Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: How do I sign IRS forms?

Expand Messages
  • John
    Any time someone is forcing you to sign your name and you do not freely give your signature then a statement to that effect is necessary to give notice that
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Any time someone is forcing you to sign your name and you do not
      freely give your signature then a statement to that effect is
      necessary to give notice that the form is null and void as a matter
      of law. It makes no difference if the form is IRS - SSA - or any
      other form state or federal. All you have to do is to attach a
      simple statement to the form that says you did not freely give your
      signature on the form and you do not support the jurat statement in
      any fashion. Also mention that the form is null and void as a matter
      of law. That should about do it. The form cannot be used as a basis
      for anything. One thing about signatures - THEY MUST BE GIVEN OF
      YOUR OWN FREE WILL. If a signature is not given freely then it is
      coereced under threat or duress. The law of necessity allows us to
      eat or earn a living in whatever legal manner we can. If its legal
      then we cannot be forced to do anything to get the job. If for some
      reason you feel a notice attached to the form will cause you to loose
      a job or prejudice you in some way then send the notice in after the
      form is filed. Be sure and cite the form, date etc and send the
      notice to the offending agency. Keep your records to prove they got
      the notice that the signature was forced.
      John
    • bowman7a
      Let s first start with the form on its face, and the instructions that accompany it. The IRS claims that this Form is required to be provided to all payors of
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Let's first start with the form on its face, and the instructions
        that accompany it.
        The IRS claims that this Form is required to be provided to all
        payors of amounts which exceed $600 for the year for payee TIN
        certification, or that the payor is to "backup withhold" 31% of the
        remuneration paid.

        The Form states on its face in the upper right hand corner, "Do not
        send to the IRS"
        Since there is no law which absolutely requires that a U.S. Citizen
        register with the Social Security Administration, and thus be
        assigned a number, there can be, and is, no law requiring the
        providing of a number to a payor.
        This is proved by:

        26 CFR § 301.6109-1(d)

        26 U.S.C. § 6041(a)

        26 CFR § 1.6041-6

        26U.S.C. § 6041A(f)(1)

        26 CFR 1.6041A-1(a) (for a pdf copy click here)



        This legal position is also proved by the fact that there is no
        Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number on the form.
        In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act required that all Executive
        Agencies, including the IRS, were required to submit all Forms
        required to be completed by U.S. Citizens to the OMB for approval,
        along with the citation of the law which the forms were fulfilling.

        This was so that Citizens would know if the form they were being
        presented with was a legal form that they were required by some law
        to submit, or if it was a form stemming from merely an offhand or
        casual request for which there is no binding legal authority.

        There is no OMB Control number on the W-9, therefore there we know
        that there must be no law requiring the submittal of a number to a
        payor, at least in regard to U.S. Citizens. Therefore, the IRS
        neither has authority to use it as any form of evidence, nor can they
        require that it be sent to them. It appears that the comment in the
        upper right hand corner is an admission of this so that if it was
        sent to them, they have plausible deniability that it was not sent to
        them in accordance with any kind of legal request or demand, under
        any assumed authority.

        As for the claim by the IRS that, if the Form is not provided, the
        payor is to impose backup withholding of 31%, we must examine the
        form. On the form you will see that the person executing this form is
        stating that the number provided by them as theirs is correct,
        under "penalty of perjury". This is what the form requires, yet the
        statute regarding backup withholding for payee certification failure
        (that is, failure to certify that your TIN/EIN/SSN is correct), 26
        U.S.C. § 3406(e)(1), plainly states that the number can only be
        required, by the Secretary, to be provided under penalty of perjury
        in regards to "interest, dividends, patronage dividends, and amount
        subject to broker reporting."

        Obviously this provision of law is restricted in its application. The
        remainder of subsection (e) only covers back-up withholding from the
        use of an incorrect number or a notified underreporting. So, if you
        did not provide an incorrect number, and are not required to provide
        a number "under penalties of perjury" pursuant to this section, or
        the payor has not been notified of an underreporting, can the backup
        withholding in this section of law legally apply?

        In order to answer that question we must have the following
        components, that we will simultaneously reveal are missing:
        First there must be a "manner required" by which a number must be
        submitted (which there is not in regards to U.S. Citizens as they are
        not by law subject to the Social Security Act and cannot be compelled
        to possess or apply for an SSN/TIN).

        Second, there has to be a "failure" to provide a number, which there
        cannot be as there is no law requiring a U.S. Citizen to be subject
        to the Social Security Act, to then be required to have a number, to
        fail to provide. The IRS has failed to provide the OMB with a law
        requiring U.S. Citizens to provide numbers on the W-9. We doubt that
        they will any time soon.

