLE 42 where I, a Citizen must apply for an
> > SSN. You cannot.
>
> Not me. I am a tax guy -- Title 26 -- I am not familiar with Title 42.
>
> Now, what that has to do with the non-sense you write here, is beyond
> me. You have a knack for quoting federal laws and regulations which are
> quoted out of context and prove NOT your positions.
>
>
Psycho Joe
Taco Bell anyone? I am hungry after reading all these postings. They have
the 99 cents taco special now. (plus tax).
Gwailo <rdan...@sirius.com> wrote in article
<345D0D2E...@sirius.com>...
> Brad Barnhill wrote:
>
> > Gill:>Now, what that has to do with the non-sense you write here, is
beyond
> >
> > >me. You have a knack for quoting federal laws and regulations which
are
> > >quoted out of context and prove NOT your positions.
> >
> > What is out of context? 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i) clearly shows that
> > resident aliens are required to be number in order to work. and
> > otherwise, only federal tit suckers need apply.
>
> Wrong again (can't Brad get anything right?) Aliens and applicants
> forprograms financed in any part by federal funds get SSN's under the
> section he quotes; workers get them under the tax laws Gill and I quote.
> No "only" in either provision: Brad's pretending that word is there
because
> it feeds his fantasies.
>
> I hope Brad will keep us posted on the progress of the tax case against
> him.
>
> 'Gwailo
>
>
Psycho Joe
There you go again, telling people that they don't know what they're
talking about, because if there were more people like them that know the
truth, then you would be out of business.
Gill & Co. <gillco...@visi.net> wrote in article
<345BE0...@visi.net>...
> Brad Barnhill wrote:
> >
> > bboil...@aol.com (Bboilerman) wrote:
> >
> > >My company, by the way, has between 30 and 40 people on payroll at any
one
> > > time. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "understanding" as
applied
> > > to my employees.
> >
> > You exhibit a keen understanding of the proper application of the law.
> > Congratulations.
> >
>
> No he does not. Neither of you have any rational idea of what you
> speak.
>
Jenn e fir
>Are you telling me that you people honestly have nothing better to do
>with your time than to try and look up my name of some guy that is on a
>newsgroup. You can't be serious. I do not have the time to participate
>in ridiculous conversations. If you would like to argue the law, that is
>fine. I have not the time to address anything other than the law.
>
>p.s. A resort to a personal attack on the person presenting a argument
>is a sign of a very weak factual rebuttal.
>
>
The opinions and interpretations that you discuss are those that if submitted
in a pleading would subject a lawyer to sanctions in any Federal court or the
tax court. I am therefore sceptical of the education you claim to possess:
Hardly a personal attack.
jennifer
Howard McFarlane Duffy
Well,
What about a fraud that
A) represents something to the public that he is not;
B) makes undocumented absurd claims, and
C) refuses to provide the evidence when challenged?
I am getting tired reading junk from
perople who
are intent upon decieving others and lying.
Duff
ps -- have you respnded to Mr. Gillco?
John S. Szipszky, J.D. <Kwan...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<345EB5...@concentric.net>...
Howard McFarlane Duffy
Mr. Quest:
With all due respect, I believe your review of the Taxo Bell application,
but your quota is not wht Mr. Sincosky said he had.
If you scroll up a bit, you will find that Mr. Slipozitz stated taht the [
application had a provision to
claim exemption from taxes due to being a Private Citizen
or
sum such rubbish. Take alookagian at what was said.
I think you are honest man.
I think Mr. Sziposkit is lying.
Duff
ps -- Liberty to you too !
LQuest <lib...@deletethis.airmail.net> wrote in article
<CD4732AB2178BBFB.9FFB184D...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
Gill & Co.
John S. Szipszky, J.D. wrote:
>
>
> Go to taco bell and pick one up for yourself. I do not have the time nor
> desire and personally, I don't care if you believe it or not. Prove me
> wrong, go pick one up yourself.
I think you can just avoid the act, and admit that you do not have the
document that you claimed to have.
While you are at it, you admit any other falsehoods you have given us
here and be honest for a change.
Dan Evans
In <63j2cc$108m$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Brooks Martin" <haze11...@prodigy.net> writes:
>Dan Evans wrote in message <63h4rs$h...@netaxs.com>...
