There's this lady I know that's on disability, and she works 26 hours a week at a daycare. Okay, there's no taxes being taken out of her paycheck, and she told me that she didn't want SS to know she was making any money. I snooped around a little bit and someone told me that it's called something like 'stifling' and it was legal. I might not be spelling this right, but have you heard of this? I thought taxes had to be taken out on any job. Have you heard of stifling or anything that sound like that? I researched and stifling meant something else.

I am not sure about what you are referring to "stifling"... but she is supposed to declare ALL her income.. and my sons SSI is based on income in the house. More income... less SSI benefits.. as it should be.

Unless she's working as an independent contractor, my understanding is that her employer must withhold FICA taxes from her pay and make a contribution as well.

There may be some professions that can opt out of the Social Security system. Preachers, and maybe government or railroad workers, come to mind.

Any accountants in the bunch who can provide a professional comment?

Whatever "stifling" is, it's not legal.

Sad to say, if her income is low enough, she can probably file a return with her disability AND earned income and still not pay a lot in taxes (and she won't run the risk of a tax penalty). The truth is that in this country, poor people often don't pay federal income taxes because the brackets favor them.

Another thing she may not realize is any future RETIREMENT ss benefits are affected by how much income she reports. You have to report income to the IRS to be eligible to receive ss benefits when you retire. You don't just get it automatically. (I think you have to work something like 10 years to get the minimum payment.)

This is what my gut says:

This woman is on "SS" disability and probably gets it because they think she can't work at all, and if they find out, she'll lose her disability payments and perhaps have to face a penalty.

(Then it will be the Social Security Administration's turn to "stifle"!)

Incidently, if she's an independant contractor, the company paying her is required to issue a 1099-MISC for her "company", which works just like a W-2 for people. She reports it as miscellaneous income rather than as wages. Same 1040 form, different line.

Under-the-table is never legal.

If the woman is on SS disability, which usually yields a larger check than SSI disability, then, correct me if I am wrong, but I think that she can continue on SS disability after retirement, if it is determined that her SS disability check is greater than her retirement check. In such a case, if the woman is already of retirement age, then she is for sure just trying to survive by her method. Also, there are programs in which disabled persons can be hired legitimately by businesses in return for tax breaks to the businesses, and this being so, we do not know whether such programs allow for no filing of taxes, especially when it is already known that such legitimate tax breaks as the earned income credit would wipe out any need to pay taxes anyway.

For those who think that this woman is a tax cheat, consider the following. Perhaps her monthly SS disability check totals her monthly rent. She is, therefore, working to pay all of her other bills. At minimum wage, her earned income is 26 x $5.15 = $133.90 per week. So she earns an extra 4 x $133.90 = $535.60 on a month with some holidays. If you find it easy to live on your rent plus $535.60 per month for all else, I have a book which I want to sell you. Moral: Thank God, and M.Y.O.B. P.S. I'll bet that her deal is to work the 26 hours for a clear under-the-table $100 so that she is not getting minimum wage. Raise your hand if you agree.

As for the business owner, there is no charitable deduction for helping individuals face to face, or is there?

You sure know some shady characters don't you? LOL


Working for an employer who does not take out taxes is called "working under the table". Many companies pay employees this way because they can pay them less. (sometimes they just pay them cash) Many people on welfare do this too. It is illegal.

*raises hand* I agree Tsaeb that she has some deal made.

Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, Chapter I, Part 31, Section 3402(p)-1(26CFR31.3402(p)-1) provides that the I.R.S. Form W-4 is a voluntary withholding agreement between an employer and an employee. There is no law requiring a worker or employee to complete the I.R.S Form W-4
Sec. 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.
(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 31.3401(a)-3 …
(b) Form and duration of agreement. (1)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, 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.

So when you fill out a W-4 form, you volunteer to allow your employer to withhold taxes from your pay. The best way to avoid this problem is to not volunteer for it in the first place. Next time you start a new job, decline to fill out a W-4 form. There is no federal statue requiring you to do so. There is a federal statute requiring employers to ask for your SSN but there is no statute requiring you to provide an SSN. However, for many people this would be frightening. They would be afraid that if they did not fill out a W-4 when taking a new job that the new employer would not allow them to work. While such an action would not be legal on behalf of the employer, it still is a risk that you would take. There have been Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suits that have been won on this issue. The EEOC has ruled that an employer cannot refuse to hire an employee because they will not give their SSN.