        Third, there has to be a "reportable payment" pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §
        3406(b)(1).

        Fourth, in order to have a reportable payment, there must be a
        payment that is "required" to be submitted to the IRS on a return, as
        set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 3406(b)(2) & (3).

        So what happens if a return is not required to be made?
        The two main sections of law requiring the filing of a return as
        cited by 26 U.S.C. § 3406(b)(2) & (3) that apply to most people
        are §§ 6041 and 6041A . The first and easiest section of law to deal
        with is § 6041.

        If you have read the law, you will see a complete absence of any
        requirement by § 6041 for the payee to provide a TIN/SSN/EIN. This
        eliminates § 6041 from being a law that requires the payee to provide
        a TIN/SSN/EIN, therefore, § 3406(a)(1)(A) backup withholding has a
        difficult time applying to this particular reportable payment. (NOTE:
        A regulation can not legally expand the meaning of the words in the
        statute, thus any requirement in the regulation for a number is
        beyond the statutory authority.)

        The regulations for this section (26 CFR § 1.6041-6 ) concurs with
        the requirement of the name and address of the recipient of the
        remuneration to be on the form. Still there is no requirement that an
        identifying number be placed on the form pursuant to this regulation.
        Instead, the regulation defers the requirement to 26 U.S.C. § 6109,
        which alludes to a prior legal requirement (26 CFR § 301.6109-1(b)).
        This section of the regulations will be reviewed in detail later in
        this article, but at this time we will make some comments regarding
        26 U.S.C. § 6109. The most important thing to point out about this
        statute is that the law presumes or assumes that the person whom the
        return is to be made on has a TIN to begin with. Since subsection (d)
        states that the SSN of an individual is to be their TIN, where is the
        legal requirement of U.S. Citizens to have such a number in the first
        place, so as to then provide it? (See our SSA article)

        Also, the law is constructed upon, and is therefore dependent upon, a
        prior or pre-existing requirement that a person provide an
        identifying number to a person making a return regarding them. This
        law assumes at subsections (a), (a)(2), and (h)(3) that there is a
        legal requirement, so that one must provide the assumed/presumed
        number, as set forth in a specific regulation as required in a
        statute.

        Where is the regulation requiring the number on the return?
        Is it us, or are you also seeing this search for the regulatory
        requirement to disclose a TIN to be circular between 26 CFR §§ 1.6041-
        6, 26 U.S.C. § 6109, and 26 CFR § 301.6109-1?

        It is remarkable to note, in subsection (c), that the Secretary is
        only given authority to require information to be given in the
        assignment process, which is obviously set forth in the Social
        Security Act, as the SSN for individuals is to be the TIN. Still, the
        Secretary has not been given authority to assign numbers to any
        person under this law, just require specific information of those in
        the application process. (See the SSA article) Therefore, there is
        still no law enacted by the authority of the Congress that requires
        the assignment of a social security number card to U.S. Citizens.

        As our argument stands, "Please show us the statute which forces, by
        the Rule of law and power of our Government, application,
        registration, and assignment without the voluntary act of
        application?"

        The next law is § 6041A, and if you examine subsection (a)(2) there
        is no requirement that the payor provide a number to the IRS
        regarding such returns. Since this is not all that is located in this
        subsection, I must point out that the return is to be made according
        to the "forms or regulations" set forth by the Secretary. (NOTE: The
        regulations are law, not the forms. This is a well-determined fact.
        Also, how do we know which Form is required to be issued according to
        this statute when there are no regulations?) Subsection (f)(1)
        appears to be an after thought, as the entirety of § 6041A
        (otherwise it would be §6042) states that the payee must provide his
        identification number upon request of the payor, and that the number
        is required to be included on the return pursuant to subparagraph (2).

        By what authority does the law assume that the payee has an
        identifying number?
        Nevertheless, the statute says that the number will only be required
        to be provided (assuming there is an identifying number) pursuant to
        the requirements of the regulation the Secretary promulgates. So, we
        must now go to 26 CFR and find a regulation for 6041A, but we cannot
        as there are neither any Temporary nor any Permanent regulations for
        this law. Thus, there is no requirement under the internal revenue
        laws for a person to provide an identifying number to a payor
        pursuant to 26 CFR § 6041A, therefore, backup withholding pursuant to
        § 3406(a)(1)(A) cannot apply as there is no manner required by law to
        provide a number.