>>"The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate
>>[i.e., Form W-4] from each employee, but if the employee fails to provide
>>such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person
>>claiming no withholding exemptions." Treas. Reg. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a).
>I noticed that the section you have quoted states that a person "shall
>be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions."
>Where did it state that the boss gets to do anything more than=20
>consider that the worker is single and claims no withholding =
>exemptions?
>I see nothing about withholding without an executed W-4.
This would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
Brooks Martin apparently believes that the regulation quoted
above means that an employer must "consider" the employee to
be single, but doesn't require the employer to do anything with
the information. According to Martin, the regulation does not
require the employer to collect any taxes, it just requires the
employer to think about the employee in a different way.
How could any rational human being present such a ridiculous
argument? How could Martin have typed what he typed without
a glimmer of realization that what he was proposing was
absolutely absurd?
>Dan, please answer my question. Are Form W-4's voluntary or mandatory?
Martin, please answer my question. Are you really that much
of an idiot? Or is all this just a joke?
Dan Evans **********************
*This is not legal advice unless
*you agreed to pay for it.
*http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
Gill & Co.
John S. Szipszky, J.D. wrote:
> Are you telling me that you people honestly have nothing better to do
> with your time than to try and look up my name of some guy that is on a
> newsgroup. You can't be serious. I do not have the time to participate
> in ridiculous conversations. If you would like to argue the law, that is
> fine. I have not the time to address anything other than the law.
>
Not on this newsgroup. One of your cohorts is spending his time with
conspiracy theories surrounding the origin of news post from myself and
Gwailo. Another is looking behind every tree for an IRS agent. Still
another is reading in the Bible about the evil IRS and 666.
Now, back to the matter at hand:
1) you hold yourself out as having a law degree.
Do you, or do you not have a law degree?
If so, from where?
2) you have made statements about a certain
employment application from Taco Bell, and
allege that employees at Taco Bell can elect
to be tax exempt by providing a statement of
citizenship, or some such thing. Do you or
do you not have in your possession said
document? If so, can you (somehow) provide
us with a copy of it?
Brooks Martin
Dan Evans wrote in message <63p0in$o...@netaxs.com>...
>In <63j2cc$108m$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Brooks Martin" =
<haze11...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
>>Dan Evans wrote in message <63h4rs$h...@netaxs.com>...
>
>>>"The employer is required to request a withholding exemption =
certificate
>>>[i.e., Form W-4] from each employee, but if the employee fails to =
provide
>>>such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single =
person
>>>claiming no withholding exemptions." Treas. Reg. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(a).
>>Brooks wrote:
>>I noticed that the section you have quoted states that a person "shall
>>be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions."
>>Where did it state that the boss gets to do anything more than
>>consider that the worker is single and claims no withholding=20
>>exemptions? I see nothing about withholding without an executed W-4.
>Dan wrote:
>This would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
Dan is excersing his intelligence in this statement. I guess
his IQ must be pretty high to compose such an insult.
Might I say, that I am quite impressed.=20
>
>Brooks Martin apparently believes that the regulation quoted
>above means that an employer must "consider" the employee to=20
>be single, but doesn't require the employer to do anything with=20
>the information.=20
Did you read anything differently in the regulation you quoted? No,
you didn't. It states >consider< and nothing more.=20
Did you study english courses in school? Where I studied,
we were taught that words had specific meanings.
I can imagine Dan's school:
"Now class, the word 'consider' always means that you must=20
pull alternate meanings out of thin air to make the word 'consider'
have the exact meaning you want. It's a sort of 'wild card' word,
similar to a one-eyed jackal er....jack, I'm sorry class I was thinking
of an attorney and mixed up jackal with jack."
>According to Martin, the regulation does not
>require the employer to collect any taxes,
Dan, Dan, Dan, not according to me---
ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION.
>it just requires the=20
>employer to think about the employee in a different way. =20
Exactly. I have not seen any proof to the contrary and you sure as=20
heck haven't provided any.=20
>How could any rational human being present such a ridiculous
>argument? =20
Because the regs state what they state. How could any rational human
being not know this? As far as being ridiculous, I didn't write the=20
regulation you relied upon. You might call the Law Revision Council in=20
D.C. and/or the Ways and Means Committee, they write the regs.
