LH's take on IRS' Frivolous Arguments

[grammarian44]

'rachel' was banned from LH for this same argument [if I understand correctly]. Didn't make too many friends over there.

Is the following a summary of rachel's argument?

"Section 3401(c)'s notorious reference to employees as 'including' government officers, etc., originates with the desire to distinguish persons liable for social security from those who are exempted from such liability. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding to think that 'employees' are not defined to include the majority of non-government employees."

If that is the argument, it seems more like an explanation of the backstory to the legislation, not an actual interpretation of the language. After all, 3401(c) says nothing about the social security system. But I'm still not sure what she meant.

[LPC]

One of the comments on LH complained about the lack of due process in the imposition of the $5,000 penalty, which raises a somewhat interesting issue.

As far as I know, the only way to contest a frivolous return penalty is through a collection due process hearing. (The taxpayer is allowed to contest the merits of the penalty because there was no notice of deficiency or other opportunity to contest.)

But raising a frivolous argument in a CDP hearing can result in another $5,000 penalty.

So can the IRS assess a $5,000 frivolous submission penalty for contesting a $5,000 frivolous return penalty?

[ASITStands]

Is the following a summary of rachel's argument?

"Section 3401(c)'s notorious reference to employees as 'including' government officers, etc., originates with the desire to distinguish persons liable for social security from those who are exempted from such liability. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding to think that 'employees' are not defined to include the majority of non-government employees."

Sort of. Pete Hendrickson's argument is based on a reading of the word "includes," which he understands as being limiting.

In other words, the only items included in the set are those listed, or those which might be similar. So, if section 3401(c) says "includes" government employees, Pete's argument is it means government employees ONLY. We've discussed this ad nauseum.

However, we know from the regulations, the Service uses common-law definitions for employee, employment, etc. And, the argument is spurious from another consideration, as it's not supported in case law.

'rachel' is suggesting private employees and private employment is not excluded from the withholding at 3402 [or, 3401] because of a consideration of 3121.

Section 3121 defines employee and employment in terms that include private employment, by a consideration of Social Security benefits. 'rachel' suggests government employees are excluded at 3121 but included at 3401, and hence, a reason for 3401(c) and the word "includes."

It seems a compelling explanation of how we got where we are, but it doesn't modify one iota how the courts have ruled regarding 3401. Other than being an explanation, I see no need to pursue it.

I presume 'Quixote's' posts were attempting to show an income tax on "wages" is not dependent on Social Security, or any other benefit, and predated both the income tax and SSA. And, in fact, I posted evidence of the fact incomes had been taxed previously, without 3121, 3401 or SSA. Again, I see no need to pursue the argument.

'rachel' is free to correct me if I have misrepresented the argument. 'rachel' was looked upon at LH as countering Pete's agenda, and that, I believe, was the reason for banning.

[LPC]

So how is it that applicants are to receive "survivor benefits", for example, if that person doesnt have a ssn as a covered employee?
How is the applicant to receive "public health care" with out a ssn?Please by all means, explain away how a "U.S. citizen" can receive any (FICA) benefit without a ssn!

The applicant receives benefits if the statute allows the applicant to receive benefits. If the statute does not require the applicant to have a SSN to receive benefits, then the applicant can receive benefits without a SSN.

If you think that an applicant needs a SSN to receive benefits, then all you need to do is cite the statute or regulation that requires a SSN, but I don't see any reason that an applicant for SSN benefits would need a SSN if the benefits are based on the earnings (and contributions) of another person.

Pete says 3401(c) makes him a federal and or state officer, employee and elected official, but the law, especially 3121(b), says that if you are deducted 3121(a) wages from 3121(b) employment for Title 2 Social Security benefits specifically states you cannot be any federal or state officer, employee, or elected official.

It would be helpful if you could construct a coherent sentence.

But I have to say I'm fairly sure that Pete has never claimed that section "3401(c) makes him a federal and or state officer, employee and elected official." To the contrary, I think that Hendrickson has consistently insisted that he is NOT a "federal and or state officer, employee and elected official".

And I'm not sure why you're conflating section 3401 and section 3121, because one relates to wage withholding and the other has to do with FICA taxes and the two don't necessarily have anything to do with one another.