        On the other hand, there is a "Proposed regulation" for § 6041A at 26
        CFR § 1.6041A-1 (for a pdf copy click here). It has been proposed
        since 1986 and it reveals that no return is required to be filed
        pursuant to § 6041A , if the remuneration paid is "excludable" from
        gross income pursuant to a section of the internal revenue laws, if
        the payee informs the payor of this fact and the payor does not know
        the facts to be otherwise. Therefore, if the payee provides a
        statement under penalty of perjury, to the payor, that the money paid
        to the payee is remuneration excluded from gross income, there is no
        requirement by law for a return to be made. Therefore, backup
        withholding would not apply, as the payment is not a payment that
        requires a return pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 3406(b)(3).

        It is apparent that back-up withholding can only be assessed against
        a person who is required to provide a social security number "under
        penalties of perjury"(a non-resident alien), has lied when he claimed
        to have provided a correct number "under penalties of perjury",
        and/or is a non-resident alien who is required to possess a social
        security number, who is thereby subject to taxation under Subtitle C
        of the IRC, "Employment Taxes" and the income tax, and has not
        provided a social security number as required by 26 U.S.C. § 3406(a)
        (1). This must be the case, as it is well established in our SSA
        article that the Social Security Act and Subtitle C are not
        necessarily applicable to U.S. Citizens, and § 3406 being in Subtitle
        C, Employment Taxes, is wholly dependent upon the person in question
        being subject to the Social Security Act.

        We must note at this time that 26 U.S.C. § 3406(h) states that the
        money that is backup withheld is to be treated as taxes withheld
        under § 3402. This would indicate that no amount of money may be
        withheld under backup withholding without a hand delivered letter
        from the Local District Director, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7512 and
        its regulations, and not the whimsy of any low level IRS Official,
        mere publication, or unsigned computer form letter.

        In an attempt to close this article, it would not be fair to leave
        out the only point that most tax professionals love to make when
        sending out a payor's demand for identifying numbers. I must point
        out that even if a return was required, which is not always the case,
        the only penalty is in Proposed Regulation 26 CFR § 1.6041A-1(h).

        I suppose it is a good thing that there are no actual regulations
        regarding the provision of the number for § 6041A. Then again the
        section of law cited in the proposed regulation at subsection (h) is
        IRC (U.S.C.) § 6676 which has been repealed. Even IRC § 6724, which
        was indicated by the EEOC as the section of law now carrying the
        penalty for the payor not providing the number they have, lacks any
        regulatory requirement that a payee provide a TIN to a payor, as the
        penalty claimed in its regulation 26 CFR § 301.6724-1(e)(2) is cited
        as 26 U.S.C. § 6723.

        This law imposes a $50 penalty for not providing a number when
        requested to do so. The specifics of such a circumstance are set
        forth in 26 CFR § 301.6723-1(a)(4)(c). This penalty is wholly
        dependent upon the requirement of the regulations of 26 U.S.C. § 6109
        (26 CFR § 301.6109-1) where there is no requirement that anyone be
        forced or required by a payor to provide a social security number to
        the requestor, only that the payor make the request for the number as
        so required (subsection (c)).

        It is a fact of law that there is a requirement in subsection (b)
        that U.S. persons (not identified as Citizens) furnish their number
        if "required" on a return, upon request. This assumes that the U.S.
        person has a number, which we have shown in our SSA article to not be
        required of U.S. Citizens.

        Although subsection (b) mentions a penalty, the requirement to
        provide the number is phrased to be dependent upon a pre-existing or
        outside requirement for disclosure relating to the return. The only
        foundation for such a requirement can only be in the specific
        statutes regarding the specific returns, as all authority proceeds
        from that point for the Secretary to implement.

        So, who is this U.S. person? Is it possible that a U.S. person is not
        a Citizen?
        It is apparent that the U.S. Citizen has the right to not participate
        in the benefits of the social security program as set forth in
        subsection (d), but they must obtain a number if they are "required"
        to furnish a number pursuant to subsection (b). Still, subsection (b)
        does not take the responsibility for creating the requirement
        referenced in (d).

        When examining the alleged requirement chasing itself between
        subsections (b)) and (d) of 301.6109-1, which came first, the
        requirement to apply for a number to provide it for return purposes,
        or the requirement to provide a number and thus the need to apply for
        it?

        Is it any wonder that the author researcher told you that his head
        was spinning when we began this article? Did you think that he was
        kidding?

        Is it us, or are you also seeing this search for the regulatory
        requirement to obtain a taxpayer identification number to be
        circular, and simultaneously dependent upon a disclosure requirement
        that does not exist?