Once again, I'll refer to this link, as I'm sure Paul will never stop deluding himself. My only hope is that no one else will let themselves be deluded by him.
http://www.irs.gov/irs/content/0,,id=106448,00.html



For any thinking of following Paul's advice, 2 things.

First, the various links on that page thoroughly debunk his claims.

Second, there are penalties, and people are caught and prosecuted. (I have an ex-girlfriend with a gun and a badge - scary, scary, scary thought - who makes sure of this.) Note the statistics from the above link. The average incarceration period of nonfilers found guilty over the past three fiscal years was 3.5 years.

Now, for the business owner's side. . . . A few months ago, after more than two decades with a business, I got myself that ID# to become an employer. I am still reading the laws before seriously thinking of hiring anyone. You don't want to know how infuriating are the rules for paying every heretofore unimaginable thing for just one employee, and I was thinking of hiring several employees. Anyway, re the point of this thread, an employer must submit payroll info and taxes on behalf of both the employees and the employer. Also, in most (maybe now all) states, one must right away report new hires and give their Social Security numbers so that they can be tracked down if they owe child support. Since there is an equal protection clause in the Constitution, this procedure should be followed for all employees to avoid their suing the employer. On the federal level, for all employees, citizenship data must be gotten, and again it should be gotten across the board for all employees to avoid their suing the employer. Since employment lawsuits are so numerous, many employers operate in a standard (across the board) fashion, put things in written contracts to be mutually signed, and even try to enforce arbitration agreements to avoid high court litigation costs, but currently a plateau has been reached so that there may be a reversion back to the court lawsuits and away from the arbitration agreements, which have often been thrown out of court and so saved no money or good purpose, being risky and experimental. Now, the last straw is that great records should be kept, because you never know from what level of government an auditor will turn up; in particular, they come to check payroll and unemployment insurance records at their whims. I think that you know that even a storekeeper, if he/she does not sweep the sidewalk and gutter, too, he/she can get a huge fine at the snap of the inspector's fingers.

You probably know that filling out a W-4 form is voluntary, but did you know that it may sometimes be the very thing used to shut up the state that you do not owe those child supposrt payments--or that your state withholding form may not be the same as your federal withholding form in terms of what you put on it? Also, did you know that it is even advised that you file new federal and state/city forms with your employer (if it would make a big difference) before the end of each year?

quote:

---

Originally posted by methos:
_Once again_, I'll refer to this link, as I'm sure Paul will never stop deluding himself. My only hope is that no one else will let themselves be deluded by him.
http://www.irs.gov/irs/content/0,,id=106448,00.html

---

So, Methos!

You're implying that the IRS is not complying with the Code of Federal Regulatons?

I'll refer to this link
CFR Sec. 31.3402(p)-1

No, Paul, I am implying that you are (possibly intentionally) misunderstanding the law, and are now trying to delude others into breaking it. I've said before, I have no intention of arguing this point with you (the IRS does that quite well on its own), because I doubt I will ever convince you and because, frankly, I don't care if you get arrested. My only purpose in posting is to prevent others from following you.

Then, Methos,

Why don't you tell all of us what the LAW is?!

Tell us what I'm not understanding and how I'm mis-applying it.

Tell us how clear the wording is in the IRC that makes all of us liable.

You claim to have the knowledge, so tell us all where we can find the correct information.

Tell us why the IRS cannot and will not show us the alledged law. If there were a law, don't you think the IRS would want us to know about it?

Furthermore, You probably are some type of bureaucrat being payed with illegal Tax dollars. Won't it be terrible when the IRS is gone? You'll have to find honest work.
You've also related to me the kind of person you are when you said: "frankly, I don't care if you get arrested". ....So Kind! And, what makes you think you're going to protect others from the information (all documented, by the way) I've researched?
I'm sure they can think for themselves (the IRS doesn't like that).

Methos! I don't want to argue with you either.
If you could substantiate your claims like I've tried to do mine, then maybe I'll learn something from you. But since you don't want to discuss this any further, I'll take it that you're not fully informed, just like I'm not fully informed. I'll welcome your enthusiasm if you wish to continue.

peace!

