The point, other than the one on top of your head, is that your statement
The judge is compelled to operate and obey the Social Security "employment" "civil-law" statutes and issue any "civil penalties" because you chose to operate in that law form for having the ssn in regards to ss benefits.
ignores the fact that judges operate exactly the same way with respect to people, both real and artificial, who do not possess social security numbers.
Thus, your conclusion that having a SSN forces a particular mode of operation is faulty.
Participation in social security, or exemption from participation, is irrelevant when it comes to computing income tax liability.
For example, can you explain why the Amish and certain priests, both of whom are exempt from participation in social security, are not exempted from paying income taxes?
No, you can't, because your theory is baseless and laughable.
First, every case which JG solicited on the former thread, as I noted there, was about judges ordering accurate testimony. In this case the judge is ordering particular testimony ("I believe X") without regard to whether the testimony is true. She can be nailed on this. To address this point, someone should show another case where a judge has said "you must fill out X on your return" instead of "you must fill out your return accurately"..
The only difference between those orders is the path to compliance. Had the judge ordered PH to file an accurate return, PH would have to keep filing returns, and be in continuous (repeated?) contempt until until he got it right, i.e., until he filed a return like the one the judge ordered him to file. All the judge did was shorten the process and make it clear to PH, who seems a bit obtuse, exactly what she meant by an accurate return.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Well then it's a coerced admission plain and simple, extortion really.
And it's built into our Constitution. What else do you think it means to allow a defendant to compel witnesses on his or her behalf? And the notion that he doesn't believe he earned wages is pure nonsense. He may believe that, as a legal matter, his wages aren't taxable income, but that is a legal conclusion, not a fact and the court has ruled that he is wrong on that belief. His signing the jurat is attesting to the fact that he had wages in the amount shown. Compelling him to state that under oath is no different from compelling him to show up as a witness and state under oath what he saw, regardless of what his beliefs about the legal meaning of what he saw.
First off, he's signing a statement saying he believes he had this amount in wages. He's not signing a statement saying he was informed he had this much in wages. There is a very big difference.
No it’s different. To make it similar the witness is being compelled to give testimony contrary to what they actually believe they saw or had personal knowledge of. It's just like having a judge tell the witness that he did see the defendant at the crime scene, regardless of what he thinks he saw.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete
So you're saying even though someone may believe one thing they should be forced to sign a statement admitting they believe something else?
The jurat makes it clear it's the signor's belief and his personal knowledge. If he’s putting something contrary to that personal belief its perjury, he’s signing a statement clearly saying so. It has nothing to do with what someone else believes. It's blatantly obvious your assertions are wrong.
I have no problem with the judge ordering returns that reflect his interpretation of the law. I do see a problem with forcing someone to admit they personally believe that interpretation is true and correct.
Famspear wrote:Sunday, June 3, 2007
From: Famspear
Dear SteveSy
...
Suppose that I am a drug lord who illegally imports tons of cocaine from South America into the United States. Suppose that for the year 2006, I realized ten million dollars in sales (ignore expenses, cost of sales, etc.), and that under the law I am required to report the ten million dollars as income.
Now, as a really smart drug lord I realize that even though the income is illegal, I’m required by law to report it and pay tax on it. I am aware of the criminal penalties for willfully filing a false tax return as well.
So, silly me, I report the income on my tax return on a line labeled “INCOME FROM SALES OF COCAINE $10,000,000”, and I sign the return, file the return, and pay the tax, all by the due dates provided by law.
The IRS processes the return, and happens to see the drug sales entry on my return, and I am prosecuted for the illegal drug sales (not for tax crimes, as I reported all the income, filed the return, and paid all the tax).
At the illegal drug sales trial, the government seeks to introduce a copy of my tax return as evidence to show that I was aware of the sales of cocaine, to prove willfulness or intent or whatever the mens rea requirement happens to be for drug sales. I argue that my tax return should not be introduced as evidence, pointing out that the Fifth Amendment should protect me from compelled self-incrimination. After all, I had faced criminal penalties for failure to file the return, report the income, and pay the tax.
I lose. Under the law, the return – my own statement -- is admissible against me.
That is different because the defendant knew and believed he had income of that sort. I understand transactional immunity when you know the information is accurate but may be used against you in a criminal case.