        If there was a law requiring that one have a number, why must there
        be a law allegedly requiring that the person so required make a
        voluntary application for that which would then be forcibly issued?
        Can the $50 penalty or the backup withholding (pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
        § 3406(a)) be legally and lawfully applied to the U.S. Citizen (who
        does not have to have a number) if the person making a return decides
        that the Citizen is required to have the return issued on him,
        despite the fact that § 6041(a) & (c) does not require that he
        provide a number and therefore there is no requirement that a number
        be placed on the return as set forth in the words of the statute?

        Can the $50 penalty or the backup withholding (pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
        § 3406(a)) be legally and lawfully applied to the U.S. Citizen (who
        does not have to have a number) if the person making the return
        decides that the Citizen is required to have the return issued on
        him, despite the fact that § 6041A has no regulation requiring that
        the Citizen provide a number to be placed on the return, or ignores
        the statement by the Citizen that there is no return required as the
        remuneration is excluded from "Gross income"?

        This should be a very simple question to answer "NO" to, when the
        facts show that the Statutes 6041 and 6041A have either failed to
        give the Secretary authority to require that a number be provided to
        the payor, or the Secretary has not promulgated a regulation
        requiring the providing of a TIN.

        Look at the bottom sections of 26 CFR § 301.6109-1(c). The original
        intent by the framers of this nation was that the bills and debts
        would be shouldered upon the foreigners sending money, coming to
        work, or establishing businesses in this land. With this still being
        the actual scheme of the wording of the present tax laws, why is it
        that it has not been until December 31, 1996 that the Secretary of
        the Treasury now shows some interest in numbering the non-resident
        aliens in this country and tracking the money they are earning in our
        free domestic market, a market purchased and preserved with the blood
        of those in America's military history?

        Please make use of the Political Action letters we have composed for
        your use, so that our Government Officials will be asked the real
        hard questions, and be informed that the People of America know the
        truth behind the lies now, and we will not go away…We are AMERICA,
        and we want corrective action taken regarding this circus of
        obfuscation.

        This present method of operation, by our government, veiled in
        obscurity and perpetuated by an organizational lack of accountability
        has placed the duty of correcting these problems in our hands.
        Rightfully so, as the choice we make with our hands moves the
        vehicles known as our Government Officials.

        Now is the time to fine tune the law to eliminate these much abused
        loopholes and double speak exposed in this article, and set free the
        U.S. Citizens who believe in freedom, independence, and enterprise,
        so that they may be left alone and free to prosper.
      • scott
        John, and to all, It doesn t matter one way or the other what you do or do not do, these people simply do not follow the law. First off the Damn IRS is not
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          John, and to all,
          It doesn't matter one way or the other what you do or do not do, these
          people simply do not follow the law. First off the Damn IRS is not part of
          the United States Government and are a Corporation contracted with Financial
          Management Systems which is the true Delegate of the Secretary of Treasure
          to Collect all Debts for the United States including delinquent taxes. The
          IRS has limited contractual responsibilities to FMS which currently another
          patriot is trying to find out just what those responsibilities are for fact,
          and with any hope at all will know by the end of this month. I have always
          signed my tax returns with "Signed under duress and protest" since I was a
          kid, it didn't make any difference.
          I agree with you all that people are being abused in the courts and sent to
          jail for laws that do not exist. The only way I can see to solve this
          problem is to RICO the JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, ATTORNEYS, AND BAR ASSOCIATIONS.
          We must teach the people how to file and be successful at filing these RICO
          suits. This will tie up the courts and start removing and punishing the
          forces that are not following the Common Law and Constitutional Laws of this
          country.
          Admittedly I am not quite there myself and have been taking the time to
          learn and have spent huge sums of monies on legal books, tapes, and time
          researching. I fly around the country attending seminars to learn and hear
          what others opinions are. Some are worth the trip and expense and some are
          not. The bottom line is-IT IS ONLY YOU AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE that will be
          defending your butt in any court. All the little things won't matter if you
          are not aware and can not use the FRof Civil Procedures, FRof Criminal
          Procedures, Your local Court Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedures, and
          your local court rules. It's like prying the mouth of the Lyon open to
          de-tooth it, alot of us are getting bit time and time again, some with
          severity and some not, but none the less we are getting bit and we are not
          getting any teeth pulled. Studying the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and
          the Federalist Papers is a great insight to knowing your rights as an
          American. Learning from other Patriots what works and what doesn't is
          admirable qualities that most people do not want to take the time to learn
          or deal with, they are simply to scared to do anything and are in consent
          hope things will clear up and go better for them. In other words someone
          will come up with the magical silver bullet and our world will be saved.
          You and the rest of those reading this post know this is not how it works.
          Reality is that Bob Schultz like him or not. has gotten the grass roots
          movement going on the "Answer the questions on the Redress of Grievances"
          it is nation wide. Now the question is can we as patriots get behind such a
          movement and add to it the additional things that need to be done;
          impeachment of Bush, Congressmen and women, Senators, that are not abiding
          by the laws of our Constitution? Will WE THE PEOPLE (not affiliated with We
          the People of Colorado) let us join in and will they adapt and grow beyond
          the one thing they are doing right now? Can we get the Millions of Patriots
          together to fight for our rights in a collective bargaining unit to go in
          strength to the Capitol and oust the criminals and crooks and replace them
          with GOD Serving Servants of the People, for the People? Can we start one
          here in Colorado that will be able to remove Judges and Magistrates and
          Cannon those that are not elected to the point they are removed for the good
          of the public? I can tell you that as wild and crazy as it sounds Rick
          Stanley here in Denver along with the PACT is making a difference. It is
          real and is a grass roots movement to protect the pact members from corrupt
          courts, criminal JBT's, and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights of
          those members of the Pact.
          As for the IRS. I gave them warning along with any JBT's that I would meet
          force with force should they try and commit crimes upon my family, myself,
          and my fellow pact members. I have filed complaints and evidence,
          documents, etc. in the area of some 5,500 papers with TIGA, IRS, DOJ, Etc.
          only to get back B.S. responses and especially TIGA who can and won't do a
          damn thing. SO WORDS AND THEIR LAWS do not work, what else is left to the
          American but, Self Defense and Protecting his GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
          Good Day.
          Scott Williams
          Denver, Colorado
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "John" <genman_2000@...>
          To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 8:23 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: How do I sign IRS forms?