So you've contributed much more heat than light to date.

[Dr. Caligari]

As far as I know, the only way to contest a frivolous return penalty is through a collection due process hearing. (The taxpayer is allowed to contest the merits of the penalty because there was no notice of deficiency or other opportunity to contest.)

...or through a partial payment followed by a refund claim and suit.

[rachel]

So how is it that applicants are to receive "survivor benefits", for example, if that person doesnt have a ssn as a covered employee?
How is the applicant to receive "public health care" with out a ssn?Please by all means, explain away how a "U.S. citizen" can receive any (FICA) benefit without a ssn!

The applicant receives benefits if the statute allows the applicant to receive benefits. If the statute does not require the applicant to have a SSN to receive benefits, then the applicant can receive benefits without a SSN.

If you think that an applicant needs a SSN to receive benefits, then all you need to do is cite the statute or regulation that requires a SSN, but I don't see any reason that an applicant for SSN benefits would need a SSN if the benefits are based on the earnings (and contributions) of another person.

Pete says 3401(c) makes him a federal and or state officer, employee and elected official, but the law, especially 3121(b), says that if you are deducted 3121(a) wages from 3121(b) employment for Title 2 Social Security benefits specifically states you cannot be any federal or state officer, employee, or elected official.

It would be helpful if you could construct a coherent sentence.

But I have to say I'm fairly sure that Pete has never claimed that section "3401(c) makes him a federal and or state officer, employee and elected official." To the contrary, I think that Hendrickson has consistently insisted that he is NOT a "federal and or state officer, employee and elected official".

And I'm not sure why you're conflating section 3401 and section 3121, because one relates to wage withholding and the other has to do with FICA taxes and the two don't necessarily have anything to do with one another.

So you've contributed much more heat than light to date.

Dan,
Do you care to explain what angle you are try convey?

If you think that an applicant needs a SSN to receive benefits, then all you need to do is cite the statute or regulation that requires a SSN, but I don't see any reason that an applicant for SSN benefits would need a SSN if the benefits are based on the earnings (and contributions) of another person.

"Based on the earnings of another person"......What?

Umm....hey Dan!
The benefits are from Social Security are they not?
So what makes you think you can collect benefits without first being enrolled into Social Security.
Do you care to support your hearsay theory with some facts?
Besides, the Social Security Administration will tell you that you are required to have a ssn to be listed in the Social Security system and be "employed" as defined by Title 42 for the purpose of Social Security to gain credits towards the benefits.

But I have to say I'm fairly sure that Pete has never claimed that section "3401(c) makes him a federal and or state officer, employee and elected official." To the contrary, I think that Hendrickson has consistently insisted that he is NOT a "federal and or state officer, employee and elected official".

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but....
If Pete is rebutting he's not a "federal and or state officer, employee and elected official" then he must be presuming he is from someone elses hearsay.

And I'm not sure why you're conflating section 3401 and section 3121, because one relates to wage withholding and the other has to do with FICA taxes and the two don't necessarily have anything to do with one another.

It is very obvious you never read clearly what 3401(a) actually says. Compare the two statutes 3121(b) and 3401(a) side by side to tell me what you see as the likeness?
I'm conflating the two statutes together because one:
They are both under Subtitle C's "Employment".
Two:
They both refer to "service of what ever nature"
Three:
"Service" is defined for Social Security purpose that is found in title 42 and 26USC 3121.
Four:
3401(a) has the same nongovernment employee exclusions as 3121(b)'s "employment".
Thanks for clarifying you dont have a clue!
Maybe Dan, when you do get a clue you can add this to your "taxpayer protesting webpage".

[LPC]

If you think that an applicant needs a SSN to receive benefits, then all you need to do is cite the statute or regulation that requires a SSN, but I don't see any reason that an applicant for SSN benefits would need a SSN if the benefits are based on the earnings (and contributions) of another person.

"Based on the earnings of another person"......What?

Umm....hey Dan!
The benefits are from Social Security are they not?
So what makes you think you can collect benefits without first being enrolled into Social Security.

Because the Social Security system can pay "survivor benefits" to the widow/widower and dependent children of a deceased worker.

See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html for details.