We’re talking about another type of animal here. We’re talking about a coerced signature on a statement which states you believe something to be true when you do not believe it to be true. This statement can and will be used against you at a later time to show you do not hold the belief you claim you hold if you attempt to use it at a later time. Returns have been used on many occasions to demonstrate you personally believed you were required to file.
It’s not just a matter of divulging figures that are accurate as the IRS or courts see it. It much more, it’s an admission of a personal belief, the statement clearly says so.
Last edited by SteveSy on Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SteveSy wrote:
No it’s different. To make it similar the witness is being compelled to give testimony contrary to what they actually believe they saw or had personal knowledge of. It's just like having a judge tell the witness that he did see the defendant at the crime scene, regardless of what he thinks he saw.
You're mixing the concepts of "facts" with "legal conclusions" derived from facts.
What a witness saw at a crime scene is a "fact".
The facts that PH admits are:
-PH received money from Personnel Management
-That money was paid by PM to PH in exchange for services PH
From those facts, a "legal conclusion" was made that those monies are "wages" under the IRC and constitute "taxable income.
PH is not required to swear to any "facts" that he hasn't already admitted. He just disputed the legal characterization of those facts.
It is a distinction that is significant and your failure to see that is completely fatal to your assertions.
SteveSy wrote:
No it’s different. To make it similar the witness is being compelled to give testimony contrary to what they actually believe they saw or had personal knowledge of. It's just like having a judge tell the witness that he did see the defendant at the crime scene, regardless of what he thinks he saw.
You're mixing the concepts of "facts" with "legal conclusions" derived from facts.
What a witness saw at a crime scene is a "fact".
The facts that PH admits are:
-PH received money from Personnel Management
-That money was paid by PM to PH in exchange for services PH
From those facts, a "legal conclusion" was made that those monies are "wages" under the IRC and constitute "taxable income.
PH is not required to swear to any "facts" that he hasn't already admitted. He just disputed the legal characterization of those facts.
It is a distinction that is significant and your failure to see that is completely fatal to your assertions.
PH doesn’t believe the money received is wages. So why should he be required to sign a statement with an amount on the wage line? He's admitting, by signing the jurat, that he personally believes he had wages. It doesn’t matter what the law is according to the court. The jurat does not remotely imply the court’s opinion is relevant.
The statement that PH is signing does not reflect your assertion. It says very clearly that HE believes the return is completed accurately. PH does not believe that, or at least he says he doesn't. How can you force someone to sign a statement saying they believe something that they do not?
The statement does not say "according to the interpretation of law as provided by the court or IRS". Your arguments are nonsensical.
If the jurat said something similar to, "To my knowledge and belief the return has been completed accurately in accordance with the information provided to me by a federal court judge”, you might have a point.
Last edited by SteveSy on Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nikki wrote:The point, other than the one on top of your head, is that your statement
The judge is compelled to operate and obey the Social Security "employment" "civil-law" statutes and issue any "civil penalties" because you chose to operate in that law form for having the ssn in regards to ss benefits.
ignores the fact that judges operate exactly the same way with respect to people, both real and artificial, who do not possess social security numbers.
Thus, your conclusion that having a SSN forces a particular mode of operation is faulty.
Participation in social security, or exemption from participation, is irrelevant when it comes to computing income tax liability.
For example, can you explain why the Amish and certain priests, both of whom are exempt from participation in social security, are not exempted from paying income taxes?
No, you can't, because your theory is baseless and laughable.
Support your proposition that shows me one example of either a priest or amish person paying a tax from being "employed" without a ssn?
You are only showing the "excepted".
You will not any person who doesnt have a ssn paying any taxes.
If you know you received wages, then merely believing they are not taxable does not mean that you can't sign the return - with the jurat - in good conscience. We've already been through this.
Suppose that Mr. Doofus McStupid is standing on a railroad track. A train is coming. Someone off to the side yells, "Hey, the train in coming, get off the track or you'll be hit."
Doofus says: "That's not a train, that's just a mirage."
Even if Doofus actually believes, in good faith, that the train is not a "valid train" - the fact that he believes it's just a mirage -- does not change the fact that Doofus is AWARE of the EXISTENCE of the train, and is aware of the fact that the train IS COMING. (Doofus is also aware that the guy off to the side yelled the warning.) The Doofus argument or "belief" that the train is "not really a train" will make no material difference in terms of its effect on Doofus's health and well-being when that train hits Doofus.