          >
        • Russell Mortland
          U.S.C. Title 28 1746(1) Without Prejudice ... From: scott [mailto:scott@wsgsite.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:21 AM To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Message

            U.S.C. Title 28 1746(1) Without Prejudice

            -----Original Message-----
            From: scott [mailto:scott@...]
            Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:21 AM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] How do I sign IRS forms?

            GO to WWW.givemeliberty.org and download the w9 on their web site.  Also remember the 1099 is a class 5 gift tax and you certainly didn't receive a gift of money when you earned it did you?
            Scott Williams
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: KnJ
            Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:23 PM
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] How do I sign IRS forms?

            Hi,

             

               Can someone recommend to me the best way that I can sign this W-9 form and not be held liable for perjury?  I’m not interested in giving my social security number anymore to the Section 8 program so that they can report to the IRS tenant rents received during the year. I was under the impression that there was a way to sign your name and then put above it a particular UCC Law/Article with reference to reserving my rights some how, thereby canceling out the statement above my signature that says: “Under penalty of perjury I certify: that my SSN is correct etc…”. 

             

              Rather than starting a fight with the Section 8 program people about the undisputable fact that I am within my rights NOT to have to fill out the form I thought that I would simply fill it out just so that there is no bureaucratic slow down in the receipt of my rent payments.  Does anyone know what people do with these W9 forms anyway (they are even in closing documents for required execution)?  Do they actually send them into the IRS for certification or are they simply a scare tactic to ensure that the correct SSN is given?

             

            Thanks Much!

            Keith



            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • scott
            GO to WWW.givemeliberty.org and download the w9 on their web site. Also remember the 1099 is a class 5 gift tax and you certainly didn t receive a gift of
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              GO to WWW.givemeliberty.org and download the w9 on their web site.  Also remember the 1099 is a class 5 gift tax and you certainly didn't receive a gift of money when you earned it did you?
              Scott Williams
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: KnJ
              Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:23 PM
              Subject: [tips_and_tricks] How do I sign IRS forms?

              Hi,

               

                 Can someone recommend to me the best way that I can sign this W-9 form and not be held liable for perjury?  I’m not interested in giving my social security number anymore to the Section 8 program so that they can report to the IRS tenant rents received during the year. I was under the impression that there was a way to sign your name and then put above it a particular UCC Law/Article with reference to reserving my rights some how, thereby canceling out the statement above my signature that says: “Under penalty of perjury I certify: that my SSN is correct etc…”. 

               

                Rather than starting a fight with the Section 8 program people about the undisputable fact that I am within my rights NOT to have to fill out the form I thought that I would simply fill it out just so that there is no bureaucratic slow down in the receipt of my rent payments.  Does anyone know what people do with these W9 forms anyway (they are even in closing documents for required execution)?  Do they actually send them into the IRS for certification or are they simply a scare tactic to ensure that the correct SSN is given?

               

              Thanks Much!

              Keith



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.