Because the benefits are based on the earnings of the deceased worker, and not the earnings of the widow/widower or dependent children, there may be no need for the recipient of the benefits to have a social security number.

Do you care to support your hearsay theory with some facts?

Suggestion: Learn what is and is not "hearsay."

[notorial dissent]

Wouldn't that necessitate getting a grip on reality instead of hanging onto delusion by her fingernails?

[rachel]

If you think that an applicant needs a SSN to receive benefits, then all you need to do is cite the statute or regulation that requires a SSN, but I don't see any reason that an applicant for SSN benefits would need a SSN if the benefits are based on the earnings (and contributions) of another person.

"Based on the earnings of another person"......What?

Umm....hey Dan!
The benefits are from Social Security are they not?
So what makes you think you can collect benefits without first being enrolled into Social Security.

Because the Social Security system can pay "survivor benefits" to the widow/widower and dependent children of a deceased worker.

See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html for details.

Because the benefits are based on the earnings of the deceased worker, and not the earnings of the widow/widower or dependent children, there may be no need for the recipient of the benefits to have a social security number.

Do you care to support your hearsay theory with some facts?

Suggestion: Learn what is and is not "hearsay."

Now Dan Evens let show you how stupid you really are!!!

When a relative dies ... what you need to know about survivors benefits How do I apply for benefits?
If you are not currently getting Social Security benefits

You should apply for survivors benefits promptly because, in some cases, benefits will be paid from the time you apply and not from the time the worker died.

You can apply by telephone or at any Social Security office. We will need certain information, but do not delay applying if you do not have everything. We will help you get what you need. We need either original documents or copies certified by the agency that issued them.

The information we need includes:

Proof of death—either from a funeral home or death certificate;
Your Social Security number, as well as the deceased worker’s;
Your birth certificate;
Your marriage certificate, if you are a widow or widower;
Your divorce papers, if you are applying as a divorced widow or widower;
Dependent children’s Social Security numbers, if available, and birth certificates;
Deceased worker’s W-2 forms or federal self-employment tax return for the most recent year; and
The name of your bank and your account number so your benefits can be deposited directly into your account.

See Dan B. Evens! Not to show you up of course...but!!!
You need to have a ssn (being enrolled) as a survivor to get the benefits of the deceased.
Just like I said in the beginning before you opened your pie hole. "You need a ssn to obtain any benefit of Social Security"...Any benefit!!!
And you profess to be a profesional...??

How does it feel?
You've just been bitched slapped by a women!!!

Let me know when you actually get a clue and not this playing (I'll show you up one) game because you have here on this forum the roadies and clowns who think you are actually someone.
I already know its gonna be too much for your ego to handle, so I expect a full reprisal from you....No big deal!!!
I really have nothing against you.......its just your egotistical nature, DBE!

[rachel]

Wouldn't that necessitate getting a grip on reality instead of hanging onto delusion by her fingernails?

You really cant say "I'm a DBE clown wantabe" any better than you just did "Notorial"!

BRAVO!!

[Question everything]

Wouldn't that necessitate getting a grip on reality instead of hanging onto delusion by her fingernails?

You really cant say "I'm a DBE clown wantabe" any better than you just did "Notorial"!

BRAVO!!

At the risk of an ad hominem attack --- shouldn't that be "wannabe"?

[.]

shouldn't that be "wannabe"?

Of course it should, and I was thinking about pointing out the very same thing, but nobody expects morons to either know the obvious or spell it correctly.

[rachel]

Whats the matter guys!!!!!!
Dont like seeing your hero turned into a zero.

Thats all you idiots can reply with........geeeesh!!!!

[.]

hero

Hero? I don't think so. In any case, what would that have to do with anything?

We were merely pointing out your illiteracy. Dan will be along to defend himself when he gets around to it.

[LPC]

I finally decided to check the statute myself, and there is a requirement that the Social Security Administration assign a number to all recipients of benefits:

"(F) The Commissioner of Social Security shall require, as a condition for receipt of benefits under this title, that an individual furnish satisfactory proof of a social security account number assigned to such individual by the Commissioner of Social Security or, in the case of an individual to whom no such number has been assigned, that such individual make proper application for assignment of such a number."

Section 205(c)(2)(F) of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 405(c)(2)(F).