If, while he's standing there on the track, Doofus signs a sworn statement - with a jurat -- to the effect that he is aware of the approaching train -- that act is not inconsistent with his delusional belief that the train is "not really" a train. Why? Because he's already been warned! He's already aware that he's been warned, and he's already aware of the approaching train itself. Disagreement about the essential nature of that train, like a disagreement about the legal taxation effect of the receipt of wages, should not be confused with the concept of awareness of the existence of those things.
Further, Doofus' "belief" (good faith or otherwise) about whether the train is "really" a train is not determinative, ontologically, on the issue of whether it's really a train. Doofus' belief (whether good faith or pretended) about whether wages are taxable is not determinative, ontologically, of the legal question of whether wages are taxable.
When I sign a tax return, to the extent (if any) that I am making a representation about my understanding of a legal point at all (e.g., whether my wages are "really" taxable), I am making a statement about my AWARENESS of how the LEGAL SYSTEM answers that legal question, NOT about how I BELIEVE THE LEGAL SYSTEM SHOULD ANSWER that question -- and not about what I personally believe the legally correct treatment is.
The argument that a tax protester cannot validly and in good conscience sign a Federal income tax return (with the standard jurat) reporting his wages as being taxable -- merely because he has deliberately worked himself up into the delusional, legally frivolous belief that those wages are not taxable -- is laughable.
In substance, a jury may properly conclude that a so-called "belief" that wages are not taxable -- a "belief" that is persistently and obstinately held by a protester, even in the face of repeated statements to the contary provided to that protester -- may actually prove the mens rea requirement of willfulness under 26 USC 7201 (tax evasion). In other words, when a tax protester stubbornly sticks to his guns AFTER having received information to the contrary, that stubbornness may be treated by the jury as evidence not of a good faith misunderstanding of the Internal Revenue Code, but instead as evidence of nothing more than an obstinate DISAGREEMENT with the law. It is difficult to avoid a criminal conviction and persuade a jury that you are not aware that wages are taxable when you reject the warnings along the way, just as it is difficult to avoid (by merely ignoring the warning and refusing to "believe") the effect of the train hitting you.
Famspear wrote:If you know you received wages, then merely believing they are not taxable does not mean that you can't sign the return - with the jurat - in good conscience. We've already been through this.
Suppose that Mr. Doofus McStupid is standing on a railroad track. A train is coming. Someone off to the side yells, "Hey, the train in coming, get off the track or you'll be hit."
Doofus says: "That's not a train, that's just a mirage."
Even if Doofus actually believes, in good faith, that the train is not a "valid train" - the fact that he believes it's just a mirage -- does not change the fact that Doofus is AWARE of the EXISTENCE of the train, and is aware of the fact that the train IS COMING. (Doofus is also aware that the guy off to the side yelled the warning.) The Doofus argument or "belief" that the train is "not really a train" will make no material difference in terms of its effect on Doofus's health and well-being when that train hits Doofus.
Agreed. However what you're promoting is different. You saying that McStupid is required to sign a statement saying he personally believes the train is there...McStupid doesn't personally beleive that does he? Now McStupid barely misses being splattered all over the place. The local Sherrif takes McStupid's statement and charges him with attempted suicide and because Mr. McStupid signed a statement saying he knew there was a train. The obvious conclusion is that McStupid was intentionally trying to kill himself. The truth is McStupid actually thought the train was a mirage and is not guilty of being anything other than stupid.
If, while he's standing there on the track, Doofus signs a sworn statement - with a jurat -- to the effect that he is aware of the approaching train -- that act is not inconsistent with his delusional belief that the train is "not really" a train. Why? Because he's already been warned! He's already aware that he's been warned, and he's already aware of the approaching train itself. Disagreement about the essential nature of that train, like a disagreement about the legal taxation effect of the receipt of wages, should not be confused with the concept of awareness of the existence of those things.
You’re construction a strawman. That's not what the jurat says. It doesn't say anything about being informed. It says you believe something to be true.
Here it is again:
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete
PH doesn't personally believe they are true and correct.
