Forced W-4

[Looking for Freedom]

My boss required me to fill out the w-4 because "you are required to" and after being told I cant get paychecks till it is done, I filled it out w/o a SSN on it. He then demanded that I put my ssn on it (he knew I had a ssn) and then he had me talk to his boss and he told me the same. I need a SSN on the w-4 and that I was required to fill it out. Can I do anything to undo this?

[charlesa6]

Looking for Freedom, welcome to the suijuris forum.

[PANICPASS]

Originally Posted by Looking for Freedom

My boss required me to fill out the w-4 because "you are required to" and after being told I cant get paychecks till it is done, I filled it out w/o a SSN on it. He then demanded that I put my ssn on it (he knew I had a ssn) and then he had me talk to his boss and he told me the same. I need a SSN on the w-4 and that I was required to fill it out. Can I do anything to undo this?

Did you really expect your boss to know that an SSN is not required? The problem is imbedded in every employer. Did you not know that? Solve the problem before you go to work and sign.

[rentiap]

I believe this has been posted to this forum before.
The info that you are asking for is within.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Looking for Freedom

My boss required me to fill out the w-4 because "you are required to" and after being told I cant get paychecks till it is done, I filled it out w/o a SSN on it. He then demanded that I put my ssn on it (he knew I had a ssn) and then he had me talk to his boss and he told me the same. I need a SSN on the w-4 and that I was required to fill it out. Can I do anything to undo this?

Tell them you do not have a SSN. You let your boss tell you that you have a SSN. Of course it is much more difficult now that you have told them you have a SSN.

I do not have a SSN.

You can redeem your FRNs in lawful money and get all the Withholdings Refunded at the end of the Tax Year. That is probably more sensible than getting fired - especially when you are conditioned into thinking you have a SSN when you do not want to have one.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv

Order up your certified copy of the law that proves you are entitled to non-taxable lawful money from (719) 520-6200.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by Looking for Freedom

My boss required me to fill out the w-4 because "you are required to" and after being told I cant get paychecks till it is done, I filled it out w/o a SSN on it. He then demanded that I put my ssn on it (he knew I had a ssn) and then he had me talk to his boss and he told me the same. I need a SSN on the w-4 and that I was required to fill it out. Can I do anything to undo this?

Originally Posted by Merrill

Tell them you do not have a SSN. You let your boss tell you that you have a SSN.

Good advice there as usual Merrill, perjury is always something useful to add to ones curriculum vitae, and is also grounds for dismissal.

Title 26
§ 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 §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 §31.3402(f)(5)–1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails or refuses to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

So the distillation of all this is that, YES, you are required to file a W4 and YES, your employer is required to get one from you. The regulation is quite clear on that, and if you don’t supply one, they will automatically withhold you at single and zero, which is the maximum. There are also monetary penalties for failing to submit one, both for you, and for the employer unless they report that you refused to sign one, and then they will just be told to hold at single and zero so this is one you can’t get out of.

[David Merrill]

Notorial Dissent is on my Ignore List. If any Readers should feel some of his Post worth comment, please quote the passage you are talking about and I will read that.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Notorial Dissent is on my Ignore List. If any Readers should feel some of his Post worth comment, please quote the passage you are talking about and I will read that.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Nothing worthwhile. The usual regurgitation of title 26 concerning employer, employee and forms he believes are required...no definitions of terms, etc. etc., same old company lines you'd expect to hear.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Good advice there as usual Merrill, perjury is always something useful to add to ones curriculum vitae, and is also grounds for dismissal.

Title 26
§ 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 §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 §31.3402(f)(5)–1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails or refuses to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

So the distillation of all this is that, YES, you are required to file a W4 and YES, your employer is required to get one from you. The regulation is quite clear on that, and if you don’t supply one, they will automatically withhold you at single and zero, which is the maximum. There are also monetary penalties for failing to submit one, both for you, and for the employer unless they report that you refused to sign one, and then they will just be told to hold at single and zero so this is one you can’t get out of.

Don't Forget anyone can terminate any W-4 by their notice.

Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 3402(p)(2).

An AGREEMENT (the W-4) under section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE upon. However, EITHER THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT (of withholding) PRIOR TO THE END OF SUCH PERIOD BY FURNISHING A SIGNED WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. Unless the employer and employee AGREE to an earlier withholding termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the AGREEMENT is in effect which is made on or after the first "status determination date" that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished.

This regulation states that the AGREEMENT "shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE UPON", and that either the employer or the employee "MAY TERMINATE THE WITHHOLDING AGREEMENT prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other." Therefore, it is obvious that the withholding must be REQUESTED by the employee, must be AGREED TO by the employer, and MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. The regulations merely state that the notice terminating withholding must be a signed written notice -- no particular form is ever required!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Good advice there as usual Merrill, perjury is always something useful to add to ones curriculum vitae, and is also grounds for dismissal.

Title 26
§ 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 §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 §31.3402(f)(5)–1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails or refuses to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

So the distillation of all this is that, YES, you are required to file a W4 and YES, your employer is required to get one from you.

The regulation is quite clear on that, and if you don’t supply one, they will automatically withhold you at single and zero, which is the maximum.

There are also monetary penalties for failing to submit one, both for you, and for the employer unless they report that you refused to sign one, and then they will just be told to hold at single and zero so this is one you can’t get out of.

Thanks for your opinion and "distillation" (interpretation?).

Why would clearly written legislation require "distillation?"

Is not a process of "distillation" used to produce intoxicating liquors which dull the senses?

Will you please show exactly where, in the quote (which you provided) of the codification of this alleged "general and permanent" "law," the very specific words requiring a "form W-4?"

Will you please show exactly where, in the quote (which you provided) of the non positive codification of this alleged "law," the very specific words requiring a "SSN?"



Can you, yourself, show precisely why it is that so very

"many of the general and permanent laws that are required to be incorporated into the United States Code are inconsistent, redundant, and obsolete,"


that a


"Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives"


must engage in an ongoing and continual


"revision and restatement of the general and permanent laws of the United States" "for enactment into positive law,"


in order to:


"remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections from the law?"

Can you explain exactly why "legal evidence of the general and permanent laws" is preferable to " recourse to the numerous volumes of the United States Statutes at Large for this purpose?

Can you explain precisely why, in both cases, one would be relying upon prima facie "legal evidence of the general and permanent laws," rather than the bona fide "general and permanent laws" themselves?

Why are alleged "general and permanent laws of the United States," allegedly enacted by constitutional process, subject to "a continuing comprehensive" "revision and restatement" by "Counsel?"

How is the linked statement following, other than convoluted propaganda designed by private attorneys to further obfuscate, by mere "legal" re-present-at-ion, as prima facie "legal evidence," that which it re-pre-sents as "inconsistent, redundant, and obsolete," and so rife with "ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections," that "a continuing comprehensive project" "to revise and codify, for enactment into positive law" must undergo "the process of preparing and enacting, one title at a time, a revision and restatement of the general and permanent laws of the United States?"

http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml

Why would bureaucratic politicians need to hire attorneys to keep two sets of books, both of which they admit are no more than prima facie "legal evidence" that a bona fide law, allegedly made "in pursuance of" actually exists somewhere?

Seems like "...this Constitution for the United States of America" might tend to get lost in the shuffle.

Could be wabbit?