Notice that it's not a requirement that you have a number *before* you apply for benefits, because if you don't have a number at the time you are eligible for benefits, the SSA will simply take an application and then assign you a number.

[LPC]

Dan will be along to defend himself when he gets around to it.

Nothing to defend. Rachel made an assertion that didn't sound right to me, and I asked her to defend it. She couldn't (or wouldn't), so I finally looked it up and found that she was at least partially correct, because all recipients of social security benefits are assigned a social security number whether or not they have ever been employed or ever earned any wages or other income.

She wants to think this is a some kind of a defeat for me, but that's only her illiteracy at work because it's quite clear she never understood anything I wrote.

[rachel]

I finally decided to check the statute myself, and there is a requirement that the Social Security Administration assign a number to all recipients of benefits:

"(F) The Commissioner of Social Security shall require, as a condition for receipt of benefits under this title, that an individual furnish satisfactory proof of a social security account number assigned to such individual by the Commissioner of Social Security or, in the case of an individual to whom no such number has been assigned, that such individual make proper application for assignment of such a number."

Section 205(c)(2)(F) of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 405(c)(2)(F).

Notice that it's not a requirement that you have a number *before* you apply for benefits, because if you don't have a number at the time you are eligible for benefits, the SSA will simply take an application and then assign you a number.

Notice that it's not a requirement that you have a number *before* you apply for benefits, because if you don't have a number at the time you are eligible for benefits, the SSA will simply take an application and then assign you a number.

I know you are not required by law to live or work in the United States. The SSA even tells you that.
The point is you will not get any benefit of any kind without first getting a number.
Thats was my point from the beginning.

So when are you ever going to get a clue and quit hiding behind court cases relating to 3401(c) where you dont even know why the judges rule the way they do!
Whats your point...Dan?
Other than acting like you know something.

[Nikki]

I know you are not required by law to live or work in the United States. The SSA even tells you that.
The point is you will not get any benefit of any kind without first getting a number.
Thats was my point from the beginning.

So when are you ever going to get a clue and quit hiding behind court cases relating to 3401(c) where you dont even know why the judges rule the way they do!
Whats your point...Dan?
Other than acting like you know something.

Besides Pete will tell you himself that Social Security is only for retirement at age 65 and willfully tell you you dont get immediate benefits, but thats tells you Pete doesnt really research anything because if you dont have a ssn (enrolled) you will not recieve unemployment compensation, public health care, assisted living, nor will you get food stamps.

All this bickering is based on a poorly-worded, albeit correct statement. Since the original statement was so poorly written, people understood you to mean that someone must have a SSN before applying for benefits. Obviously, that is not the case. However, you are complaining in extremely nasty terms about statements people made because they didn't understand your unclear writing.

The fault is mutual.

By the way, "don't" traditionally contains an apostrophe.

[rachel]

Dan will be along to defend himself when he gets around to it.

Nothing to defend. Rachel made an assertion that didn't sound right to me, and I asked her to defend it. She couldn't (or wouldn't), so I finally looked it up and found that she was at least partially correct, because all recipients of social security benefits are assigned a social security number whether or not they have ever been employed or ever earned any wages or other income.

She wants to think this is a some kind of a defeat for me, but that's only her illiteracy at work because it's quite clear she never understood anything I wrote.

Nothing to defend except maybe you reading the stautes for yourself instead of someone doing the homework for you.

BTW,
All recipients of Title 2 Social Security make 3121(a) wages from what of ever nature which is defined as "service".
Which the contrary is if you dont have a ssn you dont make 3121(a) wages which cannot be taxed the 3101 taxes nor are they deducted 3402 withholdings for making "wages in the first place.
Because why Dan?
Because they are not in the activity of "Employment". Which means they are not in any "service" and therefore the feds cannot determine income.
Section 1 of the IRC only taxes taxable income (see 26CFR 1.1-1)
3121(a) wages is a result from having a ssn, from what ever nature, is a source of taxable income which section 3101 imposes the tax.

[jg]

So if I use a fake SSN and work in the same job as those that legally have a SSN are you saying that my wages are not taxable but my coworkers wages are taxable?
Is that a correct application of your analysis, rachel?