Post-script: As Dan Evans and others have pointed out, the more a tax protester cites statutes, regs, and case law to argue that wages are not taxable, the more solid ground a jury will have for concluding that the tax protester's "belief" (that wages are not taxable) is not held in good faith, and is merely a DISAGREEMENT with the law -- a disagreement that actually is evidence of the protester's AWARENESS OF THE EXISTENCE of the law (awareness of the existence of the actual Internal Revenue Code provisions, for example).
Remember, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. The specific intent crimes (such as tax evasion under 7201) are only EXCEPTIONS to that rule.
The more obstinately and consistently the protester holds his "wages are not taxable" position even after being told (i.e., being MADE AWARE that he is wrong), the stronger the ground for the jury to conclude that under Cheek, the protester does NOT have a good faith belief, but instead is AWARE of the law, just like Doofus McStupid is aware of the train. By arguing that the law is something other than what the Justice Department contends the law is, Doofus is helping the Justice Department prove willfulness.
In the face of this, the argument that a tax protester cannot in good conscience sign the return with the jurat in the circumstances cited, and the argument that the protester is somehow being "coerced," etc., etc., are simply without merit.
Remember what eventually happened to Mr. Cheek. --Famspear
Famspear wrote:Post-script: As Dan Evans and others have pointed out, the more a tax protester cites statutes, regs, and case law to argue that wages are not taxable, the more solid ground a jury will have for concluding that the tax protester's "belief" (that wages are not taxable) is not held in good faith, and is merely a DISAGREEMENT with the law -- a disagreement that actually is evidence of the protester's AWARENESS OF THE EXISTENCE of the law (awareness of the existence of the actual Internal Revenue Code provisions, for example).
Remember, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. The specific intent crimes (such as tax evasion under 7201) are only EXCEPTIONS to that rule.
The more obstinately and consistently the protester holds his "wages are not taxable" position even after being told (i.e., being MADE AWARE that he is wrong), the stronger the ground for the jury to conclude that under Cheek, the protester does NOT have a good faith belief, but instead is AWARE of the law, just like Doofus McStupid is aware of the train. By arguing that the law is something other than what the Justice Department contends the law is, Doofus is helping the Justice Department prove willfulness.
In the face of this, the argument that a tax protester cannot in good conscience sign the return with the jurat in the circumstances cited, and the argument that the protester is somehow being "coerced," etc., etc., are simply without merit.
Remember what eventually happened to Mr. Cheek. --Famspear
Ok....I'm fine with that except, those very same forms can and will be used against the "tax protestor" to show they signed a statement saying they don’t believe what they claim they believe. I find it strange you don't see the injustice in that. The forms are not just used to get accurate numbers, they used as evidence of a personally held belief which kills your argument.
What's wrong with allowing someone to clearly say they personally do not agree with the information provided by the court but they completed the return in accordance with the courts directive? That would be fair and just. The only thing that would prevent is the government from disingenuously using a bogus admission of a belief against the defendant in a future case.
It's no different that forcing someone sign a statement admitting they were speeding and then making them pay the fine. Obviously no jury is going to side with the defendant, he certainly has no defense in the claim that he believed he wasn’t speeding.
Last edited by SteveSy on Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No, go back and read with Dezcad wrote. You're confusing questions of law and questions of fact.
What you're doing in effect is saying that the tax law and the tax collector are looking for a signed statement, in the form of a tax return, as to what the tax protester believes is taxable based on the TAX PROTESTER'S OWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE LAW IS. That is not what the tax law calls for, that is not what the tax collector calls for, and that is not what the tax return form itself calls for. Sorry. Famspear
No, go back and read with Dezcad wrote. You're confusing questions of law and questions of fact.
What you're doing in effect is saying that the tax law and the tax collector are looking for a signed statement, in the form of a tax return, as to what the tax protester believes is taxable based on the TAX PROTESTER'S OWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE LAW IS. That is not what the tax law calls for, that is not what the tax collector calls for, and that is not what the tax return form itself calls for. Sorry. Famspear
Doesn't matter what the tax law calls for....the jurat does. The jurat clearly states you personally believe something to be true regardless of what someone else thinks.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete
What part of my knowledge and belief do you not understand? If to your personal knowledge and belief it’s not accurate you have no business signing it.
That clearly says you personally believe something to be true. It says nothing about law, doesn’t even hint at it. In fact, as stated before even the DOJ proves your argument is nonsense by using the forms as evidence of a personally held belief.