Tax Protester Movement - Still Batting Zero

"Conclusion: Why spend so much time writing about something as obviously fraudulent as trust scams and tax protester arguments? Because many citizens have no source of information to counter the arguments they hear in favor of these schemes. The average citizen with access to the Web can log on to these tax sites and receive a mountain of misinformation without hearing an opposing view.

While it is easy for tax attorneys and other tax professionals to dismiss the arguments made by the trust scam promoters and tax protestors as the work of a lunatic fringe, the harm they cause is real and it is increasing geometrically, thanks in large part to the Internet and the inactivity of the IRS and state authorities."

This will be my last post in this thread.

Paul -

Were this your first post on the subject, I would try. It is not, so I won't.

You have shown yourself in the past to be unwilling to accept the reality of the situation, right down to rejecting the idea that an amendment can change the Constitution (despite the Constitution having a procedure for making amendments written into it).

I've already pointed you to a page explaining why your arguments don't hold water. If you were serious about wanting the truth as opposed to reinforcing whatever conspiracy theory you hold, you would go there. I see no reason to do it for you when you have demonstrated time and time again that you have no interest in the truth if it doesn't fit with what you want it to be.

Methos made mention of the Constitution and believes that all the recent amendments made to it beyond the first 10 are valid.

Are We Required To Accept Changes To Our Constitution?


"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177

Newnickname has mistaken me for a tax protester, I'm not. But I do question the misapplication of the IRC by the IRS and collection of taxes on those persons to whom the Federal income tax does not apply. I believe the key word here is "FEDERAL". If you work for the U.S. Govt. then you are a Federal Employee and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
When you voluntarily sign, under penalty of perjury, any Government instrument, you are under the jurisdiction of the Feds and must comply with the agreement you made under penalty of perjury. It's a trap folks.


Disclaimer - This is what I believe based on my continuing research.

quote:

---

From Paul's given link:
Amendments: While I admit that minor changes can lawfully be made to the Constitution by Amendment, I will not accept major changes that are in direct conflict with the Founders intent, e.g. the 16th and 17th Amendments.

---

So, what you're telling us is, some miscellaneous author out in cyberworld has the authority to summarily dismiss most of the Constitution? Great! I'm going to tell my wife she can't vote this year, buy some slaves, and then stop filling out W-4s!

Thanks, Paul, you've liberated me! I'll see you at the next militia meeting!

When all of us, assuming we're of average intelligence, can read a law and disagree as to its meaning, the law is said to be "Void for Vagueness". This is a maxim of law as old as the law itself. It's just plain common sense that if a law can't be clearly understood by the people to whom it is to apply, such a law is both unfair and dangerous! Much of the debate and protest over the tax laws could be eliminated if the government would stop writing and enforcing laws, regulations and rules that are vague, convoluted and open to various interpretations. When judges themselves can't agree upon the meaning of a law, should they not declare the law "Void for Vagueness", thus unconstitutional, and tell the Congress to rewrite it in a clear, Constitutional fashion or it will not be enforced? Should not juries be sending that very message to the government? Think about these questions. Ask your elected representatives these questions. Do you not see that honest, intelligent people (I like to think I'm one of those) have legitimate questions that deserve answers?

That's all.

Bye!

Paul if you're not a tax protestor, what are you? Are you simply saying that people should ignore this 'withholding form' and then pay their taxes in a lump sum in April?

If you're one of those claiming to have found some loophole in the tax laws, or reading of the constitution, that makes collecting federal tax something based on voluntary compliance and not legal obligation, then I think you're a tax protestor.

Here's a useful site: www.quatloos.com/taxscams/

Some quotes:

"The word "voluntary," as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10 th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states, "although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection . . . . The IRS' efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are entirely proper."

"The requirement to pay taxes is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts as determined by the tables set forth in that section. (Section 11 imposes a tax on the taxable income of corporations.) Furthermore, the obligation to pay tax is described in section 6151, which requires taxpayers to submit payment with their tax returns. Failure to pay taxes could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties."

"The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax."

He sounds like an original antifederalist...

newnickname!

How about this one?!

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

....or this:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [Federal Income Taxation] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S. Ct. 513 (1894)