NOTICE: This is an archived forum maintained only for search purposes.

Member services are being moved and revamped at www.iwarrior.net.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

This is a general forum pertaining to discussions on all modes and classifications of taxes and taxation.

Unread post August 2nd, 2009, 7:20 pm
Gimmer Inspired

Inspired
User avatar

Deleted by OP.
Last edited by Gimmer on August 22nd, 2009, 6:36 am, edited 3 times in total.

Unread post August 2nd, 2009, 8:07 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Welcome Gimmer,

Yes, there are several individuals working on this new idea, I have dubbed it the "SSA Factor", at least until Stix comes up with something else of course. It certainly has many interesting aspects for consideration. From what I heard Stix is remaining secretive about his research until he finished and has thoroughly compiled it for presentation.

And no need to worry about being banned or having posts deleted or modified here, such actions will only be performed if a poster acts in a threatening or unlawful manner.

Unread post August 3rd, 2009, 9:09 am
Gimmer Inspired

Inspired
User avatar

Deleted by OP.
Last edited by Gimmer on August 21st, 2009, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unread post August 3rd, 2009, 7:30 pm
Gimmer Inspired

Inspired
User avatar

Deleted by OP.
Last edited by Gimmer on August 21st, 2009, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unread post August 4th, 2009, 3:45 am
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

The way I understand that is that 3401(a) makes specific exclusion to that which would have otherwise been deemed to have been included within the intent of the law. Which is what you are saying, though just to be more specific on the issue. But just that list does not mean that if an activity is not excluded it is to be included, e.g. something that is not constitutionally taxable [through indirect taxation at least], such as ones subsistence.


The hierarchy of the IRC from my interpretation is basically (26 USC):

[pre]3401 > 1 > 61 > (62) > 63 > 31 > 3121

[The meat & potatoes] [bridge] [The gravy train with biscuit wheels][/pre]


But permit us to keep in mind 26 USC § 6401(c), § 6402(a), § 6402(b), § 6611(a), § 6611(b), § 6621(a)(1), § 7422(a), and 26 CFR 301.6203-1 – ‘Method of assessment’.
Last edited by Weston White on August 4th, 2009, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unread post August 4th, 2009, 7:02 am
Gimmer Inspired

Inspired
User avatar

Deleted by OP.
Last edited by Gimmer on August 21st, 2009, 6:03 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Unread post August 4th, 2009, 2:51 pm
Indiana Awakened

Awakened
User avatar

7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2) Read the cites above)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/282281.shtml

Wages
20 CFR 404.1041 Wages.
(a) the term "wages" means remuneration paid to you as an employee for employment unless specifically excluded....
(b) if you are paid wages it is not important what they are called. Salaries, fees, bonuses and commissions on sales or on insurance premiums are wages (are SS) if they are paid for employment......
20 CFR 404.1003 Employment.
Employment means, generally any service covered by social security performed by an employee for his or her employer...

20 CFR 404.1004 What work is covered as employment.
(a) General requirements of employment. Unless otherwise excluded..., the work you perform as an employee for your employer is covered as employment under social security if one of the following situations applies:
(1) You perform the work within the United States...
(2) You perform the work outside the United States and you are a Citizen or resident...

20 CFR 404.1001 Introduction
(a)(1) In general, your social security benefits are based on your earnings that are on our records... you receive credit only for earnings that are covered for social security purposes. The earnings are covered only if your work is covered. If you are an employee.....Some work is covered by Social Security and some work is not. Also, some earnings are covered by social security and some are not. It is important that you are aware of what kinds of work and earnings are covered so
that you will know whether your earnings should be on our records. (2) If you are an employee, your covered work is called "employment."...
(3) If your work is "employment" your covered earnings are called "wages

“Courtesy of MNStix” Gotta Love This Guy, I believed it from the start, he just proved it.

Unread post August 4th, 2009, 3:15 pm
Gimmer Inspired

Inspired
User avatar

Deleted by OP.
Last edited by Gimmer on August 21st, 2009, 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unread post August 4th, 2009, 4:22 pm
Indiana Awakened

Awakened
User avatar

“Courtesy of MNStix” gimmer I'm not the man.......

Let me tell you straight up warriors the ctc was close but here are the facts.

The irs does not read you letters "it’s policy" period. The ctc way of filing has me in a levy and soon to be a lien. I had to call for some help. I had to get power of attorney from a lawyer to negotiate a payment plan and to stop the wage garnishment and a federal tax lien from taken my cars and home. If you were that far in 2 it like I was there is no other way, at least not for me. I refuse to step into a tax court with all odds against me.

I also had to redo my last six years of taxes and file them the way iris wants me to just to get them off my back.

I wish well for Pete but Stix was right I knew years ago ss was involved. Stix pointed it out I read ss said it and it made sense. I never wanted ss to begin with and I was under the age of sixteen when I signed that contract, basically just to get to work as I was told. Babies getting ss numbers at birth please. Ever read the rules on that one?

But here is what I’m going to do. I’m in my 50’s. I'll never see ss I think, so in the mean time I will withdraw from ss. I sure I’m going to penalized and loose that money until I claim it at their retirement age if I have a chance to see it. I’m going to keep taking out that same amount out of my check as ss did and invest it. Not principal or interest way where it’s taxed.

I want the feds out of my life and if it means a less ss check because of penalties so be, I think I have my quarters paid in, and at what age is to collect ss 103, then so be it.

TIP: A non bearing interest checking, saving account and like one of the ctc warriors said you don’t need to supply an ss number for one of those.

Unread post August 5th, 2009, 7:00 am
IMFResearch Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Indiana wrote:
Let me tell you straight up warriors the ctc was close but here are the facts.

The irs does not read you letters "it’s policy" period. The ctc way of filing has me in a levy and soon to be a lien. I had to call for some help. I had to get power of attorney from a lawyer to negotiate a payment plan and to stop the wage garnishment and a federal tax lien from taken my cars and home. If you were that far in 2 it like I was there is no other way, at least not for me. I refuse to step into a tax court with all odds against me.

I also had to redo my last six years of taxes and file them the way iris wants me to just to get them off my back.


That has been my experience as well. I've seen it over and over and over between my associates and myself.

There are some ways to challenge liens and levies but no real way to keep the IRS from making an assessment when "income" is reported by W-2/1099, and no way to avoid collection if you do not change bank accounts, etc.

Anyone working a W-4 job, and anyone with an interest-bearing account (bank or otherwise) in their name and SSN, is subject to levy, either one-time or continuing. It's those continuing levies on "wages" that kill the party.

We can make all the arguments we wish, and I've made (seen) them all, but it will not change the outcome. There are a few isolated cases where People escaped civil and criminal penalties, but they are not duplicatable.

I'm not saying I'm happy with the outcome, but this has been my experience.

Next

Return to General Tax Questions

cron