>How could Martin have typed what he typed without=20
>a glimmer of realization that what he was proposing was=20
>absolutely absurd?
I guess, because of my above points. The absurdity seems to be=20
all on your end Dan.=20
>>Dan, please answer my question. Are Form W-4's voluntary or mandatory?
>
>Martin, please answer my question. Are you really that much
>of an idiot?=20
Hmmmm........you want me to answer your question even though
you haven't answered mine for over two weeks. Are your
people skills really that crappy? I will answer the question to prove=20
that I am capable of addressing ALL of you points=20
(unlike others on this newsgroup). No, Dan, I am not an idiot.
Next question.
>Or is all this just a joke?
Okay, I think it's obvious that it is not a joke. I have posed the =
question
to you and your "allies" for over two weeks and you HAVE NOT=20
answered the question. The regulation YOU supplied to support=20
the claim that an employer can withhold a workers pay=20
--1.withhout a SS# and; 2.without signing a W-4-- fails miserably to=20
support such claim (especially in light of 31.3402(f)(5)-1(b) and (c)).
Dan, I notice your government styled off-topic attacks. Shoot the
messenger and ignore the message. I think you and your Club Fed =
collective
fully realize that I am not an idiot. Your ad hominems did not address
anything. All they did was make you look clueless. Are you clueless on =
this issue=20
Dan? I noticed that you didn't answer the question or address the other=20
part of my previous post. Typical.
I'll post it again for you since you overlooked it. Notice
where the regs state that the worker has to sign the W-4
for it to be valid.
According to you this is not so.
previous message as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
Dan,
=20
I noticed that the section you have quoted states that a person "shall
be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions."
Where did it state that the boss gets to do anything more than=20
consider that the worker is single and claims no withholding =
exemptions?
I see nothing about withholding without an executed W-4.=20
Do you? Please point me to the section which authorizes the boss to
withhold ANYTHING from the worker without the worker's written=20
consent, certification or affirmation.
=20
31.3402(f)(5)-1Form and contents of=20
Withholding exemption certificates.
"b) Invalid Form W-4. A Form W-4 does not meet the requirements of =
section=20
3402(f)(5) or this section and is invalid if it contains an alteration =
or unauthorized =20
addition. For purposes of Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(e) and this paragraph-- =
(1) An alteration of a withholding exemption certificate is any deletion =
of the=20
language of the jurat or other similar provision of such certificate *by =
which=20
the employee certifies or affirms* the correctness of the completed =
certificate,=20
or any material defacing of such certificate;"=20
=20
As for the electronic Form W-4's:
=20
31.3402(f)(5)-1(c)(2)
"i) *Same information as paper Form W-4*. The electronic filing must =
provide the=20
employer with *exactly the same information as the paper Form W-4*." =20
=20
"iii) Jurat and signature requirements. The electronic *filing must be =
signed=20
by the employee under penalties of perjury*."
=20
Dan, please answer my question. Are Form W-4's voluntary or mandatory?=20
I expect that the other members of Club Fed will finally crawl out of =
their=20
holes now that, Dan, their leader, has finally spoken.
Let's watch and see!
Regards,
Brooks Martin=20
Brooks Martin
Harold E Clark wrote in message <63q6ho$fa9$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>...
>Brooks Martin (haze11...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>:=20
>: Andrew Lazarus wrote in message <345e1ebc....@news.dnai.com>...
>:=20
>: >I don't know of any law that requires SSN for an APPLICATION for
>: >employment. It is required when hired and paid.
>:=20
>: No it is not. See EEOC v. ISC. This case clearly shows that a SS#
> is not required to work or get paid.
>:=20
>
>And if you would read the entire consent order instead of what you copy
>out of your tax protestor handbook, you would find that withholding and
>payment of Social Security taxes is required whether you have a Social
>Security number or not. Read paragraph 6 of the consent order.
Yeah, I am aware that the defendant's only objection was the use of a=20
SS#. I obtained a copy of the case from the local EEOC office.
But, here again, according to the IRS and SSA there is no way
for a worker to receive ANY credit for money paid in without
a number to report it under. So, this ruling is kinda dumb in places.
Further, he filled out a W-4. This is also interesting because
according to the IRS if one does not (fill out a W-4 and fails to =
provide=20
a SS#), then the money is reported on a 1099 and not on a W-2.