SteveSy wrote:Doesn't matter what the tax law calls for....the jurat does. The jurat clearly states you personally believe something to be true regardless of what someone else thinks.
Nope. Guess again.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
SteveSy wrote:Doesn't matter what the tax law calls for....the jurat does. The jurat clearly states you personally believe something to be true regardless of what someone else thinks.
Nope. Guess again.
If you say so Dan...I'll let the jurat speak for its self.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete
Strange how you get it has nothing to do with what you personally believe when it clearly states "to my knowledge and belief". What’s more is the DOJ obviously does not agree with you considering they use signed returns as evidence you can't personally believe you don’t owe taxes. In fact I believe I've argued with you on how unfair that is and you’ve defended it as appropriate. On the one hand you want to claim it has nothing to do with a personal belief to justify the forced signature and then on the other want to support using it as evidence they're lying and don’t personally believe what they claim in the future.
Simply being "informed" does not necessarily or even support a guaranteed change in one's belief. You’ve been “informed” by well educated scholars that 911 was an inside job. It doesn’t mean you’re required to change your belief it wasn’t even though you are less educated in the fields of expertise of those who think it is.
Steve, you seem to agree that the judge can order PH to file a correct income tax return. (Correct me if I'm wrong about your belief.) If so, then the judge could make PH file returns unti he gets it right, imposing a monetary penalty for contempt each time PH fails to comply. Eventually, PH will be penniless, or in jail, or he will comply. All the judge has done is taken a short cut to the same result.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
SteveSy - I think your response supports my position, not yours. Again, remember that what you're attesting to when you sign a tax return is primarily factual. You yourself are agreeing in your reference to the language of the jurat.
Yes, there are legal questions bound up in the process of determining how to properly report income, deductions and credits, and in signing and filing the return. But you seem to want to cling tenaciously to this false idea that somehow the statutes, the regs, the tax collector, the tax forms (including the language of the jurat) and the related tax form instructions are somehow asking the tax protester to report his income in accordance with his own legal conclusion based on his own personal, good faith belief about the taxability of wages (to use our example) even where the protester is already AWARE that his interpretation has been rejected by the IRS, or the DOJ, or the courts, or the vast majority of lawyers and CPAs who study the tax law, or some combination of these. You are wrong.
Let me give you another example, in a non-tax law area.
In U.S. bankruptcy law, when someone files bankruptcy there is a concept called the "automatic stay" under Bankruptcy Code section 362. The automatic stay comes into effect automatically, by operation of law, without the need for any further action by anyone at all, at the moment that the debtor or his attorney files the petition with the clerk of the court.
The automatic stay operates to prohibit various kinds of collection actions by creditors against the debtor or the debtor's property. (It does lots of things, but that's an essential aspect of it.)
If, after the petition has been filed by the debtor, a creditor attempts to collect a debt from the debtor, that creditor is in violation of the automatic stay, EVEN IF THE CREDITOR IS UNAWARE OF THE BANKRUPTCY. If the creditor is unaware of the bankruptcy, the creditor's violation is not "willful" for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code -- but it's still a violation.
If, however, the creditor is aware of the bankruptcy, the violation is WILLFUL. (Certain consequences may or may not follow from that, but they're not important for purposes of this discussion.)
The point here is that the creditor's awareness of the bankruptcy does not have to result from any sort of formal notification. If, for example, an inebriated, mentally deranged man bumps into the creditor on the street and says "Psst, hey buddy, XYX Corporation filed bankruptcy" and the creditor concludes that this information, delivered to the creditor in this form is not reliable, and ignores it and tries to collect XYZ's debt anyway, the creditor's violation of the automatic stay is still probably going to be considered WILLFUL for purposes of section 362. The creditor was on notice, and should have checked things out, even if he didn't believe the deranged man. (Of course, the consequences to the creditor probably won't be as severe as they would be had the creditor been made aware through formal legal process, etc., but that's a separate story.)
Willfulness in this context means AWARENESS, regardless of how strongly and REASONABLY the creditor believed that the bankruptcy was not real. Awareness is awareness, willfulness is willfulness (at the expense of spouting a double tautology here).
Willfulness means awareness, regardless of how you received the information. And Willfulness means awareness regardless of how strongly you believe that the information you received is WRONG.
