Forced W-4

[Shoonra]

The privacy act which shields disclosure of SSNs explicitly provided an exception for processes already in existence. That exception would include the W-4 form and other IRS procedures (and, by the way, also DL applications).

The courts have held that employers are legally required to do paycheck withholding and get W-4 forms, and, therefore, employers can drop job applicants and employees (I would assume especially those employees still in a probationary period) who are determined to get the employer into trouble over this.

On top of that, having been issued an SSN, now pretending that you don't have one could be viewed as tax (or some other kind of) fraud.

[mrg]

Shoonra
This message is hidden because Shoonra is on your ignore list.

"The courts have repeatedly rejected...?"

[PANICPASS]

26 CFR §31.3402(f)(2)-1 Withholding exemption certificates.

(a) On commencement of employment. On or before the date on which an individual commences employment with an employer, the individual shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to his marital status and the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which number shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled, or, if the statements described in Sec. 31.3402(n)-1 are true with respect to an individual, he may furnish his employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate which contains such statements. For form and contents of such certificates, see
Sec. 31.3402(f)(5)-1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.


• Notice that 26 USC §3402(a)(1) defines the application of this section by stating: “Except as otherwise provided in this section….”

• Notice that 26 CFR §31.3402(f)(2)-1 states that “The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails tofurnish such certificate….”

• The phrase “if the employee fails to furnish such certificate,” means that an employee may decline to provide the Form W-4. (Note that it also states: “such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.” – )

The counter to the assertion that "such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no exemptions" is to clarify what is written here. The phrase “shall be considered as” does not authorize the actual withholding of money, it simply tells the employer how to think about this person. The authorization for withholding comes only with a properly completed and signed Form W-4 agreement.

Understand that if the Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate were Absolutely required from each employee – if it were, without exception an absolute legally required mandate … then why is the employer required to ask for it and why must the employee furnish it. If it were clearly required the law would simply direct the employer to do the withholding …without exceptions.

[Shoonra]

In a situation where the employer wanted to hire/keep the person who refuses to fill out a W-4 (or who fills it out with fictitious numbers), I would suppose that (a) the employer would deduct the maximum possible withholding tax (which is, I think, for a single person with no dependents or exemptions), and (b) keep that amount in some sort of escrow or earmarked account awaiting the proper SSN, either from the employee or the IRS, at which point the employer sends the money in and not until then can the employee hope for whatever refund is honestly due him.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

26 CFR

If it were clearly required the law would simply direct the employer to do the withholding …without exceptions.

If it were clearly required the law would simply...


"It" "clearly" applies to anything the rump congress sitting at occupation as a de facto soviet re-pre-sent-s as allegedly "required" by "law" (the color of which "simply" blows out of its...).

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

In a situation where the employer wanted to hire/keep the person who refuses to fill out a W-4 (or who fills it out with fictitious numbers), I would suppose that (a) the employer would deduct the maximum possible withholding tax (which is, I think, for a single person with no dependents or exemptions), and (b) keep that amount in some sort of escrow or earmarked account awaiting the proper SSN, either from the employee or the IRS, at which point the employer sends the money in and not until then can the employee hope for whatever refund is honestly due him.

Without the W-4 or some other consent, that would be theft. It might happen but more likely they will press for consent first.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[rentiap]

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) personal income tax scheme is utterly dependent upon
the continued submission of Social Security Account Numbers (SSAN’s) collected from new
employees by employers. New employees routinely provide a SSAN on a signed IRS Form
W-4 Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate when requested by an employer, and the
employer dutifully forwards the W-4’s in accordance with IRS wishes. Without such
unparalleled largesse1 (SSAN’s volunteered by new employees and then submitted by
employers), IRS has no lawful basis for the assessment and collection of Social Security
payroll tax from said new employees—and likewise for every other kind of tax routinely
levied2 from a paycheck.

Most people think that they have no choice, i.e. that they must provide a SSAN when asked
for one by their new employer if they want to have a job. This is not true for a number of
reasons, but possibly the most significant one is the official stance of the issuer of all
SSAN’s, the Social Security Administration (SSA). The following excerpts are taken directly
from the official SSA web site at www.ssa.gov; specifically: “Questions?” then “Social
Security Number & Card” then Page 2, Question #23: “When do I have to provide my Social
Security Number?” The following passages (as well as others) appear:

“Que stion:

“Must I provide a Social Security number (SSN) to any business or government agency
that asks?

“Answer:”

“If a business or other enterprise3 asks you for your SSN, you can refuse to give it.”

“Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly.”

“The decision is yours.”

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) requires only that an employer request a SSAN from each
new employee, and can levy a fine if the employer fails to obtain/ask for a SSAN. However,
IRC also provides for a waiver of such penalty if the employer fulfills the request requirement
but fails to obtain a SSAN because the new employee declines to provide one (no willful
neglect on the part of the employer). If there is ultimately no penalty/fine if the em ployer
fails to obtain a SSAN from a new employee, there is no requirement that a new employee
provide one in the first place. No penalty = Not required.

Similarly, IRC contains no provision for the assessment and collection of income tax from a
new employee for whom it has no SSAN. Accordingly, IRC contains no provision that
allows/requires/instructs an employer to refuse to continue to employ the new employee, to
fire the new employee, to refuse to pay the new employee his/her earnings, to withhold a
portion of the new employee’s earnings, or permit any other such unlawful measures.
Employees who do not provide a SSAN (on a signed W-4, the only authorized way in IRC)
when requested to do so are simply not eligible for any benefits (Social Security and other)
associated with the earnings they collect from that particular employer.

Any retaliatory action taken against the new employee by the employer, such as any of the
ones listed above, is unlawful and can be immediately vindicated via lawsuit—and the new
employee will win. This is why: The new employee is hired first and then only subsequently
asked to provide a SSAN (on a signed W-4). At the time this is requested of the new
employee, he/she is already employed. This fact is echoed in the ************s of IRC, in
that IRC authorizes requesting a SSAN only of an employee. Since providing a SSAN on a
signed W-4 is voluntary (the only valid signature is one that is signed freely), the employer
cannot lawfully coerce the new employee into doing what is otherwise a voluntary act. The
matter of providing a SSAN (on a signed W-4) is strictly between employee and employer,
and does not involve any outside third party, such as IRS and SSA:

“…We do not have the authority to require an employer to provide or deny employment or
services to anyone who refuses to disclose his or her number. This is a matter between the
individual and the employer.”

Dorcas R. Hardy
Commissioner of Social Security
Letter of response to Rodney Rickman, July 16, 1986

[rentiap]

So obviously one must be an employee and that employee must be working for an employer.
And How does the IRC define employee and employer?
IRC
3401 (c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person

And let's include this
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

Then we would have to go to the definition of person by the IRC....................................Gee have I seen this stuff posted before?

[PANICPASS]

Personally, I think it is futile to try and convince an employer to do something that will effect their accounting. There are always exceptions of course that will listen to what you have to say, and keep an open mind, but for the most part, in my humble opinion, the SSN/employer issue is waste of time.

I actually saw something in the code last night that made my eyes bulge - There is no regulation for the statute but there are notes about the regulation that says to go back and read the 1939 regulation for clarification,which I am going to do tomorrow. Then, if everything checks out I am going to start filing my returns for my money back - then I'll let everyone know if it worked out or not.

[weishaupt1776]

I believe that Shoonra & ND are dead on the money

All U.S. Citizens must pay !and be a Good Little German and fill out the damn form !!!

IF they want to withhold from a state national, they will be looking at a serious discrimination lawsuit

ANy legislation enacted post 14th Amendment is defacto & insurgent in nature