=20
The ISC case merely pointed out that a SS# is not required.
If a person pressed the issue of actual participation (which the =
defendant
DID NOT do in the ISC case, because he signed a W-4), I'm sure he=20
would win on that one as well. I guess we'll have to wait for a case
which specifically addresses this.
> "6. The defendant (meaning Information Systems) shall make legal
>deductions for withholding of Federal income taxes and the employee =
portion
>of social security from the back pay checks. The defendant shall =
include=20
>with the check, an itemized statement indicating specific amounts paid
>and deductions made. All W-2 forms shall be provided as required by =
law."
Andrew Lazarus
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:34:44 -0600, "Brooks Martin"
<haze11...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Gill & Co (or was it Harold Clarke, or both), shows that when you READ
the DECISIONS you discover amazing things-- like skipping the SSN
doesn't save the poor protestor any money, the tax ghets taken out
anyway (but shmo gets no credit for it).
>> 6. The defendant shall make legal deductions for withholding of
>>Federal income taxes and the employee portion of social security from
>>the
>>back pay checks The defendant shall include with the check, an itemized
>>statement indicating specific amounts paid and deductions made. All W-2
>>forms shall be provided as required by law.
Upset with the truth, Martin fantasizes:
>The ISC case merely pointed out that a SS# is not required.
>If a person pressed the issue of actual participation (which the =
>defendant
>DID NOT do in the ISC case, because he signed a W-4), I'm sure he=20
>would win on that one as well. I guess we'll have to wait for a case
>which specifically addresses this.
There ARE such cases. Tax protestors LOSE them. You "sure" are wrong!
Tax protestor victory = getting the bottom bunk in the cell.
Psycho Joe
You're just a lazy CPA who won't get off of his fat ass and go to Taco Bell
to see the application for yourself because the truth might hurt you.
Gill & Co. <in...@taxlaws.com> wrote in article
> John S. Szipszky, J.D. wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Go to taco bell and pick one up for yourself. I do not have the time
Gill & Co.
Psycho Joe wrote:
>
> You're just a lazy CPA who won't get off of his fat ass and go to Taco Bell
> to see the application for yourself because the truth might hurt you.
>
Mr. Psycho:
Why so mean? Have I not been polite to you?
I just want to see the "beef." So many claims, and such little
evidence.
Gill & Co.
Brooks Martin wrote:
>
> Yeah, I am aware that the defendant's only objection was the use of a
> SS#. But, here again, according to the IRS and SSA there is no way
> for a worker to receive ANY credit for money paid in without
> a number to report it under. So, this ruling is kinda dumb in places.
Clearly an odd case, but on the above, we agree.
> Further, he filled out a W-4. This is also interesting because
> according to the IRS if one does not (fill out a W-4 and fails to provide
> a SS#), then the money is reported on a 1099 and not on a W-2.
This is absolutely false. The filing of a 1099 or W-2 is dependent upon
the classification of the worker -- employee or independent contractor
-- and has nothing to do with a worker's option to not complete a W-4.
Show me this law. Show me the law that indicates that one can choose to
not complete a W-4 and be classified as an independent contractor.
Even if this were so, and it is not, do you disagree that an independent
contractor is subject to self employment tax (read: Social Security) ?
>
> The ISC case merely pointed out that a SS# is not required.
> If a person pressed the issue of actual participation (which the defendant
> DID NOT do in the ISC case, because he signed a W-4), I'm sure he
> would win on that one as well. I guess we'll have to wait for a case
> which specifically addresses this.
Well we can speculate on such a case, but I would point out that the
ruling in the ISC case MANDATED the withholding and payment of Social
Security taxes.
The Real John Gill
DEE wrote:
> And, interestingly enough, since the regs say that withholding is
> voluntary, there is no reason to force the non-numbered to pay a
> non-applicable tax.
>
No, the Regulations DO NOT say that. If you think that they do, show us
where.
Bridge6945
Wayne Burrows
Andrew Lazarus wrote:
DEE <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >My friend severed his connection with Social Security in 1994, and has
> >lived quite well without that "slave" number. He has even won a few
> >court cases in Georgia and IN U.S. District court. BTW, he's civilly
> >dead.