Neither the perjury statute nor any other provision of law is askng the tax protester to report transactions contrary to what the law is where the tax protester is aware of what the law is -- and that can be the case even where the tax protester is mistaken. If the tax protester's misunderstanding is based on the "complexity of the Internal Revenue Code" which I believe is the language of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cheek, then the jury might properly conclude that the taxpayer was not "willful" - was not really aware of what the law is.
If, however, the tax protester is told, over and over (even perhaps by a deranged, inebriated man on the street) that the protester's belief about the tax law is incorrect, the jury might properly conclude that the protester's stubbornness is actual EVIDENCE of true awareness of the law, just as Doofus is really aware of the train.
The "law of the jurat" if you will is not inconsistent with this analysis. The law of perjury does not provide, and no Federal court is going to conclude, that a tax protester -- after having been told that wages are taxable under the law -- is committing perjury by reporting wages as being taxable merely because the protester stubbornly clings to the belief that somehow those wages are not taxable.
When you sign your name next to the jurat, you are saying that the information is true to the best of your knowledge and belief. You are not "lying" for purposes of the perjury statute if you sign the return by reporting your wages based on your awareness of how THE COURTS treat wages, even though you believe the courts are "wrong."
You are not going to be prosecuted for perjury for reporting wages as taxable in the way the courts interpret the law, regardless of how strongly you personally disagree with the courts' interpretation of the law.
Under our legal system, by definition, the law is what the courts rule the law is. You are not legally free to argue your way around the language of the jurat based on your own interpretation of what the law is, no matter how strongly you feel you are "right" in your interpretation of the law.
Nikki wrote:The point, other than the one on top of your head, is that your statement
The judge is compelled to operate and obey the Social Security "employment" "civil-law" statutes and issue any "civil penalties" because you chose to operate in that law form for having the ssn in regards to ss benefits.
ignores the fact that judges operate exactly the same way with respect to people, both real and artificial, who do not possess social security numbers.
Thus, your conclusion that having a SSN forces a particular mode of operation is faulty.
Participation in social security, or exemption from participation, is irrelevant when it comes to computing income tax liability.
For example, can you explain why the Amish and certain priests, both of whom are exempt from participation in social security, are not exempted from paying income taxes?
No, you can't, because your theory is baseless and laughable.
Support your proposition that shows me one example of either a priest or amish person paying a tax from being "employed" without a ssn?
You are only showing the "excepted".
You will not any person who doesnt have a ssn paying any taxes.
Butthead:
In my earlier post, which you pooh-poohed, obviously without reading it, I cited a foreign national, resident in the United states, who makes significant income from investments. He has to pay taxes on that income WITH NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
See, moron, no SSN, but pays taxes.
Where's your theory now?
You have to prove there's a disconnect between wages and non-wage income AND between people who have and don't have SSNs THEN we might stop laughing at your inane antics.
Nikki wrote:The point, other than the one on top of your head, is that your statement ignores the fact that judges operate exactly the same way with respect to people, both real and artificial, who do not possess social security numbers.
Thus, your conclusion that having a SSN forces a particular mode of operation is faulty.
Participation in social security, or exemption from participation, is irrelevant when it comes to computing income tax liability.
For example, can you explain why the Amish and certain priests, both of whom are exempt from participation in social security, are not exempted from paying income taxes?
No, you can't, because your theory is baseless and laughable.
Support your proposition that shows me one example of either a priest or amish person paying a tax from being "employed" without a ssn?
You are only showing the "excepted".
You will not any person who doesnt have a ssn paying any taxes.
Butthead:
In my earlier post, which you pooh-poohed, obviously without reading it, I cited a foreign national, resident in the United states, who makes significant income from investments. He has to pay taxes on that income WITH NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
See, moron, no SSN, but pays taxes.
Where's your theory now?
You have to prove there's a disconnect between wages and non-wage income AND between people who have and don't have SSNs THEN we might stop laughing at your inane antics.
Yea, no shit sherlock, but I think they are laughing at your stupid ass!
You obviously never read my original post. Lame brain!
Why did you bring in a foreign national arguement into my comment about "employment" and the ssn.
I never said anything about a foreign national or the foreign national investing.....you idiot!
The subject was "employment" and those having and using the ssn for working are subject under the 26usc 3121 "civil-law" statutes.
Not a foreigner investing. Foreigners investing would more than likely obtain a ITIN.
You freaken dumbass idiot! Pay attention would ya!