>
> Let's see some citations to these cases. Tax protestors generally
> claim "Victory" when they get the bottom bunk in the cell.
don't count on seeing anything, the "friend" is fictitious or is fringe
- not really "living quite well"
DEE
Gill & Co. wrote:
>
> Brooks Martin wrote:
> >
>
> > Yeah, I am aware that the defendant's only objection was the use of a
> > SS#. But, here again, according to the IRS and SSA there is no way
> > for a worker to receive ANY credit for money paid in without
> > a number to report it under. So, this ruling is kinda dumb in places.
voluntary, there is no reason to force the non-numbered to pay a
non-applicable tax.
> Clearly an odd case, but on the above, we agree.
>
> > Further, he filled out a W-4. This is also interesting because
> > according to the IRS if one does not (fill out a W-4 and fails to provide
> > a SS#), then the money is reported on a 1099 and not on a W-2.
>
> This is absolutely false. The filing of a 1099 or W-2 is dependent upon
> the classification of the worker -- employee or independent contractor
> -- and has nothing to do with a worker's option to not complete a W-4.
>
> Show me this law. Show me the law that indicates that one can choose to
> not complete a W-4 and be classified as an independent contractor.
>
> Even if this were so, and it is not, do you disagree that an independent
> contractor is subject to self employment tax (read: Social Security) ?
My friend severed his connection with Social Security in 1994, and has
lived quite well without that "slave" number. He has even won a few
court cases in Georgia and IN U.S. District court. BTW, he's civilly
dead.
> >
> > The ISC case merely pointed out that a SS# is not required.
> > If a person pressed the issue of actual participation (which the defendant
> > DID NOT do in the ISC case, because he signed a W-4), I'm sure he
> > would win on that one as well. I guess we'll have to wait for a case
> > which specifically addresses this.
>
> Well we can speculate on such a case, but I would point out that the
> ruling in the ISC case MANDATED the withholding and payment of Social
> Security taxes.
The law only deals with those who have a number, even when they refuse
to divulge it.
If a person HAS NO NUMBER, he owes no tax.
> --
> - John J. Gill
> GILL & COMPANY, CPAs
> ---------------------------------------------
> - TAX SOLUTIONS: IRS problems, international
> tax issues, general tax practice.
> - TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS: remote access netwk'g
> ---------------------------------------------
> http://www.taxlaws.com jg...@taxlaws.com
Andrew Lazarus
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:53:43 GMT, DEE <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>My friend severed his connection with Social Security in 1994, and has
>lived quite well without that "slave" number. He has even won a few
>court cases in Georgia and IN U.S. District court. BTW, he's civilly
>dead.
Let's see some citations to these cases. Tax protestors generally
Tom
Do you feel that Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent individual? Here is a
quoet from him: " The price of freedome is eternal vigulance. Never trust
your government." The biggest problem with our current government is that
most of us are intimidated by them to the point that we trust everything
that they do. Take Jefferson's advice and question what they are doing,
you might be surprised by what you find out.
In article <62q77k$9...@drn.zippo.com>, John Grinnell wrote:
> In article <1.zippo.com>, "Ricky says...
> >
> >I'm not employed by Taco Bell HOWEVER I refused to give my employer my SSN
> >and was hired anyway. I pay no SS tax, no federal income tax, and no state
> >tax. No taxes are withheld from my pay, and I receive no W-2 form at the
> >end of the year. I filed an In-Lieu-Of-W-4 form instead of the standard W-4
> >form at the beginning of the year and stated that I am exempt from taxes.
> >And I am completely legal within Title 26 (the tax laws).
> >--
> >Ricky Bennett
>
> I think "Ricky Bennett" is a pseudonym for a tax protester, I've never
> heard of anyone not earning anything without a social security
> number. A form saying "exempt from taxes??????? Yeah, just try that
> at a real employer and see how long you last !!!!!
Dan Evans
In <scubaohio-171...@p19-ts2.en.net>, scub...@hotmail.com (Tom) writes:
>
>Do you feel that Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent individual? Here is a
>quoet from him: " The price of freedome is eternal vigulance. Never trust
>your government."
And your source?
According to Bartlett's, the first part of the quote is frequently attributed
to Jefferson, meaning that there is no evidence he ever said it or wrote
it.
I think you're just plain old lying about the second part of the quote,
and that Jefferson never said any such thing.